Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB agenda 0306131 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING 131 WEST MARGARET LANE – LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM (ROOM #004) HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 3-4 5-6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for March and April b. Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting 3. 7 8-14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 9, 2013 ORC Meeting Notes January 9, 2013 Regular Meeting 4. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 5. PUBLIC CHARGE Introduction to the Public Charge The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its residents and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. Public Charge The Planning Board pledges to the residents of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its residents to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow residents. At any time, should any member of the Board or any resident fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS 1 2 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 15-50 PRELIMINARY PLAT – ANNANDALE AT CREEKWOOD: To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Preliminary Plat application for Annandale at Creekwood. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 8. 51-72 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 9. 73-78 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to make changes to the section regarding the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing. Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 10. 79-80 PLANNING BOARD LIAISON TO THE OUTBOARD - To nominate a Planning Board member to fill the position on the OUTBoard designated for a Planning Board member. Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 11. ANNUAL BOCC RETREAT: To receive a brief oral report on planning- related outcomes of the annual BOCC retreat held on February 1, 2013. Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 12. COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS a. Board of Adjustment b. Orange Unified Transportation 13. ADJOURNMENT IF AN EMERGENCY OCCURS, OR IF YOU ARE RUNNING LATE FOR THE MEETING, PLEASE LEAVE A VOICE MAIL FOR PERDITA HOLTZ (919-245-2578). 2 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 March 2013 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 April 2013March 2013 Fe b 2 4 - M a r 2 Feb 24 25 26 27 28 Mar 1 2 Ma r 3 - 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7:00pm *PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Department of Social Services) Ma r 1 0 - 1 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7:30pm BOA- Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC Work Session (Link Gov't Service Ctr) Ma r 1 7 - 2 3 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC/Town of Chapel Hill Joint Meeting (Southern Human Services Ctr) Ma r 2 4 - 3 0 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 HOLIDAY Ma r 3 1 - A p r 6 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 3 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 April 2013 SuMoTuWeThFrSa 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 May 2013April 2013 Ma r 3 1 - A p r 6 Mar 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7:00pm PLANNING BOARD MEETING (West Campus Office Bldg ) Ap r 7 - 1 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7:30pm Board of Adjustment (West Campus Office Bldg) 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Department of Social Services) 7:00pm BOCC Budget Work Session (Southern Human Services) Ap r 1 4 - 2 0 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7:00pm BOCC Work Session (Link Gov't Services Ctr) 7:00pm OUTBoard Meeting (West Campus Office Bldg) Ap r 2 1 - 2 7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:00pm BOCC Reg Meeting (Southern Human Services) 7:00pm BOCC/Schools (Dept of Social Services) Ap r 2 8 - M a y 4 28 29 30 May 1 2 3 4 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 4 Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting Pete 1. Parts of UDO that deal with emergency services delivery a. Drainage pipes under driveways should be 16-feet, not 10-feet as fire trucks have a 12-foot wheelbase. cul-du-sac widths, pull-overs on 1 lane private roads, tree clearance. 2. Home Occupations. Current ordinance is too restrictive (max of 2 people) Larry 1. Adult Entertainment 2. Gaming 3. Nuisance ordinance to protect EDDs Tony 1. Definition of Transit Oriented Development 2. Regulations in rural economic development areas (doesn’t think they’re viable without some re-write of regulations) Andrea 1. Supports looking a home occupations (especially traffic impacts) 2. Outdoor events and mass gatherings (enhance understanding. People need to know they might need a permit) Johnny 1. Protection of natural resources. (what does it mean?) 2. Ways to produce less solid waste per capita and dispose and manage waste in an environmentally responsible way. Somehow change waste stream paradigm. a. Education needs to be done Lisa 1. Supports looking at home occupations 5 Alan 1. Streamline approval processes, especially for “no brainer” projects. a. Determine what the hurdle is for people. Buddy 1. Expand Efland interstate district to include areas around the US70 connector and parcels north and south of Ben Johnson Rd.. 6 D R A F T 1 SUMMARY NOTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 9, 2013 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – STORMWATER To review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to modify existing language requiring the submittal of formal stormwater plans as part of subdivision and development applications. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Mr. Harvey reviewed abstract Lisa Stuckey pointed out a needed punctuation correction. Larry Wright asked about the flowchart and questioned its need. Michael Harvey pointed out that it is intended to show the steps involved in getting site plan approval. Lisa Stuckey suggested a word addition to the flowchart. Pete Hallenbeck asked if the approval is for all future homes being built in the subdivision. Michael Harvey confirmed that it does. Pete Hallenbeck questioned the language that states that tree debris cannot be burned. Michael Harvey conveyed that it is existing policy mandated by the BOCC. He further noted that is as it relates to development. Lisa Stuckey asked about staff coverage. Michael Harvey related that additional staff will need to be hired. AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned by consensus 7 D R A F T 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 9, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River 8 Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 9 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 10 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township 11 Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township 12 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; 15 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; 18 Special Projects Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 19 20 21 HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING Planning Calendars for 2013 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 25 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2013 28 29 Buddy Hartley nominated Pete Hallenbeck to serve as the Planning Board Chair for 2013. No other members were 30 nominated. Planning Board members voted unanimously to appoint Pete Hallenbeck to serve as Chair. 31 32 Buddy Hartley nominated Alan Campbell to serve as the Planning Board Vice-Chair for 2013. 33 Larry Wright nominated Lisa Stuckey to serve as the Planning Board Vice-Chair for 2013. 34 (paper ballots were distributed and cast) 35 Tina Love tabulated the votes. There was a tie. 36 (Alan Campbell arrived) 37 Alan Campbell: I decline the nomination. 38 Lisa Stuckey was appointed as the Vice-Chair for 2013 39 40 Larry Wright: Congratulations to the officers. 41 42 43 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 44 a) Planning Calendar for January and February 45 46 47 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 48 DECEMBER 5, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 49 50 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the December 5, 2012 Planning Board minutes. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 52 53 54 8 D R A F T 2 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 58 59 Introduction to the Public Charge 60 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 61 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 62 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 63 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 64 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 65 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 66 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 67 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 68 69 PUBLIC CHARGE 70 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 71 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 72 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 73 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 74 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 75 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 76 77 78 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 79 80 Pete Hallenbeck: Larry, as outgoing Chair, would you like to make any comments? 81 82 Larry Wright: It has been a pleasure to serve you as chair. I have learned and witnessed that this Board and this 83 county does work from the grass roots level up and the BOCC does listen to the Board. Your role on this Board is 84 very important and over the time I have appreciated seeing some people who were reluctant to speak up make their 85 opinions known and they are doing this now and I am happy to see you flourish. One thing I consider very 86 important, and I hope new members continue to observe, is that you exercise your right to have a dissenting 87 opinion and there are times when the BOCC does listen to the dissenting opinion and they move on that. Buckhorn 88 road was a prime example because the majority voted against Buckhorn. Thank you for allowing me to serve. 89 90 91 Agenda Item 8: Kennel Processes and Regulations – To continue discussion on BOCC-requested input 92 into the processes and regulations for kennels. This item was continued from the November 93 7, 2012 regular meeting when the work plan was acted upon, the Planning Board Chair and 94 Vice-Chair asked that this be a discussion item for the January 9, 2013 agenda. 95 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 96 97 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract on page 15. 98 99 Alan Campbell: On the chart under “Review Process” and “Staff Review and Approval” for Durham and Chapel Hill, 100 does that mean it is discretionary? Also, is that a good thing in your mind? 101 102 Michael Harvey: Obviously, it is similar to Orange County staff reviewing and approving a proposed kennel 103 operation. They have their version of the UDO with guidelines and standards and their obligation is to ensure the 104 project complies with all of those standards. They review a site plan and make the determination that complies with 105 development regulations in issuing a zoning compliance permit allowing the project to move forward. I think you 106 have a policy in this county where the elected officials have determined that certain uses due to their nature 107 deserve a heightened level of review. I am not speaking against Class II Kennel being a special use permit. I think 108 9 D R A F T 3 there are issues involved with their locations that warrant a heightened level review. If you are asking if staff would 109 be comfortable approving it, with the ordinances we have and the standards, I am comfortable with approving or 110 denying anything as long as I have justification. 111 112 Alan Campbell: My question gets into the notion that if you have a special use permit that you are held to if they 113 meet the requirements then you have to approve it but if it is discretionary then you have more room. 114 115 Michael Harvey: If you, as an applicant, prove you comply with the code, I also have to issue the permit. If there 116 are interpretative issues, then you have the right to appeal me. 117 118 Alan Campbell: If you have someone who opened a kennel where they were not supposed to and don’t meet any 119 requirements, what is the enforcement mechanism? 120 121 Michael Harvey: If we find an illegal kennel, we initiate zoning enforcement actions which mean we can issue civil 122 citations daily in the amount of $500 after appropriate notices of violation are issued. We can seek an injunction 123 from the court. They are technically guilty of a misdemeanor if they violate the land use regulations so we have 124 enforcement procedures we can initiate. 125 126 Alan Campbell: One of the problems with animal enforcements is that if it is the middle of the night, they will not 127 address that issue. 128 129 Michael Harvey: If is it a land use issue, we initiate an enforcement action. You, as a property owner, do have 130 rights to appeal. If you choose to continue an action we have told you is illegal, we have lots of means to make 131 sure you comply. 132 133 Lisa Stuckey: If you are doing a Class II, maybe I or II, you have to get a permit for Animals Services for each of 134 those and then for Class II, you have to get your Class B Special Use Permit. You have to get the Class II kennel 135 permit within 30 days of occupancy, would that be 30 within the start of the kennel? Can you open it up and 28 136 days later go get your permit? 137 138 Michael Harvey: Animal Services provides initial feedback on the proposal and they have met with the applicant 139 and looked over the plan. We have documentation to submit to the Board of Adjustment but they can’t do final 140 approval until they make application and submit the building plans. They can’t submit the building plans until they 141 have a building permit submitted by the inspections department stating this meets building code so we usually allow 142 that grace period for Animal Services to issue the permit on a legally issued kennel operation. 143 144 Lisa Stuckey: Does that mean you can have the dogs there before you are issued the permit? 145 146 Michael Harvey: The way it is currently worded and the way Animal Services regulations are worded that is a 147 correct statement. 148 149 Lisa Stuckey: Is that a good idea? 150 151 Michael Harvey: One of the reasons is that Animal Services gives you 30 days to get the final permit. 152 153 Tony Blake: When I spoke to the kennel owner where we are, he said he felt there was a fair amount of confusion 154 between the state regulations and the county regulations but I think what you are describing is the case where 155 someone has a lot of dogs and someone decides to convert to a legitimate kennel operation. 156 157 Pete Hallenbeck: Didn’t you say part of those 30 days was to avoid the time crunch? 158 159 Michael Harvey: Yes. And Animal Services has to sign off on the building permit to say that it meets their code 160 before a building permit is issued. 161 162 10 D R A F T 4 Tony Blake: But doesn’t the state have to come out as well? 163 164 Michael Harvey: I don’t know the answer to that question because it is not a provision of the UDO. 165 166 Lisa Stuckey: We wouldn’t let people move into a house or building until all the approvals are finished. 167 168 Michael Harvey: If they get a Certificate of Occupancy and Animal Services signs off on the issuance of that permit 169 and it just takes 30 days to get the paperwork done to say you have your permit, I don’t see that it is a hardship 170 since Animal Services has been involved in the process from day one approving the kennel operation. You have to 171 get the Class B Special Use Permit before you can initiate construction. 172 173 Herman Staats: Relating to the seasonal housing of hunting dogs, is that considered a kennel operation? 174 175 Michael Harvey: If you have over 20 animals, you are technically in violation of the code as it is written. 176 177 Herman Staats: If it is fewer than 20? 178 179 Michael Harvey: If you are keeping them for competition, show or sport then you have to have a Class I Kennel 180 Permit. 181 182 Larry Wright: If you have a research facility and they are .... so you can have two types of research facilities, one 183 operated by the state and one by the pharmaceutical company for profit, how is that handled? 184 185 Michael Harvey: A research facility is an independent land use category in the table of permitted uses. The 186 animals are not being transferred, moved in or changed out for commercial endeavors but experimented on. 187 188 Pete Hallenbeck: What has been the biggest problem when people come in to get kennels? 189 190 Michael Harvey: Adjacent property owner reaction. 191 192 Pete Hallenbeck: Historically, is that main concern noise? 193 194 Michael Harvey: Noise plays a component piece, diminished land value, traffic, not in my back yard. 195 196 Pete Hallenbeck: With the added feature of barking dogs. Barking dogs are an interesting one because the noise 197 technically doesn’t meet the criteria for the noise ordinances in terms of how many decibels, it is not a constant 198 noise. The problem is that it is still annoying and the answer may be if the BOCC wants to deal with a barking dog 199 ordinance. 200 201 Michael Harvey: Animals Services has regulations governing barking but the comment is will there be an animal 202 services officer available at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. 203 204 Pete Hallenbeck: The rules are in place but you really need a way to enforce them at 2:00 a.m. 205 206 Rachel Hawkins: Is it because of the kennel at New Hope that these questions come up? 207 208 Michael Harvey: There are several kennels. 209 210 Rachel Hawkins: What do people want us to do? 211 212 Michael Harvey: Deny them. 213 214 Rachel Hawkins: But they are already there. 215 216 11 D R A F T 5 Michael Harvey: All the cases we have had so far, the adjacent property owners have failed to submit just cause. 217 218 Johnny Randall: Is there an odor component to this? 219 220 Michael Harvey: The UDO makes some reference to air pollution but no smell provisions. 221 222 Larry Wright: I have served on several animal use committees in conjunction with my work at the NIH and these 223 facilities are certified and are subject to be recertified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am not sure what the 224 source of the odor is but these boards that certify them and many are well established with veterinary schools so it 225 is a certification process. PETA is there all the time. It has been very gratifying to see the tight control and 226 safeguarding the animals being used in research. 227 228 Maxecine Mitchell: Did you find anything that anyone is doing that is better than what we have in place? 229 230 Michael Harvey: I wouldn’t say it is better or worse but it works better for them. 231 232 Maxecine Mitchell: Dogs are going to make noise but does our regulation muffle the sound? 233 234 Michael Harvey: The last two applications we had, there was an acoustical engineer brought out to talk about how 235 the applicant would construct the structure to address that issue and on the New Hope Kennel is they don’t like it 236 but they don’t hear the dogs. 237 238 Pete Hallenbeck: It is interesting to note that Chapel Hill’s answer is to have the kennels in non-residential areas 239 and Carrboro’s answer is to sound proof. 240 241 Michael Harvey: In Carrboro, it is approved through the same process that we use. 242 243 Rachel Hawkins: What are we doing with this information? 244 245 Pete Hallenbeck: Receive the update and provide feedback. 246 247 Michael Harvey: At some point, we are going back to the elected officials and provide them with your comments 248 and comments from animal service and find out what they want to do. The ones that are already there have 249 existing special use permits. 250 251 252 Agenda Item 9: Implementation Bridge Priorities – To discuss Planning Board priorities for work to be 253 started and/or accomplished in 2013. At the November 7, 2012 regular meeting when the 254 work plan was acted upon, the Planning Board Chair and Vice-Chair asked that this be a 255 discussion item for the January 9, 2013 agenda 256 Presenter: None, discussion only 257 258 Pete Hallenbeck: We have heard Planning Board members say they have opinions about things they would like to 259 change. I would like to get information from you about things you would like to address. I would like to look at some 260 of the parts of the county ordinance that would have an impact on emergency services delivery. Does anyone have 261 an item they would like to discuss? 262 263 Tony Blake: I have become interested in transit oriented development and how it fits. 264 265 Pete Hallenbeck: I would like to reference Attachment 2 which is the work that goes on the planning department to 266 define things. One of the ongoing tasks is to take this list and come up with a priority and there are a number of 267 topics already listed in the implementation bridge that are going to be working into this document. 268 269 12 D R A F T 6 Larry Wright: There are a couple of areas that our ordinance doesn’t address. One is adult entertainment and the 270 other is gaming. Even though gaming looks like it is not doing well that doesn’t mean in the future it will not be legal. 271 I think we should identify that before something comes up. 272 273 Pete Hallenbeck: That makes sense. Another item on my list is home offices. The current ordinance is that you can 274 have two people. I think if you are in a rural area, you could have three or four people and not adversely impact the 275 community. How can we balance that against with making sure you don’t annoy your neighbors? 276 277 Johnny Randall: There is mention of protection of natural resources but a lot of times it doesn’t say what that means. 278 What does it mean to protect a natural area? 279 280 Tony Blake: I also have an interest in the regulations for rural economic development areas. 281 282 Andrea Rohrbacher: The home business is also of interest to me. I am also interested in the outdoor events and 283 mass gatherings and some definitions to make it clear to citizens if they are having an event, they need a permit with 284 specifics. 285 286 Pete Hallenbeck: The home business issue came up during the Efland Small Area Plan; it was contrasting someone 287 wanting to open a beauty salon versus an architect that may have a client show up occasionally. 288 289 Craig Benedict: The interest on the existing goals the county has from 2009 did mention the protection and 290 promotion of Economic Development Zones and how an adult entertainment establishment in the wrong area next to 291 one of our 400 acre economic development zones would kill it. Part of our research is; are there any external issues 292 that could affect the economic development zones we have. In the goals on page 23, I put code enforcement in 293 Economic Development areas (i.e. abandoned mobile homes or derelict houses), is there a way to bolster our code 294 enforcement efforts. We have limitations at the county level but for the protection of the work we have been doing 295 over the last few years, the image of those areas is a determining factor. 296 297 Larry Wright: I would like to support that to look into the nuisance ordinance and protect these economic 298 development districts. 299 300 Pete Hallenbeck: The BOCC has a retreat on February 1 so if there are things you are interested in, email them to 301 me and I will get with staff. 302 303 Lisa Stuckey: The issues that were raised by both of the towns on page 51, 52, etc…. 304 305 Perdita Holtz: Those have been resolved. 306 307 Lisa Stuckey: I am also interested in the home occupations. I was on the Chapel Hill committee when they passed 308 theirs. 309 310 Rachel Hawkins: What does theirs include? 311 312 Lisa Stuckey: It sounds more liberal that what the county has. We looked at the same issues impacts on neighbors. 313 The issue arose for Chapel Hill in a subdivision where there were home businesses with a lot of people coming and 314 going all the time with big trucks, etc. I think Chapel Hill would be a good one to look at. 315 316 Craig Benedict: I would like to review some of the BOCC goals adopted in 2009. (Craig will forward a copy to the 317 Board). 318 319 Johnny Randall: Another issue is less solid waste per capita with cost effective and environmentally responsible 320 disposal and management. That is a huge issue in Orange County since we are going to export out solid waste. 321 There is so much education that needs to be done and reducing solid waste is one of the easiest things to do. 322 323 13 D R A F T 7 Tony Blake: Are you suggesting regulating the private trash haulers? 324 325 Johnny Randall: I am thinking of changing the waste stream paradigm that a majority of people live by. 326 327 328 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 329 330 a) Board of Adjustment 331 332 Larry Wright: We met with the attorneys. Protect Rural Orange wanted UNC to go through the special use 333 permit process so the Board of Adjustment did decide that. We met with just the attorneys and went through the 334 minutes and consolidated the findings. They were codified and submitted. 335 336 b) Orange Unified Transportation 337 338 Alan Campbell: We had new members added so it looks like we have some renewed energy and interest from 339 Commissioners. Basically we had a standard meeting and reviewed the progress of various road projects and our 340 own wish list of work items for the coming year. 341 342 343 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT 344 345 MOTION: made by Johnny Randall to adjourn. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 346 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 347 14 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Annandale at Creek W ood DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Preliminary Plat Application Package 2. Property and Vicinity Map Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 3. Staff Generated Correspondence 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis 5. Excerpt of Approved Minutes from the November 7, 2012 Planning Board Meeting PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.15 and Article 7 Subdivisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for the Annandale at Creek Wood project off of Whitfield Road. BACKGROUND: The Planning Board reviewed a Concept Plan for the subdivision at its November 7, 2012 regular meeting. Agenda materials for this meeting can be viewed utilizing the following link: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/NovPBPacket.pdf. Minutes from the meeting are contained within Attachment 5. Development Process, Schedule, and Action: In accordance with Section 2.15 of the UDO, the review of a major subdivision is as follows: • FIRST ACTION – Submission of a concept plan application containing a proposed layout for the project based on a ‘conventional’ and ‘flexible’ development option. STAFF COMMENT: As indicated at the November 7, 2012 Planning Board meeting a complete concept plan application was submitted. • SECOND ACTION – Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting to invite property owners within 500 feet of the subject property to view the proposal. STAFF COMMENT: Staff held the required meeting on October 15, 2012. • THIRD ACTION – The Planning Board shall review and make a recommendation on the Concept Plan Application making a decision on whether the proposed development should proceed as a ‘conventional’ or ‘flexible’ development. STAFF COMMENT: At its November 7, 2012 regular meeting the Board voted unanimously to approve the flexible development option for Annandale at Creek Wood. Per Section 2.15.2 (G) (3) of the UDO the applicant has two years, from 15 the date of Concept Plan approval, to prepare and file an application for Preliminary Plat approval. • FOURTH ACTION – Once a concept plan option is approved, the Planning Board reviews and makes a recommendation on the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the project. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will review the Preliminary Plat application at its March regular meeting. • FIFTH ACTION – The BOCC reviews and takes action on the Preliminary Plat application. • SIXTH ACTION – If approved, and once all construction activities have been completed or appropriate financial assurances have been approved, staff will sign off on a Final Plat, which will be recorded in the Orange County Registrar of Deeds Office. Proposal: The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Plat application for a subdivision consistent with the Planning Board’s action on the aforementioned Concept Plan proposing 11 single-family residential lots, each at least two acres in area, with an overall proposed density of one dwelling unit per every 3.31 acres of land area for the project. Roads: The applicant proposes the creation of two roads to serve the project, each constructed to NC Department of Transportation (DOT) public road standards. The applicant intends to turn these roads over to NC DOT for maintenance at a future date. Specifically, the proposal calls for: • Construction of two cul-de-sac roadways. The first, tentatively identified as Dumfries Lane, will provide access to lots 8 through 11. The second, tentatively identified as Lochwood Court, will provide access to lots 1 through 7. STAFF COMMENT: In reviewing the matter with NC DOT, staff has been informed there are no concerns over accepting the roads for maintenance so long as they are constructed to DOT standards. Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information. • Roads shall be located within a fifty-foot right-of-way and involve a 27-foot improved travel way and a 37-foot cul-de-sac radius that will include curb and gutter. These dimensions comply with NCDOT standards for residential subdivisions. STAFF COMMENT: At the November 7, 2012 Planning Board meeting, a board member suggested the applicant consider a 40 foot diameter rather that the depicted 35 foot diameter denoted on the Concept Plan for the proposed cul-de-sacs. The applicant revised the plans proposing a 37 foot diameter in the cul-de-sacs. • Access to Lot 7 will require a stream crossing. Both Planning and NC DOT staff discussed the viability of having a driveway off Whitfield Road to serve this lot and avoid a stream crossing. Unfortunately, it was determined direct access off Whitfield Road would create other issues and was not viable. STAFF COMMENT: The proposed crossing appears to be consistent with the provisions of Section 6.13 Stream Buffers of the UDO. Utilities – Water and Sewer: The applicant is proposing to serve the project with individual wells and septic systems on each lot. Sheet C3.0 of the preliminary plat denotes anticipated locations for well and septic sites for the lots. 16 STAFF COMMENT: Orange County Environmental Health has indicated preliminary approval for the proposed septic and well system locations. Stormwater Drainage: Drainage will be handled through a curb and gutter system located within the proposed road right-of-way. The property is subject to recently adopted stormwater management guidelines. The Preliminary Plat provides an assessment demonstrating the project will comply with established standards. As part of the proposed stormwater management system, the applicant has voluntarily reduced the maximum allowable impervious surface area for the entire project (i.e. roadways, driveways, and all buildings under roof) to 10.7% or 169,937 sq. ft., in order to comply with Section 6.14.7 Stormwater Management – Nutrient Load of the UDO. STAFF COMMENT: Orange County Erosion Control has indicated the project complies with applicable stormwater regulations. Please refer to Attachment 3 for additional information. Open Space: The plan denotes an open space area in and around an existing stream, totaling approximately 6.7 acres in area, and a 2.4 acre open space parcel to the west. The total area reserved as open space for the project is 529,144 square feet of land area or 12.16 acres (33.31%) of the subject parcel. Open space areas are composed of existing, mature, foliage and trees with an approximate height of between 50 to 70 feet. The Preliminary Plat denotes a pedestrian open space access (POSA) affording potential future connectivity to an adjacent property, owned by TLC, as well as a pedestrian footbridge through the open space over the existing stream. The project calls for an internal trail system connecting Dumfries Lane to Lockwood Court passing between Lots 9 and 10 and Lots 5 and 6 respectively. This internal trail system has not been designed as a POSA as the applicant is concerned over third party access and wishes to limit use of the aforementioned internal trail to residents of the project. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has determined the proposed open space meets the requirements of the UDO. Land Use Buffer: There will be a 75-foot buffer along Whitfield Road comprised of existing, dense, vegetation composed of existing, mature, foliage and trees with an approximate height of between 50 to 70 feet. The applicant is also proposing a 50 foot tree protection area along the perimeter of the project. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has determined the proposed land use buffer meets the requirements of the UDO. Additional Comments: Attachment 3 contains additional comments for this project, including: • An e-mail from David Sykes, Orange County Emergency Management, indicating there is an existing pond in the area to address fire suppression issues. • An e-mail from Jeff Scouten, Orange County Solid Waste, approving road layout and construction. 17 JPA Review: In accordance with the Joint Planning Area Agreement, this project was sent to the Town of Chapel Hill for review and comment on December 17, 2012. As of this date staff has not received any comments. Analysis: As required under Section 2.15.3 (C) (7) of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘submit a written analysis of the application and his/her recommendation’ on the preliminary plat to the Planning Board for consideration. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application has been deemed complete in the required form and quantity in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2 and 2.15.3 of the UDO. 2. All required auxiliary documents have been properly submitted and the application has been reviewed by the appropriate officials and agencies. 3. The application is compliant with all provisions of the UDO in regard to minimum lot size, impervious cover, density, open space percentage, roadway design, and land use buffers. 4. The proposal is consistent with the various goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan concerning development, including: a. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern, and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County’s population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. b. Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and community character. c. Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation system. 5. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the provisions and goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Attachment 4 provides a fiscal impact analysis for the project, as a whole, on County services. Staff has determined the project would not require augmentation of County budgetary outlays to support services and that anticipated revenues from property taxes should supplement increases in cost. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Preliminary Plat application for the Annandale at Creek Wood Subdivision, 2. Discuss the proposal, and 3. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jordan LakeUnprotected Watershed I 40 WI 40 E W H I T F I E L D R D I 40 W EXIT 266 N C 8 6 S I 40 E EXIT 266 N C 8 6 S RB CH 85.24ac. 38.07ac. 266.27ac. 563.83ac. 6.5ac. 3.01ac.2.67ac. 2.51ac. 1ac. 2.37ac. 1.58ac. 1.88ac. 22.61ac.6.5ac. 2.97ac. 2.06ac. 1.98ac. 0.84ac. 1.45ac. USGS Water Feature Soils Survey Water Feature OC Updated Water Feature Water Body River Basins Watershed Parcels Township School System Boundary Contours County Boundary Soils Zoning City Limits ETJ Conservation EasementsHeld by Others Orange CountyConservation Easements 100 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Floodway (Effective 02/02/07) 500 YR Floodplain (Effective 02/02/07) Buildings Water and Sewer Boundary · 0 240 480120Feet 1 inch = 300 feet Data shown on this map is obtained from Orange CountyGIS and is for reference only.Exact locations and boundaries should be verified.Map prepared by Orange County Planning & Inspections. PIN#: 9880281953CHARLES W ETAL JOHNSTONSUSAN J SELLERS30 KNOWLES RDWORCESTER, MA 016023260 Attachment 2 -- Vicinity Map Duke Forest Triangle Land Conservancy 32 February 25, 2013 SOIL/SITE Evaluation Summary for: Annandale at Creek Wood PIN: 9880281953 Map Date February 21, 2013 Lot # DESIGN FLOW SYSTEM TYPE 1 600 gpd Shallow Trench Conventional 2 600 gpd Conventional 3 600 gpd Shallow Trench Conventional 4 600 gpd Conventional 5 600 gpd Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional 6 600 gpd Ultra Shallow Trench Innovative 7 600 gpd Pump Conventional 8 480 gpd Innovative Trench 9 480 gpd Innovative Trench 10 600 gpd Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional 11 600 gpd Innovative Trench NOTES: The design flow is based upon the number of bedrooms applied for by the property owner or developer. The design flow for a bedroom is 120 gallons/day (gpd). (e.g. 600 gpd = 5 bedrooms) 33 Proposed house locations are provided by the property owner or developer as required by 15A NCAC 18A .1900 - .1970 (The Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems). The design flow, type system, and pump requirement are subject to change based upon the application and site plan or plat submitted for the Wastewater Construction Authorization. The blocked areas on the accompanying plat are the limits of the provisionally suitable soils as evaluated by the Orange County Health Department. It should be noted that all lots having a conventional-type drain field with pump are reviewed at a minimum of every five years by the health department as required by 15A NCAC 18A .1961 (Maintenance of Sewage Systems). Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 24 inches or more of provisionally suitable soil/site characteristics and a 6-10” soil cap is placed over the trenches. Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 30 inches or more of provisionally suitable soil/site characteristics. Conventional Trench Systems are placed in areas with 36” inches or more of provisionally suitable soil/site characteristics. Innovative Trench Systems can be used in areas with 24-36 “of provisionally suitable soil/site characteristics. The approved septic areas should be kept free of vehicular traffic, logging, grading, and compacting activities. It is the responsibility of the property owner or developer to maintain the integrity of the septic areas prior to system construction and installation. No parking, cutting or filling shall be allowed in or around the drain field areas. Drainage ways and easements should be utilized to convey storm water run-off to the storm water retention areas. These conveyances should not be located through designated septic drain field areas. This report is for planning purposes only and does not constitute any approval. Lot approval is granted by the health department only in the form of an Improvement Permit. Improvement Permits are issued once the lots are recorded and have received individual Parcel Identification Numbers. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 1 Michael Harvey From:Glenn Bowles Sent:Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:07 PM To:Michael Harvey Subject:FW: Annandale at Creek Wood Prelimin. Plat     From: Reynolds Ivins Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:56 AM To: Glenn Bowles Cc: Wesley Poole Subject: RE: Annandale at Creek Wood Prelimin. Plat   Looks fine. No additional comments. Ren Ivins  Erosion Control Supervisor  131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201  Hillsborough, NC 27278  wk 919 245-2586  Cell 919-883-7270 rivins@orangecountync.gov  From: Glenn Bowles Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:04 PM To: Reynolds Ivins Subject: Annandale at Creek Wood Prelimin. Plat     42 43 44 45 46 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 NOVEMBER 7, 2012 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Peter Hallenbeck (Vice-chair), Cheeks 7 Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township 8 Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township 9 Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; 10 Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, 15 Planner II; Perdita Holtz; Special Projects Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, 16 Administrative Assistant II 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Edward Yahner, Pat Yahner, Timothy McAvinney, Tom Heffner 19 20 HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING: PowerPoint Presentation for Item 7; Email from NCDOT District Engineer 21 22 23 Agenda Item 7: Major Subdivision Concept Plan - To review and make a decision on a major subdivision 24 concept plan application (Annandale at Creek Wood) Located off Whitfield Road. 25 Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II 26 27 Glenn Bowles: Reviewed abstract. 28 29 Michael Harvey: Reviewed Development Process, Schedule and Action on page 20. 30 31 Tom Heffner: I am Tom Heffner of Heffner Properties. I have been in the development business in Orange County 32 for about 30 years. I developed the Northfield of Creekwood and Woodkirk Subdivision on Highway 86. This 33 property belongs to an LLC, the heirs of Charles Johnston. . The Johnston Family has owned property in this area 34 since the 1750s. They were one of the original in Orange County to receive a land grant from King George II in 1752. 35 I was honored to develop Creekwood property and in conjunction we were able to set aside Johnston Mill Nature 36 Preserve with Triangle Land Conservancy. Some of the family had a desire to keep their land in Orange County. 37 Our goal, as developers, was to find a plan that made good use of the property as a residential development but also 38 was sensitive to the creek and existing wild life. We feel we have done that with the flexible concept plan we have 39 submitted. Drainage is an issue so I have Tim McAvinney from Earth Centric Engineers in Mebane. There are not 40 trails at this time but based on discussions there is some interest in developing the trail system. We have also 41 provided an internal easement. Earth Centric met with Chuck Edwards (District Engineer) in looking at those street 42 locations and DOT advised us that the locations are acceptable to them. We would like to have a lower posted 43 speed limit. 44 45 Alan Campbell: Do you have a homeowner’s association? 46 47 Tom Heffner: Yes. The HOA will be I charge of the open space. 48 49 Lisa Stuckey: It sounded like the folks advocating for a conventional plan were worried about septic field sufficiency. 50 51 Tom Heffner: That was the health department. The area set aside for the septic field is the same in both fields. The 52 health department’s view was the bigger the lot, the better. 53 54 Tony Blake: What is the typical size regarding bedrooms? 55 Excerpt of approved November 7, 2012 Planning Board minutes Attachment 5 47 56 Tom Heffner: Typically four not more than five bedrooms. There is a market-wide tendency for smaller houses. 57 These may be more in the 3,000 square foot range. 58 59 Tony Blake: Regarding lot 7, is that the only way the driveway can work? There is no flexibility if we approve the flex 60 plan. 61 62 Tom Heffner: The reason we chose that location is that was the gentlest part of the slope. We were trying to find a 63 potential crossing. 64 65 Tony Blake: If someone purchased lot 7, they couldn’t negotiate a DOT access? 66 67 Tom Heffner: No because that frontage would be in open space that was deeded to the homeowners association. 68 69 Peter Hallenbeck: I have one comment. The 35 foot diameter on the cul-de-sacs bothers me from a fire apparatus 70 point of view, fire trucks are 28-33 feet long and there is also a comment from the solid waste people that they were 71 concerned about that diameter for the trucks to pick up the trash, etc. A 40 foot cul-de-sac wouldn’t be much of a 72 change but it would make it much easier for the garbage collection and fire department turning around. 73 74 Tom Heffner: We will look at that. Our motivation was to try to reduce the amount of street there as much as we 75 could. 76 77 Lisa Stuckey: Have you thought about the noise from I-40? 78 79 Tom Heffner: The noise from I-40 at the front of the subdivision is loud. On this property when you get back into the 80 back, the noise is significantly less. It is a risk for a developer but it becomes a tradeoff, for some people it is a no 81 and others look at it as I am a minute from I-40. 82 83 Larry Wright: I am going to ask questions and make comments because this Board has not been through this. I 84 would like to commend you for adding up the acres per lot and getting them correct. I went through the numbers 85 where you have 33.7 and I came up with 38% of the roads and buffers and then calculated how much you said the 86 linear feet were of the roads which I think was 1,700 and 50 foot wide and I estimated that the roads and gutters 87 would be 3% of your total and that makes 38%. Are your buffers and woodlands part of your open space? 88 89 Tom Heffner: The buffers are not included in the open space. 90 91 Larry Wright: On these lots, what is the flood plane? 92 93 Tom Heffner: Part of our submittal package was the FEMA flood map for the area and there is no FEMA designated 94 flood plain there. 95 96 Glenn Bowles: That doesn’t mean it doesn’t flood, it hasn’t been mapped as a flood plain. 97 98 Larry Wright: Referenced Colonial Heights. 99 100 Tom Heffner: I think effectively Glenn was right. It is not currently mapped as a flood zone. I agree with you that 101 does not necessarily mean the area will not be inundated by flood waters. All the lots are at a significantly higher 102 elevation so there should not be a problem. 103 104 Peter Hallenbeck: Are these two or four foot contours. 105 106 Tom Heffner: Those are two. 107 108 Larry Wright: This would include the house with the driveway across the street? 109 110 48 Glenn Bowles: At least 10 foot above what you expect a flood to occur here. 111 112 Tony Blake: Where does the water flow from? 113 114 Tom Heffner: Chapel Hill North, Timberlyne drains a tremendous across on the southern side of I-40. 115 116 Tim McAvinney: Over 100 acres. 117 118 Tom Heffner: You are draining south to the north. 119 120 Peter Hallenbeck: It is only 100 acres? 121 122 Tom Heffner: Approximately 150 with ours. 123 124 Larry Wright: If we go with the flexible development, I noticed in the plan, that driveway goes into …. right angles to 125 the streambed and I would encourage you to maintain that if we go with that plan. 126 127 Tim McAvinney: The Orange County Erosion Control will look very closely at that. 128 129 Larry Wright: When you talk to DOT about the speed limit, maybe we could discuss the option with DOT. 130 131 Tim McAvinney: More road area and turning lanes sometimes encourages people when they have more space to go 132 faster. 133 134 Maxecine Mitchell: I am glad you decided to take that driveway into the cul-de-sac because that would be a concern. 135 136 Larry Wright: The gutters and curbs where does that water eventually flow? 137 138 Tom Heffner: It will eventually flow into the stream. 139 140 Maxecine Mitchell: Where will the school bus stop be? 141 142 Tom Heffner: The school will typically determine the stop. 143 144 Motion made by Alan Campbell to make a recommendation that the applicant proceed with the flexible concept plan. 145 Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 146 Vote: Unanimous 147 148 49 50 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 8 SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments – Modification of Site Plan Submittal Requirements DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline Form (UDO/Zoning 2012-016) 2. UDO Amendment Package INFORMATIONAL: 3. Map of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts and Explanation/Regulations Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 Reynolds Ivins, Erosion Control (919) 245-2586 Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a Planning Director initiated text amendment(s) to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in regards to the submission of formal, professionally prepared, site plans. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing. As indicated during the hearing these amendments seek to clarify existing language within the UDO denoting when a formal site plan is required and add language requiring formal site plan submittal in those instances where proposed land disturbance exceeds established stormwater management thresholds. Comments made during the hearing, and staff responses, are in Section C.1 (b) of Attachment 1. Attachment 2 contains the proposed amendments with additions shown in red text and proposed deletions are shown in red strikethrough text as well as footnotes documenting the rationale for the proposed modification. During the hearing staff identified 3 options with respect to addressing existing regulations contained in Section 2.4.1 requiring the submittal of a professionally prepared site plan for properties located within the University Lake Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. These options are: A. Leave section as is (i.e. only properties in the University Lake Watershed impacted) and include language referencing the need for a professionally site plan when stormwater land disturbance thresholds are exceeded. B. Amend section as originally suggested by staff, and as currently contained in Attachment 2, requiring all watershed overlay districts with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same (i.e. require professional site plan regardless of the amount of land disturbance). This option also involves including language referencing the need for a site plan when stormwater land disturbance thresholds are exceeded. C. Eliminate requirement all together and only require professionally prepared site plans when stormwater land disturbance thresholds are exceeded. 51 As requested during the hearing staff will be soliciting input from OWASA on this matter and provide the information to the Planning Board. Staff has taken the liberty to provide additional information on our watershed management program, Attachment 3, in an effort to address some of the comments from the hearing. Staff will reiterate, however, development standards associated with the Watershed Protection Overlay Districts are not being changed as part of this amendment package. All staff is attempting to do is modify existing language within the UDO to either expand the list of watershed overlay districts, specifically those with a 6% impervious surface limit (i.e. Upper Eno Critical, Cane Creek Protected and Critical, Little River Protected) where property owners are required to submit a professionally prepared site plan as part of a development application regardless of the proposed amount of land disturbance or eliminate the requirement altogether and base the submission of a professionally prepared site plan on existing stormwater land disturbance thresholds. Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed text amendments based on the following: a. Staff is in favor of option C, as detailed above, with respect to basing the need for a professionally prepared site plan on stormwater management standards rather than on the impervious surface limit of a particular watershed overlay district. If, however, it is a choice between option(s) A and B, staff would recommend option B and encourage all watershed overlay districts with a 6% impervious surface limit be treated the same. b. The amendments eliminate existing inconsistencies and provide additional clarification on the submission of professionally prepared site plans. c. The amendments provide reference to recently adopted stormwater management standards, and d. The amendments are consistent with the overall intent of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. For additional information please refer to Section B.1 and 2 in Attachment 1. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments; 2. Consider the new information supplied since the public hearing and the Planning Director’s recommendation to approve the UDO amendments contained in Attachment 2; and, 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed amendments in time for the May 7, 2013 BOCC meeting. 52 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENTOUTLINE UDO / Zoning-2012-016 Amendment(s) requiring submittal of formal site plans and stormwater management plans for residential and non-residential projects A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments Land Use Element Map: From: --- To: --- Zoning Map: From:- -- To:--- Other: Text Amendments Comprehensive Plan Text: Section(s): UDO Text: UDO General Text Changes UDO Development Standards UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): 1. Section 2.4.1 Zoning Compliance Permits – Applicability 2. Section 2.5.2 Application Requirements 3. Section 7.6.3 Land Suitability Other: B. RATIONALE 1. Purpose/Mission In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has initiated a text amendment to modify existing language requiring the submittal of formal stormwater plans as part of subdivision and development applications. Attachment 1 53 2 The State recently implemented stormwater management and nutrient reduction strategies. As part of these strategies, the County recently modified existing regulations mandating the preparation and submittal of formal, engineered, stormwater management plans as part of any development project where proposed land disturbance reached the following thresholds: Watershed/River Basin Stormwater – Non- residential Stormwater – Residential Cape Fear (includes the Back Creek, Haw River, Cane Creek, Jordan Lake, and University Lake protected and critical watershed overlay districts as well as those properties within the basin not located in a watershed overlay district). Projects proposing over 21,780 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. Projects proposing over 43,560 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. Neuse (includes Flat River, Little River, Upper and Lower Eno protected and critical watershed overlay districts as well as those properties within the basin not located in a watershed overlay district). Projects proposing over 12,000 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. Projects proposing over 21,780 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. Roanoke (includes South Hyco Creek protected watershed overlay district). Projects proposing over 20,000 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. Projects proposing over 43,560 square feet of disturbance are required to submit a stormwater management plan. These changes were incorporated into the UDO on April 17, 2012. The agenda packet for this meeting can be found utilizing the following link: http://orangecountync.gov/OCCLERKS/120417.htm Currently there are conflicting requirements within the UDO detailing when a formal, professionally prepared, site plan is required. For example Section 2.4.1 requires a professionally prepared site plan for single-family developments on property located within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Overlay Districts. Section 2.5.2, the section of the UDO addressing site plan application requirements, specifically exempt single-family development projects from submitting a professionally prepared site plan. Problems also arise in those instances where a project’s proposed overall land disturbance requires submission of a formal stormwater management plan. 54 3 Staff does not want there to be conflicting information provided to the public as to when a formal site plan is required nor do we want the staff of Current Planning and Erosion Control to potentially be looking at 2 different sets of plans proposing the development of a given property. This proposed amendment is designed to: 1. Require formally prepared site plans for those projects exceeding established stormwater disturbance thresholds for residential projects. Submittal of formal site plans is already required for all non-residential projects regardless of the proposed land disturbance activity. 2. Incorporate references within various locations of the UDO identifying which land development projects need to comply with these standards in an effort to eliminate confusion and provide definitive application submittal standards. 3. Add language requiring stormwater management plans for minor and major subdivisions where anticipated land disturbance activities would exceed established thresholds. Both Planning and Erosion Control staff agree potential problems can be eliminated if there is a formal stormwater management plan approved during the subdivision review and approval process. 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. The proposed amendment is designed to incorporate established stormwater management land disturbance thresholds into existing language within the UDO requiring formal site plan preparation and submittal by an applicant when said thresholds are exceeded. By modifying existing language we hope to eliminate unnecessary cost for the applicant, with respect to the completion of multiple site plans, and provide sufficient detail to residents, property owners, and developers on when formal site plan preparation is necessary. The amendment is also designed to provide a ‘central site plan’ for review to ensure staff is reviewing and taking action on the same document to avoid confusion and unnecessary duplication of effort. 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) This amendment is designed to provide additional references to existing development standards already contained within the UDO. 4. New Statutes and Rules This amendment is designed to reference compliance with recently adopted 55 4 modifications to the UDO related to stormwater management and nutrient reduction standards consistent with the following State regulations: • 15A NCAC 2B. 0277 Falls Lake Stormwater New Development Rule • 15A NCAC 2B. 0265 and Session Law 2009-484 Jordan Lake Stormwater New Development Rules C. PROCESS 1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed November 8, 2012. The BOCC voted unanimously to authorize staff to proceed with the amendment. Board members also requested staff present the proposed amendment to the Commission for the Environment (CFE) for its input. Staff presented this item to the CFE at its January 14, 2013 regular meeting. The CFE had no comments or concerns related to the proposal. b. Quarterly Public Hearing February 25, 2013. During the hearing the following comments were made: 1. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify the difference between impervious surface and land disturbance limits. STAFF COMMENT: Land disturbance limits identify the total amount of land area that can be disturbed/cleared without the benefit of a formal erosion control or stormwater management plan being approved by the County. Impervious surface limits establish the overall limit of ‘development’ that can occur on a given parcel (i.e. driveway, house, shed, etc.) based on its designated Watershed Protection Overlay District. You can disturb more land area than you can actually develop. Ultimately both regulations are an attempt by the County to address water quality issues through limiting the overall amount of ‘impervious’ surface placed on a parcel and requiring stormwater management devices in those cases where they are necessary. 2. A BOCC member expressed concern over the potential for increased costs to be incurred by property owners seeking to develop single-family residences with the submittal of professionally prepared site plan. 3. A BOCC member indicated she did not want existing regulations, specifically the requirement of a professionally prepared site plan for development within the University Protected and Critical Watershed Overlay districts, to change. STAFF COMMENT: Staff reiterated the amendment would not alter development limitations (i.e. impervious surface limits) within 56 5 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. The only potential impact of the proposed amendment would be an expansion, or elimination, of the requirement for a professionally prepared site plan in watershed areas within an impervious surface limit of 6% depending on which course of action if chosen. As written, the amendment package would still require a professionally prepared site plan if established stormwater management land disturbance thresholds were exceeded. 4. There was a general concern the proposal would allow for an increase in development opportunity within the various watershed districts. STAFF COMMENT: The proposal would not impact existing impervious surface limits in any Watershed Protection Overlay District. The text amendment merely seeks to clarify when a professionally prepared site plan is required and does not increase allowable impervious surface area throughout the County. 5. There was a general comment made over the need to have uniformity within the UDO with respect to when a professionally prepared site plan would be required. A BOCC member indicated he felt requiring a professionally prepared site plan when land disturbance thresholds, consistent with existing stormwater management standards, were exceeded was a reasonable standard versus basing the submission on impervious surface limits. 6. A Planning Board member asked why the Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay District was not included within staff’s recommendation for the submission of a professionally prepared site plan. STAFF COMMENT: The Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay District has an impervious surface limit of 24%. Staff’s proposal seeks to amend the UDO to require overlay districts with a 6% impervious surface limit to submit a professionally prepared site plan. 7. A BOCC member indicated he felt there ought to be a reevaluation of impervious surface limits within respect to any watershed feeding into a public water intake for local residents. The concern was the County was treating certain water supply watersheds differently from others, specifically focusing on the Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay District which serves as a public water source for Chatham County residents. STAFF COMMENT: This can be undertaken at some point in the future if the BOCC directs staff to do so. It should be remembered that any such review will need to take existing State requirements into account. 8. A BOCC member asked staff to consider modifying provisions of Section 57 6 2.4.1 to include additional rationale for the submission of a universal site plan into the proposed text. This BOCC member indicated she felt language within a footnote ought to be incorporated to provide additional ‘explanation’ on the need for the amendment. STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not believe additional modification is necessary. When the UDO was developed there was a conscious effort to eliminate explanatory language in an effort to streamline existing regulations and condense existing land use regulations. The UDO is not intended to serve as a technical manual providing detailed insight into every ‘standard’ associated with a given development. It is, ultimately, staff’s responsibility to educate local residents and developers with respect to the rationale behind a given regulation. Unless specifically directed by the BOCC to begin re-inserting explanatory language, staff recommends keeping the language regulatory in nature. 9. While there was no formal consensus, a few BOCC members favored leaving language within the UDO requiring submission of a professionally prepared site plan for property located only within the University Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District. Other BOCC members expressed support for eliminating the requirement altogether and basing the need for a formal site plan on established land disturbance thresholds for stormwater management plans. 10. Staff was directed to solicit comments on the proposal from OWASA to ascertain if they have any concerns. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will contact OWASA as requested. c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints January 9, 2013 - BOCC members can view materials to be reviewed by the Planning Board’s Ordinance Advisory Committee (ORC) as part of the Planning Board materials posted on-line each month. Packet materials can be viewed utilizing the following link: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/documents/PBPacketJan2013.p df February 5, 2013 – BOCC members approved the legal advertisement for the February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing with this item on the agenda. May 7, 2013 - Receive Planning Board recommendation. d. Other 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and 58 7 Orange County ordinance requirements. a. Planning Board Review: January 9, 2013 – Ordinance Review Committee (ORC). A Planning Board member identified a punctuation error in Section 2.4.1 of the proposed amendment. An error was also identified within the site plan flow chart contained in Section 2.5.2. Staff has modified the proposal accordingly. There was also a general discussion over staff’s recommendation to modify Section 2.4.1 expanding the list of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts requiring a professionally prepared site plan allowing for development. Staff agreed to solicit guidance from the BOCC at the public hearing. March 6, 2013 – April 3, 2013 (recommendation) b. Advisory Boards: Commission for the Environment (CFE) – January 14, 2013. The CFE had no comments related to the proposed amendment. c. Local Government Review: Courtesy Review – Town(s) of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, City of Mebane in November of 2012. As of this date no comments have been received. At the February 25, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing staff was directed to solicit input from OWASA on the proposed text amendment. d. Notice Requirements Legal advertisement was published on February 13 and 20, 2013. e. Outreach: 3. FISCAL IMPACT While these proposed amendments are merely designed to incorporate necessary references with respect to complying with established thresholds, and requiring the submission of formal site plans in the event a stormwater management plan is General Public: Small Area Plan Workgroup: Other: 59 8 required, staff had previously identified compliance with these new State required standards will impose additional costs for development projects and require additional staff resources. Workload for Current Planning and Erosion Control staff to review and approve stormwater management plans required by the rules is expected to increase. Workload for staff with respect to the inspection of stormwater management features is also expected to increase. This may necessitate an increase in fees charged to developers. As reported at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing, it is expected that enforcement of the new regulations will require, at a minimum, up to one additional full time employee for Erosion Control with an approximate cost of $65,000. Staff is continuing to evaluate workload and needs as the process moves forward. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS The amendments are in response to recent modifications to the UDO relating to compliance with stormwater and nutrient management requirements and staff’s desire to ensure proper reference for compliance with these aforementioned new standards. As previously indicated by staff, compliance with these required standards is expected to increase the cost of development and increase staff workload. E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Please refer to Attachment 2. Primary Staff Contact: Michael D. Harvey Planning (919) 245-2597 mharvey@orangecountync.gov 60 UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES: The following packet details staff’s proposed modifications to existing regulations governing the submittal of professionally prepared site plans for projects requiring stormwater plan approval. These amendments are based modifications to the UDO, approved on April 17, 2012, incorporating State stormwater management and nutrient reduction standards into County regulations. The intent of the proposal is to incorporate appropriate references to these new development standards to avoid the submission of multiple site plans adding to the overall cost of a development project and creating confusion for the property owner/developer. As the number of affected pages/sections of the existing UDO are being modified with this proposal staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded classifications: • Red Underlined Text: Denotes new, proposed text, that staff is suggesting be added to the UDO • Red Underlined Bold Text: Denotes new, proposed text, added to address peer or advisory board comments • Red Strikethrough Text: Denotes existing text that staff is proposing to delete Staff has included footnotes within the amendment package to provide additional information/rationale concerning the proposed amendments to aid in your review. Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modification(s) have been included within this packet. Some text on the following pages has a large “X” through it to denote that these sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment or footnotes from previous sections ‘spill over’ onto the included page. Text with a large “X” is not proposed for deletion. Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not necessarily correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because adding text may shift all of the text/sections downward. Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available online at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Ordinances.asp ATTACHMENT 2 61 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.4: Zoning Compliance Permits Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-7 (D) Amendments initiated by Orange County shall not be subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of County Commissioners during the public hearing process. (E) Evidence not presented at the public hearing may be submitted in writing to the Planning Board for consideration prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Board may consider additional oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. 2.3.11 Action by Board of County Commissioners (A) The Board of County Commissioners shall not consider enactment of the proposed amendment until the Planning Board either makes its recommendation or takes no action on the application as prescribed in this section. (B) In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the public hearing and any submitted written evidence that was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. (C) The Board of Commissioners, upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof from the Planning Board, shall consider such recommendations and adopt them by resolution, either unchanged or with modifications. SECTION 2.4: ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMITS 2.4.1 Applicability (A) As required by this Ordinance, a Zoning Compliance Permit must be issued before any new site development, building, structure, or vehicular use area may be erected, constructed or used. (B) Submittal and approval of a site plan (see Section 2.5) is required for issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit except for: (1) Single-family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to those residential uses provided, however, when such uses are located in thedeveloped on property located outside of the Upper Eno Critical, Little River Protected, University Lake and Cane Creek Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. In these instances a Plot Plan, as detailed within Section 2.4.3 of this Ordinance, shall be required., site plan approval shall be required.1 (a) Single-family detached dwellings and duplexes outside of the University Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District and accessory structures to those residential uses shall be required to submit a Plot Plan (see Section 2.4.3 for Plot Plan specifications). In those instances where the proposed level of land disturbance exceeds established thresholds detailed within Section 6.14.5 of the Ordinance a formal site plan, prepared in accordance with Section 2.5, shall be required for submittal and approval regardless of the proposed land use or Watershed Protection 1 The existing wording of the UDO has created confusion in the past over when a site plan is required. We have streamlined existing language in an attempt to eliminate confusion and specifically spell out when a plot plan versus a site plan is actually required. Staff is also proposing to add language requiring formal site plans in other Watershed Protection Overlay Districts having similar characteristics to the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts in order to establish greater uniformity within the Ordinance. Specifically staff is modifying the UDO to require a formal site plan in those overlay districts where a 6% impervious surface limit in enforced. There will need to be discussion on this item as there are implications to expanding the list, most notably more property owners will be required to secure a professionally prepared site plan than ever before. The BOCC may wish to revise this section in its entirety to limit submittal of site plans in those instances where formal stormwater management plans are required. 62 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.4: Zoning Compliance Permits Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-8 Overlay District designation of the subject property.2 This site plan may contain all required elements associated with obtaining a Zoning Compliance, Erosion Control, and Stormwater permit as detailed herein,3 (2) Interior renovation or repair of an existing structure, provided the use of the lot and/or structure has not changed. (C) Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit is required prior to beginning the excavation for the construction, moving, alteration, or repair, except ordinary repairs, of any building or other structure, including an accessory structure. The Zoning Compliance Permit shall include a determination that plans, specifications and the intended use of the structure conforms to the provisions of this Ordinance. (D) Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit is required to change the type of use or type of occupancy of any building, or to expand any use on any lot on which there is a non- conforming use. The Zoning Compliance Permit shall include a determination that the proposed use conforms to the provisions of this Ordinance. 2.4.2 Requirements and Conditions (A) In cases where the development and/or commencement of a land use requires the issuance of a Special Use or a Conditional Use Permit, a Zoning Compliance Permit shall not be issued until the aforementioned permit has been issued by the responsible board in accordance with the review and approval procedures detailed herein. (B) Issuance of a Special Use or Conditional Use Permit does not negate the requirement for a Zoning Compliance Permit. (C) Issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit does not establish a vested right to begin and complete construction or change the use/occupancy of a lot or building should regulations change subsequent to issuance of said permit. (D) Application for Zoning Compliance Permit shall specify the method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted activity. Open burning of trees, limbs, stumps, and/or construction debris associated with the permitted activity is expressly prohibited. (E) No building, structure, or zoning lot for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been issued shall be used or occupied until the Building Inspector has, after final inspection, issued a Certificate of Occupancy indicating compliance with all the provisions of this Ordinance. (F) No building, structure, or zoning lot for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been issued shall be used or occupied until the Orange County Health Department has approved the water supply and sewage disposal systems serving that use. 2 There is an existing disconnect between permit submittal requirements for a Zoning Compliance Permit and a Stormwater management plan. Staff of Current Planning and Erosion Control could, essentially, be looking at 2 different proposals as there is not an appropriate reference to the stormwater permitting requirement in this section of the UDO. There is also a disconnect with respect to the required level of site plan detail (i.e. professionally prepared versus scaled plot plan) to obtain a land disturbing permit. Staff is proposing to add language requiring a formal site plan, completed by a land surveyor or engineer, in all instances where proposed land disturbance thresholds require the development of a formal stormwater plan. The hope here is we will avoid the duplication of submittal information and ensure all County review agencies are utilizing and reviewing the same development proposal to avoid unnecessary confusion and error. 3 The red bold text was added to address comments from the January 9, 2013 ORC meeting where members wanted some language encouraging the submittal of a single site plan complying with all zoning and erosion control/stormwater permit requirements. 63 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.5: Site Plan Review Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-9 (G) Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Official or the approval of a water supply and sewage disposal system by the Health Department shall in no case be construed as waiving any provision of this Ordinance. (H) Zoning Compliance Permits shall become null and void after 18 months from the date of issuance if a building permit is not applied for or land disturbing activities are not commenced in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 2.4.3 Plot Plan Specifications (A) For development types requiring a plot plan rather than a site plan, the plot plan shall contain the following: (1) A scaled drawing denoting the length of all property lines, (2) A north arrow denoting the orientation of the lot and all proposed structures, (3) The location of the proposed structure(s) and distances from all property lines, (4) The location of the proposed driveway, (5) The location of the proposed septic system and proposed drain lines on the property, (6) The location of the proposed well, and (7) The location of any protected features on the property (i.e. stream buffers, flood plain, wetlands, etc). (B) Base plot plans are available from the Planning Department and can be printed for a fee in accordance with the established fee schedule. Applicants may also use other sources of base plot plans provided the requirements of this Section are met. (1) Planning staff is available to discuss compliance matters but shall not complete plot plans. SECTION 2.5: SITE PLAN REVIEW 2.5.1 Review and Approval Flow Chart The review and approval process for a Site Plan is shown in the procedure’s flowchart. 4 2.5.2 Application Requirements 4 At the January 9, 2013 ORC meeting Planning Board members expressed concern over duplication of language within the flow chart. The language is being deleted. Planning Director Review and Final Decision: Approval, Approval with Conditions, or Denial [1] [1] If Plan is approved with conditions, no zoning permit authorization or building permit issued until conditions satisfied Completed Application Distributed to Applicable Agencies, Development Advisory Committee, and Other Departments for Review Planning Director Review and Final Decision: Approval, Approval with Conditions, or Denial Determination of Completeness By Planning Director Site Plan Application Submittal 64 Article 2: Procedures Section 2.5: Site Plan Review Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 2-10 (A) Each site plan shall be prepared and sealed by an appropriately licensed professional with the following exceptions: (1) Proposed additions to existing permitted non-residential structures where the use of the structure and lot has not changed and the floor area is not increased more than 25%. (2) Accessory structures to existing permitted non-residential structures where vehicular use area is not extended and changes to existing grade are not more than one foot in elevation. (3) Single-family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to such uses. 5 (4)(3) Large day care homes, as defined in Article 10, Definitions. (5)(4) Rural Guest Establishments with three guestrooms or less - Bed & Breakfasts. (B) The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Inspections Department: (1) Three copies of the site plan prepared in accordance with the provisions detailed in this Section. Additional copies may be required depending on the nature and location of the proposed development);. (2) The completed site plan application form; (3) A copy of the Orange County tax map with the subject property identified; (4) Legal documentation, to be approved by the County Attorney, establishing entities responsible for control over common areas and facilities. (5) Three copies of the Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement, if required under Section 6.16 of this Ordinance. (6) A statement regarding the method of disposal of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris associated with the permitted activity. Open burning of trees, limbs, stumps, and/or construction debris associated with the permitted activity is expressly prohibited. (C) Other items which should be submitted simultaneously, but are not required as part of the site plan application are: (1) Erosion control and grading plans as necessary to be approved by the Erosion Control Officer for a grading permit, (1)(2) Stormwater management plans as necessary to be approved by the Erosion Control Officer prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and (2)(3) Building construction plans to be approved by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. 2.5.3 Plan Specifications Each site plan shall be drawn at a scale adequate to show required detail and shall contain the following information: (A) The boundary of the lot(s) to be developed labeled with bearings and distances; (B) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant and the property owner; (C) Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation, and subsequent revision dates; (D) Zoning of the property to be developed and all adjacent zoning and existing adjacent land uses; 5 Staff is eliminating contradictory language within this section of the UDO. 65 Article 7: Subdivisions Section 7.5: Subdivision Agreements Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-7 (2) The estimated cost of the required improvements must be itemized and certified by the applicant’s licensed professional engineer or licensed professional surveyor, if the surveyor was the original preparer of the plans for the subdivision. (3) In the case of minor subdivisions, the subdivider’s licensed professional engineer or licensed professional surveyor may provide the itemized cost estimate. (4) Cost estimates must be based on industry norms within Orange County. (5) The Planning Director or Planning Board may require a higher guarantee amount when deemed necessary to address higher potential correction costs due to the subdivision’s size and site characteristics, but in no event may the amount exceed 25% of estimated construction costs. (E) The guarantee shall have a term of two years and shall provide an option for annual renewal if the subdivider/developer has: (1) Arranged for County inspection of the improvements, (2) Submitted to the County an acceptable estimate of the costs necessary to correct any deterioration or defects discovered by the inspection, and (3) Increased the amount of the security by the amount of said estimate. (F) The subdivider/developer shall pay a fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of the initial posting of the guarantee and for each subsequent renewal or extension to cover the County’s administrative costs. SECTION 7.5: SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS (A) The subdivider of all minor and major subdivisions shall record a subdivision agreement outlining the limitations associated with the development of created lots at the Orange County Register of Deeds at the same time the Final Plat is recorded. (B) The purpose of the subdivision agreement is to provide detail on various development limitations that will regulate the overall development of property consistent with the approval of the subdivision. (C) This subdivision agreement shall, at a minimum, outline the following development criteria for property within the subdivision: (1) Required development setbacks for lots within the project. (2) Impervious surface limits for the lots within the development. (3) The presence of identified environmental features (i.e. stream buffers, flood plain, wetlands, etc) and an explanation on how development of the lot(s) is impacted. (4) The presence of identified cultural features listed by the North Carolina Heritage Program, or identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". (5) Identification of soil and septic limitations, if any, for each lot. (6) Access restrictions for the project and individual lots. (7) Limitations on land uses. (8) Maintenance requirements for all roadways as well as references to the project’s road maintenance agreement, if required. SECTION 7.6: GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS The avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the creation of conditions essential to public health, safety and the general welfare may be best accomplished through the application of design standards 66 Article 7: Subdivisions Section 7.6: General Design Standards Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-8 providing for the distribution of population and traffic, safe and coordinated street systems, approved water supply and sewage disposal systems, usable lots and conformance to plans for Orange County as recommended by the Planning Board and adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The following general requirements and principles of land subdivision shall be observed: 7.6.1 Minimum Lot Size (A) All lots shall contain the minimum lot area required by Article 3 of this Ordinance and shall comply with all applicable development standards. (B) Any lot which provides an easement for individual septic disposal for use by a separate lot shall contain an additional 20,000 square feet to accommodate the septic easement. 7.6.2 Residential Density The allowable density on a given parcel of property proposed for subdivision shall comply with the residential maximum density requirements in Section 4.2.4. 7.6.3 Land Suitability (A) In reviewing subdivision proposals, the Planning Department and Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the subdivision with the suitability of the land for development to insure that the platting and development of the subdivision will not create a danger to the health, safety, and welfare of Orange County residents. (B) Land suitability shall be determined by an investigation of conditions including but not limited to flood prone areas, soil drainage, drainage patterns, slope, historic sites, maximum anticipated levels of land disturbance for the project and all proposed individual lots, and unique natural areas. The investigations shall be carried out by the Planning Board, the Planning Department, or other agencies or individuals having the appropriate technical expertise. (C) Special Flood Hazard Areas shall be considered during the review process. (D) Soils shall be evaluated for suitability or provisional suitability for septic tanks according to guidelines established in the Laws and Rules for Ground Absorption Sewage Disposal Systems, incorporated herein by reference. (1) Each lot that does not contain a suitable building site shall be designated on the plat as being of restricted development potential and by instrument recorded in the Orange County registry as specifically prescribed by Section 7.14.3(E)(1) of this Ordinance. (E) Drainage (1) Soil suitability, including slope and drainage, shall also be evaluated according to soil characteristics indicated by the Orange County Soil Survey and topography indicated by the U.S. Geological Topographic Maps. (2) Each lot shall contain a suitable building area safe from inundation and erosion. (3) Sanitary sewer systems, septic tank drainfields, water systems, wells, and adjacent properties shall be protected from inundation by surface water. (4) Roads, driveways and utilities shall be protected from damage caused by improper stormwater management. (5) Mechanical devices, drainage easements, natural buffers, large lots, and/or other technical means may be used to achieve these drainage objectives. Natural drainageways are a preferred means of stormwater run-off removal. The characteristics (including capacity) of natural drainageways shall be protected. (6) Runoff levels from the 25-year storm after the site is developed shall not be greater than the rate of runoff on the same site in its natural state. 67 Article 7: Subdivisions Section 7.7: Lots Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 7-9 (7) In cases where anticipated land disturbance for the subdivision and the proposed lots will cumulatively exceed established thresholds denoted within Section 6.14.5 of this Ordinance, a formal stormwater management plan shall be required as part of the application submittal.6 (F) Resource Protection (1) Applications for subdivision shall be evaluated by the Planning Department and Planning Board for potential impairment of habitat of rare and endangered species or unique natural areas. (2) A strategy shall be developed to protect resources listed by the North Carolina Heritage Program, or identified in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or "Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina". (a) The strategy shall provide protection of identified natural and cultural resources from impacts which could result from development of the subdivision, and shall include one or more of the following: (i) Dedication of conservation easements, (ii) Restrictive covenants prohibiting clearing or disturbance of the resource areas, (iii) Dedication of resource areas to Orange County, (iv) Clustering of lots to minimize land disturbance and preserve the special features of the property, (v) Other restrictions or development options which provide an adequate level of protection. (3) The Planning Department shall review available documentation of the particular site and determine if the proposed strategy adequately protects the identified resources. (4) Maps, studies, and reports which are relevant to this section shall be maintained by the Planning Department. SECTION 7.7: LOTS 7.7.1 Generally All lots shall conform to all of the requirements of this Ordinance for the zoning district and any overlay district in which they are located. 7.7.2 Shape and Orientation (A) The shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate to the location of the subdivision and the development intended. (B) Interior lot lines extending from a street should be approximately perpendicular or radial to the street right of way line. (C) Lot lines shall be located to permit efficient installation and maintenance of utility lines on utility easements, to maximize buildable area, and, where applicable, to provide a suitable area for septic systems. 6 Staff would prefer comprehensive stormwater management plans rather than multiple plans, multiple systems, on individual lots that all have to be inspected by Erosion Control on a semi annual basis and maintained by individual property owners. Through this process staff is hoping to encourage neighborhood wide stormwater management plans to avoid unnecessary development and maintenance costs on individual property owners and encourage a comprehensive approach to stormwater and nutrient management. 68 69 70 71 ?k ?ª ?ª Aæ ?r I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"_$ !"c$ ?o Ir Ir KÊ Roanoke River Basin NeuseRiver Basin Cape FearRiver Basin HycoCreek South HycoCreek Flat River Little River Upper Eno BackCreek HawCreek Lower Eno(unprotected)Lower Eno(protected) Cane Creek Jordan Lake(unprotected) JordanLake(protected) UniversityLakeHaw River(unprotected) Haw River(protected) UpperEno Critical Area CaneCreekCriticalArea UniversityLakeCriticalArea Text West Forkon the EnoReservoirNPE 643' Lake OrangeNPE 615' Cane CreekReservoirNPE 500' UniversityLakeNPE 349' Seven Mile CreekNPE 581' Lake Ben JohnstonNPE 515' Corporation LakeNPE 538' Orange County Watersheds 01234Miles 1 inch = 2.75 miles Orange County Planning & Inspections DepartmentGIS map prepared by Miriam Coleman Projection: State PlaneDatum: North American 1983Watersheds/Critical Areas/Basins Data: November, 2005 Revision Note: This watershed map replaces previous versions. Reference: Orange County Zoning Ordinance UECA revision adopted June 1, 2010 · 2/26/2013 Legend Water Supply Watersheds: Protected Unprotected Critical River Basin Boundary Watersheds Streams Municipal Jurisdiction 72 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 9 SUBJECT: Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text: Revise Section 1.6.5 – (Planning Board) Rules of Procedure DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Comprehensive Plan/Future Land Use Map and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline Form (UDO/Zoning-2013-02) 2. Amendment Packet Perdita Holtz, 919-245-2578 Craig Benedict, 919-245-2592 PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to revise Section 1.6.5 – (Planning Board) Rules of Procedure to be consistent with current County processes and procedures. BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners adopted a general advisory board policy document in 2012 and policies and procedures for the Planning Board in November 2012. This was part of an effort to standardize operations of the numerous boards which advise the BOCC. Because the UDO has a specific section relating to the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure, the section needs to be updated in order to be consistent with current County processes and procedures. Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis on these amendments and Attachment 2 contains the proposed amendments in a “track changes” format (red text for proposed additions and red strikethrough for proposed deletions). Public Hearing The proposed UDO amendments were heard at the February 25, 2013 joint public hearing. No members of the public spoke on the proposed UDO amendments and no questions were asked. Procedural Information In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board’s recommendation and any submitted written comments. 73 Planning Director’s Recommendation The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed UDO amendments based on the following: • These amendments are necessary in order to ensure that County policy documents and regulations are consistent with one another. FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed UDO amendments; 2. Consider the Planning Director’s recommendation to approve the UDO amendments contained in Attachment 2; and, 3. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on the proposed UDO text amendments in time for the April 9, 2013 BOCC meeting. 74 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENTOUTLINE UDO / Zoning-2013-02 Amendment to revise Section 1.6.5 – (Planning Board) Rules of Procedure A. AMENDMENT TYPE Map Amendments Land Use Element Map: From: --- To: --- Zoning Map: From:- -- To:--- Other: Text Amendments Comprehensive Plan Text: Section(s): UDO Text: UDO General Text Changes UDO Development Standards UDO Development Approval Processes Section(s): 1.6.5 Other: B. RATIONALE 1. Purpose/Mission In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has initiated text amendments to change the section of the UDO pertaining to the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure. The change is necessary to reflect the general advisory board policy document and the specific Planning Board policies and Attachment 1 75 2 procedures recently adopted by the BOCC. Section 1.6.5 now conflicts with the process utilized by the BOCC. 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. The following information is offered: This text amendment is necessary to ensure that County policy documents and regulations are consistent with one another. 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) No direct linkage to the Principles, Goals, and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is proposed in order to engage in “good housekeeping” by ensuring the Ordinance does not conflict with current County processes and procedures. 4. New Statutes and Rules The BOCC adopted an Advisory Board Policy in 2012 and adopted specific Planning Board Policies and Procedures in November 2012. C. PROCESS 1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed December 3, 2012 b. Quarterly Public Hearing February 25, 2013 c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints February 5, 2013 – Approval of legal ad April 9, 2013 – receive Planning Board recommendation d. Other 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements a. Planning Board Review: 76 3 March 6, 2013 (recommendation) b. Advisory Boards: N/A c. Local Government Review: N/A d. Notice Requirements Legal advertisement published on February 13 and 20 in the News of Orange and The Herald Sun. e. Outreach: 3. FISCAL IMPACT Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2012-13 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this amendment. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS No implications. The proposed amendments are solely a ‘housekeeping’ item resulting from advisory board policies recently adopted by the BOCC. E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE See Attachment 2. Proposed additions are shown in red text and proposed deletions are shown in red strikethrough text. General Public: Small Area Plan Workgroup: Other: Primary Staff Contact: Perdita Holtz Planning Department (919) 245-2578 pholtz@orangecountync.gov 77 Article 1: Administration Section 1.6: Planning Board Orange County, North Carolina – Unified Development Ordinance Page 1-12 (E) Advise the Board of County Commissioners concerning the use and amendment of means for carrying out plans; (F) Exercise such functions in the administration and enforcement of various means for carrying out plans that the Board of Commissioners may direct; (G) Perform other related duties that the Board of County Commissioners may direct; (H) Approve and recommend for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners a Comprehensive Plan for the development of the county, as well as amendments thereto; and (I) The Planning Board, working with the Planning Director, shall from time to time, at intervals of not more than five years, examine the provisions of this Ordinance and the location of Zoning District boundary lines and shall submit a report to the Board of County Commissioners recommending changes and amendments, if any, which are desirable in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, mindful of the intent expressed in Subsection 1.1.5. 1.6.4 Staffing (A) The Planning Director, under the direction of the County Manager or his/her designee, shall serve as the professional staff to the Planning Board and shall be primarily responsible for completing any work product necessary to assist the Board in carrying out its duties. (B) The Board of County Commissioners must approve all work assignments or projects requested by the Planning Board outside of work product associated with this Ordinance prior to the commencement of work. 1.6.5 Rules of Procedure The Planning Board shall adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its affairs. The rules shall be maintained in the office of the Planning Director. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Ordinance, the rules adopted by the Planning Board shall provide for: (A) Selection of officers, specifically a Chair and Vice Chair, whose term of office shall be one year, with eligibility for re-election. (B) Attendance requirements. (C) Establishment of a quorum, which shall be a majority of the appointed members, to allow the Board to conduct business. (D) Establishment of a monthly, at a minimum, date and time for a regular meeting. (E) A procedure for calling special meetings as the need of the Board requires. The Planning Board shall conduct of its affairs in accordance with the “Orange County Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board Policy” and the “Planning Board Policies and Procedures”. 1.6.6 Notification of Meetings All meetings shall be open to the public. The Planning Director shall cause notices to be given as required under: (A) Article 33-C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes; (B) 143-318.11 of the North Carolina General Statutes; and (C) Article 2 of this Ordinance. 78 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 10 SUBJECT: Orange Unified Transportation Board DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): None INFORMATION CONTACT: Perdita Holtz 919-245-2578 Craig Benedict 919-245-2592 PURPOSE: To consider designation of a Planning Board member for appointment consideration by the BOCC to serve on the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard). BACKGROUND: Alan Campbell is the current Planning Board representative on the OUTBoard. Mr. Campbell’s Planning Board term expires on March 31, 2013 and he has decided not to seek reappointment. Therefore, the position on the OUTBoard reserved for a Planning Board member will also be vacant. The OUTBoard is an Orange County advisory board that focuses on transportation topics. The board generally meets on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the West Campus Office Building (the same building in which the Planning Board meets). The charge of the board is as follows: OUTBoard will advise the Board of County Commissioners and provide information and comments on major transportation issues; and provide to the Board recommendations regarding the overall planning and programming of transportation improvements in the County, including: • Identify and prioritize the County’s roadway and transit needs along with associated costs and specific sources of funding (will include participation in identifying needs within the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP); • Assist in development and review of the transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan; • Provide recommendations to the Board regarding Federal and State legislation affecting transportation in Orange County; and • Explore and make recommendations on innovative techniques and methods to improve the efficiency and capacity of existing and future transportation systems. 79 Current members of this board are as follows: Member Name Representation Alexander Castro Bingham Township Susie Enoch Cheeks Township Sam Lasris Cedar Grove Township Paul Guthrie (Chair) Chapel Hill Township Annette Jurgelski Eno Township Bryant Warren Hillsborough Township Theodore Triebel Little River Township (vacant) Economic Development Commission (will be vacant) Planning Board (vacant) Commission for the Environment Jeff Charles (Vice-Chair) Bicycle Transportation Advocate Jeff Miles Pedestrian Access Advocate Amy Cole Transit Advocate County policy is that citizens may serve on a maximum of two advisory boards. Current Planning Board members who do not serve on a second board are: Tony Blake Maxecine Mitchell Buddy Hartley Johnny Randall Rachel Phelps-Hawkins Andrea Rohrbacher Herman Staats RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board: 1. Designate a Planning Board member for appointment consideration by the BOCC to the OUTBoard. 80