Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-17-2002 - 9b 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 17, 2002 Action Age Item No. SUBJECT: Report and Action on Growth Controls in Large Residential Projects DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 1 June 18, 2002 BOCC Report and Action 2. Planning Board Letter of May 61 2002. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 3. Planning Staff Report— Growth Control Issues Hillsborough 732-8181 4. Outline of Growth Control Recommendations from Chapel Hill 968-4501 County Manager, County Attorney, & Planning Durham 688-7331 Director Mebane (336)-227-2031 5. Chart of Upcoming Growth Control Activities Mebane (336)-227-2031 PURPOSE: To provide a report on various elements associated with the implementation growth controls in large residential projects. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002, the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the need for growth controls (...which might include a moratorium...) in large residential developments. This topic was also broached at a joint Board of Commissioners/ Planning Board meeting on June 6, 2002. On June 18, the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution (see attached) regarding the actions and issues that needed to be researched prior to further deliberation. The Planning Board discussed these issues within its purview on August 7, 2002. The attached report outlines staffs preliminary findings. Since that August 7 meeting, the County Manager, County Attorney and Planning Director have met and formulated some recommendations for short-term actions. Long-term actions noted on the chart include proceeding with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and Comprehensive Plan. A brief discussion was held at the August 29, 2002 BOCC Work Session regarding this topic, but a more thorough explanation will be forthcoming at this meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the information presented and provide direction to County Attorney and Planning Director to prepare a Special Use Process for major subdivisions for the Public Hearing and action this year. Also begin process for LIDO development through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). x 2 r REPORT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JUNE 18, 2002, IN RESPONSE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 'GROWTH CONTROL' LETTER OF MAY 6, 2002 PURPOSE: To direct administration to research the elements to consider while evaluating interim growth controls on larger scale residential developments within Orange County's planning jurisdiction. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2002 the Orange County Planning Board forwarded a letter to the Board of County Commissioners regarding options to invoke [growth] controls in large residential developments. The Board of County Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board have discussed in joint meeting on June 6, 2002, the need to examine the impact of large development on the county while many comprehensive planning and regulatory initiatives are in progress. Important initiatives including, but not limited to, the comprehensive plan update, Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, water resource limitations, and transportation planning are in deliberate progress. ACTION: The County Manager, County Attorney, County Planning Director and Planning Board are directed to: • identify the many facets of such a proposal such as defining the size and scale of a 'large' residential project • determine and define what'pipeline' proposals would be affected • formulate the steps necessary (including public hearings) to pursue as an option a limited moratorium or other growth controls, • explore legal consideration • research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases • research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short term goals • Planning Board and staff to research special use process for large projects and other strategies and options 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration m° a 306F Revere Road (919) 245-2575 v s P A Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us °'a North Carolina, 27278 INA - May 6,2002 To the Board of Orange County Commissioners(Distribution): Re: Orange County Planning Board Recommendations for Controls in Laree Residential Development Dear Sir or Madam: At the May 1,2002 meeting for the Planning Board of Orange County,the Board put forth the following statement to be placed before you for consideration: In light of a forthcoming revision of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan,and additional concems including: • Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adoption • Water resources • Transportation issues ❑ High density development in the rural area The Planning Board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take appropriate steps(which might include a moratorium in large residential development)to address these concerns in a timeframe that the Board deems appropriate. Very truly yours, Nicole Gooding-Ray,Chair T 4 Page 11 May 6,2002 Distribution: Moses Carey,Jr. County Commissioner 901 Lystra Lane Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Margaret W.Brown County Commissioner 1509 Smith Level Road Chapel Hill,NC 27516 Dr.Alice Gordon County Commissioner 282 Edgewood Drive Chapel Hill,NC 27517 Stephen Halkiotis County Commissioner 2930 Franklin Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 Barry Jacobs County Commissioner 2201 Moorefields Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 cc$: John Link, County Manager Geoffrey Gledhill,County Attorney Planning Board File(May 1,2002) 5 Planning Staff Report for August 29, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Work Session Growth Control Issues ISSUE 1: Identify the details of a possible growth control process including a moratoria based on: size and scale of a large residential project. RESPONSE: August 7s', 2002,the Planning Board agreed to define large development as any subdivision with 20 or more lots. ISSUE 2: Determine what"pipeline"proposals would be affected. RESPONSE: The Planning Board discussed three"pipeline"options at which time to determine what proposals would be affected by a new regulation: 1.)A subdivision that has been submitted to staff; 2.)The project's concept plan has been approved by the Planning Board; 3.)A project that has been issued a formal preliminary approval by the BOCC. It has been suggested that option 3 be chosen and a letter sent to notify all other projects in the planning process. ISSUE 3: List the steps necessary to produce/implement a limited growth moratorium or other growth control. RESPONSE: 1. Report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of June 18, 2002,in response to the Orange County Planning Board"Growth Control Letter of May 6,2002. A moratorium could be enacted in the following time frame. The length of the moratorium would be coordinated with the completion of a unified development ordinance which would create a special use process for major subdivisions. The Planning Board has asked for additional time to process subdivision applications. The comprehensive plan land use element,adequate public facilities ordinance, and ordinance revisions regarding water resource issues would be concurrently researched and implemented to some degree. The shortest regular timeframe for the enactment of a growth control special use process would be as follows: Request for Legal Ad November 6, 2002 Quarterly Public Hearing November 25, 2002 Planning Board Action December 4,2002 BOCC Action December 10, 2002 A shorter timeframe if requested could be accomplished by creating a special public hearing at a regular BOCC date. RESPONSE: 2. Unified Development Ordinance Definition A Unified Development Ordinance(UDO) is a combined land development code that integrates the present planning regulatory system of"free standing"codes of subdivision,zoning, environmental impacts, erosion control, flood management and economic development. 6 The Unified Development Ordinance creates a comprehensive and cross-referenced document, combines various land use controls in a different procedural context. For example, the legislative review of special use zoning can be integrated with the typical administrative context of subdivision review. Special conditions,therefore, can be put forth on subdivisions of relatively high impact. General and specific parameters of interest such as traffic,property values, affordable housing,phasing, open space,dedications,etc. can be addressed through the Unified Development Ordinance development approval process. The creation of a Unified Development Ordinance is time consuming and complex because all existing freestanding code must be collapsed and reorganized into one document. Some existing code areas will be deleted in their present form and replaced with a non- conflicted, non-repetitive and all-inclusive system of review. A consultant is suggested for this type of work,with a close overview by the Planning Director and eventual legal procedural review by the County Attorney. The document would also be reformatted to the prototypical indexing used by the municipal code corporation,which can then be codified and available on the internet. The time frame for Unified Development Ordinance development is about 8—9 months, and public hearing processing including final recommendations and adoption depending on the extent of outreach, can be an additional 3—6 months. Staff could first proceed with a request for qualifications (RFty, and then proceed with a request for services. The cost of this type of Unified Development Ordinance development for a County is in the investigation stage. The Town of Chapel Hill is presently in the Unified Development Ordinance process and information regarding their experience can be given at the work-session. ISSUE 4: Explore legal consideration. RESPONSE: Legal report to be provided by County Attorney. ISSUE 5: Research what other jurisdictions have employed in other cases. RESPONSE: In 1995 Huntersville,NC placed a 12-month moratorium on all development in order to study traditional town planning methods and rewrite their existing zoning ordinance. Warwick,New York implemented a development moratorium while updating their comprehensive land use plan. ISSUE 6: Research through Institute of Government and other government and land use authorities the use of moratoriums to accomplish short-term goals. RESPONSE: Ongoing r 7 BOCC Meeting 9/17/02 Growth Control Recommendations I. Develop an outline for ordinance amendments creating a special use permit (SUP)process for the subdivision of land creating 20 or more lots to be presented at 9/17/2002 BOCC meeting. Notify Carrboro and Chapel Hill regarding applicability in Rural Buffer. U. The amendments that will be considered may include other procedural and substantive requirements. These requirements may include: (a) if the residential lots are proposed to be served by septic systems, greater detail, coverage and confirmation of the septic system"yield plan" required in the evaluation of whether the project may be approved as a conventional plan or a flexible plan; (b) if the residential lots are proposed to be served by wells, professionally prepared groundwater yield analysis relating to the USGS Water Resource Investigation Report 004286; (c) if the residential lots are proposed to be served by a public or community water system,proof of water supply availability; (d) address need for public road improvement such as turn lanes; (e) locating solid waste convenience centers to serve the subdivision and the immediate subdivision area, (f) open space connectivity. M. Notify every applicant for residential subdivision approval: (1) whose application or proposed application is not also for a planned development special use permit; or (2) whose application or planned application involves the subdivision of land into 20 or more lots that the Board of Commissioners will consider amending the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, on or before December 10,2002,to provide that any subdivision of land creating 20 or more lots is a special use requiring a special use permit. • The notification shall advise the applicant that the applicant will not be considered to have acted in good faith if the applicant proceeds, after the notification,with an application while the amendments are under consideration. 8 • An application that has received special use permit approval,preliminary plan approval or that has been scheduled for Board of Commissioner preliminary plan action, will not be so notified and may proceed according to its special use permit or preliminary plan approval and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations in effect on the date of approval. • Begin the notification process as soon as possible. IV. Utilize the joint public hearing scheduled for November 24,2002 to hear public comment on creating the above described special use permit(SUP) process with decision by BOCC at December 10,2002 Board meeting. V. Advertise a request for qualifications(RFQ)to identify consultants with unified development ordinance(UDO) experience as soon as possible. VI. Thereafter release a request for proposals(RFP) or a request for services for a consultant to help with unified development ordinance development and preparation. VII. Develop a unified development ordinance(UDO)that correlates with the comprehensive land use plan update. • Estimated Completion of UDO and comprehensive land use plan update: 6-12 months Only one residential subdivision that has not received either a special use permit or preliminary plan approval would likely qualify for consideration by the Board of Commissioners under the zoning and subdivision rules in place now. That subdivision is Eno Ridge which is scheduled for Board consideration on October 15,2002. Any new application submitted on or about September 18,2002 could be considered by the Board of Commissioners for preliminary plan approval no sooner than January or February 2003. a CHART OF UPCOMING GROWTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES MODIFY EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND COMPLETE UNIFIED ZONING RULES— DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CREATE A SPECIAL ORDINANCE UPDATES " ** USE PROCESS (SUP) UDO COST TO CouNTY $$$ 9 months for development 3-4 more months for development + + 1ME 3-4 months 3 months for Public Hearing 8-9 months to implement new zoning and adoption process and design standards 12 months total 12 months total Special use process Hire a Consultant Coordinate with UDO development considers: Close interaction with Planning ■ Traffic Director ■ Large Subdivisions into UGBs ■ Open Space ■ Impact Project Size/Scale ISSUES ■ Solid Waste ■ Decrease ■ Lot Yield Plan Disturbance/Impervious ■ Water Resources ■ Decrease VMT ■ Influence Subdivision Design ** If the special use process does not adequately control the negative impacts of growth then a moratorium may be considered until the UDO and comprehensive plans are completed. A moratorium may be implemented if the timeframe for completing the UDO and comprehensive plan is extended.