HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-23-2016 1
APPROVED 6/21/2016
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
May 23, 2016
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a
Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, May 23, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in
Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board
Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
1. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair McKee reviewed items at the Commissioners' places:
- PowerPoint for Item c-1
- PowerPoint for Item c-2
- cream sheet: Replacement text for Item c-2
- outline for procedure of public hearings
2. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
a. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments -To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the
Comprehensive Plan and UDO regarding revisions to the 0/1 (Office Institutional) zoning
district and to add a new permitted use type, Research and Manufacturing Facility, to the
modified 0/1 district and to the Industrial districts (1-1, 1-2, and 1-3).
BACKGROUND:
Based on Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) goals to promote economic sustainability
through planning policies and orderly growth this amendment is proposed. In order to manage,
accommodate, and review mixed-use developments containing office, research, and
manufacturing, the Planning Director has initiated a text amendment to the 0/1
(Office/Institutional) zoning district. The amendment proposes to:
• Rename the 0/1 (Office/Institutional) zoning district to the O/RM (Office/Research and
Manufacturing) zoning district.
• Allow for additional principal uses to be permitted by right in the modified O/RM district.
• Delete residential uses as a permitted use in the modified O/RM zoning district.
• Delete tourist home as a permitted use in the modified O/RM zoning district.
• Modify the existing assembly and packaging use type in Section 5.2, Table of Permitted
Uses.
• Create a new permitted use type, Research and Manufacturing Facility, to allow for
2
research facilities with advanced manufacturing operations in the modified O/RM and
existing I-1, 1-2, and 1-3 (Industrial Light, Medium, and Heavy, respectively) zoning
districts.
The proposed amendment previously included the establishment and permitting of secondary
uses in the modified O/RM zoning district. Following a recommendation from the Orange
County Attorney's Office, Planning staff separated the original amendment allowing for
secondary uses to be presented as a second amendment package, which is planned for the
September Quarterly Public Hearing. This was recommended because the concept of
secondary uses could be applied to a variety of zoning districts in the future.
The proposed amendment was presented for review and comment at the April 4, 2016
Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meeting. Agenda materials from that meeting are
available at http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/planningboard.asp. Approved summary notes
from this meeting are included in Attachment 5. In addition, a public information meeting was
held on April 20, 2016 to review the proposed amendments and accept public comment. No
concerns about the proposal were expressed by attendees.
The Planning Department and Economic Development Departments have reviewed and
discussed these amendments and find they further joint goals.
Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment. Proposed
text amendment language can be found in Attachment 3 within a "track changes" format. The
table in Attachment 4 summarizes the proposed amendments to the Table of Permitted Uses
Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner, made the following Power Point
presentation:
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS
0/I (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL)ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW PERMITTED USE
TYPE
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 23,2016
ITEM C1
Purpose
To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) and Comprehensive Plan regarding the 0/1 (Office/Institutional)
zoning district and establishment of a new permitted use type.
Proposed Amendments
• Proposed Revisions to:
o Section 3.4, General Commercial Districts
o Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses
o Section 6.4.3, Noise
o Section 6.4.4, Vibrations
o Section 6.8.6, Land Use Buffers
o Section 6.12, Signs
o Section 10.1, Definitions
o Appendix F: Relationship Between Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts
Matrix
• Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format
• Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
Proposed Amendments
3
• Rename the 0/1 (Office/Institutional) zoning district to the O/RM (Office/Research and
Manufacturing) zoning district.
• Allow for additional principal uses to be permitted by right in the modified O/RM zoning
district.
o Hotels and motels
o Industrial, light
o Microbrewery and winery, production only
o Health services (over 10,000 square feet)
• Modify the existing assembly and packaging use type in Section 5.2, Table of Permitted
Uses.
Proposed Amendments
• Delete residential uses as a permitted use in the modified O/RM zoning district.
o Multifamily
o Family care home
o Group care facility
o Rooming house
• Delete tourist home as a permitted use in the modified O/RM zoning district.
Proposed Amendments
• Create a new permitted use type, Research and Manufacturing Facility, to allow for
research facilities with advanced manufacturing operations in the modified O/RM and
existing 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 (Industrial Light, Medium, and Heavy, respectively) zoning
districts.
Proposed Amendments
• Comprehensive Plan text amendments are necessary to ensure references to the
current 0/1 (Office/Institutional) zoning district are modified to reflect the proposed O/RM
(Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district.
Public Notification
• Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
Public Input Meeting
• April 20, 2016 to review the proposed amendments and accept public comment.
o No concerns about the proposal were expressed by attendees.
Mailed Notifications
• Mailings were sent to property owners in the County who own property zoned as 0/1
(Office/Institutional) to inform them of the proposed amendment.
Recommendation
• The Administration recommends the Board:
• Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
attachments.
• Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
• Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision,
additional comments at a later date are permitted).
• Decide on one of the following options:
• Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of
Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3).
• Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
• Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Questions and Public Comment
4
Chair McKee opened the public hearing, and asked if the Board had any questions.
Commissioner Price asked if the 01 district is only in the Mebane area.
Ashley Moncado said it is only in the Efland area along the I-85/Highway 70 corridor.
Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that educational institutions are being
taken out.
Ashley Moncado said the 01 district is being modified to reduce confusion in changing
land use types.
Commissioner Price said if on the job training was desired, or a partnership with a
manufacturing facility, an educational institution may be desired there.
Ashley Moncado said those uses would still be allowed.
Commissioner Pelissier asked to how many acres this applies, approximately.
Ashley Moncado said she did not know, but there are some rather small parcels.
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said 250 plus acres are designated as
institutional in the Efland to Buckhorn to the Mebane Corridor.
Commissioner Price asked if office institutional is only in this area, will the
office/research/manufacturing (ORM) still be there.
Ashley Moncado said 01 will now become ORM, and this will be the only area where
ORM will be designated.
Commissioner Price said it seemed that a new category is being made for this one area
of the County and not in other areas.
Craig Benedict said one area was left out when other Economic Development Districts
(EDD) were pre-zoned, which was in the Elfand-Buckhorn-Mebane corridor. He said staff will
be clear to potential clients that this is a non-residential area and that residential components
have been removed.
Commissioner Jacobs said he thought there was 01 in the Hillsborough EDD west of Old
86.
Craig Benedict said as for as he remembered there was no 01 in that area, but he would
check.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the chart regarding permitted uses, which discusses
permitted uses moving to permitted-by-right, meaning pre-approved. He said the County spent
years working on transfer of development rights in the EDD, and asked if transfer development
rights (TDR) is being precluding in the EDDs within their jurisdiction.
Craig Benedict said this would be conditional permitting now and mixed use would still
be permitted in the commercial industrial activity nodes. He said an ORM could be rezoned to a
conditional use district.
Commissioner Jacobs said if permitted-by-right creates a certain economic use, then
people are being asked to take on more density in the EDD areas.
Craig Benedict said there are floor area ratios which are used to control how much
happens in zoning areas, but in this process, floor area ratios are not being decreased.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to make a motion after this discussion for the
Board and the Planning Board to receive a presentation on TDR.
Commissioner Price asked if staff could please provide a map of the parcels that are
involved in this process.
Craig Benedict said this process is not creating any new office/institutional zoning.
Commissioner Price said this may cause more development and could cause the land to
look like a checkerboard; industrial interspersed with residential.
Craig Benedict said most members of the public are seeing this as a positive, and it has
been on the land use map for 25 years.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
close the public hearing.
5
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
to: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich that
staff make a presentation to both Board of County Commissioners and Planning boards, before
the next public hearing, on their investigation of their TDR programs and is it viable in Orange
County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding signs.
Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the background information
below:
BACKGROUND: As the Board may already be aware, staff has been working on amendments
to existing sign regulations for approximately 1 year. Originally staff focused on expanding
advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels of property and establishing
uniform standards for digital signage.
During the course of working on the amendment package the US Supreme Court issued a ruling
in Reid versus Town of Gilbert impacting the regulation of signage by local governments.
During the summer/fall of 2015 and spring of 2016, staff worked with the County Attorney's
office to modify the proposed amendment package to address the Court's findings. Several
iterations of potential sign amendments were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Board's
Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) with the plan for eventual presentation at the May 23,
2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. Please refer to Section B of Attachment 1 for more background
information.
At the recommendation of the County Attorney's office, amendments designed to address the
impacts of the aforementioned US Supreme Court decision will not be included as part of this
process. The Attorney's office would like more time to work with staff and discuss the impacts
of the Gilbert court case before proceeding with a comprehensive amendment package. As a
result staff has proposed an amendment package, as contained within Attachment 3, which
does the following:
1. Eliminates superfluous sign regulations contained in Section(s) 5.5.4 and 5.5.6 of the
UDO;
2. Corrects identified grammatical errors and contradictory language in Section(s) 6.12.1 and
6.12.3;
3. Establishes standards defining what constitutes an electronic scrolling message sign in
Section 6.12.6; and
4. Recommends the adoption of new standards allowing for larger signage within specific non-
residential zoning districts based on the size and road frontage of a parcel of property. Work to
address the impact of the Gilbert US Supreme Court case will be presented at a future public
hearing once a new Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment
Outline Form is reviewed and acted upon by the BOCC.
6
Michael Harvey made the following Power Point presentation:
May 23, 2016
Quarterly Public Hearing
Item C-2
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
Government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding signs.
Orange County Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
• Work began almost 1 year ago to develop new language allowing for larger signs under
certain circumstances and definitive standards on electronic displays;
• During this time period the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Reid versus Town of
Gilbert impacting the regulation of signage;
• Staff began working to revise sign regulations to address findings of Gilbert. On advice
of the Attorney's office this work will be completed in a future amendment to allow more
time to review the true impacts of the Supreme Court decision.
WHAT DOES AMENDMENT DO:
• Eliminates superfluous sign regulations contained in Section(s) 5.5.4 and 5.5.6 of the
UDO;
• Corrects identified grammatical errors and contradictory language in Section(s) 6.12.1
and 6.12.3;
• Establishes standards defining what constitutes an electronic scrolling message sign in
Section 6.12.6; and
• Recommends the adoption of new standards allowing for larger signage within specific
non-residential zoning districts based on the size and road frontage of a parcel of
property.
NOTES:
• Work will still need to be done to address the impact of the Gilbert US Supreme Court
• In coordination with the Attorney's office a new Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendment Outline Form will be reviewed and acted upon by
the BOCC at an undetermined time.
• There is no anticipated timeframe for this work to be completed.
NOTICE OF MODIFICAITON:
• E-mail notice sent on Friday May 20, 2016 of correction to Amendment package;
• Modification occurs on Page 69 of agenda packets involving recommended changes to
Section 6.12.3 General Requirements of the UDO currently reading as follows:
(F) Sign locations
(1) All signs shall be located outside the sight visibility triangle (see section
6.2.10)
(2) No sign, including supporting frames or base, shall be located within five feet
of a public right-of-way
(3) No sign may be attached, affixed, or painted upon any utility poles,
governmental signs, trees, rocks, or other similar natural object with the
public-right-of-way.
(4) No sign shall be permitted orhe side street frontage of a corner lot if the lot
is located within 100 feet of a residential district.
NOTICE OF MODIFICAITON:
• Staff was attempting to address old language deemed to be too confusing and ensure
enforceable standard.
7
• After the public hearing materials published and released, Attorney's office expressed
concern revised section could be interpreted to prohibit signage within residential
districts altogether.
• After conferring with the Attorney's staff revised the language to read as follows (change
notes in Green Bold Underlined Text):
NOTICE OF MODIFICATION:
• Both Planning staff and the Attorney's office believes this achieves the original intent of
the proposed modification and provide a definitive, enforceable, standard moving
forward.
Commissioner Price asked how this amendment will affect mixed-use developments.
Michael Harvey said the Board of County Commissioners would have the authority to
define the signage in mixed-use properties.
Commissioner Price said what is trying to be achieved with this new language.
Michael Harvey said an example is the Efland grocery store, which is surrounded by
residential areas. He said a huge neon sign would be inappropriate in an area such as this.
Commissioner Jacobs said that no changes are being made regarding electronic signs.
Michael Harvey said a standard is being adopted that heretofore did not exist.
Commissioner Jacobs said this is an improvement.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if other proposed changes will be considered in the future.
Michael Harvey said he is working with the County Attorney's office on these proposed
amendments, and there is no set time to bring this item back to the Board. He said periodic
updates can be provided, or the Board of County Commissioners can direct staff to come back
at a specific time.
Commissioner Jacobs said an open-ended timeframe is not a satisfactory resolution,
and perhaps the Board of County Commissioners can provide a reasonable time frame to
provide a conclusion to this discussion.
Commissioner Dorosin asked Commissioner Jacobs if his concerns are related to some
of the more generic aspects of the amendment or the outcome of the pending case before the
courts.
Commissioner Jacobs said the court case is part of it, but there are other standards that
could be improved which are not yet being discussed. He said he would be inclined to leave the
content question to the attorneys.
Commissioner Dorosin said it may be helpful to have a time set to discuss the more
generic issues.
Michael Harvey said this may be better discussed at a future work session where the
Board could provide individual comments and/or direction, while staff and the Attorney's office
digest the ramifications of the pending legal case.
Commissioner Burroughs referred to the electronic moveable copy, and asked if the
intent was to decrease the distraction for drivers.
Michael Harvey said yes, to decrease the distraction, but also to allow some degree of
flexibility with the digital signs.
Commissioner Burroughs said a once an hour change in a digital sign does not seem
too frequent.
Michael Harvey said these types of signs are currently prohibited outright, and this
amendment would allow some flexibility, which does not currently exist.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if a sign would be commercially viable, if only allowed to
change once an hour. She said she would be inclined to strike the language pertaining to a
maximum of 8 sign changes in a 24-hour period.
Michael Harvey said the goal was to stay within the typical business operating hours and
avoid signs changing all night long, when a business is closed.
Commissioner Burroughs said she would be interested in what the other Commissioners
had to say on this topic.
8
Commissioner Price asked if the pending lawsuit is related to the type of sign or the
content of a sign.
Michael Harvey said the Gilbert lawsuit said offsite signs cannot be regulated on their
content. He said Orange County is not the only community that will have to address this issue.
James Bryan said signage regulations can be split into two broad camps: content base,
such as the Gilbert case; and time, place and manner restrictions.
Commissioner Price asked if other ordnances around the State are being challenged.
She said Orange County is trying to regulate electronic signage, and she asked if the County is
opening itself up to lawsuits.
James Bryan said he does not see a viable legal challenge to this, but he said due to
technology changes, many areas are changing their ordinances.
Commissioner Jacobs said if this item comes back to the Board, one issue to consider is
that in Orange County there are few places where residential and commercial do not mix. He
said digital signs located in close proximity to residential areas provide distraction and intrusion.
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a specific definition of content in this discussion.
Michael Harvey said content cannot be defined, because of the Gilbert lawsuit.
Michael Harvey said he is hearing that the Board would like to revisit this item with staff
at a future date.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the size of a sign can be regulated.
Michael Harvey said yes, but in that scenario, it would be necessary to state that no
electronic display sign could be bigger than a certain size, regardless of content.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration recommends the Board:
1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
attachments.
2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
3. Close the public hearing.
4. Decide on one of the following options:
— Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
(Attachment 4) and Revised Ordinance Package (New Attachment 5).
— Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
— Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Board has seen the revised documents.
Michael Harvey said no.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 4)
and Ordinance (Attachment 5).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to bring
the sign ordinance discussion back at a work session in the fall 2016, with the goal of getting it
9
back to the Board at some future public hearing or regular meeting, at a time no later than a
year from this date, May 2017.
James Bryan asked if this future discussion is to address the sign ordinance, the lawsuit,
or both.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like discussion in the areas where the Board has
purview, outside of the content-based issue, but within their corridor of interest within the law.
James Bryan said these amendments start as economic development initiatives and
grow from there. He said the crux of the Gilbert case does include things that will likely need to
be addressed at some point. He said the fact that Orange County is having these discussions is
a step in the right direction.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Earl McKee, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board