HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 070616
1
SUMMARY NOTES 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2
JULY 6, 2016 3
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4
5
NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6
7
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township (Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township 8
Representative (Vice-Chair); Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 9
Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 10
11
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 12
Systems Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant; 13
14
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 15
16
Lydia Wegman called meeting to order. 17
18
AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – MODIFY USE STANDARDS 19
20
To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO that would establish use 21
standards to allow certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in 22
the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district. 23
24
Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 25
26
Ashley Moncado delivered presentation. 27
28
Tony Blake: Does this now permit drive-thrus? I think I remember that there were no drive-thrus. 29
30
Ashley Moncado: I believe that is correct. 31
32
Tony Blake: I kind of drew this thing on the board when we took the O/RM blob there and divided up into the three 33
possible primary uses and then the secondary uses. The language that I’m missing here is where it talks about multi-34
family there’s a line in there that says, “The multi-family use is part of an overall site plan that includes at least 1 other 35
permitted…” That language is missing here for me. That language that says we need an overall site plan and what 36
I’m afraid to end up with is 25% here and 25% here and 25% here and 25% here, as opposed to a central master 37
plan. It seems to lend itself more towards this cut up view. Now maybe that’s on purpose but that was what struck me 38
when reading this. 39
40
Perdita Holtz: It’s not; that language is part of the next item though. We can probably just put in language indicating 41
that it needs to be part of an overall site plan. 42
43
Tony Blake: And that’s what I was thinking. Because you could conceivably have all three of these different uses 44
inside this O/RM and you don’t know. Say this guy builds industrial and then they want to start building these 45
accessory uses. You don’t know what the overall square footage is going to be in this whole thing so you can’t say 46
what 25% of that is. And it just starts to get complicated and hard to figure out for a developer. 47
48
Craig Benedict: I think that would help during this site plan process to allocate an area of the site that maybe they’re 49
not building retail in phase 1 but they could say here’s part of the site. 50
51
Paul Guthrie: In terms in whether it’s language or not, whether you can describe in a neat form that’s understandable 52
of what you’ve just gone through. I’m wondering if the way to deal with the kind of would be to say that after the initial 53
2
development or something of the whole area any future, additional changes for some of these accepted uses inside 54
the area must go through the whole process again to make sure that they are not more than 25% of the area. 55
56
Perdita Holtz: The intent of this was for a cohesive development project overall site plan. 57
58
Paul Guthrie: I understand that, but I think that’s one of my worries through the whole paper. All of this is the initial 59
thing. What’s going to happen ten years from now? Because the natural order of things in development is that you 60
devolve, and then you re-develop, and then you re-develop if you can’t get land outside to do it all over again. And 61
I’m wondering if somehow there could be a clause that the lawyers would accept that at a certain point you have to 62
basically reinterpret this whole original area that was zoned that way and developed in that definition. 63
64
Craig Benedict: When we do a site plan, for let’s say a ten acre site, but they’re only using six acres, but yet that 65
original site was a ten acre site and somebody wants to develop something we call that a site plan modification. So 66
that we’re still including what happened in phase 1 so maybe something along those lines. 67
68
Tony Blake: I’m trying to stay with the overall purpose and background, which is to streamline things. To make it 69
easier to develop and I know a lot of times you guys come up with a conceptual plan for something but the developer 70
wants to move things around and that’s when the real discussions happen. But, if the thing is based on square 71
footage it seems like that’s a cumbersome method of doing it and if you wanted to streamline the process you would 72
make it based on square acres or land or something. 73
74
Craig Benedict: We’ve considered the square footage versus acreage and some projects could use up a lot more 75
acreage by not keeping it to square footage so we don’t want a lot of our economic development zones to have too 76
much residential so the square footage is a value. So for now we’re going square footage and we’ll evaluate this as it 77
comes through. 78
79
Tony Blake: Would food trucks be permitted? 80
81
Craig Benedict: Yes. 82
83
AGENDA ITEM 3: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC 84
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (EDD) 85
86
To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO that would modify existing 87
regulations that pertain to the Hillsborough EDD. 88
89
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator 90
91
Perdita Holtz delivered presentation. 92
93
Lydia Wegman: What is the difference between EDH-2, 3, 4 and 5? 94
95
Perdita Holtz: The types of uses that are allowed, the development standards that are on the table - lot sizes, floor 96
area ratios, that kind of stuff. And there is an EDH-1 also, but we’re not proposing any changes to that district. 97
98
Perdita Holtz continued presentation. 99
100
Lydia Wegman: Is there any downside, as far as not requiring a Class A SUP, for people who live near it? 101
102
Perdita Holtz: Well there could be, it depends on a person’s point-of-view. As you know the Special Use Permit 103
(SUP) process is pretty involved and when people find out that they need to hire an attorney to represent them they 104
often have a problem with that. 105
106
Craig Benedict: Perdita, is the EDH-1, which we’re not suggesting to change, closer to the residential areas now? 107
3
108
Perdita Holtz: I don’t think that provision is in EDH-1 but I’m not 100% sure. 109
110
Paul Guthrie: The area that we’re talking about borders the interstate, at least South side, and one of the things that 111
highways with that kind of traffic and in that type of terrain have a tendency to do is have lower air quality. Is there 112
any consideration in any of this in the permitting process check through that what proposes to be built there will not 113
aggravate the air quality standards in the area surrounding? 114
115
Perdita Holtz: There are performance standards in Article 6 of the UDO and air quality standards are one of the 116
performance standards that projects have to meet. So they would still have to meet those. 117
118
Perdita Holtz continued presentation. 119
120
Tony Blake: Is there a distinction between wholesale and retail? 121
122
Perdita Holtz: Yes. 123
124
Tony Blake: Is there a reason why wholesale is not included in the retail section here? 125
126
Perdita Holtz: It’s not included in the retail section because wholesale is a completely different use type. The 127
Hillsborough EDD uses what’s called NAICS numbers to classify uses, and that’s something that was done quite 128
some time ago now. 129
130
Tony Blake: I was just wondering why wholesale was excluded from EDH-4 and 5. 131
132
Perdita Holtz: Wholesale is on page 38 of the packet, it is being proposed for EDH-5. 133
134
Perdita Holtz continued presentation. 135
136
Craig Benedict: Just to add on, one of the things mentioned earlier, a discussion that we planned to bring public 137
water and sewer under the interstate and those monies for that come from Article 46 sales tax which is just allocated 138
for economic development purposes. So, part of what we’re doing here is to set up a land use program for, primarily, 139
non-residential uses so when we use the money for public water or sewer it matches that. We don’t want to spend 140
economic development monies for tax base and jobs and have it turned to single family residential which, in some 141
cases, the way the plan is now may allow that. We’re being a little bit more prescriptive, we know Hillsborough has 142
recently approved some large residential projects within their jurisdiction so it’s not like we’re excluding residential, 143
but in an area with interstate access and visibility we’re priming it for economic development uses. 144
145
Tony Blake: Is there a requirement for the property owners to connect to this water and sewer or is it just being kind 146
of laid in there? 147
148
Craig Benedict: Yeah, it’s just going to be laid in there. We’re not going to touch every parcel that’s in there. We’re 149
just going to get it under the interstate, which would take a developer a year and a half to two years and when we 150
show a piece of property on the south side of the interstate they say, “Where’s the sewer?” and just getting it to the 151
south side and having somebody be able to tie into that with their own sewer extension might take four to six months 152
- the time it would take them to build the building. 153
154
Tony Blake: Are you planning when you wrote this sewer in to run fiber optics and stuff? 155
156
Craig Benedict: Presently not. 157
158
Lydia Wegman: And this is all outside of the rural buffer, right? 159
160
Perdita Holtz: Yes. It’s all within the primary service area for water and sewer. 161
4
162
Lydia Wegman: Is there a percentage like no more than 25% could be multi-family? 163
164
Perdita Holtz: Yes. 165
166
Perdita Holtz continued presentation. 167
168
Tony Blake: So that’s the plan, to extend the service road or come off of that service road somewhere? 169
170
Perdita Holtz: Yes, and likely improve the service road. 171
172
Tony Blake: Have you had any contact with the people around this area about the re-zoning? 173
174
Perdita Holtz: We are sending out notices next Monday and there’s going to be a public information meeting on the 175
26th of this month. 176
177
Craig Benedict: Also, we’ve been in contact with the 166-acre parcel, the present zoning on that now is being 178
marketed so they’re familiar with our process to change the zoning. These zoning amendments would facilitate a 179
better development program. 180
181
Perdita Holtz: So the next steps I just mentioned we’re planning on holding the public information meeting on July 182
26th 6:00-7:30 in this room. That meeting will cover the three related topics, which are the joint land use plan 183
amendments that Tom’s going to talk about; these text amendments; and the re-zoning that I’ve just showed you, I 184
think there’s six parcels total. We are doing mailed notices. It’s going to be a combined notice, for both the public 185
information meeting and the August Planning Board meeting to the affected parcels and the property within 1,000 186
feet of those parcels that are proposed for re-zoning and we’re also going to be posting signs in the affected area. 187
188
Maxecine Mitchell: That’s good because I just met someone up near the Tanger Mall because they thought they were 189
on the other side of 40/85 and they didn’t attend the information meeting and now their property is commercial but 190
they don’t have water and sewer over there and they didn’t understand all that, so please make sure the people 191
understand that they might want to come and find out what’s going on. 192
193
Perdita Holtz: I mentioned that these 3 topics are scheduled for the Planning Board meeting next month on August 194
3rd for recommendation and the quarterly public hearing is scheduled for September 12th. 195
196
Tony Blake: Two more questions. I’m reading on the DOT site that they’re planning on widening I-40 from the hill on 197
up; are you aware of that and will they need more land? 198
199
Perdita Holtz: I believe they already have right of way for everything. 200
201
Tony Blake: Is Hillsborough planning to annex this area? 202
203
Perdita Holtz: Not anytime soon because it would have to be a voluntary annexation, the property owner would have 204
to apply for annexation. 205
206
Tony Blake: Also one more question; I’ve noticed that Alamance County, Mebane have created a free trade zone, or 207
a foreign trade zone or something like that. Is there a provision in this to do that sort of trade zone if a foreign 208
company wanted to locate here? 209
210
Craig Benedict: We have no special provisions within our zoning code for that. That is not a zoning issue; that is a 211
policy and tax issue… For example, if a developer came in and wanted to do an industrial park then that would be 212
part of a tax incentive program. 213
214
5
Kim Piracci: When you were talking about the 20,000 square foot thing and you were going to get rid of that and it 215
was difficult, is that going away? Is it being moved to 40,000? 216
217
Perdita Holtz: Well, the way zoning works is that you have legislative decisions where you have by-right things and 218
then you have quasi-judicial decisions. SUPs are quasi-judicial decisions and you haven’t experienced one yet but 219
you will next month. They are fairly complicated and there are a lot of limitations on who can say what and when and 220
things like this. And there are lawyers on all sides. We are suggesting doing away with the SUP requirement for any 221
type of developments on two acre or larger lots. It would still be subject to all of the other criteria that are in the UDO, 222
which is fairly extensive. 223
224
Tony Blake: But only in these zones, right? 225
226
Perdita Holtz: Right. 227
228
Craig Benedict: Just to add, SUP’s are typically associated with certain uses that, based on their nature, need 229
additional review. So let’s say, an asphalt mixing plant will still be a SUP. The criteria that we had in here was unique, 230
it was based on an acre size and not on the use and was based on the square footage of a building size. Which a 231
20,000 square foot medical building probably doesn’t have the same scrutiny that a 20,000 square foot different use. 232
But if it is a 20,000 corporate asphalt mixing plant it still has to go through the SUP process. So we’re getting rid of 233
two criteria that were based on acreage and square footage, which are not your normal SUP criteria. So we’re going 234
back to more of a conventional standardization of why you have a special use, and that’s usually because the 235
operation might have glare, noise, a lot of traffic, that type of stuff will put you in a SUP category. 236
237
Lydia Wegman: Just for the record, I’m not comfortable with the elimination of the Class A SUP. It still makes me 238
uncomfortable… So I would just suggest that you provide a little further explanation about why that makes sense. I 239
understand why it makes sense from a development standpoint but why it’s not going to be harmful. 240
241
Perdita Holtz: Well these areas that would be zoned, EDH-3, 4 and 5 are not near residences. 242
243
Lydia Wegman: Ok. 244
245
Craig Benedict: The two amendments she was talking about with the zoning, some are called text amendments and 246
that’s everything that she’s doing with EDH-3 and changes the uses and the floor area ratios; all those are 247
considered text amendments. And the other type of zoning amendment changes is a map amendment. That’s where 248
you’re actually going from EDH-2 and making it EDH-3. So that’s how they’re separate. 249
250
AGENDA ITEM 4: TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE 251
PLAN AMENDMENT 252
253
To receive information about an upcoming Land Use Plan amendment involving five parcels 254
south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86. Amendments are proposed to better 255
promote economic development opportunities in the area and help preserve planned sewer 256
capacities for non-single-family residential uses. 257
258
Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 259
260
Tom Altieri delivered presentation. 261
262
Tony Blake: Is this change being driven by the landowners or by the County or by the town? 263
264
Craig Benedict: There will be an interlocal agreement that will probably refer to these changes that occur here that 265
says, “As long as you redevelop consistent with this joint land use plan then please feel free to use this public water 266
and sewer system.” So the commissioners, probably in September, will be seeing a draft of this interlocal agreement 267
6
that if the County puts “x” amount of dollars into public water and sewer that they’ll use it for, primarily, non-residential 268
economic development purposes. This is kind of a pre-requisite to that impending public water and sewer extension. 269
270
Lydia Wegman: So they’re not disturbed at losing the mixed residential… 271
272
Craig Benedict: No, because along the frontage of South Churton and Old 86 it’s still there. 273
274
Tom Altieri: So I’ll just add that the agreement that Craig mentioned, that is the last bullet in the PowerPoint here, and 275
it is an important component. The group mentioned “annexation” and the text and zoning amendments that are being 276
made to the UDO, those are within the County’s UDO. In the case of an annexation, a development would occur 277
under the town’s land develop ordinance. So it is that type of an agreement that would outline under what conditions 278
annexation might occur, its timing, if there were a component of, let’s say, this entire Hillsborough economic 279
development district is approximately 500 acres, potentially what percentage of that might be developed for non-280
residential uses versus residential? An agreement could address. So that’s where the County could receive that 281
official handshake from the town on the ratio between residential and non-residential development in the area. 282
283
Craig Benedict: Orange County has met with Hillsborough Staff, both engineering division and planning division, to 284
discuss this over the last six months or so, so they’re in line with what’s suggested. We put a lot of these things on 285
the map just three years ago or so, and we’re learning. So here is our first amendment coming forward. They’re 286
working on some interchange improvements on I-85 and South Churton so that’s a few years from now. And that will 287
be a dramatic design. 288
289
Tony Blake: By the way, I always saw in the plan for Orange Grove Road to not stop at Churton Street and go 290
straight across. Is that ever going to happen? 291
292
Craig Benedict: Yes. We’re moving that forward through the prioritization process, and it’s probably just off this map. 293
294
Craig Benedict explained where it was on the map and the details of the proposed transportation improvement. 295
296
AGENDA ITEM 5: UPCOMING PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 297
A public information meeting to present the upcoming proposed amendments pertaining to the 298
Hillsborough EDD to interested persons has been scheduled for Tuesday, July 26 from 6:00 to 299
7:30 p.m. in Room 004 of the West Campus Office Building (131 W. Margaret Lane in 300
Hillsborough). The documents proposed for amendment include the Town of Hillsborough/ 301
Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas, and UDO. 302
These items are scheduled for the September 12, 2016 quarterly public hearing. 303
304
AGENDA ITEM 6: ADJOURNMENT 305
306
Meeting was adjourned by consensus. 307