Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-17-2003-9cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 17, 2003 Action Agenda Item No. ~-~ SUBJECT: Major Subdivision and Rural Buffer Notification and Flexible Development Amendments ___ DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO ATTACHMENT(S): Ordinance Amendment p 3 Minutes Nov. 25, 2002 Public Hearing p 6 INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, ext. 2592 Robert P. Davis, Planner III, ext. 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To make a decision on a Subdivision Regulations amendment to: 1) allow flexible development guidelines to be applied in the Rural Buffer Zoning District, 2) enhance the notification procedures by requiring an informational sign to be placed on major subdivision proposals in the County planning jurisdiction prior to Neighborhood Information Meetings, and 3) increase, at concept stage, the percentage of lots that requires a soil analysis by a soil scientist. BACKGROUND: During a recent subdivision approval for a tract in the Rural Buffer, citizens adjacent to the development proposal questioned why there were no resident notifications for major subdivision proposals in the Rural Buffer similar to those required in other zoning districts. There was also a question concerning why there is not an open space component required in Rural Buffer developments. After a discussion of the review standards in the other zoning districts, it was decided that an amendment to subdivision regulations was needed in order to create consistent procedures in both the development and the public notification process for major subdivisions within County-regulated zoning districts. The Subdivision Regulations presently require that only Conventional Development apply to major subdivisions in the Rural Buffer. The property owner notification of a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and mandatory open space provisions are components of the Flexible Development guidelines of the Subdivision Regulations. Flexible Development is not allowed in the Rural Buffer. Therefore, there is no NIM and developments have tended toward projects that had either no open space or an amount less than 33%. These amendments, if approved, will mandate application of the Flexible Development standards in the Rural Buffer, provided that proposals are in accordance with the Joint Planning Area agreement and rules. For major subdivisions in the Rural Buffer, two-acre lot minimums and at least 33% open space will be required for all Flexible Development proposals. The Conventional Development Plan option will still be optional as it is now in non-Rural Buffer districts. In summary, this amendment means that development proposals in the Rural Buffer shall be submitted, reviewed, regulated, and processed in the same manner as are other major subdivision projects within the County's planning jurisdiction. A second provision integrated into the existing Flexible Development guidelines is an amendment that requires staff to post an informational sign intended to give public notice of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on major subdivision tracts. The sign will give area residents information about the subdivision proposal as well as the Planning Department telephone number to call for more information. Presently, the subdivision regulations do not require a sign posting for the NIM anywhere within the County's zoning jurisdiction. The final change in the amendment is to increase the percentage of lots in the "Yield" plan that would have to be evaluated by a soil scientist for soil suitability of septic systems when a Flexible Development is being prepared. The current percentage is 10-15% of the proposed lots; the recommendation is to raise the percentage to 50% of the proposed lots. This higher percentage will require the design of a subdivision to reflect the available soils within a project at the concept plan stage, not at the preliminary stage. Notification Procedures in Joint Planning Area Agreement for Courtesy Review The Joint Planning Area (JPA) Agreement specifies how notification to Carrboro and Chapel Hill is to be carried out for developments, text and map amendments in the Rural Buffer. County notification procedure has been to send the entire application to Chapel Hill and Carrboro in packet form, just as it is sent to the various boards as a part of the County approval process. Each year, the Planning Department creates a meeting schedule calendar for the Planning Board. This calendar integrates the BOCC meeting dates into the Planning Board meeting schedule. By following the proper meeting sequence and dates listed on the yearly board calendars, the County is assured that no project is approved counter to JPA agreement. Subdivision Regulation Changes: A. Allows the Flexible Development Option (NOTE: Excludes the Village Option) to be used for all major subdivisions located in the Rural Buffer, but only in accordance with the Joint Planning Area agreement and rules. B. Amends Concept Plan application requirements for all major subdivisions within the County's Jurisdiction 1. Maintains the mail notification process to adjoining property owners for the NIM 2. Requires Planning Staff to post a sign on proposed subdivision a minimum of seven (7) days prior to the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) a. States date, time and location of the NIM b. States total number of lots c. States the Planning Department Telephone Number C. Raises the percentage of residential lots on the "Yield" plan to show soil suitability for at least 50% of the potential lots rather that 10-15% as currently required. These Subdivision Regulation amendments were originally a part of the proposed Special Use Permit process for Major Subdivisions that was presented at the public hearing in November 2002. Because other parts of the proposed Public Hearing ordinance are being processed independently, this recommendation and ordinance have been removed from the Public Hearing ordinance and are proceeding along a separate track. 3u Planning Board Recommendation: On February 5, 2002, the Planning voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the amendments. The only discussion centered on whether the ordinance should specify Licensed Soil Scientist rather than Soil Scientist. The Board decided to leave the ordinance as written because Environmental Health reviews the work of the soil scientists in either case. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public financial impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration recommends Approval of the amendments. Planning Board recommends Approval of the amendments. Planning Staff recommends Approval of the amendments. 3 Bold =Proposed Language S~eugk =Deleted Language An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Regulations of Orange County Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend the definition of SUBDIVISION, MINOR (1) to read as follows: (1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one (1) tract of land in any *~T~°''*'~ ~ "- ~''^' ~'~°~ ten (10) year period; Section 2. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend Section III-D-1 to read as follows: Concept Plan Approval ' " '' r`;~'ri^+" ~°"°"++''° ~"""' ~„ram " Section 3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend the third paragraph of Section III-D-1-c to read as follows: Twenty-five (25) ~:~ copies of a Concept Plan of the proposed major subdivision prepared in accordance with the specifications for Concept Plan drawings as contained in Section V-B of this Ordinance. A Concept Plan shall 6oTr~rsc~r t„-°° Y~.' ~~, :..c'"'""b include the following: Section 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend the first paragraph of Section III-D-1-d to read as follows: Upon receipt and acceptance of the Concept Plan application, the Planning Department shall schedule a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) and mail notices of the meeting to each owner of property within 500 feet of the property proposed to be subdivided. Additionally, the staff shall place a sign on the property indicating the total number of lots proposed, the date, the time, the location of the NIM, and the Planning Department telephone number. The sign shall be posted on the property at least seven (7) days prior to the NIM. The NIM shall be held a minimum of 14 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the concept plan is scheduled to be heard. Notices of the NIM shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. G: cunentplanni ng/robert/majorsu bdivisionsu p/ruralb ufferflexibledevelopment 4 Section 5. SUBDNISION REGULATIONS. Amend Sections III-D-2, III-D-2a, III- D-2b, III-D-2c, III-D-2d and III-D-2e by deleting them in their entirety and reserving Section III-D-2 for future use. Section 6. SUBDNISION REGULATIONS. Amend Section N-B-10, Section B to read as follows: Section B APPLICABILITY Y Y L+ \ / a ~ ~ r a l c t.,a• n i• , ni„+ ~.,. ~~,o u,,.,,.a ,.~r,,,,,,+., r,,,.,,,,,;~~;,,,,o,-~ All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions, provided, however, that Flexible Developments located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall comply with provisions of Article 6.30 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the Village Option for a Flexible Development cannot be located in the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district. Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and preserving open space areas as part of such developments. Section 7. SUBDNISION REGULATIONS. Amend the second paragraph of Section N-B-10, Section E.1 to read as follows: <~ 11 J ~ }~. } A ~}„ ~ __ 1.1v„N/,Y,1 n J L•,111J J /1,~ [, „~/]~]1,*',. n /l~, In ~n nY ~~M +A ~ ~~ ~ !i not + t, , i coin „~~~,o ~,- .. „ a ~ ~ ,.~,. ,.,., ---- r------- \- - • - -- -- -. Vl LJl ~+ *• - •~~, ~~, a •i ~ *• + ~ +~, ~~,,;,-„„,~.,o„~.,i uo.,i~~~i~ If the residential lots are proposed to be served by septic systems, the "Yield" plan shall show soil suitability for individual septic tanks by a preliminary soil suitability analysis performed in the field on at least 50% of the proposed lots with all of the proposed lots located on a map showing the location of soil types suited for septic systems based on the Orange County, N.C. Soil Survey. The soil suitability analysis and map shall be prepared by a Soil Scientist in consultation with the Soil Scientist of the Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Department. G:cu rrentplann ing/robert/majorsubdivisionsup/ru ralb ufferflexi bledevelopment 5 Section 8. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. Amend Section V-A by deleting it in its entirety and reserving Section V-A for future use; amend Section V-B to read as follows: Concert Plan ~' " '' '~'~ '"'"`" ~'"°°"+ *~'° D w.~' B~€fer. Section 9. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that this ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Regulations of Orange County" be adopted. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the _day of , 2002. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2002 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2002. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners G:cun-entplann ing/robertlmajorsu bdivisionsup/ruralbufferflexibledevelopment 6 APPROVED 2/4/2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 25, 2002 7:30 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, November 25, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray and Vice Chair Hunter Schofield, Jay Bryan, Barry Katz, Craufurd Goodwin, Ted Triebel, Rachel Preston, Howard McAdams, Jay Bryan, Maria Tadd, and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs asked for any comments from any of the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners are going to have to make comments on the Long Range Transportation Plan. She is assuming that no one else has anything more to input, but if they do, they should let her know. Chair Jacobs turned the meeting over to the Planning Board Chair. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planning Board Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray chaired these items. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict went over the items in the agenda abstract. He gave a history of each item. He said that these items will not be voted on this evening because this is a public hearing for public input. The primary topic is the issue of growth management techniques for subdivisions. (C.1. a-e and C. 2. b -Orange County Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments and Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments) r _.. 7 1. Orange County Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Amend Section III-D-1 to require notification of adjacent property owners, posting of a sign on property proposed for major subdivision development and a Neighborhood Information Meeting for all Concept Plan applications for major subdivision development including the Rural Buffer. Craig Benedict explained some maps. Presently there are certain processes for subdivisions. Before a major subdivision comes forward in Orange County's jurisdiction outside of the rural buffer, there is a neighborhood information meeting. The purpose of this amendment is to standardize what occurs in both sections of the County, so there is equity in the rural buffer and Orange County jurisdiction areas. The suggested amendment is a sign on the property when major subdivisions come forward. The sign will notify people of the Planning Board meeting to consider the subdivision. Chair Jacobs asked about where the sign has to be located and Craig Benedict said they will be visible from the public road. There was no public comment on this item. b. Delete the entire text of Section III-D-2 and reserve for future use. c. Amend Section III-D-3 to require Class A Special Use Permit in addition to Preliminary Plat Approval for Major Subdivisions creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres. Craig Benedict said that, presently, a major subdivision goes through the process of a concept plan where developers bring in a conventional plan and a flexible option plan. This is brought forward to the Planning Board and the board decides which plan is the best. The developer then brings forward a preliminary plat. The Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the County Commissioners make the decision. The purpose of the new process is to be able to more comprehensively review the preliminary plat part of the subdivision and put it in a special use process. He described the different standards for subdivisions. The Planning Board is discussing the traffic impact study for subdivisions. Presently, a traffic impact study is required for an 80-lot or above subdivision. This could be changed, depending on which road the subdivision is proposing. Other issues include fire protection, mitigation for resource damage, drainage and storm water management, solid waste management, irrigation, open space maintenance, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, etc. These aspects can be added to the subdivision review process during the preliminary plat stage and the special use class A stage. Before final adoption, there needs to be adequate public input. The County Commissioners and the Planning Board have discussed the threshold for the special use process being 20 lots. It could also be 20 acres. Commissioner Gordon asked if Craig Benedict was recommending all of the standards if the project is large enough. Craig Benedict said that they have discussed this with the Planning Board and the County Commissioners in detail. They thought that it would be best for this meeting to have the all inclusive list of the different options and then pare this down or have a phase one or a phase two investigation. Commissioner Gordon said that this would probably need some fine tuning because that is a lot of standards for a small developer. She is especially interested in groundwater availability. Some of the standards should apply to all subdivisions. Commissioner Carey said that if the threshold would be 20 acres rather than 8 201ots, then he is concerned. If there is a small project, it could be very daunting. Craig Benedict explained the different densities on a map. Commissioner Carey would like to hear from the public about the thresholds. He encouraged the staff to look at some differentiation in the criteria for different levels of projects and maybe even looking at increasing the acreage. Chair Jacobs asked if it was possible to do the acreage so that you differentiate based on the underlying zoning. For example, if it is one-acre lots, 20 acres might work; whereas, if it is two-acre lots, maybe 40 acres might work. Craig Benedict said that they could go in this direction. Jay Bryan made reference to the standards and said that the board considering the project has to make sure that the use will maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare and will enhance the value of contiguous property, and that the character of the use will be in harmony with the area. He said that the standards said that the board can deny the application if it finds that the use will not maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare. In Carrboro, the way the ordinance is phrased, the board can deny an application where it is shown that the use will not maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare. He asked if the standards could be changed to make it more flexible that would be in keeping with the present standards. Craig Benedict said that these general standards are used for the other 28 special uses that are out there -both class A and class B special uses. He said that the special use process is aquasi-judicial findings of fact process. The standards are not subjective. Geoff Gledhill said that he does not know how Carrboro does it, but the standard in all of these evidentiary questions is going to be a greater weight of the evidence. Regarding the general standard about maintaining or promoting public health, safety, and welfare, the ordinance has a special provision that implies that it would. In order for a project to be turned down because it fails to maintain or promote public health, safety, and welfare, the burden shifts to those who oppose it to prove that in some specific manner by substantial evidence, the use does not maintain public health, safety, and welfare. It would require specific evidence that there is a specific problem. Some examples are traffic problems. Bany Katz asked if the County would be responsible to remedy a problem that may arrive if all of the bodies approve a subdivision and it turns out that there are public health failures. Craig Benedict said that sometimes a problem would come back to the local government if the project was already completed. Bany Katz made reference to the notification and said that 500 feet from the project is too small for a project that is going to impact people in a greater area. He asked for consideration of 1,000 feet. He made reference to page three, number 11 and irrigation. He asked if there were any standards for how irrigation systems can be approved or not approved. Craig Benedict said that there are certain building code requirements if it is from public water and sewer. They are trying to tie this in with the conservation ordinance. Geoff Gledhill said that the irrigation standard is in the draft. The system has to be designed and can be operated according to a water conservation plan described in the Resource Management Plan. Barry Katz asked about bon-owed open space that is referred to in the document. Craig Benedict said that borrowed open space is where, instead of everybody having athree-acre lot and having their own open space, there would be a 1.5-acre lot and the extra space is put into some kind of common area. Rachel Preston said that the North Carolina Landscape Contractors Registration Board is the licensing board and anyone doing landscaping has to have a license and has to go through a rigorous exam. She asked for some type of reference to this. She said that this should be enforced. Craig Benedict said that he agreed that we need to look at the landscape standards. He said that they have added the concepts of xeri-scaping, which is using native trees and low water use trees to reduce overall water consumption. Rachel Preston said that there are nurseries in the area that provide plants native to Orange County and non-native plants that are not invasive. She suggested putting in phrases that encourage people to purchase plants within Orange County - both native and non-native. Commissioner Brown asked about setbacks from creeks. Craig Benedict said that storm water, drainage, and erosion control refer back to the stream buffer requirements that are in other sections of the code. There are very good standards in this area. There is a minimum of 50 feet on either side of the stream. In the Neuse River Basin, there are additional requirements. The hope is to use these rules in the Cape Fear Basin. Chair Jacobs made reference to landscaping and Orange County becoming a non-attainment area for air quality. He said that maybe we could take a leadership role with landscaping requirements to be more energy efficient. Commissioner Brown asked if the ordinance will actually protect open space in terms of design. She asked how this ordinance would affect design in terms of open space. Craig Benedict said that in the analysis, we define primary and secondary conservation areas. Primary conservation areas are stream buffers, wildlife corridors, etc. Secondary conservation areas could be a wooded area or an open field. This amendment will ask developers to do a more elaborate analysis of an inventory of a native tree area and an open space analysis. Commissioner Brown said that a smaller developer is going to need assistance in understanding what this says. Craig Benedict said that there is an example that will be used for the general public and property owners that is called Above and Beyond. It will be air photos showing how subdivisions fit or do not fit into the landscape. Also, it will show what happens over time to inappropriately placed open space areas. This was a very good study of things that happened in the Vermont/New Hampshire area. Discussion ensued about open space design in subdivisions. Chair Gooding-Ray said that she did not see anything about light pollution. Craig Benedict said that it is in the ordinance. He said that there is a Dark Skies initiative coming forward. There was no public comment on this item. d. Amend Section IV-B-10.B to allow all Flexible Development options except the village option in the Rural Buffer. Craig Benedict said that this amendment is to allow flexible development within the rural buffer. He referred to the County map. Presently, in the rural buffer, there is only the conventional plan allowed. The amendment is that any developer within the rural buffer would provide two plans. In the rural buffer, it is suggested that flexible development standards be identical to all other areas in County jurisdiction. Developers could either bring in an estate option (four-acre lots) or a conservation cluster option, which would be at least 33% open space. This is an effort to have the ~. ~ ~ _., w~ .. -.. ~ . _ .. . 1Q rules be similar, both in the rural buffer and in other sections of the County. Commissioner Brown asked about the village option and Craig Benedict said that it is an option of flexible development. It is a very dense development. It is more appropriate for transition areas. Commissioner Brown would like this addressed at some point to make sure that it is only an option that is available in public water and sewer areas. Barry Katz asked the Board of County Commissioners to review the village options. He said that the only place where a village option would make sense would be where there was access to municipal services or public water and sewer. Geoff Gledhill read from section 8.8.29.1, subsection `d' as follows: "If the residential lots are proposed to be served by a community water and/or sewer system, proof that the systems will be operating either directly or through a contract with the water and/or sewer provider whose service area or interest area as defined in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement include the subdivided land." This is attempting to open the door to these community systems if the utility provider would be responsible for them. Commissioner Gordon said that the provision on page nine deserves further scrutiny. She does not believe that this says what Geoff Gledhill explained. It needs to be said more clearly somehow. Craig Benedict will work with Geoff Gledhill on this. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the village option should have public water and sewer. Renee Price is concerned about cost and the impact this has on others. She asked who would pick up the tab for running the line. There was no public comment on this item. e. Amend the Subdivision Regulations to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. This is addressed in item 2-b. These items (1a-e and 2b) have similar subdivision and zoning issues and the recommendation from staff is to refer them to the Planning Board and return to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 215' for review. Item 2b is as follows: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to make major subdivisions of land creating 20 or more lots or involving 20 or more acres a Class A Special Use Permit. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer items 1a-e and 2b to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no later than January 21, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Amend Article 6.18 to allow development of a "Master Telecommunications Plan' which identifies sites within the County where an applicant may construct a wireless telecommunications facility by seeking issuance of a building permit in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan.