Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-1993 - VIII-B 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Action Agenda Item # via- 3 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 4 . 3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE / NURSING HOMES) (ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES) (ARTICLE 10.4 - OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS) (ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: ' Emily Cameron Proposed Ordinance Amendments Extension 2580 NCGS 131E-101 (6) 5/24/93 Public Hearing Minutes 6/21/93 Planning Board Minutes 8/17/93 Memo from Commissioner Alice Gordon TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 8/17/93 Draft BOCC Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 9/20/93 Draft Planning Board Durham - 688-7331 Minutes Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance creating a land use category and development standards for nursing homes. This item was referred back to the Planning Staff by the Board of Commis- sioners at its August 17th meeting. BACKGROUND: Under the current Zoning Ordinance provisions, a nursing home facility for more than fifteen unrelated individuals must comply with standards for a rehabilitative care facility. The land use category for rehabilitative care also includes facilities for persons addicted to drugs or alcohol, youthful offenders, and persons adjusting to non-prison life. Such facilities are permitted in the Local Commercial, Community Commercial, and General Commercial zoning districts. The Planning Staff proposes a new land use category and appropriate standards for nursing homes to be included in Articles 4, 8, 10, and 22 . The proposed amendment would allow nursing homes with a Class A Special Use Permit in the same zoning districts where Group Care Facilities are permitted with a Class B Special Use Permit (see -Permitted Use Table attached 2 to amendment) . A Group Care Facility is similar to a nursing home that serves seven to fifteen unrelated individuals. Existing ordinance provisions contained in Article 12 (Landscaping and Buffer Requirements) and Article 14 (Site Plan Approval Procedures) will apply to proposed nursing homes to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. The proposed amendments for nursing homes were presented at the public hearing on May 24. No citizen comments were received at that time. The item was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the County Commissioners no sooner than August 4, 1993 . On June 21, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments. On August 4, the amendments for nursing homes were removed from the Consent Agenda and tabled until the August 17th meeting. Additional language was added to Article 8.8 . 28. 2c) for clarification of required security measures. On August 17, the proposed amendments were discussed by the Board of Commissioners and referred back to the Planning Staff for further study. Commissioner Gordon expressed concern about the potential impacts of larger nursing homes on surrounding neighborhoods. Staff was directed to examine requirements for a planned development as a method for allowing nursing homes. The County Manager also suggested that terms such as "intermediate care facility" and "skilled nursing facility" be reviewed for inclusion in the revised definition of nursing home. SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT As part of the proposed amendments that were presented at the public hearing in May, the Planning Staff revised the Permitted Use Table to allow nursing homes with a Class A Special Use Permit in the same zoning districts where Group Care Facilities (seven to fifteen residents) are allowed with Class B Special Use Permits. According to Articles 7 .2 . 5 and 8 .8.23 , a planned development is allowed only through a Class A Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners. Therefore, a planned development and a Class A Special Use Permit are reviewed through the same procedures, including: 1. Advertisement of the public hearing; 2. Notification of property owners within 500 feet; 3 . Sign posted on the. property; 3 4 . Written findings on ordinance requirements; 5. Time limit on the start of construction; and 6. Procedures for reviewing changes subsequent to approval. Applications for a planned development and a Class A Special Use Permit both must be accompanied by a detailed site plan showing all proposed uses and demonstrating compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. How Impacts Are Addressed Under each process, potential impacts to surrounding areas are reviewed in the same manner. A traffic impact analysis is required if the traffic generated by the use exceeds 800 trips per day. The proposed use would be reviewed by all appropriate agencies including the County's Transportation Planner and NCDOT. Screening is required for vehicular surface and service/loading areas. Based on the location of the proposed use, a buffer or additional landscaping to mitigate impacts could be required as a condition of approval. A proposed nursing home facility cannot exceed the maximum building height for the zoning district in which it is located without providing additional front and side setbacks. For Example As an example, according to the Land Use Intensity Standards contained in Article 5. 1.2, a 20, 000 square foot facility located in the Rural Buffer, AR, R-1, R- 2, or R-3 zoning districts must have a minimum lot size of 5. 21 acres and can be 25 feet in height (without additional setbacks) . The minimum required open space for such a facility is 4 . 37 acres, which may include vehicular surface. The minimum open space outside of parking and driveways is 1. 09 acre. Summary In summary, the only difference between a Class A Special Use Permit and a planned development is that a planned development application requires a legislative decision by the Board of Commissioners on whether or not to change the zoning of the subject property to a PD zoning district. This type of action allows the Board more discretion when considering a PD application. 4 With a Special Use Permit, the decision has already been made that the zoning is appropriate for the use. Approval of a Special Use Permit is a quasi-judicial action by the Commissioners based on submitted evidence and testimony. An application is reviewed based on the Standards of Evaluation contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. A planned development allows a slightly larger floor area, ten percent (10%) of the lot area, as opposed to a Class A Special Use Permit, which allows a maximum floor area equal to 8.8 percent of the lot size. DEFINITION OF NURSING HOME The definition of nursing home proposed at the May public hearing was modeled after the definition found in the NC General Statutes 131E-101 (6) (see attached copy) . Staff contacted the NC Department of Human Resources, Division of Facility Services, to get clarification on terms such as "skilled nursing facility" and "intermediate care facility. " The DFS Staff indicated that those terms were used prior to 1987 . Following amendments to NCGS 131E, "skilled nursing" and "intermediate care" have been used to describe types of beds within a nursing home or nursing facility. ACCESS AND SPACING BETWEEN FACILITIES Commissioner Gordon recommended that a nursing home should have direct access to a State-maintained road, not a Class A private road. She also suggested adding language similar to the existing standards for Group Care Facility stating that the proposed nursing home shall not be within 500 feet of a similar facility. In response, the Planning Staff has deleted language from 8.8. 28.2d regarding access and added a ninth Standard of Evaluation to require spacing between care facilities. SIMILAR FACILITIES Another issue which emerged during the discussion of nursing homes is how to permit similar uses where patients would temporarily live on site and may require some medical supervision. This type of use may include facilities for the treatment of eating disorders, stress, or anxiety disorders (phobias and obsessions) , and perhaps certain special counseling centers. Treatment facilities such as those listed are more 5 closely aligned with nursing homes than with Rehabilitative Care Facilities, since residents do not generally represent a threat to the safety of others. For example, a center for the treatment of eating disorders could be allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit in the same zoning districts as nursing homes; however, all of the standards of evaluation would not be the same. Security measures for residents would not be necessary. Parking requirements should also account for some out patient treatment. If the amendments for nursing homes are approved, the Planning Staff could propose a definition and appro- priate standards for therapeutic treatment centers to be presented at the November public hearing. PLANNING BOARD ACTION On September 20, the Planning Board reviewed the Staff's report on the proposed amendments. The Planning Board recommended the following changes: 1. Use the parking requirements currently in place for Group Homes (One space per two beds plus one space per employee on shift of maximum employment) ; and 2. Delete 8.8.28. 2c) regarding security measures to prevent residents from leaving the site without assistance. During the Planning Board's discussion of item #2 above, the Planning Staff suggested alternative language instead of deleting the requirement for security. The Staff's recommendation was to replace item 2c) with: cl The applicant shall provide on the site plan and/or floor plan adequate safety measures to protect residents who as a result of their mental or physical condition should not leave the facility or site without assistance. The Planning Board voted eight to three to delete the requirement for security measures. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to Articles 4, 8, 10, and 22 with the changes to Article 8 . 8 . 28 . 2 concerning access and spacing between similar facilities, and revised parking standards in Article 10. The Administration also recommends that the language proposed by Staff on September 20 regarding security measures be included. 6 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Article 4 . 3 - Permitted Use Table Article 8 - Special Uses Article 10 . 4 Off-Street Parking Requirements Article 22 - Definitions ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 24 , 1993 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To differentiate the definition and standards for nursing home facilities from the current designation which is included under "rehabilitative care facility. " IMPACTS/ISSUES: Under the current Zoning Ordinance provisions, a nursing home facility for more than fifteen unrelated individuals must comply with standards for a rehabilitative care facility. The land use category for rehabilitative care includes facilities for individuals addicted to drugs or alcohol, youthful offenders, and persons adjusting to non-prison life. Such facilities are permitted in the Local Commercial, Community Commercial, and General Commercial zoning districts. Nursing homes for fifteen or fewer residents are considered group care facilities which are allowed in most zoning districts with a Class B Special Use Permit. The Planning Staff proposes a new land use category, H8a-Nursing Homes, that may be allowed in the same zoning districts as a group care facility with a Class A Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners. Appropriate standards are recommended for addition to Article 8 - Special Uses, and a revised definition of "nursing home" proposed for Article 22 . EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 4 . 3 - Permitted Use Table (see attachment) E , l i l i l t I I I I I I I . I al 7 I I I I I 1 I 1 I < � I ► I i l I l i l 1 I * I � � ' i I ► 1 1 1 1 f * I� � I I I I I I I As I I I I * I� W • f _! 1 1 - I * 1� * I4 * I * I -4 1 * * I m _ < I I * I riJ I I # I 4. 1 0 in tn (...) 4, * 4 4 * t;CI i < 47 47 , * * CO * < 4 < * 0 ..- U n • - U * * # It * * CO * 4. < 1 # IU 0 0 m m N [4 CO U * * * * * * 0 < * U .r ...Z Z L U U , CC U ,, * * i # # # CO 4 * 0• < < r. 1 . , n -. in 4 * * 4 * * m 4 < * = * * .r as �1 0 I I I * * I * I * COI .4c - T < I * 0 I I 4 I # Im WI < < tnI C7 V * I * * I # # © a _ < I * c> # I * I1' 47 - rd C C] 47 0 0 HI = o. CL C I CO # * 1 * # 1 * 4 10 I * C] # * 1 * 1 < 4 47 44 �I o * I * I # * 1 * * 1 o a 1 I I I * I * In E.E C Is: C < < ' E- k: aa = * I * I * H * 1 0 4 I I 0 1 * I I *I ' E-, G. U U !Y I I U 1 I = f7 # * I * # # IcGI 4 I mI * i 1 *IC 0, 0 * * I s 4 41 I < I m i * 1 *i m.�r I nIy C 0 #' L 'k C a 14 .l-) O C 0 O I. 0 • •.4, r0 .0 W Uro -.0. U 1.1 U >, U .�.. Cw CV C y 7 0 0 0 C ) -4 12 W 7.i 0 10 0 0 U ^1 0 A U-•i U Ch ..-1 U) U .0 ro w rd .-4 4 0 0 •4 0 N ro •.i'O C 0 -Oj .. L... 0 = ` • a •�. •0 '13 0 10 r.1 3 aJ l+ A >, y lr ICr 0 N N W .1 .41 0 U 0 C to .0 .D. .y E .�i a 1) IV v 0)-, N 41 N 0 0 ..d 10 01 U 4 Sr 0 010 0% C+ 10 -i 0 >, G. 5- O O Ir-r - m CO m r ON -1 `. 1I I mm4T L IL. --1 0 = 11 0 I .-1 I LO n U1 11 ... 4 0 ro 0. 0 0 -4 Ir to 0 ... 0 0 a-I N 0 1 0 1 1 I -. 4 .r C+. -. ..4 E -i ro 0) to w N -4 0-4 w-1'- n .1 N -i -i -•I 1a .4 "•■• •• 0n I 1.7 ••i 0 U U 0 - O 0 -i -r 0 0 ..... N -r 0 C o .--1 .0 = ro 0 =•-t 0 .0 w .-. 0 U .-. E --1 3 7 0 la. 0 0 y I.+ N O O C H. 0 N 10 u) 0 V) H = = 0 > x 0 -1 0 7 Z E O CC U E = .-1N1.1 41/` 1o '.o k. N 0 -. 0 ro0 0 -•+ >,C 0 A r .0 T ••. .r iJ A 0 >, .44 0+ T b T U A A W .0 E I.1 Ir A 7 G. 1. L .i 0 C C C C U •ti 0 C O 0+ A A -r 7 lI 0 ro (CI -i -1 -1 •.r >, -. •r-I 40 0 0 C 0 I.1 -r 0 U N N W U U -i --1 .y .4 --i 0, .0 to -1 'p 0 •-1 0 0 A n U -. N y 0 .r .-I . .. .1 7 t0 0 -. E 0. O.L 0 Ir 0 >. E H. 0 0 0 0 E 0 $4 4 N '7 O E E 4n >r 7 U 0 A 0 to 3 3 3 3 A sr G) 0 0 0c o 0 0 C O w 0 U E 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 I.+. U = Z 0 C It C E-4 E•-i w 0 H •4 A E as al.1 N n e In 40 N CO CO rn . .- .N-1 .4 .n. 4-411 8 8.8.28 Nursing Home Facility [strike-through and italics in Article 8 . 8 . 28 . 2 indicate revisions following 8/17/93 Board of County Commissioners meeting] 8 . 8 . 28 . 1 Additional Information In addition to the information required by Articles 8 . 2 and 8 . 8 , the following shall be submitted as part of the application: Ai Evidence that all requirements to qualify for a State of North Carolina nursing home license have been satisfied. b) A floor plan of the proposed nursing home facility showing the use and dimensions of each room and the location of entry/exit points. 8 . 8 . 28 . 2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shall be used in evaluating 'an application for a nursing home facility: .a1 All requirements to qualify for a State of North Carolina nursing home license are satisfied. The facility is to be located and the site developed in a manner that does not expose residents to hazardous conditions (such as steep slopes, oven drainageways, or conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian circulation) . ci To prevent residents from leaving the site without supervision, a physical barrier such as a fence, wall, or berm with plantings shall be provided around the facility. In lieu of a physical barrier, the Zoning Officer may approve an alternative method of security that provides an equal degree of protection such as surveillance cameras and electronic monitoring. dl The site shall have direct access to a State-maintained road. or a Class A private road as dcscribcd in the el All areas designated for use by residents shall be accessible by patients in wheelchairs and those with difficulty walking. fj Dimensional requirements for nursing home developments shall be according to Article 5 . 1 . 2 - Schedule for Non- Residential Development. gl Parking standards are contained in Article 10. At least one entryl exit shall be designated for emergency access to the site and to each building and shall remain unobstructed at all times. 9 h) In addition to individual rooms for patients , detached dwelling units and attached multiple dwellings (duplexes , triplexes, apartments) are allowed for use by the facility owner, resident staff members, or as guest quarters. i . The facility shall not be within 500 feet of another existing-nursing home, Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, or Rehabilitative Care Facility. Article 10. 4 - Off-Street Parking Requirements H-7 Group Care Facilities One space per 2 beds; One space per employee on shift of maximum employment H-8 Rehabilitative Care Facility One space per 2 beds; One space per staff member. H-8a Nursing Homes One space per 2 beds; One space per 300 square feet of administrative office space Article 22 - Definitions Nursing Home - A facility licensed by the appropriate State agency = - - - _ _ -_ _ - - - - - - requirements cct forth in this ordinance as a group care facility for more than fifteen (15) unrelated persons, for the purpose of providing nursing or convalescent care. Persons admitted to a nursing home require continuing medical supervision, but do not need special facilities provided by general hospital care, such as x-ray equipment, laboratory facilities , or an operating room. Rehabilitative Care Facility - A facility licensed by the appropriate State agency as a group care facility for individuals who are handicapped, ate, disabled, youthful offenders, addicted to alcohol or drugs, requiring professional health care, adult supervision, or rehabilitation. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 4/5/93 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: 6/21/93 BOCC REVIEW: ... . _,_ �(2- Cjeheral S.1 -L1 5 10 §131E-101 CH. 131E. HEALTH CARE FACILITIES $131E-101 § 131E-101. Definitions. As used in this Part, unless otherwise specified: (1) "Combination home" means a nursing home offering one or more levels of care, including any combination of skilled -- nursing, intermediate care, and domiciliary home. - (2) "Commission" means the North Carolina Medical Care - Commission. — (3) "Community advisory committee" means a nursing home advisory committee established for the statutory purpose -' of working to carry out the intent of the Nursing Home Patients'Bill of Rights(Chapter 131E,Article 6, Part B) in I accordance with G.S. 143B-181.1. ` (4) "Domiciliary home," as distinguished from a nursing home, means a facility operated as a part of a nursing home and -= which provides residential care for aged or disabled per- sons whose principal need is a home with the sheltered or personal care their age or disability requires. Medical care ! in a domiciliary home is usually occa,=,onal or incidental, . such as may be required in the home of any individual or _ family, but the administration of medication is supervised. -- Continuing planned medical and nursing care to meet the resident's needs may be provided under the direct supervi- sion of a physician, nurse, or home health agency. Domicil- iary homes are to be distinguished from nursing homes subject to licensure under this Part. The three types of I_ domiciliary homes are homes for the aged and disabled, family care homes and group homes for developmentally disabled a dults. (5) "Medical review committee" means a committee of a State or local professional society, of a medical staff of a licensed " .- hospital, of physicians having privileges within the nurs- ing home or of a peer review corporation or organization _ .` which is formed for the purpose of evaluating the quality, . cost of or necessity for health care services under applica- :r�. ble federal statutes. . ---> (6) "Nursing borne" means a facility, however named, which is : , '. advertised, announced, or maintained for the express or =f. implied purpose of providing nursing or convalescent care for three or more persons unrelated to the licensee. A "nursing home" is a home for chronic or convalescent pa- tients, who, on admission, are not as a rule, acutely ill and who do not usually require special facilities such as an operating room, X-ray facilities, laboratory facilities, and I: obstetrical facilities. A "nursing home" provides care for -.. persons who have remedial ailments or other ailments, for -- , .. which medical and nursing care are indicated; who, how- ever, are not sick enough to require general hospital care. Nursing care is their primary need, but they will require continuing medical supervision. .. ti;' t.i: (7)."Peer review committee" means any committee appointed ,;.. in accordance with G.S. 131E-108, "Peer review." (1961, c. 'i=, 51, s. 3; 1981, c. 833; 1983, c. 775, s.• 1.) _ it I. 1. 50 , rr 11 the public hearing until 7 : 33 p.m. on August 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation . y VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4 5 . ZONING ATLAS (MAP) AMENDMENTS 6 a . 2-1-93 Economic Development Districts 7 This item was considered under item 4a above. 8 9 b. Z-2-93 Marilyn and David Liner 10 Planner Emily Cameron presented for citizen comments a proposed 11 Zoning Atlas amendment in Efland. The property is located on the west side 12 of Efland-Cedar Grove Road apprc>.imately 650 feet north of US Highway 70 on :3 the south side of McGowan Creek. The total area proposed for rezoning 14 contains 4 . 18 acres . In the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive 15 Plan, the property is designated Ten Year Transition in the Efland Center 16 Commercial-Industrial Node. The current zoning is Residential-1 and Protected 17 Watershed II . The zoning district proposed is Residential-3 . The property 18 does have access to public water and sewer and Efland-Cedar Grove Road is a 19 collector road. 20 • 21 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS OF 22 THE PLANNING BOARD. 24 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. 23 26 Lindsay Efland spoke in favor of this proposal. • Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public 29 hearing until 7 : 30 on August 4 , 1993 to receive the Planning Board 20 recommendation. 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS _2 33 34 6 . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS 35 a. Economic Development Districts 36 This item was considered under item 4a above . 37 38 b. Nursing Homes 33 Planner Emily Cameron presented this item to receive public 40 comment on proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would create a 41 land use category and development standards for nursing homes . Under the 42 current Zoning Ordinance provisions , a nursing home facility for more than 43 fifteen unrelated individuals must comply with standards for a rehabilitative 44 care facility. The Planning Staff proposes a new land use category and 45 appropriate standards for nursing homes to be included in Articles 4 , 8 , 10 46 and 22 which would allow nursing homes as a Class A Special Use Permit. 47 48 THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF 49 THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS . 50 51 Motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board and to adjourn the public hearing until 7 : 30 on August 4 , 1993 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 0 12 ( 1 ) Nursing homes Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance creating a land use category and development standards for nursing homes . Under the current Zoning Ordinance provisions , a nursing home facility for more than fifteen unrelated individuals must comply with standards for a rehabilitative care facility. The land use category for rehabilitative care includes facilities for persons addicted to drugs or alcohol, youthful offenders , and persons adjusting to non-prison life. Such facilities are permitted in the Local Commercial , Community Commercial, and General Commercial Zoning districts . The Planning Staff proposes a new land use category and appropriate standards for nursing homes to be included in Articles 4 , 8 , 10 , and 22 . The proposed amendments were presented at the public hearing on May 24 . No citizen comments were received at that time. The item was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the County Commissioners no sooner than August 4 , 1993 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to Articles 4 , 8 , 10 , and 22 . (A copy is an attachment to these minutes on pages , ) Burklin asked the definition of a group care facility. Cameron responded that it is similar to a nursing home or rehabilitative care facility but accommodates less than 15 individuals . MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff . Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous . ( 2 ) Site Plan Approval/Zoning Compliance Permit Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is to consider a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment that would add language to Article 14 and Article 21 to clearly explain that a site plan approval with or without a �G .. -- 13 To Board of Caunty Commissioners • l=rvrtt Alice Gordon 46- •• • i-v/,r. Subject: Nursing Homes -Agenda Item 1H-5 1-U Date t 17, 1993 / 5 . 9hCF UM it.is my understanding that :alder our currentordinance, nursing *homes can be built in residential districts as follows; (C ) 7-_-_15.3gratgjitrzlorGroup Care Facility-Class 8 Special Use Permit 23'rloce thi Ll 5 urge ales# tiers ns Some type of Played Development The proposed amendment would-allow nursing homes for over 15 Mated persons in all residential districts with a Class A Special Use Permit -RECUTINDATION• A Fennel of the PITTED USE TABLE acid other parts of our- ordinance will showthat we now limit residential units of this size either to commercial/industrial districts or to denser (! • r R5 and above) residential districts. Therefore I recommend that we take one of the follow ing action 1.. Leave the ordinance as it is, and require nursing homes of this size to come in as a planned:dvelo rent The potential impacts of these homes on the surrounding residential neighborhood might make the approval of a plan desirable. OR 2. Extend this use•to•R-+a d higher densities only, and make the following additions or changes to the:requirements for the Special Use Permit. P.5, agenda packet- Nursing Home Facility-8:8.281-Standards of Evaluation W) Delete: 'or a Class.A:private road` from this paragraph. Such a nursing facility:would be more appropriately located on a public road (I) Add an asiditionai paragraph 1' which reflects the language in paragraph (e3 of the Standards of Evaluation for a Group Care Facility •(8,8,42) The proposed use is not within 500 feet of another existing Family Care Faci I f ty.:or croup Care Facility or tensing Home" Also ask the staff to develop additional requirements for screening (or buffering)and vehicular access to minimize potential adverse impacts on the-surminding neig)bo€'hcod, The prod requirements deal mainly with the safety Of:tie nursing home residents. 14 • 34 35 G. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, PERMITTED U@$ TABLE/NURSING 36 BOXES; SPECIAL QBEBZ OFF-STREET PARR=NG REOUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS 37 Commissioner Gordon made reference to her memo dated August 17 , 1993 in 38 which she outlined her concerns about this amendment. It appears that from the 39 dimensional requirements that these nursing homes may be very large and may 40have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. There are no requirements for 41 buffers or screening and no concern about vehicular access as far as the 42 neighborhood is concerned. She feels that if this amendment is approved, there 43 should be adequate safeguards for the neighborhood. She questioned if this 44 should be a public road with water and sewer. She feels a planned development 45would be better since it seems that these facilities may be very large. 46 Planner Mary Willis stated that this amendment is in response to an 47 inquiry from Meadowbrook Manor on KH.rky Road for expansion, remodeling and 48 upgrading of the current facility which is not located in a commercial 49 district. In looking at solutions, they reviewed different- options to address 50 this request. If this amendment is not approved, they will not be allowed to 51 expand their-facility:- _.. . 52 • Post-lt"brand tax transmittal memo 7671 lot paops ► IliralM111111111Wirallii Co. PhOn.h Putt Far* RECEIVED FROM 919 644 3004 P. 1 SEP-03-19S3 14:45 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO PLANNING P.02/02 8 1 John Link stated that he has a concern that the terms intermediate 2 care facility or skilled nurse care facility were not used in the amendment 3 because these are the terms usually used in defining nursing home facilities. 4 He asked that they look into using these specific terms in this amendment. 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner 6 Halkiotis to refer this to the staff to develop some requirements in the 7 context of a planned development approach. 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9 NOTE: This will go to the Planning Board for a recommendation before it is l0brought back to the County Commissioners. 11 9/20 PLAMAJ I a1q go/tE P rt iAJUT ES LJ 15 Sawmill Road West indicated 700 trips per day. The Planning Board reviewed the Concept Plan for Grassy Creek at its June 21, 1993 meeting. The plan was approved with the condition that all lots shall receive access from the interior subdivision road. Applicable comments from the agencies have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (a copy included as an attachment to these minutes on pages , ) The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Grassy Creek subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval. MOTION.: Reid moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/24/93) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ( 1) Nursing Homes (a) Article 4 . 3 - Permitted Use Table/ Nursing Homes (b) Article 8 - Special Uses (c) Article 10 .4 - Off Street Parking Requirements (d) Article 22 - Definitions Presentation by Emily Cameron. (The abstract, proposed amendments and all attachments are included with these minutes on pages . ) The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to Articles 4 , 8, 10 and 22 with the changes to Article 8 . 8 .28 .2 concerning security measures, access, and spacing between similar facilities. Jobsis asked if the Commissioners had questioned the security measures . Cameron responded that the first time this item was tabled, the Commissioners had not made it clear what their concerns were. The County Attorney had recommended that the Planning � 1 [F 16 Staff be more specific in regard to the Standards of Evaluation, 8 . 8 .28 . 2c) and suggested the wording "In lieu of a physical barrier, the Zoning Officer may approve an alternative method of security that provides an equal degree of protection such as surveillance cameras and electronic monitoring. " Eidenier asked why the Planning Board should be concerned with the issue of security. Cameron responded that Staff felt it was a matter of public safety to protect the residents of the nursing homes . Burklin asked if there are State design requirements that would address this concern. Cameron responded that the State requirements she had been able to locate dealt with the building itself rather than design standards . There was very little guidance ^as far as site design in the State requirements. Cameron continued that another issue which emerged during the discussion on nursing homes is how to permit similar uses where patients would temporarily live on site and may require some medical supervision. This type of use may include facilities for the treatment of eating disorders, stress, or anxiety disorders (phobias and obsessions) , and perhaps certain special counseling centers. Treatment facilities such as those listed are more closely aligned with nursing homes than with Rehabilitative Care" Facilities, since residents do not generally represent a threat to the safety of others. For example, a center for the treatment of eating disorders could be allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit in the same zoning districts as nursing homes; however, all of the standards of evaluation would not be the same. Extra security measures would not be necessary. Parking requirements should also account for some outpatient treatment. Jobsis expressed concern with 'spelling out' security measures . She thought that the residents would feel that they were in an encampment with no way out. Cameron responded that she felt that these provisions were necessary to avoid the 17 situation of a patient wandering away from the site, which too often ended in tragedy. Hamilton suggested getting more expert commentary on this issue. She felt that requirements are being placed in the regulations which could create many problems . Jobsis emphasized again her concerns with such strong indications of confinement and noted that the negative aspect of 'locking people up ' made her feel uncomfortable. Barrows noted that she felt it was not so much 'locking up or confining' as protecting. Jobsis responded that she was uncomfortable with the Planning Board passing absolute requirements regarding security: Walters indicated that she had ,experience with four such facilities . She had found that one door near a nurses station (an emergency exit) was all that was kept open after a certain time at night, usually around 9 : 00 p.m. , and other doors had alarms. Hamilton expressed concern that there was also a problem with people getting into such facilities and felt security should be more directed in that way. Jobsis stated that she felt more comfortable with the individual nursing homes making judgments regarding their security rather than a general County-wide resolution. Eidenier asked about fencing regulations for day care. Reid responded that the fencing for day care is a State regulation. Willis agreed. Willis continued that the intent of this proposed amendment is to give more flexibility with the different options for security and to assure that some security measures are in place. Jobsis stated that she supported the general concept that there should be security for the protection of the residents of the nursing home without the Planning Board getting too specific about how it is done. Hamilton, Hoecke, and Jobsis indicated that they felt this concern is addressed in the State standards and asked that it be 18 investigated further. Hoecke had concerns with pre-empting the State. Burklin indicated he felt the design of the facility and care of the patients is something for a board other than the Planning Board to decide. He felt the issue for the Planning Board is how it is placed within the community, its compatibility with the community and the overall planning scheme of the County. Barrows asked why the proposed parking standard was not similar to the standards for group care and Rehabilitative Care Facilities . Cameron explained that the parking standard proposed by Staff was based on square footage of administrative space since that figure can be checked on. the site plan or floor plan. When parking is based on the number of employees, there is no way to check the number of employees, which could change in the future. Waddell felt all the parking questions were not addressed with H-7 and H-8 . Cameron suggested re-wording for 8 . 8 .28 . 2 c) : The applicant shall provide on a site plan and/or floor plan adequate measures to protect residents, who as a result of their mental or physical condition, should not leave the facility or site without assistance. Cameron noted that the parking requirements could be changed to reflect the maximum number of employees . Waddell asked if the Planning Staff would simply accept the nursing home's word for the number of people. Cameron responded yes employee numbers could change, but the numbers based on office space would not change without a revision to the site plan. Waddell also expressed agreement with the first part of the revised section c ending with protect residents. Cameron responded that she felt that would not provide sufficient guidance to staff or applicants . Waddell suggested that the entire statement be deleted. LU L, 19 MOTION: Waddell moved to delete 8 . 8 . 28 . 2 c ) . Seconded by Jobsis . Hamilton expressed concern with the Planning Board attempting to determine competency or degrees of competency. Other discussion indicated the feeling again, that this issue is or should be addressed by State regulations . Eidenier noted that her concerns related more toward the atmosphere around the facility. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Barrows , Reid, Cantrell - concerned with danger to residents ) . MOTION: Waddell moved that the same criteria for parking used for group care facilities be used for nursing homes. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of the proposed amendments with changes as recommended by Staff concerning access and spacing between similar facilities. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/23/93) a. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (1) CP-3-93 Bobby Kirk, Sr. , & Jr.