Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 010814Approved 2/5/14 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 8, 2014 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township 8 Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large, Chapel Hill Township; Tony 9 Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large 10 Chapel Hill Township; 11 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special 14 Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Tina Love, Administrative 15 Assistant II 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING 22 PROCESS 23 To continue review and comment upon proposed revisions to the UDO to change the existing public 24 hearing process and to amend other provisions that need to be changed if the public hearing process is 25 amended. 26 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 27 28 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 29 30 Pete Hallenbeck: I think the chart on page 11 is really good, it tells you what’s going on. I also like the idea of 31 discontinuing the joint BOCC/Planning Board meetings. It seems like the role of the Planning Board during these 32 meetings tends to be just to sit there and there are other opportunities for the Planning Board to voice its concern. 33 There is nothing to keep Planning Board members from attending the public hearing and I would not object if it was 34 decided that the Planning Board Chair was required to be at the public hearing or at least somebody from the 35 Planning Board. I do think it is good and important when you have citizen input to be able to hear it in addition to 36 just reading it. I think not having the joint meeting is good but I’d like to have a mechanism where someone from 37 the Planning Board is there so they can get more than the word. There are comments from both the 38 Commissioners and the public during the hearing and it would be good to have a member present to hear them. 39 40 Paul Guthrie: Basically, I think this is a good move for a couple of reason. One is the increased number of hearing 41 opportunities which I think can expedite a lot of the procedure and maybe take a little pressure off the planning staff 42 since it gets spread out. They don’t have to dump everything into four quarters. I do have a couple of questions. 43 One is what kind of communication summarizing the public hearing will be transmitted to the Planning Board so that 44 the Planning Board can intelligently consider the topic? 45 46 Perdita Holtz: It is unlikely that official quarterly public hearing minutes would be available quick enough for 47 Planning Board meetings. We are envisioning that the Planning Board meeting would occur within two to three 48 weeks after the public hearing and generally meeting minutes take longer than that for the Clerk’s office to turn 49 around. It would probably be, if the Planning Board was not going to view the meeting on the internet in the comfort 50 of your own home, similar to what happens now where comments that were made are in the amendment outline 51 Approved 2/5/14 2 form and the abstract and we provide a staff response, as necessary, to those comments. So it would pretty much 52 be a staff report of what took place. 53 54 Pete Hallenbeck: I also like the quicker review and more meetings and less time for the public to get something 55 through. That is certainly the number one point of all of this. 56 57 Perdita Holtz: I should mention that it is probably not going to be less time from application deadline to decision but 58 there will be more opportunities for someone to submit an application. If they miss a deadline, they don’t have to 59 wait as long until the next application deadline. 60 61 Paul Guthrie: On page 19, in the new language, Planning Board shall make a recommendation based on 62 information entered into the record at the public hearing but not make the finding required in section 5.3.2A. Does 63 that mean that it is going to be the individual duty of the Planning Board member to look at all the documentation 64 put in the public record at the time of the hearing in order to justify its decision? 65 66 Perdita Holtz: No, this is for Special Use Permits. They don’t come along that often but for Class A Special Use 67 Permits there is a 15 page form of yes/no answers that staff fills out for the Planning Board on whether it meets the 68 requirements of various sections such as if they have enough landscaping, if they have enough buffer, etc. and we 69 check yes or no in staff’s opinion and then the Planning Board either concurs with that opinion or dissents from that 70 opinion. On that form there are four questions that staff does not make a recommendation on and those are things 71 that the Planning Board has to come to its own conclusion about and the BOCC has to come to its own conclusion 72 as well. Those are the section referenced here and if you were not at the hearing it would be legally murky to make 73 those findings if you weren’t in attendance so that is what this is in reference to. I should also mention that on page 74 17, the language of 2.3.10b needs to be revised a little bit before it goes to public hearing so that will be changing 75 from what you see in front of you here. 76 77 Paul Guthrie: You have similar language in 2.8.8b. Another question, have you thought about how you would 78 space the 8 mandatory hearing dates? 79 80 Perdita Holtz: It is going to be up to the BOCC to decide that but we as staff are going to recommend to them that 81 they probably do hearings in the months of February, March, April, May, September, October, November. January 82 they only have one meeting per year and it is usually very full and in December those are the last meetings before 83 the break so we don’t want to put them there plus the agenda deadlines are different due to the holidays. June is off 84 as it is very budget heavy month when they have to adopt the budget by the end of the month. That is our staff 85 recommendation but the BOCC will stagger them however they want. 86 87 Paul Guthrie: Again in 2.8.8e, which is existing language, do you think that existing language is a little too 88 restrictive given the new format of not having the joint hearings? Essentially, the first time we’ll be exposed to 89 testimony will be in the presentation at the Planning Board meeting and does that mean we cut off verbal testimony. 90 91 Perdita Holtz: The reason it was adopted was the BOCC did not want to have oral evidence at the Planning Board 92 meetings that they did not also hear. That is why this language exists. The meeting at the Planning Board is not 93 going to be an official public hearing it is just a regular Planning Board meeting and technically people will not be 94 able to come and speak if they don’t also have their comments in writing. If you think that is not desirable, you can 95 make a recommendation to look at that or change the language. 96 97 Paul Guthrie: I would encourage you to think about it because, and I’m wondering if that may even need to be 98 elaborated on a little bit, because if somebody wants to come the Planning Board meeting or only knows about it 99 Approved 2/5/14 3 through the Planning Board then we are advising County Commissioners who have already had a hearing. It 100 bothers me a little bit. 101 102 Pete Hallenbeck: I think that could be mentioned to the Commissioners but it is definitely their call. I see their 103 concern that the Planning Board meeting would not be a public hearing. If people show to speak all of a sudden it is 104 a public hearing but the Planning Board is a mechanism for receiving input. 105 106 Paul Guthrie: Does that mean inversely if someone wants to speak on the subject on our agenda, they cannot 107 speak. 108 109 Pete Hallenbeck: The way I read it is if they have something written down they are allowed to come and give it to 110 the Board. I think the Planning Board could interact with them if they had questions or clarifications. The only thing 111 I would worry about with someone giving just oral evidence at the Planning Board meeting is that has to be carefully 112 documented as we certainly don’t a scenario where someone says they said something at a meeting and there is 113 no documentation of it. The public hearing is better equipped for that. Finally, the Commissioners may, for the 114 same reason that I was, want to have Planning Board member present at the public hearings. I think the 115 Commissioners get a lot from hearing people talk and how they speak and how passionate they are and that might 116 be another reason they want to make sure that if somebody’s just doing an oral presentation, they hear it. If staff 117 wanted to bounce that off the Commissioners and verify, yes we want oral presentations only at the County 118 Commissioners’ meetings and anything presented at Planning Board should be written, they can verify that. I am a 119 little nervous about the Planning Board taking oral presentations we have to be careful of the interactions and 120 cannot promise anything like they can. The vote we have is not binding and the Commissioners are not at Planning 121 Board meetings to get all those nuances that come with an oral presentation. 122 123 Paul Guthrie: I have some concerns in the bigger picture than this topic. Putting that kind of restrictions on 124 communications to a citizen advisory board. I think it’s a road we have to be very careful about how we define 125 because it could have major implications on the ability of this Board to function in what I perceive is what it’s 126 capacity is. That goes beyond this. 127 128 Pete Hallenbeck: I do believe it does have to be carefully spelled out. You could have problems if you said all you 129 can do is come and give us written paper and I think you would have a problem if anyone could just walk in and 130 start talking and interacting and how the Planning Board would convey that to the Commissioners. 131 132 Paul Guthrie: I’m done. 133 134 135 AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – CREATE NEW ZONING DISTRICT 136 To review and comment upon the creation of a new general use zoning district, entitled Research 137 Development and Applied Manufacturing District (RDAM), which will allow for the location of 138 office/research facilities and incidental light manufacturing on the same parcel of property. The district 139 is intended to be allowed within the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes as denoted on the 140 Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. 141 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 142 143 Craig Benedict introduced with background information. 144 145 Michael Harvey reviewed abstract. 146 147 Approved 2/5/14 4 Craig Benedict: One last note, we have begun preliminary discussions with Mebane so that the ease of a 148 development proposal coming in doesn’t have an O/I designation with the County and then upon annexation they 149 have to go through another rezoning process. Craig continued review. 150 151 Paul Guthrie: I think this is a good beginning. On page 30, where you describe some of the standards that might 152 apply to this theoretical district and you get to the question in 5 on the discharge of waste in the ground, can you be 153 that specific on square footage when you are adding to this district, the type of uses? The definition that you are 154 using there for the square footage for protection of the groundwater, have you checked that given the broadening 155 nature of what the discharges might be? 156 157 Michael Harvey: That is, quite candidly, language contained within every zoning district that we have. It is in here 158 because we enforce that standard in every zoning district. The ultimate size of property is based on compliance, not 159 only with all of our standards, but having sufficient and adequate area on a given property to support septic and 160 repair area if the property is going to be served by an on-site septic system. These are minimums that we have 161 worked out with the health department. You may not get a large facility on a parcel of property that has a lot of 162 wastewater generation just on septic alone regardless of the minimum lot size. 163 164 Paul Guthrie: I guess what I’m suggesting is as you refine what this district looks like, you might want to revisit. 165 166 Craig Benedict: A lot of the area that would be for this zoning district would have public water and sewer. 167 168 Paul Guthrie: Second issue in this district is what energy sources are available? The question is if you’re going to 169 have to build a huge transmission line or pipeline to the site disrupting the surrounding area, is that taken into 170 consideration of whether or not it’s the type of facility going into this..... 171 172 Michael Harvey: Provision of utilities is always a consideration for any land use regardless of what zoning district 173 it’s in. The applicant ultimately bears the burden for being able to say yes, services are available and are sufficient 174 to support the proposed operations, and has the obligation and the burden to get it there in accordance with the 175 UDO. I would say it is already required as part of site plan submittal. It’s handled on a case by case basis 176 regardless of the district. 177 178 Paul Guthrie: Part of that question is triggered by the story in the paper this morning, the gas pipeline in the eastern 179 part of the County that has some disruption to the right-of-way. I think that as you start changing uses and making 180 certain areas more available for different uses that’s one of the things you’ll need to pay some attention to. 181 182 Michael Harvey: I think one of the ways to address your concern is that as this district is currently envisioned it 183 would only be allowed in the Commercial/Industrial Transition Activity Node where there is existing infrastructure to 184 support large scale non-residential land uses. We have separate zoning districts that only allow certain uses based 185 on the ability for local land uses to be supported by conventional septic or well. 186 187 Craig Benedict: The infrastructure this Board’s been mentioning is just not water/sewer/gas/electric it’s getting 188 telecommunications in the ground and we’re finding along West Ten Road that we’re having difficulty within 60 to 80 189 feet all of these uses so we may go on the south side of the road or we may get additional easements paralleling 190 the right-of-way. Due to the potential intensity to these districts, and having right turn lanes, left turn lanes, etc. we 191 better take a look at what our right-of-way needs are adjacent to these districts. 192 193 Herman Staats: I like the idea of it. Do we have any examples where the lack of this type of zoning has created 194 problems or prevented somebody from coming in? 195 196 Approved 2/5/14 5 Craig Benedict: I can’t mention the companies but I’d say every few weeks we meet with somebody through the 197 economic development circle and sometimes we look at existing land with existing building and bring Michael into it. 198 Typically, there is an issue so I would say yes we have found people who would be looking for categories that 199 would allow more activities. 200 201 Herman Staats: So this is primarily to allow manufacturing on that site or allow an increased level of manufacturing 202 on that site that also allows research; where does biotechnology research type of zoning fit in Orange County? 203 204 Craig Benedict: There is a separate category, when a company comes in we try to categorize it. The unique thing 205 with research and development is there may be 20% operations in research and development and then the back 206 office is about how to put that stuff together. There are a lot of interpretations that can get us in trouble. This would 207 give us a little more latitude. 208 209 Michael Harvey: If you go to page 27 of the abstract, we have listed out those various general use zoning districts 210 where research facilities are allowed as permitted uses. We also have the conditional use zoning process where 211 individuals could come in with a proposal to put it anywhere if they wanted to go through that process. I think the 212 concern here is trying to take existing zoning or a new district and address a concern about marketing for land uses 213 that have a diverse component to them that involve a myriad of different activities each one of which could be 214 classified as its own principal use on the same site. 215 216 Buddy Hartley: I like the concept. Say you’ve got a bank coming in, a hotel, a vocational school, fire 217 department/rescue and all that but then the question I would have is that lot of people will be needing to eat. It 218 would be a good spot for a restaurant. Could the hotel have an onsite restaurant? 219 220 Michael Harvey: Yes it could. 221 222 Buddy Hartley: I’m taking about an area where a lot of people are staying in that area. 223 224 Craig Benedict: If it were on a separate parcel, they could go through a Special Use process. That is the type of 225 office park we would like to see. 226 227 Buddy Hartley: That’s what I’m thinking we’re trying to do. 228 229 Tony Blake: Has any thought been given to defining the percentage of any particular activity and marrying that to 230 the land use? For example, you have 200 acres here and we only want about 50 acres in that manufacturing 231 maximum in that spot, I don’t know but it seems to me over time things morph. 232 233 Michael Harvey: The problem with percentages is statistics can be used to say anything you want. You can have a 234 permitted use that all of a sudden becomes nonconforming because it is at 51% because you have established a 235 percentage base to it. It would be more appropriate to come up with a list of categories and uses that are permitted 236 in association with that use which is what this district is a start towards and a comprehensive reassessment of other 237 districts to see if we need to provide that same level of flexibility. 238 239 Tony Blake: The problem that occurs to me is that company A comes in here and company B and company C and 240 company A grows faster than B and C and creates more pressure on the infrastructure in that area than B and C. 241 Then B and C want to grow but they can’t and conflict can arise. 242 243 Craig Benedict: When Orange County worked with the Town of Hillsborough for the Hillsborough area economic 244 development zones, we had those percentage concerns. We developed somewhat of a Small Area Plan that was 245 Approved 2/5/14 6 part of a land use document. I think that maybe as a backdrop document, which would be more in the land 246 use/Small Area Plan size if we explain what we are trying to do so it’s not all peak morning and afternoon traffic and 247 that’s what we tried to do in Hillsborough. Maybe we could provide a background document. 248 249 Tony Blake: So we don’t plan ourselves into a corner. That was my only concern, otherwise I think it’s a great idea. 250 It has a lot of merit, especially the idea of melding it with the partners on either side of the County, allowing that 251 transition to become smoother and more predictable. 252 253 Pete Hallenbeck: It is interesting these days, the idea of and R & D group going into Class A office space. I think 254 this is a great idea. I am currently involved in a software project but I may have to make a little bit of hardware. 255 This is something that would be nice that doesn’t exist. The ability to have an R&D group that was doing software 256 but had to make some hardware on the side and contract out pieces and bring it together and assemble it is great. 257 I also think in a lot of startups you see when you start out, the R & D would be very heavy. If it works, that 258 percentage of the company gets less and less and you start manufacturing there to see if it’s going to work and it 259 just grows. I like it from that point of view. Another reason I think this is really important is something I am seeing 260 people I work with, the old days of R & D are going away and the tendency now is to have a lot less separation 261 between R & D and engineering and production and you want all those people to get together working with each 262 other. This makes a ton of sense. Finally, I moved a company I started to Durham because there were problems 263 with some of the Orange County rules. Another group I got in with talked about bringing something into the County, 264 and we didn’t because we didn’t have time for all that was involved. From all levels, I like this a lot. 265 266 267 AGENDA ITEM 4: ADJOURNMENT 268 269 Meeting was adjourned 270 271 272 ____________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair