Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-12-1981 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 1981 COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 6:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M. 1. 6:30 P.M. Executive session to consider personnel matters 2. 7:30 P.M. Board work session on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan. �op11o` UJ:range hciuntg c vu s ' COUNTY,' 200 EAST KING STREET '40 HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (919)732.0t 26 OFFICE OF THE SU►EPINTCHOCHT TO: Orange County Board of Education FROM: Dan G. Luns£ord /C� Assistant Superintendent DATE: February 12, 1981 • RE: Zoning Ordinance Proposal You recently received from Dr. Simmons (and Linda Stevens - student intern) some information regarding the impact of the proposed zoning ordinances and their impact on the school system. In addition, Dr. Simmons contacted Dr. Lacy Presnell, Director of the Division of School Planning - Department of Public Instruction, to secure input on the ordinance from SDPI staff. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the responses from the SDPI School Planning staff. I plan to hand deliver copies of these comments to the Orange County Commissioners tonight at their meeting. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to contact me. DGL:ha Enclosures AnIV';',5:..g; Vi,f,a1: 4":"Z"--:';'; '-' 7I - :::;-".t.t:fKiaav7:7,1a:41''It . 4 ".:41,e&TIAli-;Tle, .470:14,7t,Ki,"4„,..T;17'4,,,'4i4T4tflith;44;45....": ,.:;:74.4:+s-;!:.;:t.j41:4* 4.; ' i:444A4, .Eta-c tr-a: *"..4":`"= • • " -4,VaizA ' if FEB 12 1981 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION .t.t) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEICkI February 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM 10: Lacy Presnell FROM: Charles Reed • Subject: Orange County Zoning RE: Parking Lot Screening Assume an area of 540 square feet for 2 cars and an aisle. Ten cars would need 5400 square feet. A planting area of 180 square feet is-0.033% of the total area. This does not seem to me to be unreason- able where there is lots of ground area available for parking. It could even be considered somewhat less than minimum for a small park- ing lot. The 180 square feet is the equivalent of one 9 feet by 20 feet parking space. If this requirement is considered along with requiring 5 feet high screen walls for every 5 cars, then it could be restrictive. The 5 foot screen will not always be effective for a large area. Parking lots are not always of uniform elevation or seen from a seated position. Some- times adjacent roads and buildings are higher than the parking lots. No amount of screen wall or planting will conceal autos which are next to high elevation surroundings. Also, the ordinance should allow for other kinds of screening if screening is required. For instance, earth berms and sunken areas should be permitted and parking behind buildings. Re: Number of Cars Per Person Elementary school children do not drive cars. Very few, if any, junior high pupils drive cars. High school is another matter. I have no suggestion for the high school ratio without any factual information to relate too. Maybe DPI has some facts and figures. How about driver education? They should know something about this. CR:bm ; , ',▪C▪fg;Itakt.lci !'4 ‘44,',14:11;-1e4::1*40; FES 1 21907 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 4. • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH • -Febryary 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Lacy Presnell FROM: Gerald Knott Subject: Orange County Zoning i Community zoning is important for the protection of existing and future schools. Local school administrators should look to zoning to prevent encroachment by factories, conjested business centers, and noisy transportation systems. School officials should assume the responsibility of reviewing codes and zoning ordinances as they apply to schools. Zoning should maintain health, safety and certain broad appearance standards to insure public wel- fare. It should not restrict use of different styles, materials and design techniques, especially when such approaches affect effi- ciency and cost savings (except in the unlikely event of a new school in a historic district). Requirements should not be counter-productive. Building a 5' wall to screen a parking lot would result in an unsupervised activity which would cause great concern for school officials and parents. Limited, broad scope appearance standards such as limiting the size and type of signage and breaking up large parking areas with planting are basically good design principles. Hopefully community zoning would deal with protecting neighbor- hoods from undesirable encroachment rather than establish restrictive appearance standards. OK:bm . . - ; FEB 12 .t981 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 4- ri-ILArc STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH February 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM TO: Lacy Presnell • FROM: Rolf Seifert Subject: Orange County Zoning I am... No great friend of zoning, but it seems to be the best solution of our society. It does more good than harm. a. 1-5 cars hidden behind a screen will be a liability. It does not only hide cars. b. One parking lot per ten (approximately) is a ratio which anyone can follow. Most parking lots in Raleigh have probably more. ; c. To break large parking lots into smaller units is a good idea as long as we do not have small parking lots all over the site. This would require drives between and behind buildings which are impossible to supervise and to control. I would prefer parking areas broken into small lots for the reasons mentioned above. RS:bm January 5, 1981 Orange County Board of Commissioners and Orange County Planning Staff Lady and Gentlemen: As you know, during the past several months the Orange County planning Board has been reviewing the draft of the new zoning ordinance for Orange County with the objective of approving this draft or raking suggestions for further changes. At a recent meeting of the planning Board section 2.2 entitled Planning Boards was reviewed, and a motion was made by Dr. S. Kizer to change section 2.2.3, Qualifications; to the following: "Every member of the Board shall be a member of Orange Countyss planning jurisdiction. Each township within the County shall be represented in the-membership of the Board by two residents of that Township"., After discussion this motion was passed by a vote of 7 to 3. The discussion of the motion had brought out the fact that currently there are wore than 2 members of the present Board who are residents of Chapel Hill Township and the motion, if adopted, would necessitate the resignation of some of the present members of the Board. Consequently, a second Motion was passed to the effect that all current members of the Board be permitted to complete their terms of appointment. At the meeting of the Planning Board on December 15, 1980 the question of section 2.2.3 of the revised ordinance was again opened for discussion by one of the members of the Board who had voted against Dr. Kizer"s motion to change section 2.2.3. During this discussion the follow- ing objections were raised to the change in the membership of the Planning Board: 1. With two members from each township the total membership of the Board would be 14. It would be difficult to conduct meetings of the Board with such a large membership, and it would be more difficult than at present to obtain a quorum for the meetings• (see attached table of data) 2. The townships differ greatly in pop ulation and consequently equal representation from each township would seem to be inappropriate and inequitable. 3. The principal business of the Planning Board is to review proposals submitted by developers. A majority of the proposed developments are located in Chapel Hill Township (more than :-,al.f of the total proposals submitted during the past two years), and the remaining proposals are lo- cated principally in Eno, Hillsborough, and Bingham Townships. Consequently, it seems desirable to have greater representation on the Board from those townships in which the greatest developmental activity is occurring since the representatives from those townships would be better acquainted with potential problems with those developments. The original statement of section 2.2.3 would seem to be preferable since it provided for at least one repersentative from each township with the possibility of 5 other members who could be appointed from those townships in which the greatest dev_lopmenta)_ activity was occurring. 4. Several townships will not be included in the jurisdiction of the Zoning Ordinance at present (Cedar Grove and Little River Townships are not included in the proposed zoning jurisdiction, and the Planning Board voted on December 15, 1980 to recommend exclusion of Cheeks Township also). Consequently, it does not seem to be equitable for those town- 2. ships which will be excluded to have equal representation on the Board with those townships which are included in the jurisdiction of the the ordinance.' In view of the above listed objections to the change in the membership of the Board, J.L. Irvin proposed the following motion for a statement of the composition of the Board as a possible compromise between the original statement and the revised wording proposed by Dr. ' Kizer: "That the Board consist of 10 members with one member to be appointed from each township Ynd 3 at-large members to be appointed from any town- ship but with no more than 2 at-large members from any one township': This motion failed by a vote of 5 to 6. If the motion had passed, then another motion would have been presented to enable all present members of the Board to complete their appointed terms. The undersigned members of the Planning Board hereby submit the above statement as a "adnority report" on the question of the membership of the Planning Board, and we respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners consider our arguments in reaching a decision about changing sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the revised zoning ordinance. We prefer the original statement of section 2.2.3 or the revised form pro- posed by Irvin. • Sincerely yours, ,••• J. I 1V14/1, .rthu C eary CL -J77 Alice Car on Claudine Harris John E. Wilson •