Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-94-IX-C 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 5, 1994 Agenda Abstract Item # SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS • I-85/U.S.70 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT • APPROVAL PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicinity Maps Planning Director X2592 Proposed Text Amendments Excerpts - BOCC 3/15/94 Agenda Material PHONE NUMBERS: Draft 8/22/94 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 Yuhasz 8/22/94 Facsmile Memorandum Mebane 227-2031 Excerpt - EDD Design Manual Durham 688-7331 Draft 9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider 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.851(1.5.70 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 Designation 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-85/U.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 2 requested that adjustments be made in the Primary and Secondary Development Area designations to include all of their property. Adjustments proposed to move the zoning district boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreage Zoning zoning Eno 5.25..90E 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 Acreage Area Area Eno 5.25..90B 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 Insko 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. 3 • 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 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, TTT-B, and W-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. Public Hearing Comments: Bill and R.L. Clayton indicated that they were opposed to the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas, since they owned property directly across Old N.C. 10 from the proposed district expansion. The Clayton property is currently zoned R-1 Residential but is located in a Commercial Activity Node. Larry Baker, an owner of property included in the expansion, supported the change, so his property would not be split by the district boundary. Planning Staff Recommendations: The Planning Staff recommendations are as follows: • CP-4-94:Approval of the map amendments as proposed. Since the district boundaries would be located along the northern right-of-way of Old N.C. 10, a 100-foot buffer would be required (see attached page from Design Manual). The buffer would not be required of existing uses. The alternative to providing such a buffer would be to secure Planned Development approval from the Board of Commissioners. • Z-4-94: Approval of the map amendments for the same reasons cited in CP-4-94 above. - • Approval Procedures:Approval of the proposed amendment to Article 6.29.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate references to"manmade"and approval of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to utilize the subdivision approval procedures to provide Planning Board/Board of Commissioners review/approval.In all other respects, retain the existing ordinance provisions as adopted on March 2, 1994. 4 Planning Board Recommendations: At its September 19, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board voted (7 to 2) to approve the proposals as recommended by Staff. One member voted against the proposals because he felt only the eastern extension of the district to Old N.C. 10 should be approved and not the westernmost extension. Another member voted against the proposals because she felt that the Special Use process should be used for project approval to insure citizen input via the public hearing process. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposals per the Planning Board's recommendation. 5 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN: Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions" below. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board X_BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING 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/ISSUES: When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. The discussion focused on two major policy questions: 1. Location of Commercial,Commercial-Industrial,Economic Development,and similar non-residential activity nodes; and 2. Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that: 1. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time for the amendments to be heard at the May 23 quarterly public hearing; and 2. The Planning Board will consider a variety of approval options;i.e., Staff,Planning Board, and Commissioners. At its March 21, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board referred proposed amendments to the adopted Economic Development Districts to the Ordinance Review Committee with instructions to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 meeting. Proposed amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review Committee for review/discussion on March 29,1994. Subsequent to that meeting, the report of the Ordinance Review Committee was presented to the Planning Board at its April 12 meeting.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. 6 EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE/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 -SPECIAL USE APPROACH(CONCEPT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER 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 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 development' is defined as a principal use where 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 Before any new-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: 7 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 in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 - Planned Development Districtc Article 8 -Special Uses. b) Major Developments A "major development" 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 land; i.e., resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is 40,000 square feet or more. Before any 'major development' may be undertaken in an Economic 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. 6.29.3 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 human-made 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: 8.8.28 Economic Development District Site Plans 8.8.28.1 Additional Information In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the following shall be supplied as part of the application. a) A comprehensive site development plan,including all plans and documents required by Article 6.29 and Article 14.3 of this Ordinance. 8 8.8.28.2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan meets the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; b) The applicant has addressed agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or c) The site plan adheres to the performance standards and design criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 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 Manual. Discussion and questions related to the above proposals are identified below. a. Does the "special use" or "site plan approval" option satisfy the original 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"major"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 20,000/40,000 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 20,000/40,000 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 thresholds for water usage are also required to secure approval through the same process. With the addition of the 20,000/40,000 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 20,000/40,000 rule either, noting that it concurred with Commissioner Willhoit's assessment. c. Are there variations of or alternatives to the 20,000140,000 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 9 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. 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 COMMITTEE) 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 an 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 117-C: Economic Development Standards to read as follows: IV-C. Economic Development Standards In reviewing subdivision proposals for land located in an Economic Development zoning 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 - Development Standards for Economic Development(ED)Districts.All such proposals shall include the entire parcel or lot of record as of , 1994, the effective date of 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(RECOMMENDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COM 1 TEE) 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. 10 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: 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-6 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 01-1 - PD - 0I-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(eliminating)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: Defmition 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; 11 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 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'development" is defined as a principal use where 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 a '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: 12 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 in accordance with the provisions of • _ • .__ . _- !- _ _ _ . Districts Article 14.3 Site Plan Review. b) Major Developments A 'major development" 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 land; i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography,is 40,000 square feet or more. Before any 'major development" may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a Site Plan must be approved by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3(Site Plan Review)of this Ordinance. 2. Amend Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review by adding a new subsection, Article 14.3.4, to read as follows: 14.3.4 Before any'major development'may be undertaken in an Economic Development District,the site plan must be submitted to the Planning Board for recommendation and the Board of Commissioners for approval.Any such application, 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-day period specified in Article 14.32 or any extension 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 submitted, b. Approve the application 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 performance standards and design crieteria for Economic Development Districts in Article 6.29, and/or to address agency comments solicited during plan review are grounds for denial of the application. ***************************************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW: March 29, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 13 11).,• .r.- lk:N...N.,:u ..44,44..i.,....... ;_,,,.,.....:,. .;. _ :.. 0 '..14, 0 12 . cv, S a : 4] i W Z Q A ;,�E ,{ 'Z Om 'iii.:!`•::'.!':::: J. wig CC UJ .;• f;�ef'11'. • LLI I' •l'''''..-1-'.:.::' 7),, ,,w, kik '\I • c:o.„\,.., . ; e . -,.,t1 •L' - j.r..- ' . Wk\ttsh•tc:1‘ j . V 1 Ark + • - - • �';'i�i�ii i.. • U s r� ri ix •1: • la 44‘) = �,o �' a % ' j ,. oa J •GI o. ,,,,,7* . .,off - �.,, ,,,",. ..• E ,_ .9 03 I r. °' # ,'''....-• •-- ---....':',e,";; -,•-_,_ I. . c ..,,,%....,. ii, .. .12 up 02> Cl?p,, i,,:i= i .0‘4 1 8 az ....1 1; i.....i. *sue i 44 y ittl...; ..:1 .. 1 14., 14 ._ __________ ______ ____ . __ . --•—••_ _ ____ . . ____ •,4 2 0 I •;e1 48 f"-7-•;--gcs -:,'2/'" ;; 1 C., LLI'r.4 : ... • • • Ul . rt __ .4......*,!, ID ;4 §' :"!7:, '7.'"4-1 (\II .4. .: . •!Li ee,-I •• . • n. .."'... ••I 1%274".ni ' td4c..F...,411).Cr, .-...—.................--.--------", pc, ' I .0. ..,-• •• " 1...I .4.%•,,•■••2., ' - -•• •CT, •-•-••••-:-:••T---- ,..—........,4, -•-• .I., X Si I ' ; I I •• • ' "..,■ 4. : .Z :,..., ..7. ......-.0.4.144,..... ../.....„,. ...t1 , ...., , , • 0 JR- . •40.''',,-;7•-•..... ',7.: 4.: : 1 . ; . _ __ ;.4.":Ne!'lL .., .7,„: -pp; 44"..1•••• •-.4,, !;- 1!.. ,.. :,...., -, •:•••• • id'Iki 6.: i ri ' I "" ..; ; --, _ . ,•, -,• -,ti ,T•1 1 1 ■ ;I , . „, - , /7,7-NI,r1 .,., „*, !" !,:j . ;-_•.„..:", ._. !,.., ,./ I I(rei;',' - ..'""*.7t.'-.1-'''''''' .,I \1 0 " / ••• ' -,.,; i I -.I- ,..1„. .1 5,•',. ‘: C., I i ..) - •.*."--",-••■",*-„ I .1 .„ • ' ;, / r• C. ,...;;'.4"-. .-----.. 1 I I 4 -- - 't 3 ; ; ; 1 ! / - 4; '. 4 4;I c.):a- ■...1_,/..`,....*'/ 72 -------- %..c.,'11:- ci'1' t * . w11 `-:-' .o ... r..."1- Z...:1, 1 l ;••-••''' !:, .'" 4' I ; / . ;.:'. / •:. I , ,..• ..1 . C.); ,- 40t1 5 2 ,-,--;..---' --.,,-,.21, , .4-. 1 r — <-4 ‘,..--. .4 -n.t .....,. 4.7, • • 1. .' ..--211:.'1 I •.'1.1 I - •••• . I . •I t !...4) r..... ,.., IXI . t ^. •N. • `....,„...•.,......••••: ,. ,.., / ---...--........1 ....-, . I (...). '........, (•7 ci '' 's 'L., •!--e! .,...:: • •... i / ^-1 IS.: .--,..4...'. '‘;:' i' 44:- ! 2". ' i / .C.',' ';•!' Z . 10 "•.'1 i 1 ;; is)... ..-.... , :2 I I I 1 Ii ;•. a' .. - I, (.4—r--4.--/—_ ,7/ ;,.... , I I I i ' ; , ....: 040 i ' i ■ ..!4!-F:';ff.4 :12 ,,-,/ sit - -, 1.1 - Dii I i .- !". )--- _. Zi 1 . ----t17: ? ..c■-• !, i ...-1 il---1 11 1 1 I mollio --- ---- t.1 T/ • - - P al % 14V-'-.."--,..-....\ 4 A (7,') //i /7 .7. i ----"*".":"---•-.!.._;:::.'lli I i !wok La) "?'", . 1:: '•;;;21 ?.;cr.-';;• ! 7.el Hil ....,....... „...,............_4_,,, / ..... .. ...-:, .- 0 1.1.1 r ,4 Ca r kj.*•1 0 - - - i CO /...44... Ili liZ 1) . I (7.' .... ' J.- < .z -711 i... 4 i . }, L. x CZ < in Ili 1,,... \\ .aa......, Ct cc 0 11.1!). • Z - Fh / I a 1 ‘ V 3. _ 0 .‘..... • i Ijil ; . •:" 4' i/ S. k '''-: • - =.. I ' -_ 1 3 I) i i ■■ ihN -4/,,s' ! 1■1 0 1111 ' +1(44 ° .47) ii i• i 3 quit 0 \ 41 I. :1 -i 11 I 1,'' T - ..---", ii 1 IL r—' ammo , .71 1 1 IA d (:ft; „ i I/ '. 1■ a ) n cra, cs ,,....-7,. w .... . 11 7 i '€)' II ii S iv■ 5-1, 1, J.. Illt i • r•-■ a. /i I. 4&.t\ .. (.) • '. I = 0 ■ CM VI Z 4,2 ■•.' 1 ‘ 8 4 \ Z Z . ''..0 ,.r 0-. a Z 0 11 11 m\ ,1 1ii;i1 1l11 l 1 14tNI I t 3,.00:11:v 1.(0 r7 1///p i . C)s• .■74;.%' ... ni .-• I 4(.12... _ ott= Li 1111 i 0111 — n Lti•■ 1..111 v lkt,,t '.. '''::: • - 1.. ).... I kill 1 CI Ilii as 44' ■ 4),* I ii 111010 Fr • c — . ; 1, cam) till 101 .... 1, pi ... c,..r.. _ 1 % ,T 1 C-D 4 C) ' I I co 2 // LY)''" 0.1 .! ,I; .-, . ‘..., Vi \ :16.4 1 ii . ni 4771,... ....amak‘worinisk . -.., ,-; . 0. 1 ;11L--"AIWA\\tML411-75 ti . \IkrOVINII 7 n :, N il. II . . ...... ,1,. ,/ _.. 70601 4, • ME S x 1 Li I I 0.7,1 1/ ' * "CD If' ' " A Al N 0 3 -! :i. r, V *- at N • I 2 K I I _ // .4";:-, 'NI _ . , •,,,- - - -- a+ , - --; ..J.7 ••,, i l'" .31 : I. ! 0 II :61 ,011,,14, . . w o o , • at . •• r o. NT13.2\\ t... ' N■iihit.t,\\ 4 C)7,.i $I I / ,--•\ J I I I 4 ii II ..ti.'4-1 1r • - \\ • M X I I 4. \ H . e 4.3ii ,.., 4.(,,„ 0 1 .4 \\ Et ' . ,,<,..4 7,■..1, e - I I 7. 0 ,I1 - -,,,, c) • ;... . j . a ,,,,:)- ■II o., ..i , , ., ., Ii .,z3 A .. \\ 41 44 ' Z • i I I I 0-, •., I/ .V - I li..1 . . _ . - \--, ••• 0 7:: ;i i■ -S.z ul 1 , i i ...,. . g ., ci .... i . 11 Is s" 2. lr .. ii Tu. 1,1 v•'Nog el i .. 1 1 1 i 1 1 t..0 ,r, \.,, ;, - ,,r • ,,..,7,...0 ?..‘\. -(..t.?-..', - 2 I a - ,i o ... I I .1,, 11 - .. -. 4.:)\ .. 1 , A '...'N.-;''''■.„--r ..7. •1 1":"• . . •- ..- -- . ---- — -- 10�o--r—lea • _ 1 E , 4 k.F-,..,3 I:4 , 1 f 7.' v r....,::• ll'fi • yea t: . �. .4 .FNt?Ci: • -rte 4; ,, 4447.t,':"� 4'*. r ' ,'111 c; - A ,: ,a �.3�:�,'... j. ""�` -- `i_.�M�L.,., �'�'. ,1 I &I' w is a►.. 1 1 :;1N v`ir.~` Ti1 1 i1~ N f#1♦ '`�ri t. :`•i •'• -..1./ �,1 1 ,A 3 - -( J, • c� i It ' - -i 4. i, t :t I I IA L',...) !•,•2 ....' es.04,,:,,,.„....0.3.... 1 1 ,yt ,...g•••6., z ',. ,e; / ii„. i •_ ., ..., .. ' .7.C,."I / -. -I • E . : , , n't .-, ,,:, . ...,:i........ , t --•. . 1 lin'711'1 tt, N.'d ': "... 1..X.:%T.P'*\_%r, . 11 -1.-"` 44°. 1 :li r,j 1 { VII ��• T ,,.....•., . ' ; . ,1 .�, 1 r + r Z r 'Olt /J:. • '�•• . ( > _ , :I;• 1111 tit+t• w ti rJ 1 111; ' W.y 1111 w t\ 1. `+../ oa 0 2 lill ' J :Y a g 1111 W " , j . \, « � e i I11 i / i 11114 , ` _1 1 {1 I 1`I�► t k Y�� 0 li it 1 \ tri. , tt Po IV I/ 'low MI Lc. . VS.11 III 1111 1111 // �'." 1IP . ; ��i i , 1{ lE©5! - l� 7► - W=as I 1• • 1 ll 4 , � m - li to) 1111 11 . // \ 3 Will II a 11 a .S �►'�� kk ®�� a . J II I1 ti 10- v ,.„ - g �/ 4 1111 '0 J J _ 'O.�A,� . ' ,1' i~ j III . .,_ a _8- E. I w g AS I I ( eta 1 ; �• �1 ;� ~ a- 4, 3A i 1 U • �N�! o crUl I M ` V Si, mI ,4 A a o aS `•S- N ,,'.4 ry .. 1 --. nl '' 1 : I., A sa■ 21.3 ir t . . • . • • 16 Buffering Neighboring Uses Well-designed landscape treatments lessen adverse visual impacts between different types of land uses, reduce noise levels, increase privacy levels, and mitigate effects from fumes, glare,and vibration. rl.,c eP 'fi, ,I. • 10. -1 i .--r-11 1,4,- "P (5."I" .. 411'1 r l'i) I. -p,.,„ (jr iq•. .7 mr 1114P % i f "VIZ:41- - \ . • �i J . ■ me eilcfsafrnoise, fines,glare, and To create transitions between neighborhoods and areas of v,Q'Sration are rnifrgalad thrrx 'i ii*ViL differing development intensities, and separate incompatible aiesgged dsrovoe buffers. land uses, a buffer of 100 feet in width is to be provided at the boundary of Economic Development Districts as well as between Primary and Secondary Development Areas within the Districts.• .7: " LIL'SI 1. •; :J' . r• • ..ir• ..!1.!.. - ;-N.-rm---___-;a.4;t it7:4-.;4.:::,'-0 tillPIS*-410.1 Oki.:f•• 1 r___ ir _.--Ir iiiiirii l 00 feet ,_.,L.4 — ANISE'4/ Vtcge ea(12e6C/MAr orf O feee To separate and protect residential uses adjacent to a adfacene tai a hgway P-6446-a, W rs highway and provide pleasant visual experiences when viewed Age mill visvaN pkasxg but reszi es/17 a 3-5-at v hel rmtceibi, ,rr nlors1, kwts, from the public right-of-way, a buffer of 100 feet in width is to be maintained adjacent to the right-of-way of interstate highways Zcxinomlc Deve'lopmenr'Dlsr7-lctsOesign Marva/ - Page 3.2.6 17 Other than the buffers described above, screening between adjacent land uses shall be provided in accordance with the accompanying Schedule of Land Use Buffers. Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas or, if existing vegetation is not sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shall be provided, consisting of 50-75% evergreen trees reaching a mature height of at least 30 feet. 5ifItjutli Necessary access drives, utilities, and pedestrian paths are allcved within required buffers; however, no other disturbance for buildings, parking, or storage is permitted. Access and N„ d`` utility crossings are to be made perpendicular to the length of the buffer. Limited breaks in required interstate buffers may be allowed, but only if they are well designed and provide either a scenic 3 ' 3 vista or landscaped area. Landscaped berms, fences, and , wails, as well as stormwater detention ponds or fountains, may 25' minimum be used in association with such breaks, provided they are designed and located in harmony with other site features and kere t; fa ndscapee terms err uer7r ra'as&firYs, be muse ha op inkinuni srddr sfoesof3.i. functions. No more than one (1) break per lot shall be permitted, and the break shall constitute no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the interstate frontage. 2bcnom cDevelopmentDisrrictsDesign Marotta/ Page 3.2.7 18 C/g141440064 Amend Article 6 by adding ding a new ArcicIe 6.4 • Development Standards for Economic Development (3D) Districts to read u follows: 629 Development Standards for Economic Development!ED) Districts 6291 .unease Goal Six of the Land Use Elerncrst of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic deueloprne st which earsphasz at kcal employment needs while preserving the character of comnurstida and protecting the mistral environment To that end these provisions are established to creme review procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of the county targeted far economic daxlopnserst activities; cg., Economic Development Districts Desist Reines �+ r / , •Ml h � CV 1v t Q'CttNs;'�� aiy tsew may be undertahvt its w .F.oanomic Darelapmast District, / a site pleat must be approe ed and a sorting consplia�Ice pmt issued in =ordain=with the G�aid, L p of Article 14 (Sits Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to submission g site will m meet repeentoe of 1pm ntD is f CDP�of idesdf pits, , regulations, and few appicabk m development� a.f ot,/r�n/-OV P development proposals in an Economic Development District will be r sieved by the �/y per• r D p'�' t for compliance with the Wined in ! the�Y section. Suds review will also be carried out in 'accordance with the provisions •�p,KsarlSSt�'ars of Article 14.3(Site Plan Baden)of ordinance. /0 ar In addible' m the submittal requirements contained in Article 14.22, a complete application T+ shall also include y s jor L B elevation drawings)br eo h proposed rho r and ale UPI dt si 2. A ntirasrason caw(2)drawings°Ov tions through the site illustrating existing and • Proposed gr as well as the relationship of different site features. • •Falba o sleet the ciZ is far site plan approval listed in Ankle 144 to address agency CONUINNAN solicited during the plan review pre a ss, andkr to adhere to the design standards applicable within Bc+orsaxzsie Dewteloprnost Dlstrietan will result in gimlet of f a development apphe'ai' Ia such cases, the development plans will be returned rned to the applicant with a urines emanation teethe reasons for denial and the clumger required for the application z bs apprvasci. An appliexast shall have the option of revising the deter tpmentplans m comply with the site plat and desdgn ooist ia:As ant alternative, the applies' may also submit the plants for the review and approval af the Planning Board and Board of County Comte in �, �t ' T• � �rrxl opr sevst Districts aN e,� G � .{ ,; 7 6.29.3 a y ••a • _ 'E ;J r riecA s/ reS,I'Oars/b O.et. C w. 1l�eLs.l The design standards within Ecananie Development District: are shown on the following page* and ere divided into two categories, Gleam?el.) Design-C+wieiiaw Pe fcrmarnw Standards and Design Criteria. The Performoasee Standards establish'land use intead:y race ' ,i lei .kl err rsriar exN d. erteticertietimi es naturcl • 19 the environment, both natural sncfscide. The Design Qui*leaner Criteris-1911,0 e establish'tom for 1 x mthinectural fe ,parking areulctiQ+=.xrvicr storage, and signs and light n j , has the use 'Tux'the site and haw it relates tc the surrounding area (The wording highlighted in •sssiica-4i,yrat' format has been revised to reflect the revised organi zioa and content of the Design, Manual) 4. A Article 7 by revisngArticle 7.2.1 to include the PD-ED Planned DeveIopment•Ecoaomic Development Planned Development District as follow= 72.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Arnci e 4 are hereby created R-13 • PD-H- R-13 11-8 - 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 01--1 - PD - OI-1 I-1 PD I•Z - PD •I.2 13 • PD -1.3 &D - PD•ED PWI• PD•PWI PD -btU PD -R PD -WHY • Amend Article 7 by adding a new Article 7.21•PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District to read es follawz 414r. r7 21 • �D-tD PLANNXD DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Ch owir G / F s7lle, ,g reiguktione and re p rensents apply to PD-ED Planned Da*lopasent-Eccnornic Development District*. recess 7� mcor, 7.21.1 'OTC PD-ED mg! be •—t"?J'-hed in aesordassae with the general procedures and /'GU/s/ens requirensests set forth us Articles 7.1 through 79 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose d this district is to provide for properly located and planned rson-rrsid :.T 1 developmesst onotsisterst with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Econemic Dcvcicpmenv Ste, this district is intended to provide an opportunity for detweloptnent Fly, srsbnsitte+d wsda.the provisions of.hrcicle 629(Da elapnserst Stmsdards for F.asrsonsic Dedo not velopmeu(ED)Districts)of this ordnance" m be considered for approval when such plan: CAS 1. Meet the criteria for :ire plan approval listed in Article 14.3; neCGSS• .t y ,717? Z Address agency ostnnseats solicited during the site plan review proems; and/or //1C.0e,wreie,.. 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within • j'E'Ut5lC�l.S set 1 in Article 629 of this ordinal Economic Development Districts as and which propose a design sonata s which is equal through the application at the criteria and standards mar' better in Chars sound be obtained Wined u the Design Manual. (The last seaters beginning"and which...' was added following discussions with the County . commie=Attorney to clarify that failure to adhere to criteria and standards, and/or address agency is not sufficient rounds alone for application acceptance and consideration.) In such eases, applicatrart for and approval ar a Planned Development District ALL be governed by the general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Plc:tri ed Development ent Piermit as set forth in this Article. • 1 SEP-15-1994 10:37 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.01✓06 21 MINUTES MANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 22, 1994 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County 2 Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 22, 1994 at 7:30 3 p.m. in Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the 4 purpose of holding a joint public hearing. 5 6 corm WEICUISIOIMIR8 PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and 7 Commissioners Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis, Verla Insko and Don 8 Willhoit. 9 10 PLANNING WARD ' i1. I PRESENT:: Chair Bill Waddell, and members 11 Virginia Boland, Paul Hoecke, Clint Burklin, Saregene G. Boericke, 12 Elizabeth Walters, Cherie Rosamond, Larry Reid, and Karen Barrows. 13 14 COUNTY ATTgloy +U8N$Tt Geoffrey Gledhill 15 16 STAFF PRESENT:, County Manager John Link, Planning Director Marvin 17 Collins and Planners Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo, EDC Director Ted 18 Abernathy and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. 19 20 AL OP Ads FR m[ T i CH11IR 21 Chair. Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He indicated that 22 Planning Board Chair Bill Waddell would Chair the remainder of the 23 meeting. 24 25 L. PUBLIg CERRO 26 The public charge was not read. 27 28 28. PUBLIC E IJ 29 1. Amendments Related to I-85fU.S. 70 Economic Development 30 District 31 a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 32 (1) CP-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District 33 b. Zoning Atlas Amendments 34 (1) Z-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District 35 c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 36 (1) Economic Development Districts (Approval Procedures 37 d. Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments 38 (1) Economic Development Districts (Approval Procedures) 39 These items were presented by Marvin Collins for the 40 purpose of receiving citizen comment on a series of amendments related to 41 boundary adjustments in the I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District, 42 and various approval procedures applicable to such districts. When the 43 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District was approved on March 2, 1994, 44 several properties were split by the Economic Development District 45 boundaries on either the Land Use Plan or Zoning Atlas. During the 46 public hearings concerning the district proposals, the owners requested 47 that all of their property be included in the Economic Development SEP-15-1994 10 39 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PU4NINING P.02/OS 22 1 District category. In addition to the Land Use Plan boundaries, several 2 properties were split by either the "zoning district" boundary or by a 3 "development area" boundary identified in the Economic Development 4 Districts Design Manual. The owners requested that adjustments be made 5 in the Primary and Secondary Development Area designations to include all 6 of their property. Also, when the Board of Commissioners approved the 7 Economic Development Districts proposals, the issue of the approval for s each proposal was discussed. The proposals for how to approve the 9 Special Use Permits, Site Plans, Subdivision, and Planned Development 10 were presented. 11 12 QUESTIONS AND/OR CODaiawrs PROM MEMBERS OP TEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONIRB AND 13 PLANNING BOARD 14 15 Commissioner Gordon stated that her understanding was that these 16 proposals were not intended to remove oversight of large projects from 17 the Board of Commissioners. She felt it was important for elected 18 officials to have that oversight. 19 20 QUESTIONS OR`,COMMENTS PROM CITIZENS 21 22 Bill Clayton, an Orange County citizen, stated that he was in favor 23 of zoning. However, he requested that this area remain in residential 24 zoning. 25 26 R.L. Clayton, an Orange County resident, spoke in opposition to this 27 rezoning. She requested that it remain residential and all future 28 landowners be alerted to the fact that it will remain residential. She 29 feels that rezoning this land will devalue her investment. 30 31 Frankie Baker, an Orange County resident and mobile home park owner, 32 requested that his entire property be zoned either residential or 33 commercial. He felt that it would place a financial burden on him to 34 have part of it zoned commercial and the remainder zoned residential. 35 36 Chair Waddell suggested that Mr. Baker meet with Mr. Collins to 37 clarify his concerns and to submit further comments in writing. 38 39 R.L. Clayton requested clarification on the 100 foot buffer and the 40 30' D.O.T. buffer. Mr. Collins indicated that if the property owner 41 would suffer a hardship with the 100' foot buffer they have the right to 42 use the Planned Development Process as long as the intent of this 43 district is not. abandoned. 44 45 Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the most significant effect on 46 the land occurs when it is zoned and during the subdivision approval 47 process and with the permitted uses that are allowed. The individual 48 specific development proposals should be directed by the design manual 49 and the design standards. It should not make any difference if staff or 50 the Board of Commissioners are interpreting it. The outcome should be 51 the same. When 500 acres are developed, either by a series of small 52 steps or by a large step, the outcome would then be as prescribed. The 53 developers have stated that the length of time necessary for the process 54 is an important factor in the cost of the process. They have requested SEP-15-1994 10:40 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.03/06 • 23 1 predictability. 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner 4 Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a 5 recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner 6 than October 5, 1994. 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 9 2. Other Zoning. Atlas Amendments 10 a. Z-5-94. Major Business Forms 11 This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of 12 receiving citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in 13 Hillsborough Township as requested by Major Business Forms, Inc. The 14 property is located at the northwest corner of Coleman Loop Road and NC 15 86 where Coleman Loop joins NC 86 at its southwest intersection. 16 Adjacent land uses include undeveloped agricultural and residential land. 17 There is one undeveloped PD-II lot at the southwest corner of the 18 intersection. A portion of the 21-acre tract is zoned Light Industrial 19 (L-1) . The remaining property is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) . 20 The applicant proposesto rezone the remaining 17.052 acres from AR to 21 L.1 22 23 QUESTIONS: AND/OR COKMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' AND 24 PLANNING BOARD 25 26 In response to a question, Mr. Kirk indicated that the southwest 27 corner of this intersection is zoned PDII and is not developed. The 28 buffer requirement for I'1 is 100 feet: 29 30 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS.OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS 31 32 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by 33 Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a b 34 recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner 35 than.October 5,. 1994. 36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 37 38 3. Other Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 39 a. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 40 This item was presented. by Mary Willis for the purpose of 41 receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to notification 42 requirements for amendments to the Zoning Atlas. Effective January 1, 43 1994, the North Carolina General Statutes (H.S. 153A-342) allow for 44 certain rezoning actions to be advertised through enhanced newspaper 45 advertisement instead of notification by mail to all affected property 46 owners, The proposed amendment specifies situations in which 47 notification by mail of individual property owners is not required. 48 49 QUESTIONS !YD f 0R cOMMENTS PROM MEMBERS OP THE BOARD OP CO]OIISSIoNERS AMD 50 PLANNING BOARD 51 52 Commissioner Gordon said she is opposed to this proposal. She feels 53 that citizens want to be communicated with personally, not through the 54 newspapers. Sep. 9 '94 12:03 ENT LAND SURVEYS, INC. FAX 919-644-1177 P. 1 24 Memo To: Moses Carey Alice Gordon Steve Halkiotis , , Veda Insko Don Wilhoit From: Steve F. Yuhasz Date: August 22, 1994 • Subject: August 22, 1994 Public Hearing Item C.I.a I am in favor of the proposed changes. Item C.1.b I am in favor of the proposed changes. Item C.1.c,d The proposal to create Economic Development Districts was founded in the universally acknowledged perception(as identified in the discussions leading to the adopted Strategic Plan,and incorporated therein)that the lengthy approval process for non-residential developments discouraged the location of appropriate commercial/industrial projects within Orange County. The Target Advisory Group was created and charged with identifying specific areas in the county,and uses within those areas,which would be suitable for an expedited review process. The TAG did identify appropriate areas,and also determined that selecting specific uses was impractical. The TAG chose as an alternative to support performance standards as the best method to insure the type of development Orange County desires. The Planning Department, assisted by the Economic Development Commission,then formulated performance standards which answered the concerns citizens of the county might have as to the adverse impacts of any specific development proposal. Only by meeting the performance standards would an expedited approval be offered. The proposed ordinance changes attack the concept of Economic Development Districts in the most fundamental way-they eliminate expedited review. It seems premature to revise and retrench before we have had the opportunity to determine if the adopted standards will operate as designed. A Special Use Permit approval process or a public Site Plan approval process would make the EDD performance standards an gddsd layer of regulation. (Clearly not what was intended) The adoption of the Economic Development Districts has been seen as a promise that Orange County is interested in helping new businesses locate here. Any action by the Commissioners to change the basic standards under which the EDD is to operate will make that promise a lie. 25 Draft 9/19/94 Planning Board Minutes AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/22/94) a. Economic Development Districts Amendments ( 1 ) CP-4-94 I-85/US 70 Economic Development District (2 ) Z-4-94 I-85/US 70 Economic Development District (3 ) Approval Procedures (The abstract information with proposed ordinance amendments and other supporting documentation are attachments to these minutes on pages . ) Presentation by Marvin Collins. Collins stated that the amendments related to Economic Development Districts involve amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and also the zoning district boundaries of the Economic Development District. Collins explained the proposed expansions and adjustments using the maps included in the attachments. He also reviewed and explained the primary and secondary EDD's and buffer requirements (also included in the attachments) . Collins continued that the property owners who have requested that their properties be included in the ED District could request that their property be rezoned to some other non-residential district. If that request was approved, then, they would not, be subject to the design standards applicable within the Economic Development District. So, in one sense, if the boundaries are extended, the property owners are going to be subject to a higher set of standards than if they applied for a straight rezoning. Collins also explained the public hearing procedure if a property owner could not adhere to the design standards. Waddell stated that citizen comments at the public hearing indicated support for the extension to the east but not to the west. There was also a question of prohibiting access to Old NC 10 by those properties and/or requesting a berm along NC 10 to shield the residential areas to the south of NC 10 . Collins responded that the Design Standards would have to be amended in order to specifically require a berm in that location and/or limit access to Old NC 10 . . Collins continued that the other item involving 26 the Economic Development Districts is the approval procedures. He reviewed the summary of the proposals, also on the attached agenda abstract - Special Use Permit, Site Plan Approval, Subdivision Approval, and Planned Development Approval. MOTION: Walters moved acceptance of the Planning Staff 's recommendation. Seconded by Burklin. Waddell stated that he felt only the properties on the east should be approved for expansion. VOTE: 7 in favor. 2 opposed (Brown - felt that the Special Use Permit process which requires a public hearing and allows for citizen input is very important. Waddell-noted again that he was in favor of only expanding the district to include the lots on the east portion and not the connection on the west. ) b. Other Zoning Atlas Amendments ( 1) Z-5-94 Major Business Forms Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located at the northwest corner of Coleman Loop Road (SR 1332 ) and NC 86 where Coleman Loop joins NC 86 at its southwest intersection. Adjacent land uses include undeveloped agricultural and residential land. There is one undeveloped PD-Il zone at the southwest corner of the intersection. A portion of the 21-acre tract (3.948 acres) is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) . The remaining property is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) . The applicant proposes to rezone the remaining 17 .052 acres from AR to I-1. The applicant plans to expand to the north of the existing building and parking area. The holding tank and drain field for the existing septic system are located outside the existing I-1 zone. This proposal would allow the septic system to be included in the I-1 zone. The property is in open field east of the existing industrial building and small tree growth west of the building with electrical lines running along the northern boundary of the property. The property has direct frontage on NC 86 and Coleman Loop Road. Access to the existing