Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-2025; 5-a - Continuation of Public Hearing – Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize “Fiddlehead Corner”, a Master Plan Development 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 5-a SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing —Applications for Zoning Atlas Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, & UDO Text Amendments to Realize "Fiddlehead Corner", a Master Plan Development — Conditional District on an Unaddressed Parcel on Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, Bingham Township DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director, UNDER SEPARATE COVER (919) 245-2592 All agenda materials for this item, other than Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, (919) 245-2579 this Agenda Abstract, may be found in the Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Board of Commissioners'February 4, 2025, Zoning Manager, (919) 245-2597 agenda package materials within Item 5-a. Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director, (919) 245- References to attachments in this abstract are 2578 references to information in those February 4, Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director, (919) 245- 2025 agenda package materials. 2577 NOTE: THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION IS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 4, 2025 BUSINESS MEETING. The February 4, 2025, agenda materials are available at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 02042025- 2185. PURPOSE: To continue the public hearing opened at the Board of Commissioners' February 4, 2025, Business meeting, receive public comment from individuals previously signed up to speak who have not yet spoken, receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations, close the public hearing, deliberate, and consider action on applicant-initiated amendments to the A) Zoning Atlas, B) Comprehensive Plan, and C) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text to realize a Master Plan Development — Conditional District (MPD-CD) on a +/-90.133-acre unaddressed property (PIN: 9739-72-0339) located off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within the Bingham Township. This abstract is organized accordingly to discuss the amendments to the Zoning Atlas, Comprehensive Plan, and Unified Development Ordinance in Sections A, B, and C, respectively. On February 4, 2025, the Orange County BOCC opened a public hearing to consider applicant, staff, and public comments upon the three (3) applications addressed in this abstract. All supporting materials, including, but not limited to, the applications, staff reports and analysis, and supporting documentation, can be found within Item 5-a at this link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 02042025-2185. The unabridged versions of the Traffic Impact Assessment, Water Supply Report, and Wastewater Treatment System Report with all technical appendices, can be found here: https://centralpermits.orangecountync.gov/EnerGov Prod/SelfService#/plan/e63acbd9-28f5- 4398-a638-6a579665c9cc?tab=attachments.) 2 As detailed in Section A below, the applicant's proposed rezoning is: From: AR (Agricultural Residential) To: MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District) The Zoning Atlas amendment, as presented, is presently inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and does not conform with the regulations of the adopted UDO. North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 160D-605 requires the BOCC to make a statement as to whether a zoning action is or is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive land use plan. The applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment (Section B below) to: 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node; and 2) reflect that the proposed zoning to MPD-CD of the subject property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. Should these amendments be made by BOCC action, the Zoning Atlas amendment could be considered "consistent" with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as referenced in Attachment A7. Other considerations could determine that the Zoning Atlas amendment remains inconsistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, regardless of the amendment (Attachment A8). Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a UDO amendment to Section 3.8 (Section C below) is needed to address the MPD-CD zoning district and where it is recommended for use throughout the County. The UDO is also proposed for amendment in Section 5.2 and Article 10 to allow for Family Care Facilities in MPD-CD zoning districts, as proposed in the applicant's narrative. The latter amendments will also bring the UDO into conformance with State statutory language requiring Family Care Facilities to be allowed in all residential zoning districts and, as discussed below, is recommended for approval by the Planning Director regardless of the actions on the other proposed amendments. All UDO amendments are required actions to allow for the Zoning Atlas amendment to be in conformance with Orange County's land use regulations. The BOCC is presented with four (4) actions within this public hearing: one associated with the Zoning Atlas amendment; one associated with the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and two different actions, one staff-recommended and the other integral to the comprehensive plan amendments, related to the applicant-initiated text amendments. As discussed in more detail below, the Planning Board recommended denial of all three presented applications for amendment (Attachment A5). SECTION A: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT BACKGROUND: On December 29, 2023, Orange County received a Conditional Zoning Atlas Amendment application (Attachment Al) proposing to rezone 90.133 acres of property (PIN- 9739-72-0339) off Morrow Mill Road at Gold Mine Loop, within Bingham Township. The application is accompanied by a master plan for "Fiddlehead Corner", a 150-dwelling unit community featuring multifamily, townhome, and single-family housing options intermixed with a community center, fitness center, and accessible gardens and walking trails. Two "Family Care" centers are also featured in the master plan. This land use must be enabled as a permitted use within MPD-CD districts through a text amendment to UDO Section 5.2 and Article 10 (Section 3 C). The community will feature a network of private roads that rely upon a public collector street that will intersect with both Morrow Mill Road and Gold Mine Loop. As discussed in Section B, the property lies partly within a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node as well as an Agricultural Residential area, as shown on the adopted Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report in Attachment A2 contains additional information, maps, and analysis that accounts for this relationship with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and UDO, as well as the context of the property's zoning and proposed land use relative to the local area. Approval of a site-specific plan is part of the conditional district rezoning process, and the master plan and any agreed-upon conditions (Attachment Al) are binding to the property and any development permitted upon it. Conditional zoning allows for conditions to be voluntarily imposed upon a property that regulate it in unique ways related to the uses proposed for that property. Approval of a master plan — rather than a more detailed site plan — is part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Master Plan districts are intended "...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, nonresidential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends" (staff emphasis; Orange County UDO, p.3-63). Development of the property must be in accordance with an approved master plan and any conditions imposed as part of the MPD-CD rezoning process. Staff has recommended the imposition of conditions, as presented by the applicant (Attachment Al) and included in the drafted Ordinance of approval (Attachment A9). The applicant has not requested conditions to deviate from the UDO's development standards. Should the application be approved, development of the property will be permitted only through the review and approval of a submitted site plan application(s) in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO. This allows for staff to verify all imposed conditions are adhered to, and allow for final review by members of the County's Development Advisory Committee (DAC) as detailed within Section 1.9 of the UDO. PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The applicant provided updated conditions to the Planning Director on December 19, 2024, (Attachment Al) reflecting the discussion and stated commitments made at the July 10, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Pursuant to UDO Section 2.9.1(F)(3), mutually agreed-upon conditions can be imposed on the MPD-CD as part of this process if they address: a. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, b. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways, and access points, screening and buffer areas, the timing of development, etc.), and/or c. All other matters the County may find reasonable and appropriate or the petitioner may propose. Attachments Al & A9 provide more detail on the mutually agreed-upon conditions, which are summarized here: 1. Project shall be completed as presented in approved master plan/application packet, which details amenities and landscaping commitments, and includes the narrative phasing plan (Attachment Al). 2. A NC State Licensed Provider will operate the featured Family Care Facility homes; 4 3. The Fiddlehead Neighborhood Commons Building will be constructed as part of Phase 1 and will provide a full kitchen, meeting rooms, gathering rooms for collective meals for residents and guests, fitness/exercise rooms/equipment, office space for remote and in person medical therapy including vaccination clinics, etc.; 4. The Health & Fitness Center shall be constructed as part of Phase 2 or 3 and will include an exercise pool and fitness equipment; 5. The maximum number of bedrooms permitted shall be 300; and 6. Provision of Type E (75') and F (100') perimeter buffers for the entire property. Other conditions are detailed by the applicant, but are redundant with UDO development standards and/or commitments already detailed previously in the narrative and/or site plan. ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS: A MPD-CD rezoning application requires submission of a master plan consistent with the provisions of Section 6.7 of the UDO. The typical cadence for review is as follows: • First Action — Applicant holds a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment: The Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 15, 2024, at 6 pm at the Orange County Public Library. Notes from this meeting are in Attachment A4. • Second Action — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. Staff Comment: The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024. Minutes from these meetings are in Attachment A5. • Third Action — The BOCC receives the Planning Board and staff recommendations at an advertised public hearing and makes a decision on the application. Staff Comment: The public hearing was opened by the BOCC on February 4, 2025, and continued to March 6 by a unanimous vote. In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO, notices of the public hearing were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel. These notices were mailed on January 17, 2025, 18 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign [or signs] on January 21, 2025, 14 days before the meeting. See Attachment A3 for the notification materials. SECTION B: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Concurrent with the Zoning Atlas application, Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application (Attachment 131) to amend the Comprehensive Plan to 1) expand the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); and 2) add the MPD-CD zoning district as an allowable zoning district in the RNAN on the Appendix F Land Use and Zoning Matrix. State law and the UDO require the Board to make a finding of consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan when making land use changes. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary for 5 the Board to make this consistency finding in regard to the submitted Fiddlehead Corner zoning application detailed in Section A above. "The [Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan] Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of coordinated and appropriate land use classes and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of land uses that would achieve a desired pattern of development... [t]he Map also provides the development community and staff with clear guidance to the locations in the County where re-zonings may be appropriate and where they are not" (2030 Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-15). The subject property is currently split between two Future Land Use Classes, Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN). These land use classes provide guidance on how the property may be used and regulated through zoning. "Agricultural Residential" is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land in the rural areas where the prevailing land use activities are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and which is an appropriate location for the continuation of these uses." "Rural Neighborhood Activity Node" (RNAN) is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as, "Land focused on designated road intersections within the rural area that is appropriate for small-scale commercial uses characteristic of "Mom and Pop" convenience stores and gas stations." The proposed FLUM amendment expands the RNAN at Morrow Mill Road and NC-54 from its current +/-18.493 acres to the full 90.133 acres of the property. The expanded area realized through the proposed amendment is +/-71.64 acres (Attachments B2 and 134). The applicant also proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use and Zoning Matrix in Appendix F to allow the MPD-CD zoning district within the RNAN future land use classification (Attachment B3). The Comprehensive Plan Appendix F. Land Use and Zoning Matrix links the County UDO's zoning districts to the future land use classifications and overlays. If a zoning district is not listed as compatible with a land use classification in the Matrix, it is determined to be inconsistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Analysis Section 2.3.2(8) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states, "For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows: (1) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) To correct an error or omission; or (3) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County." The Applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendments (FLUM and Appendix F) discussed herein are based upon "(1)" above and the premise that changes have occurred and are occurring in the County. The burden of demonstrating that an application complies with approval criteria belongs with the Applicant and is reflected in their Letter of Request 6 (Attachment B1). The letter cites demographic information included in the Orange County Master Aging Plan and the need to accommodate significant growth in the percentage of County adults ages 65+ with increased housing and neighborhoods designed to meet the needs of seniors. Staff analysis focuses on the development status of the RNANs countywide, not just at the local area (Morrow Mill Road and NC 54 intersection) of the zoning case. Rural Neighborhood Activity Node (RNAN) at Morrow Mill Road The 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not define an explicit purpose for activity nodes, but the Plan's principles, goals, and objectives all detail the need to minimize inefficient patterns of "rural sprawl" and realize efficient and compact use of the land using two basic strategies: activity nodes and infill development. The activity node strategy serves to cluster non- residential development at major intersections throughout the County in locations appropriate for serving the needs of the local residents. All ten (10) RNANs have been included on the FLUM since 1981 , and the majority of the developed non-residential uses existed at that time. Attachment B4 is a summary of the areas (in acreage) of present development status and land uses within the RNAN at Morrow Milll Road and NC 54. Approximately 46 acres (37%) within the existing node of 125 total acres have been developed. Existing non-residential land uses include the PSM Food Mart, Piedmont Feed and Garden Center, and the UNC-Chapel Hill Facility Support Building. Although 76-acres remain "undeveloped," this designation does not take into account site- specific characteristics such as stream and landscaping buffers, road rights-of-way, and stormwater control measures that are required of new development. While there is remaining development capacity within the existing RNAN at NC 54 and Morrow Mill Road, it is insufficient to practically accommodate a development the size of Fiddlehead Corner. Impacts to Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes (RNANs) Countywide Hands Four Development is requesting MPD-CD (Master Plan Development — Conditional District) zoning, which is not currently listed as a compatible district for the RNAN Future Land Use classification within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix (Attachment B3). The zoning districts currently compatible within RNANs include: - LC-1 (Local Commercial-1); - NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial-2); - ASE-CD (Agricultural Support Enterprises - Conditional District); - R-CD (Residential - Conditional District); and - NR-CD (Non-Residential - Conditional District). Attachment B5, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Development Status" and Attachment B6, "RNAN Countywide and Existing Zoning," offer some analysis of how much potential this amendment may create for MPD-CD rezoning requests countywide. There are a total of ten (10) RNANs in Orange County. All ten (10) RNANs were included on the FLUM since it was originally adopted in 1981 and have largely not been developed since that time. Approximately 580 acres (49.7%) within the RNANs are already developed, leaving 512 parcel acres "undeveloped". As previously noted, this does not account for site specific characteristics and development constraints (e.g. required buffers). 7 The MPD-CD zoning district was originally established to provide a mechanism through which innovative development proposals could move forward for consideration by Orange County through a legislative land use planning process that was transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. The intent of the MPD-CD zoning district is, in part, "...to provide opportunity for unified large-scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments to be considered." Allowance of the MPD-CD zoning district use more broadly throughout the County may help accomplish the Comprehensive Plan's vision for activity nodes, inviting innovative mixtures of uses, including differing forms of residential uses and creative designs, at key intersections throughout the County. Any proposal of MPD-CD zoning in the RNANs would require administration of a zoning application and be accompanied by the requisite public notification and public hearing for input from property owners in the surrounding area. Fiddlehead Corner, the applicant's zoning proposal, is following this process and offers a procedural template that future applicants might use for reference and guidance. SECTION C: UDO TEXT AMENDMENTS Hands Four Development Cooperative submitted an application in December 2023, and modified in March 2024, to amend the text of the UDO's Table of Permitted Uses to add "Family Care Facility" as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district (Attachment Cl) and to complement the proposed amendments to Appendix F of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. While this applicant-initiated text amendment is necessary for the MPD-CD rezoning application, as presented, staff must evaluate if "Family Care Home" is an appropriate use for consideration within the MPD-CD zoning district countywide. Applications for a conditional zoning district must include all uses contemplated within a development project as part of the conditions accompanying the rezoning approval. The proposed allowable uses are specified in the UDO's Section 5.2, the Table of Permitted Uses, including whether use-specific standards are required. Furthermore, a MPD-CD approval must "... be located in such a manner as to be compatible with the character of existing development of surrounding properties, thus ensuring the continued conservation of building values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land in the county. Therefore, when evaluating an application for this district, emphasis shall be _given to the location of the proposed development, the relationship of the site and site development plan to adjoining property, and the development itself (emphasis by staff). Additionally, the applicant is proposing a UDO text amendment to allow MPD-CD districts in RNANs, as defined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is complementary to the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Appendix F. The following sentence in Section 3.8, MPD-CD Chart, District Specific Development Standards, #1 would be rewritten as follows (red text is the proposed amendment language): 1 . MPD-CD districts shall be limited to Transition Land Use Categories within the Orange County Planning Jurisdiction and Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes and Rural Community Nodes, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 8 ANALYSIS The LIDO (in Article 10) defers definition of a Family Care Facility to State statutes where it is defined as (NCGS 160D-907): A home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care, and habilitation services in a family environment for not more than six resident persons with disabilities. The statute further defines a "person with disabilities" as: A person with a temporary or permanent physical, emotional, or mental disability, including, but not limited to, an intellectual or other developmental disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances, and orthopedic impairments but not including persons with a mental illness who are dangerous to others as defined in G.S. 122C-3(11)b. Additionally, the statute stipulates: A family care home is deemed a residential use of property for zoning purposes and is a permissible use in all residential districts. No local government shall require that a family care home, its owner, or operator obtain, because of the use, a special use permit or variance from any such zoning regulation; however, a local government may prohibit a family care home from being located within a one-half mile radius of an existing family care home. In accordance with the State law, the County's Table of Permitted Uses allows Family Care Homes (use #44 in Section 5.2 of the UDO) in all residential zoning districts. The use is also allowable in the zoning districts. This use is currently permitted by-right (consistent with State statutes that address the use) in the County's 16 conventional zoning districts and Residential - Conditional District and Non-Residential - Conditional District. As stated in Article 3 of the LIDO, the purpose of the MPD-CD district includes the potential for residential uses (emphasis by staff)- ...to taff):...to provide for unified large scale subdivisions, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that promote economical and efficient land use, improved level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety, creative design, and a better environment through the approval of a general concept Master Plan the permits defined flexibility to accommodate land use adjustments in response to evolving market trends. As such, MPD-CD districts currently allow for residential uses but not "family care homes", inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, as included in the Application narrative, Orange County has adopted plans supporting diversified housing options for a variety of populations. Link to Countywide Strategic Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/26972/Orange-County-Strategic- Plan?bidld= 9 Link to currently adopted Comprehensive Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/1238/Comprehensive-Land-Use Link to Master Aging Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/203/Master-Aging-Plan Link to Consolidated (Housing) Plan: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/DocumentCenter/\/iew/10806/Orange-County-NC- Consolidated-Plan-FINAL?bidld=) Staff has reviewed the options presented in the Application and recommends that Family Care Facility be added as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district by adding an asterisk (*) to the appropriate column on the line for use #44 (Family Care Facility). In reviewing the application, staff discovered the definition of "Family Care Facility" in Article 10 (Definitions) of the UDO contains an outdated reference to a State statute. Therefore, staff is recommendingan update to the definition as shown :��` �,aa is the proposed amendment p � P P language): Family Care Facility A facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 168-21 160D-907. Staff does not recommend the applicant's proposal to require additional use standards (by adding a delta [A] symbol), as the State deems Family Care Facilities a permissible use in all residential districts and discourages additional requirements beyond those in place for similar residential uses. Family Care Facility is a permitted use (*) in all other Orange County zoning districts that allow the use, and to introduce additional standards exclusively for the MPD-CD is not recommended. Staff review of the amendment to UDO Section 3.8 regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan only determined that the Board of Commissioners must act in coordination with its action regarding the presented Comprehensive Plan amendments. The UDO text amendment is unwarranted without the corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024 (Attachment A5). The Planning Board made three motions, all recommending the Board of County Commissioners vote to deny the applications. The text amendment application was voted upon 8 — 1 to recommend denial, with the dissent being related to the need to bring the UDO into alignment with NC General Statutes. The Planning Board voted unanimously (9 — Q) to recommend that the BOCC vote to deny the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment because the extension of the MPD-CD zoning district to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Board also voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend denial of the Zoning Atlas amendment application due to its present inconsistencies with the County's adopted comprehensive plan and nonconformity with its adopted UDO, as reflected in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS The consistency of the Zoning Atlas Amendment with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relies, in part, on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, [Attachments B1 — B7 (MA23-0004)]. As 10 discussed herein, the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's FLUM and Appendix F are necessary for a consistency finding on the zoning action, as required by NCGS 160D-605. Similarly, the amendment of the text of the County's UDO [Attachments C1 — C5 (TXTA23- 0001)] is required to ensure the conformance of the Zoning Atlas amendment with the UDO text. As discussed herein, the amendment to Section 3.8 is complementary with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments, and the action should be consistent with those actions. The amendment to allow Family Care Facilities in the MPD-CD zoning district and update this land use definition in Article 10 is recommended by the Planning Director regardless of actions directly related to the other proposed amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Director recommends the following actions to the Board of County Commissioners, which features four (4) motions to be voted upon: 1) Continue the public hearing, receive public comments, and consider the Planning Board recommendations of denial on all three (3) applications; 2) Close the public hearing; 3) Consider and deliberate on the three (3) applications for action, with reference to the Staff Report on the zoning atlas amendment (Attachment A2), featuring analyses of UDO compliance, Comprehensive Plan Consistency, impact of the use to the surrounding area, and safety and efficiency of land use; 4) Vote to Approve the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C4) and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5); 5) Vote on the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3); 6) Vote to Approve or Deny the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment 137); and 7) Vote to Approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment A9) OR Vote to Deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest, as detailed in the Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments which have determined that the approval of the request would not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs associated with advertising, including meeting and public hearing notice and mailings, are covered by the application fee. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • GOAL 2: HEALTHY COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE 2. Expand access to quality, affordable healthcare services. (e.g., Medicaid expansion, crisis response, healthy living campaign). • GOAL 4: MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE 4. Coordinate transit investments with municipal and county land use planning to reduce vehicle miles travelled and to provide more equitable access to shopping, employment, medical centers, college campuses, etc. 11 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Continue the public hearing and receive the Planning Board and staff recommendations and public comments from individuals previously signed up to speak who have not yet spoken on the three (3) applications; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Consider Motions to Approve, Deny or Defer Action on the following four (4) items: a. Vote on the Staff-Recommended UDO Text Amendments to the Family Care Facilities language in Section 5.2 and Article 10 (as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C4) and UDO Text Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C5); b. Vote on the Applicant-Initiated UDO Text Amendments to amend Section 3.8 (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan action, as reflected in the Statement of Consistency (Attachment C2) and UDO Text Amendments Ordinance (Attachment C3); c. Vote on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, as reflected in the attached Resolution of Approval (Attachment B7); and d. Vote on the Zoning Atlas Amendment, either Approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment A7) and Ordinance (Attachment A9); or Denying the application, including a statement as to why the application is not reasonable and/or not in the public interest (Attachment A8).