Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 020321ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 131 W. MARGARET LANE, SUITE 201 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 AGENDA ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, February 3, 2021 Regular Meeting – 7:00 pm Due to current public health concerns, the meeting will be virtual. Members of the Planning Board and staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. Interested members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by following the instructions at the end of the agenda. (Please note that pre-registration no later than 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting is required to speak at the meeting). No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. 5 – 6 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Calendar for February and March 3. 7 – 14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 6, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes 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 its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, County staff, and Board members. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The Planning Board asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. 6. CHAIR COMMENTS No. Page(s) Agenda Item 7. 15 – 24 BUCKHORN SMALL AREA PLAN STUDY: To receive a presentation, an update on Mebane’s actions to date, accept the technical study and a process/schedule for Orange County adoption consideration. No public input at this time. Presenters: Craig Benedict, Planning Director and Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 8. ADJOURNMENT Public Comments / Participation Please note that public comments will not be taken on the Buckhorn Small Area Plan Study at the February Planning Board Meeting. There will be future opportunities for public comment on this topic. There are two methods for public comment: • Written submittals by email or drop-off • Speaking during the virtual meeting Written Public Comments Members of the public are encouraged to provide written public comments by emailing comments to planningboard@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting. Please include in the Subject line of the email the title of the agenda item your comment pertains to. Emails sent to this address are viewable on Google Groups: https://groups.google.com/g/ocplanningboard Written comments can also be dropped off at the Planning Department’s offices at 131 W. Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, NC during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). If a staff member is not available, please leave your comments in the drop-off box near the front counter. Written comments will be scanned and sent by staff to the email address indicated above. Verbal Public Comments Members of the public must contact Planning Department staff via email at ocpbpubliccomment@orangecountync.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the meeting and indicate they wish to speak during the meeting. When submitting the request to speak, please include the following: • The date of the meeting • The title of the agenda item you wish to speak on • Your name, address, email and phone number o The phone number must be the number you will call in from if participating by phone During the meeting, speakers will be called upon in the order in which requests to speak were received. Each speaker may speak once per agenda item and has 3 minutes to address the board. Ceding time to another speaker is not permitted. In the event a meeting is continued to a future date due to the length of public comments, the date for the continued meeting will be announced before the meeting adjourns. No additional requests to speak will be taken for the continued meeting, only the speakers who signed up to speak at the original meeting and were not called upon will be able to speak at the continued meeting. Written comments continue to be encouraged and can be sent to the email address indicated in the “Written Public Comments” instructions above. Zoom Meeting Registration Both members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting and those who wish to only view the meeting must register to receive a link to the meeting. Persons wishing to speak must register with the same name provided in the email that notified staff you wish to speak. The link to sign up for the meeting is: https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_b5Txxt5MSoq58MedDyOGgg If you do not have internet access, you may participate in the meeting via phone. Please call (919) 245-2575 during regular business hours to receive information on the number to call-in to, the meeting ID, and a password. Review Process The Planning Board is an appointed volunteer advisory board which makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (the elected officials). The Board of County Commissioners holds a formal public hearing and makes decisions. Section 2.8 of the County’s Unified Development Ordinance contains a flowchart depicting the entire review process for rezoning and text amendment applications. February 2021 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 BOCC Business Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Planning Board 7:00 pm* Virtual Meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOCC Business Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting OUTBoard Meeting 6:30 p.m. Virtual Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED 28 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 5 March 2021 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 BOCC Business Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting Planning Board 7:00 pm* Virtual Meeting 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BOCC Work Session 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BOCC Business Meeting 7 p.m. Virtual Meeting OUTBoard Meeting 6:30 p.m. Virtual Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED HOLIDAY OFFICES CLOSED 28 29 30 31 Notes: * Planning Board Member Attendance Required Virtual Meeting 6 D R A F T MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 6, 2021 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 5 Members of the Planning Board, staff and public participated remotely) 6 7 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Blankfard (Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Adam Beeman (Vice-Chair), Cedar 9 Grove Township Representative; Kim Piracci, Eno Township Representative; Susan Hunter, Chapel Hill Township 10 Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Randy Marshall, At-Large Representative; Alexandra 11 Allman, At-Large Representative; Melissa Poole, Little River Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham 12 Township Representative; Gio Mollinedo, At-Large Representative (arrived at ~7:35); 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Vacant - At-Large Representatives (2) 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 17 Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Support 18 19 OTHERS PRESENT: Darrell Chandler, Chad Abbott 20 21 22 Perdita reviewed the technical processes and rules for the virtual meeting 23 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 26 Chair David Blankfard called the meeting to order. 27 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2021. 30 a. Term Expiration Dates and Reappointment Eligibility by Member 31 32 MOTION by Melissa Poole to reappoint David Blankfard as Chair for 2021. Seconded by Patricia Roberts. 33 34 ROLLCALL VOTE: 35 Randy Marshall: Yes 36 Alexandra Allman Yes 37 Kim Piracci: Yes 38 Susan Hunter: Yes 39 Adam Beeman: Yes 40 Patricia Roberts: Yes 41 Carrie Fletcher Yes 42 Melissa Poole: Yes 43 David Blankfard: Yes 44 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 45 46 Adam Beeman: I’ll put myself out there for Vice-Chair again. 47 48 MOTION by Patricia Roberts to reappoint Adam Beeman as Vice-Chair for 2021. Seconded by Carrie Fletcher 49 50 ROLLCALL VOTE: 51 Randy Marshall: Yes 52 Alexandra Allman Yes 53 Kim Piracci: Yes 54 Susan Hunter: Yes 55 Adam Beeman: Yes 56 7 D R A F T Patricia Roberts: Yes 57 Carrie Fletcher Yes 58 Melissa Poole: Yes 59 David Blankfard: Yes 60 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 61 62 63 AGENDA ITEM 3: INFORMATION ITEMS 64 b. Planning Calendar for January and February 65 c. Buckhorn Small Area Plan Study – At the February 3, 2021 Planning Board Meeting, the 66 Planning Board is expected to receive an overview of the Plan, update on Mebane’s planning 67 process, and provide input to the Orange County BOCC for its consideration on any 68 subsequent County implementation actions. 69 70 71 AGENDA ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 72 November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes 73 74 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approved the November 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Minute. Seconded by Susan Hunter. 75 76 ROLLCALL VOTE: 77 Randy Marshall: Yes 78 Alexandra Allman Yes 79 Kim Piracci: Yes 80 Susan Hunter: Yes 81 Adam Beeman: Yes 82 Patricia Roberts: Yes 83 Carrie Fletcher Yes 84 Melissa Poole: Yes 85 David Blankfard: Yes 86 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 87 88 89 AGENDA ITEM 5: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. 90 91 92 AGENDA ITEM 6: PUBLIC CHARGE 93 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 95 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 96 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development law of the County. 97 The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. 98 OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and 99 businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, 100 and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive 101 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 102 103 PUBLIC CHARGE 104 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to 105 conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At 106 any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will 107 ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should 108 decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment 109 to this public charge is observed. 110 111 112 8 D R A F T 113 AGENDA ITEM 7: CHAIR COMMENTS 114 115 116 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (REDA – CZ-1) – ROUGEMONT SELF STORAGE – To review and make a 117 recommendation to the BOCC on an applicant initiated zoning atlas amendment to expand an existing 118 conditional zoning district called REDA-CZ-1 (NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic 119 Development Area Conditional Zoning). The proposed expansion is located at 8927 Mile Branch Road in 120 Little River Township on a 21.54 acre parcel of land. The parcel is currently zoned REDA-CZ- 1 and 121 Agricultural Residential. The applicant is seeking to rezone the Agricultural Residential acreage so that 122 the entire parcel is in the REDA-CZ-1 district allowing for an expansion of the existing self-storage 123 operation. This item is scheduled for BOCC public hearing on February 2, 2021. 124 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 125 126 Michael Harvey Presented a PowerPoint Presentation to the Planning Board. 127 128 Chad Abbott: Good evening everyone, I’m Chad Abbott of C3 Design and Engineering and I represent Mr. Chandler, the 129 applicant, on this project. I also worked on the previous project. I feel like what you have before you is a pretty 130 straightforward project. It is an expansion of an existing use so the typical questions that come up about allowing a use in 131 a certain area have already been decided upon in the past and have had no negative impacts on the surrounding 132 properties and no negative input from any surrounding property owners either first-hand or at the Neighborhood 133 Information Meeting (NIM). We have adhered to all the previous conditions imposed on the original development and will 134 continue to adhere to those same conditions upon development on this property as proposed. We respectively request 135 your recommendation for approval and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. 136 137 David Blankfard: Did anyone show up from the neighborhood at the NIM? 138 139 Chad Abbott: No Sir. 140 141 Melissa Poole: If I may, this is in my district and I’m very familiar with this area and I am familiar with the storage facility 142 there. There are not a lot of homes that are sitting directly adjacent to this project. I am good with moving forward. 143 144 Kim Piracci: I have a question, it looks like there is a pond across the street, what is that. 145 146 Chad Abbott: It is a farm pond, it’s across the road. It’s agriculturally zoned land, I don’t know what they use it for. 147 148 Michael Harvey pulled up the GIS system to view the area/pond in question and clarified it is believed to be an amenity or 149 recreation pond as available data does not indicate there is a stream or other water feature connecting the pond to the 150 Chandler property east of NC Highway 57. 151 152 Kim Piracci: That’s not going to be affected by the septic system? 153 154 Michael Harvey: No, it shouldn’t. As indicated on the map, there does not appear to be a water feature identified in 155 County GIS connecting the pond to Mr. Chandler’s property east of NC Highway 57. The Environmental Assessment work 156 also did not indicate any water connectivity between the property and the aforementioned pond. We have some of the 157 existing stormwater control measures that were required for the first phase of the project when we began working with Mr. 158 Chandler, he has determined it would be in his best interest and would help with his stormwater as well as shielding his 159 property, to preserve this area of existing foliage. Pointed out other features, septic fields, residents, rock quarry. 160 161 Michael Harvey concluded his PowerPoint Presentation 162 163 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Statement of Consistency indicating that the Zoning Atlas Amendments are 164 reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 7 and recommend approval that the ordinance amending 165 the Zoning Atlas as well as the imposing development conditions for the identified parcel as contained in Attachment 8. 166 Seconded by Melissa Poole. 167 168 9 D R A F T Randy Marshall: Yes 169 Kim Piracci: Yes 170 Patricia Roberts: Yes 171 Carrie Fletcher Yes 172 Adam Beeman: Yes 173 Melissa Poole: Yes 174 Susan Hunter: Yes 175 Alexandra Allman Yes 176 David Blankfard: Yes 177 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 178 179 David Blankfard: Craig when do you think we will get the vacant positons filled? 180 181 Craig Benedict: The BOCC is having a Work Session in February and will be discussing all of the Advisory Boards. I 182 would say probably either late February or March we could get something on an agenda in front of them. One of the topics 183 of discussion is should the BOCC round out the various boards to have multiple interests so that boards do not get overly 184 weighed, to try to keep it diverse whether it’s the Economic Development Advisory Board or Commission for the 185 Environment or Planning Board to try to round out the applicants. It will be a general discussion at that Work Session. 186 187 Alexandra Allman: How does that work? Do they go to you and then you give them to us and we choose or does the 188 BOCC choose them, how does it work? 189 190 Craig Benedict: They have never come to Planning Staff or the Planning Board. They have always been advertised by 191 the County Clerk’s office and then decided by the BOCC. The Planning Board can, off line, take a look at the applications 192 that are always available through the Clerk’s office and speak with one of your Commissioners if you think it viable. We 193 may formalize that. Some boards actually do review applications and make recommendations. 194 195 Gio Mollinedo Arrived 196 197 198 AGENDA ITEM 9: PLANNING BOARD ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN: To discuss annual input form which informs the 199 BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory boards/commissions and assists in overall County work 200 planning. 201 PRESENTER: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 202 203 Craig Benedict presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Board members 204 205 Kim Piracci: I’d like to go back to something you said. I don’t see it written down but I think you said something about the 206 Board would have to agree on suggestions before we submit them to a developer? Can you tell me what that is and what 207 that means? 208 209 Craig Benedict: We have used this process already with the Planning Board, so when we review conditions that have been 210 suggested to be imposed on a conditional zoning proposal, if one of those modification or conditions is to be amended, we 211 look for the Board to deliberate amongst themselves on what the amendment may be and vote internally on it. We don’t 212 want to go to the developer and ask for conditions until we know that the Board wants to collectively say they want that 213 condition. This is a process we have used to try to get some sort of concensus from the Board and then ask either at that 214 meeting or at the next meeting if that is a condition that is agreeable by the applicant. 215 216 Kim Piracci: Would that exclude one of us from making a suggestion on the spot? 217 218 Craig Benedict: No, if for example you said Buc-ee’s should have 50 EV electric charging stations instead of 50 gas 219 pumps, we would want to see if the rest of the Board thought that was a viable condition / amendment before we ask the 220 applicant if they would agree to something like that. It’s up to you to present your rationale for your amended condition or 221 new condition and then if there is consensus amongst the Board that it can be one of your recommendations. 222 223 Kim Piracci: Is that the sort of thing that happens before we meet with the developers or during? 224 10 D R A F T 225 Craig Benedict: That can be during an open meeting in one of our virtual meetings. You can take a look at the conditions 226 that have been proposed in the application and proposed by staff and seek to make amendments if you think that it is 227 viable to you to think that would address the impacts of the project. 228 229 Kim Piracci: I’m not comfortable with that. That is a change in what we’ve been doing. Right? 230 231 Craig Benedict: No, this was what we used at both the RTLP meeting and at the Efland Station meeting. For example 232 during the RTLP meeting, a Board member made a suggestion and that suggestion was agreed to by the Board 233 collectively and was included in the conditions voted on by the Planning Board. It is not new and it is a process that the 234 Commissioners will probably use so that new suggestions will at least have some context that the whole Board is 235 collectively interested in pursuing. 236 237 Kim Piracci: I actually don’t like this at all. What if everyone on this Board had a one-sided opinion? If the Board has to 238 agree on conditions before we ask the developers to do something then it might never happen. 239 240 Craig Benedict: All we are saying is that the member would propose to the Board a condition and the Board would then 241 decide if there was a consensus to move forward. It doesn’t restrict suggestions. It just asks the Board to have consensus 242 and that goes into a request to the developer. 243 244 Kim Piracci: I still am not comfortable with that. To have to come to consensus as a Board. To have to get the whole 245 Board to agree before a suggestion can be made…. 246 247 Melissa Poole: When we put conditions on a project, we still have to vote on it in the overall package, so whether we 248 come to consensus prior to asking or you come to a consensus with the vote, the outcome is not going to change. 249 250 Kim Piracci: It’s very different. It’s really different. 251 252 David Blankfard: Ok, moving on. 253 254 Craig Benedict: What we are proposing in 2021, is something we had done in previous years in the development of our 255 Comprehensive Plan, we had some joint meetings with other advisory boards. In preparation for an update using our 2020 256 Census data, we are going to suggest that we use that process again. That will be one of the suggestions we will bring up 257 to the Commissioners and since the other advisory board chairs will be at this virtual meeting, there may be time to 258 discuss how that interaction will happen as we move forward. 259 260 Craig Benedict continued presentation of annual work plan/goals for 2021 261 262 Craig Benedict: We can either amend some things to the annual report or add to the plan to submit to the Clerk’s Office. 263 264 David Blankfard: We probably need to circle back on how we deal with conditions, there’s a lot of debate about that. 265 266 Craig Benedict: We’ll add that to the work plan. The UDO does not state how that happens but the Board can have it’s 267 own rules on how that is done so we’ll add that the Board will be deliberating on a process or not a process. 268 269 Kim Piracci: I would like to add something to the actions/considerations for 2021. Just as there needs to be long-term 270 planning for potable water, I think that this spring there was some concern with COVID there about transportation, there 271 was only 2 – 3 days’ worth of food in grocery stores. I think it would be worthwhile for Orange County to consider if there 272 was a breakdown in transportation, how would the County feed itself. Number 9 for me would be long-term planning for 273 feeding the County, for food and food distribution. 274 275 David Blankfard: Anyone want to second that? (no response) Sorry Kim. 276 277 Adam Beeman: What is number 7? 278 279 11 D R A F T Craig Benedict: We have noticed that cities have the ability to ask to clean up areas that become eyesores. Counties do 280 not have that ability. We’re going to take a look at 160D which takes Counties and Cities makes them more similar. This 281 something that Michael Harvey and I will take a look at and it would be implemented, if possible, in areas that are intended 282 to have urban or city-like activities. 283 284 Carrie Fletcher: I live out in the country and you talk about a nuisance ordinance, trailer parks and old cars and letting 285 properties fall apart is always an issue. I’m not against farmers not being able to keep up with property but still there are a 286 lot of people that don’t want to have the neighbor that has 20 or 30 cars. Are you saying this won’t come out to rural 287 Orange County? 288 289 Craig Benedict: We do have certain ordinances about cars, junk cars. There is an ordinance about that. This is more like 290 if the grass is too long or the storage of material becomes what is known as an eyesore. There could be some standards 291 that go to the rural areas but we have to be cautious with that for enforcement reasons. 292 293 Perdita Holtz: Just to be clear that 160D has to do with zoning, it does not have anything to do with the nuisance 294 ordinances. Nuisance ordinances are not going to be something that a county can necessarily do outright under 160D. 295 On the last two pages of the agenda materials, there are detailed explanations on these emerging issues and also the 296 work plan. This is just a list on the PowerPoint, the more detailed list is in the packet. 297 298 Carrie Fletcher: On the climate change issue, the collaboration between the Commission for the Environment (CFE) and 299 our Planning Board; I would love to see furtherance of those two agencies getting together. I think it could be a lot less 300 disagreement because there are a lot of people on CFE that would like a lot of things furthered in Orange County but I also 301 understand the roles of the commission and of the Planning Board. The Planning Board has a very specific role and I 302 understand the distinction between the two. Maybe if there were more understanding and cohesion between the two it 303 would be something to entertain going forward. 304 305 Craig Benedict: We’ll make note of that. 306 307 Kim Piracci: I would like to speak out in favor of the nuisance ordinance even though I have eight plus acres out here in 308 the county and I don’t really want people telling me what I can do with it. However, there is a house down the road that 309 basically, uses their yard as a dump and it looks like a dump and it smells like a dump and there is not really anything that 310 can be done about it. While they have the freedom to use their place as a dump, it is affecting my property value. 311 312 Craig Benedict: It’s an energized topic, it’s a tricky issue especially for counties that have such a wide range of activities. 313 We’ll keep it on the list. 314 315 Perdita Holtz: David, you mentioned something about post-COVID, it sounded like it was something about evaluating 316 changes that emerge post-COVID and respond appropriately. 317 318 David Blankfard: Right, based on changing how offices work, how people gather. 319 320 Randy Marshall: I’ll second that. 321 322 Perdita Holtz: We probably need to get buy-in from the Planning Board on that and on Carrie’s request to work jointly with 323 the CFE on climate change issues. 324 325 Carrie Fletcher: To clarify, it wouldn’t be just for climate change issues it would be for collaborative issues regarding any 326 kind of expansion within the County itself. Maybe some kind of collaborative interaction that we could have that would find 327 out about watershed issues that maybe someone more educated in that matter would be good to know prior to voting on 328 things like this. That’s where I was headed with it. 329 330 Craig Benedict: We could add it to the list. To talk about collaborative relationships with particular boards. We think there 331 is a need for that. We will move this topic about collaboration with other advisory boards as one of our applied topics. 332 333 David Blankfard: Can you put down, for example, the board that Carrie is referring, Commission for the Environment. 334 335 12 D R A F T Carrie Fletcher: I think we have different roles so therefore our role here on the Planning Board is totally different than my 336 role on Commission for the Environment so even though they are intertwined, they are a different direction. 337 338 Craig Benedict: With the amendments suggested tonight, do you want to make a collective vote on the Board Plan as 339 amended? 340 341 Randy Marshal: I had one other thought; I am continually surprised by the number of people who live in economic 342 development areas that are surprised when any development projects occur. Can we reach out to neighborhood groups to 343 educate them on what is allowable within these economic development districts and talk about having a conversation 344 before something comes in so we can be more proactive. Is there a process that would allow us to invite neighborhood 345 groups adjacent to some of these economic development areas to have a conversation or forum? 346 347 Craig Benedict: I would say yes, I would agree to that. We could add that to the work plan if the Board wants. Call it 348 Planning 101 Outreach. 349 350 Alexandra Allman: You could solidify that with using Facebook to put all that information so anytime anyone is interested 351 they can go to Orange County Planning Department or Planning Board page and all that information is there so they know 352 what is going on up to date on each project. It demystifies what is going on. 353 354 Perdita Holtz: If I could address the Facebook issue, from a planning perspective, one of the reasons the Planning 355 Department has not embraced Facebook is because there are rules about what government needs to retain, record 356 retention. It has been some government’s experience that when you start talking about development projects it devolves 357 very quickly. It becomes a question of what, if any posts, you can delete and retaining all the posts that were put there. 358 What happens when someone deletes their own posts? It sounds very simple to do a Facebook page but it isn’t as simple 359 for a government agency that is involved in controversial things. We might be able to put something on our website that 360 people wouldn’t be able to directly comment on but we have talked about Facebook in the past and there are some fairly 361 significant issues with the Planning Department having a Facebook account. 362 363 Craig Benedict: It could be that if we do a presentation about Planning 101 in the County, we could YouTube it and have it 364 available online. Let me work on a PowerPoint and bring it to this Board and then how to get that out to the general public. 365 366 Randy Marshall: I have one more, there was a lot of discussion about Mobile Home Parks being disrupted for 367 development which would displace large tracts of affordable housing and uproot communities in order to create areas for 368 development. Is that something that we want to look at in terms of affordable housing and affordable housing 369 communities? 370 371 Craig Benedict: That can be covered under working with the housing department – affordable and senior housing 372 including co-housing – we could add that under number 9. One of Perdita’s staff has been working with the Housing 373 Department about possible amendments to some of the codes, including mobile homes that could promote their long-term 374 viability. 375 376 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the Planning Board Annual Report and Work Plan as amended. Seconded by 377 Melissa Poole. 378 379 Randy Marshall: Yes 380 Alexandra Allman Yes 381 Kim Piracci: Yes 382 Patricia Roberts: Yes 383 Carrie Fletcher Yes 384 Gio Mollinedo Yes 385 Adam Beeman: Yes 386 Susan Hunter: Yes 387 Melissa Poole: Yes 388 David Blankfard: Yes 389 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 390 391 13 D R A F T AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 392 Meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:49 p.m. 393 394 395 396 ________________________ 397 David Blankfard, Chair 398 14 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 3, 2021 Action Agenda Item No. 7 SUBJECT: Buckhorn Area Plan (Study) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Buckhorn Area Plan Focus Map 2. Suitability Values Table 3. Potential Future Growth Map 4. Future Growth Area and Primary Industrial Area Map in Mebane 5. Draft Process for BAP Consideration Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 Tom Altieri, Planner III (919) 245-2579 Tom Ten Eyck, Planner II (919) 245-2567 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director (919) 245-2326 Amanda Garner, Assistant Economic Development Director (919) 245-2330 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation, an update on Mebane’s actions to date, a process/schedule for Orange County’s adoption and to accept/receive the technical study. BACKGROUND: In recent years, the City of Mebane has experienced increased interest in the development of properties in Orange County that were not addressed by its existing 2017 Comprehensive Land Development Plan (LDP), Mebane By Design. Per North Carolina General Statutes, the City of Mebane has an obligation to update its long-range plan so that its actions on development proposals, rezoning and annexations are consistent with its adopted plans. The City of Mebane and Orange County have coordinated to provide utilities in the greater Buckhorn area (Efland and westward to Mebane city limits) and have a Utility Service Agreement (2012 was the most recent update) that identifies a service area that, to a significant degree, coincides with the scope of the Buckhorn Area Plan which could also be considered a ‘growth strategy’. This Agreement is in need of an update due to new developments and growth pressures in and around the existing Mebane LDP, Efland Mebane Small Area Plan, and City of Mebane/Orange County Utility Service Agreement. The Buckhorn Area Plan is intended to help inform future agreements or amendments. As suggested by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in late 2018, staff was to research the development potential of existing designated economic development zones, as well as other viable sites. A prior engineering analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) by Timmons Group of the economic development districts bolstered the need for further examination. Orange County’s Planning and Economic Development departments worked together with their Mebane counterparts on this plan. As such, both jurisdictions funded a planning study of future land use and potential utility service that would be mutually beneficial. 15 Orange County utilized monies available in the FY 2019-2020 budget to reimburse the City of Mebane for half of the consulting expenses of the Buckhorn Area Plan; the original goals have been to work together with a consultant to further analyze areas within Orange County— adjacent to and near Mebane—and to develop recommendations for a growth strategy. In January 2020, Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC) was selected as the consultant, and beginning on February 6, 2020, Orange County, Mebane, and PTRC have met monthly to discuss the geographic area of the study, the parcel development suitability criteria and mechanisms for feedback on the analysis. During the course of the study, there have been developments in Orange County brought to Mebane with a focus to rezone and to annex into Mebane. Any development proposals that are in Orange County and that fall within the study area have been noted as such in Orange County Planning’s feedback to Mebane during the informal courtesy review process. While Mebane has the ability to annex properties that are willing to be annexed pursuant to state law without County ‘approval’, Orange County Planning Staff’s review of proposals has included language that informally recommends Mebane delay any further development of parcels that fall within the Buckhorn Area (but outside the existing utility service agreement) until the Plan is finalized and has been shared with the public and elected officials. THE BUCKHORN AREA PLAN (STUDY): Staff will provide an overview of the Buckhorn Area Plan, which functions as a technical study, at the Planning Board meeting. Some key aspects are provided as attachments herein. A copy of the full document can be downloaded via the following link: https://www.ptrc.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=10489 The study uses GIS mapping to determine parcels most suitable for development within the focus area. The process allows for a technical review of multiple development factors including: developable acres, preservation areas, mean slope, watershed, sewer infrastructure, water infrastructure, interstate access, interstate visibility, roadway access, and access to existing rail. In addition to the parcel-level scoring based on objective suitability criteria, there are a few areas of clustered parcels that have been recommended for long-term growth based on a combination of final score and high economic development use potential. The focus area (Attachment 1) for this study was defined after significant consideration of existing land uses, environmental impacts, and economic development potential. This does not mean that all areas in the study are proposed for potential change but just an area/base element of research. The boundaries for the focus area are the rail line to the North; Ben Wilson and Mattress Factory Roads to the west, Mt. Willing Road and parcels along the I-85 connector to the East; Bushy Cook Road and Seven Mile Creek to the South. The City of Mebane and Orange County Planning, Administrative, Public Works, and Economic Development staffs worked with the Piedmont Triad Regional Council to ensure parcels with the highest potential were included in the analysis; it is worth noting, however, that parcels with significant public utility (schools, churches, cemeteries) were marked as not available for development, regardless of how well they scored on the parcel suitability criteria. Attachment 2 indicates the suitability criteria and values used in the scoring analysis contained in the study. Through the scoring analysis, five potential areas for growth based on size, access, and needs are identified in Attachment 3. The identification of these five potential growth areas is the key outcome of the Buckhorn Area Plan (Study). If and how all five areas or 16 a sub-set are further pursued through any changes to County land use plans or agreements is yet to be determined. Growth Studies or Small Area Plans are researched based documents which can suggest future amendments or actions through a set of recommendations. The adoption of such a study identifies a more formal planning and agreement process (could include multiple implementation options) which will be decided upon in accordance with UDO rules. MEBANE PLANNING BOARD MEETING/FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING: The Mebane Planning Board reviewed the Buckhorn Area Plan and accepted public comment on November 9, 2020. This meeting was available to join online via Zoom, in-person (limited to 7 members of the public due to coronavirus protocols), and available to stream and re-watch on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ci2UakUtAD8). A notification of the planning board and first virtual public meeting was mailed to all property owners within the Buckhorn Focus Area. A short presentation was given by the Piedmont Triad Regional Council outlining the planning process, parcel analysis, and recommendations. The Mebane Planning Board passed a motion to adopt the Buckhorn Area Plan and to amend the Mebane Comprehensive Land Development Plan; the same night, the Planning Board recommended approval of the Buckhorn Area Plan to the Mebane City Council. MEBANE FOLLOW-UP PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING: On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, the City of Mebane held a follow-up public meeting dedicated solely to the Buckhorn Area Plan. The meeting was held on Zoom and welcomed guest questions, comments, and concerns after a short presentation on the overview of the plan. These questions and comments were taken into consideration, and changes were made to reflect the needs and concerns of property owners. Primary concerns were about development standards such as traffic, buffering, noise, and lighting. The meeting was two hours long, and 25 people attended. MEBANE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: During the November 9th meeting, the City of Mebane Planning Board recommended approval to City Council. The draft Buckhorn Area Plan was subsequently presented at the December 7, 2020 Mebane City Council meeting, and a public hearing was held and continued to January 4, 2021. At the January 4, 2021 Mebane City Council meeting, the council continued the public hearing before closing it that evening. A decision was deferred until the January 7, 2021 City Council meeting. During the meeting on January 7, 2021, the City Council agreed to take NO action on the Buckhorn Area Plan until Orange County reviews the Plan and offers comments. In the interim and in response to recent developer initiated requests for annexation and Mebane utility connections, the City of Mebane has amended its Comprehensive Land Development Plan (LDP), Mebane By Design, to include three properties south of West Ten Road and Future Growth Area “A”. Maps are provided as Attachment 4, illustrating the LDP before the recent amendment and after. Growth Area “A” is labeled in Attachment 3. While the Mebane City Council feels that the Buckhorn Area Plan offers good guidance in determining the economic development potential of additional properties in the utility service area, its Council is not in favor of increasing the geographic extent of its LDP to include any portions of Areas B, C, D, or E without explicit Orange County support. NEXT ORANGE COUNTY STEPS: Orange County Planning staff is seeking any feedback the Planning Board may have tonight on next steps and how Orange County may consider 17 processing the Buckhorn Area Plan (Study), as well as any subsequent implementation phases. These aspects are outlined in Attachment 5, which was developed to include public outreach and continued coordination with the City of Mebane, including a joint meeting between the governing boards. Staff has also recommended a formal public hearing on the Plan prior to BOCC consideration. The Planning Board would be asked for its recommendations as part of the typical public hearing process as well. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The portion of the study covered by Orange County has previously been budgeted and paid during FY 19-20; there is no financial impact to providing feedback on this study in preparation for the sharing with the BOCC. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board: • Receive staff’s presentation; • Accept/Receive the technical study; and • Provide any comments it may have on Attachment 5, which outlines next steps. 18 7Buckhorn Area PlanDRAFT¯¯119¯¯119£[70§¨¦85§¨¦85§¨¦40Green LevelHawRiverGrahamMebaneBUCKHORNFOCUS AREAB u c k h o r n R d Gibson RdStAndrewsDrNc 54 HwyC o llingtonDrAndersonRd LakeLathamRdECenterStMcclellanTrSFourthStL o n d o n L nE Brown StBonfireDrMtWillingRdOakwoodStExtS Fifth StAmber DrMebane Rogers RdSEighthStMrs White LnCameronLnTrollingwoodRdLandi LnCallowayDrEOakwoodStWyattRdLebanon RdMattress Facto r y R d EmersonDrT u rn e rR dNFifthStN Third StN Firs t S t W Center StAvalonDr Northrop D rSThirdStS Second StN Ninth St FitchDrGilesStDoeRunRdH illL n F oxTrSolsticeDrLancaster Rd Ba k e r D r BrundageLnLeeStW Clay StWHoltStL y n donLnDodson RdAlpha Dr WhiteLevelRdC ircleDrStoneStExtWilsonRdCulbers o n L nMiles Chapel RdShambley RdPintailDr KathyDrS Jim Minor RdCooksMillRdMace Rd Blue Lake DrT r o l l i n g w o o dHawfieldsRdHighRockRdSNc119HwyM e lf ie ld D r W o o d la w n R d CorporateParkDrMrs Fuller RdJohnsonRdDickey Mill RdBasonRdArrowheadBlvdAbingtonDrEStagecoachRdOldHillsboroughRdN Carr StMapleLnN N c 1 1 9 H w y Cherry LnMebane Oaks RdPatrickDrSaddle Club RdNWilbaRdKimrey RdNellRdFrazierRdTateAvFreshwaterRdAnnaDrHolmes LnForestLakeDrMillCreekRdB e n W i l s o n R d Dewitt Dr FarrellRdSykes RdWest Ten RdHoover RdJo n esD rHebronChurchRdCatfishTrBake r Ct VioletLnJustamereTrEWashingtonStBowmanRdSenRalphScottPkwyN e re u s DrWheeleyLnWhitaker Rd TaliskerTrC u m m in g s D r C h a p e l T rJonquilTr YarboroughRdC o v i n g t on Tr CookStIndustrial DrAllenJarrettDrGraham-MebaneLakeLake MichaelLake OrangeLake Orange¬«III¬«I¬«II¬«IV¬«IV¬«V¬«VI¬«VIICITY OF MEBANEComprehensive Land Development PlanGROWTH STRATEGY AREAS OVERVIEW010.5MilesEMapping provided by the Piedmont Triad Regional Council Planning Department Date: November 02, 2020Buckhorn Focus AreaGrowth Strategy AreasG-1, Mixed-UseG-1, IndustrialG-2, IndustrialG-2, ResidentialG-3, Mixed-Use G-4, Secondary Growth AreaConservation AreaOther FeaturesHighwayProposed NC-119 BypassOther Proposed RoadLocal RoadRailroadStudy Area BoundaryCounty LineMunicipal LimitsETJStreamLake¹ºSchoolMap 1: Mebane CLP Growth Strategy Areas and Buckhorn Focus AreaAttachment 119 20 21 SwepsonvilleGreenLevelHawRiverGrahamMebane¯¯54¯¯119¯¯49¯¯119£¤70§¨¦40NoahRdBuckh orn R d StAndrew s D r N W ilk in s R d Freshwater RdGeorgeBasonRdNc 54 H wyNNc49HwyEStagecoachRd Holt RdNJimMinorRdIsley RdSFourthStLang St L on d o n L n TrollingwoodHaw field sR d Anderson RdTu rn er R d MtWillingRdS Fifth StAmber DrS Eighth StMrs White LnTrollingwood RdLandi LnCallowayDrEOakwoodStWyattRdAvalonDrLebanonRdNFifthStN Third StN F irst St WCenterStS Third StP i n e St M e lf ie ld D rNNinthStSThirdStExtMebane Oaks Rd FitchDrGilesStD o e R u n R d Hi ll L n West Ten RdF oxTrlGibsonRdWhiteLevelRdWLebanonRdLanc aster Rd Bak e r D r BowmanRdLeeStW Clay StWHoltStS First StWSimpsonRdDodson RdKeck RdIndian Village TrLongD a ir y R d Al pha Dr Ro l l i n g R d S Jim Minor RdRoxboro St StoneStExtR o m a Rd WMainStEHardenStE Main StWilson RdCul b e rs on LnMiles Chapel RdBonfireDrHawRiverHopedaleRdS ham bley Rd KathyDrCooksMillRdCres c e n t Dr M ac e Rd High Rock RdN N c 1 1 9 H w y SNc119HwyMaple LnJimmieKerrRdChallengeDrBasonRdJohnsonRdArrowheadBlvdNorthropD rOldHillsboroughRdNCarrStSykesRdDickey Mill RdAllenJarrettDrLaurieDrCherryLnJayLnPatrickDrSaddle Club RdMebaneRogersRdE Center StBakatsiasLnNWilbaRdKimrey RdSenatorRalphScottParkwayCooperRdFrazierRdCarterR d TateAvSamLeeRdHolmes LnMill Creek RdD e w i t t Dr FarrellRdJonesD rAlfred RdHoover RdHebronChurchRdW L a k e T r CatfishTrBakerC t VioletLnEWashingtonStN e re u s Dr Whi tak er Rd C u m m in g s D r C h a p e l T r StoneStSandyCrossRdOakwoodStExtFonvilleRdJonquilTrlYarboroughRdC o v i n g to n Tr GovScottFarm RdCookStWoodla w n Rd Industrial DrB e n W ils o n R d Graham-MebaneLakeLakeMichael¬«VI¬«IV¬«V¬«III¬«I¬«II§¨¦85¬«VIICITY OF MEBANEComprehensive Land Development PlanGROWTH STRATEGY AREAS OVERVIEW010.5MilesEMapping provided by the Piedmont Triad Regional Council Planning Department Date: January 11, 2017Growth Strategy AreasG-1, Mixed-UseG-1, IndustrialG-2, IndustrialG-2, ResidentialG-3, Mixed-Use G-4, Secondary Growth AreaConservation AreaRoads & Other FeaturesInterstateUS HighwayNC HighwayProposed NC-119 BypassOther Proposed RoadLocal RoadRailroadStudy Area BoundaryCounty LineMunicipal LimitsETJStreamLake¹ºSchool22 ¯¯119¯¯119£¤70§¨¦85§¨¦40GreenLevelHaw RiverGrahamBurlingtonMebaneB u c k h o rn R d Gibson RdE Main StStAndrewsDrN W ilk in s R d GeorgeBasonRdNc 54 H wyNNc49HwyCollingtonDrAndersonRd Holt RdLakeLathamRdECenterStNJimMinorRdMcclellanTrSFourthStLang St Lo n d o n L nE Brown StBonfireDrMtWillingRdOakwoodStExtS Fifth StAmber DrMebaneRogersRdSEighthStMrs White LnCameronLnTrollingwoodRdLandi LnCallowayDrEOakwoodStLebanon RdM att ress Factory R d EmersonDrT u r n e rR d TownBranchRdNCharlesStNFifthStN Third StN Fir s t S t JimmieKerrRdW Center StAvalonDr Northrop D rSThirdStS Second StPin e St N Ninth St GreenLevelChurchRdFitchDrMeba ne O aks Rd GilesStDoeRunRdH illL n GravelStF oxTrSolsticeDrLancas t er Rd Bak e r Dr BrundageLnLeeStW Clay StWHoltStL y n donLnWSimpsonRdDodson RdKeck RdIndianVillageTrLong D airy R d Al p ha Dr S Jim M inor RdWhiteLevelRdRo ll i n g R dRoxboro St C ircleDrStone St ExtR o m a Rd WMainStEHardenStWilsonRdC u lberson LnMiles Chapel RdHawRiverHopedaleRdS hambl ey RdPintailDr KathyDrCooksMillRdMace R d C r e s c ent DrBlue Lake DrNoahRdPillowLnT r o l l i n g w o o dHawfieldsRdHigh Rock RdS Nc 119 HwyM e lfie l d D r W o o d la w n R d CorporateParkDrMrs Fuller RdJohnsonRdBasonRdChallenge DrArrowheadBlvdAbingtonDrEStagecoachRdOldHillsboroughRdN C a rrStIsleyRdMapleLnN N c 1 1 9 H w y CherryLnJayLnPatrickDrSaddle Club RdValley DrBakatsiasLnKimrey RdNellRdCooper RdFrazierRdCarterR d TateAvFreshwaterRdSamLeeRdAnnaDrHolmes LnForestLakeDrMillCreekRdGovScottFarm RdB e n W i l s o n R d D e w itt D r FarrellRdSyk es Rd JonesD rAsphaltDrWest Ten RdAlfred RdHoover RdHebronChurchRdTurtle Run T rCatfishTr Bake r Ct VioletLnJustamereTrEWashingtonStBowmanRdSenRalphScottPkwyN e re u s D rWheeleyLnWhitaker Rd TaliskerTrC u m m in g s D r C h a p e l T r StoneStHrtl TrSandyCrossRdDickey Mill RdNFonvilleRdJonquilTrYarboroughRdC o v i n g t on Tr CookStIndustrial DrAllenJarrettDrGraham-MebaneLakeLake Michael¬«III¬«I¬«II¬«IV¬«IV¬«V¬«VI¬«VIICITY OF MEBANEComprehensive Land Development PlanGROWTH STRATEGY AREAS OVERVIEW010.5MilesEMapping provided by the Piedmont Triad Regional Council Planning Department Date: December 18, 2020Growth Strategy AreasG-1, Mixed-UseG-1, IndustrialG-2, ResidentialG-3, Mixed-UseG-4, Secondary Growth AreaG-2, IndustrialConservation AreaOther FeaturesHighwayProposed NC-119 BypassOther Proposed RoadLocal RoadRailroadStudyBoundaryCounty LineMunicipal LimitsETJStreamLake¹ºSchoolPost Adoption Amendmentto Growth Area V23 Attachment 5 Draft Process for Orange County’s Consideration of the “Buckhorn Area Plan” (BAP) 1- Planning Board receives presentation, accepts technical report, an update on Mebane’s actions to date, and process/schedule for OC adoption (no public input at this time) 2/3/21 2- BOCC receives Special Presentation, accepts technical report, an update on Mebane’s actions to date, and process/schedule for OC adoption (Planning staff explains next step scenarios which do not include action item approvals, i.e. no formal amendments) 3/5/21 3-BOCC and City of Mebane Council Joint Meeting Planning staff to explain and develop a list of possible actions which could implement plan. Before or After Public Info Session 4- OC/City of Mebane Public Information Session to collect public comment March 2021? 5- Joint Planning Staff report back to both local governments with common goals and items and seek authorization to proceed towards formal amendments if necessary April 2021 6- Planning Board recommendation to BOCC on BAP including recommendation topics. May 2021 7.1- BOCC Public Hearing and Consideration of BAP adoption May/June 2021 7.2- BOCC authorizes BAP implementation next steps and process (including Public Hearing schedule for any FLUM and/or zoning amendments) May/June 2021 24