MINUTES
STATE
OF
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman
Also present were: Planning
Director Anthony Starr, Planning Board Chair Tedd Pearce, Senior Planner Autumn
Radcliff, Planners
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance, stating that the purpose
of the meeting was a workshop with respect to the Land Development Code.
RESOLUTION
Chairman Moyer requested
the addition of an item to the agenda, a resolution requesting a presidential
disaster declaration for the agriculture and agri-business industries of
Commissioner Williams
stated that in light of the visit received from the governor, it brought into
attention the process the Board would need to take. What the Board would like to see is Federal
assistance in the form of grant money or Federal Disaster payments rather than
loans. In order for this to take place,
a catastrophe had to be declared through the office of the President and the
request has to come thorough the Governors office. There was no guarantee that this will happen
but the Commissioners wanted to make their wishes known and speak out on behalf
of what had occurred in the county.
Commissioner Williams made the motion that the Board adopt
the Resolution requesting a Presidential Disaster Declaration for the Agriculture
and Agri-business Industries of
REVIEW OF COMMENTS AND INPUT FROM PREVIOUS LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC INPUT
Planning Director
Anthony Starr stated that Staff and the Board of Commissioners had gone through
a series of public input sessions with a wide range of issues discussed. In preparation for the workshop a series of
information was provided to the Board including an overview of zoning map
options and eight (8) text options for the Boards consideration. After the initial presentation by Planning
Staff, direction from the Board was requested as to what changes should be
made.
With respect to
manufactured homes only, there will be no areas that are being prohibited from
manufactured homes except for the small area in R1 immediately around the center
of Etowah and a small area above.
Everywhere else that currently allows manufactured homes will continue
to allow manufactured homes.
MAP OPTION 1: Local
Commercial Node at Intersection of
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: Permitted used in LC vs. CC
MAP OPTION 2: Local Commercial Nodes along
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: No Commercial Zoning along
MAP OPTION 3: Local Commercial Node along
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: No Commercial Zoning in Gerton Community
The Board would like to
see photos or images to help define 25% - 25% slope and requested additional
information from the Planning Department regarding Map Option 3.
Anthony Starr stated
that new data had been received from the state on the GIS system that may be
helpful. He could provide photos to the
Board however pictures make it hard to convey just how steep the property
is. He suggested the Board actually go
to the site.
MAP OPTION 4: Local Commercial Node along
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: No Commercial Zoning in
MAP OPTION 5: Local Commercial Node at Intersection of
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: No Commercial Zoning in Dana
Community
MAP OPTION 6: Local Commercial Node along Upward Road to
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Local Commercial (LC)
Reason for Proposed
Change: Existing Commercial Uses along Upward Road
MAP OPTION 7: Industrial in the Vicinity of
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Industrial (I)
Reason for Proposed
Change:
MAP OPTION 8: Residential Zoning District Four (R4) in the
Vicinity of
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Residential Four (R4)
Reason for Proposed
Change: Conservation of Natural Areas
MAP OPTION 9: Residential Zoning District Four (R4) in the
Vicinity of
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Residential Four (R4)
Reason for Proposed
Change: Conservation of Natural Areas
MAP OPTION 10: Residential Zoning District Four (R4) in the
Vicinity of the
Current Draft 8 Proposed
Zoning – Residential Four (R4)
Reason for Proposed
Change: Conservation of Natural Areas
TEXT OPTION 1: Transitioning R-40 to R2
Issue: The current draft
LDC proposes that Residential Two (R2) zoning will replace existing residential
zoning districts including R-40, R-30, R-20, R-15 and R-10 among others. The concern expressed by the public has been
that Residential Two (R2) zoning is less restrictive than the current Estate
Residential (R-40) Zoning District. This
concern is primarily a result of the setbacks recommended for R2, which are
less than those required by R-30, and the permitting of duplexes and triplexes
in R-2, which are not permitted in R-40 (which permits only single-family
residential uses).
Potential Solution
1: Increase the proposed front yard
setbacks to meet those of the R-40 district.
The R-40 district requires front yard setbacks of 60 feet from the
center line of streets and 75 feet from the center line of major streets. Under the proposed LDC setbacks are measured
from the edge of right-of-way. The
standard right-of-way for state-maintained roads is 50 feet (25 feet of
right-of-way on either side of the centerline).
The differences measuring from “center line” and measuring from “edge of
right-of-way” will make LDC setbacks appear reduced even when corrected to meet
R-40 standards.
Potential Solution 2:
Allow duplexes and/or triplexes to remain as permitted uses in the R2 district
but remove the maximum residential density option which currently applies in
the district.
1) Residential density
shall be calculated utilizing the entire acreage of a tract of land. Under this scenario, residential density
shall be determined based on the following formula:
The
following example assumes a 5 acre tract with an allowable density of 4
units/acres:
5
acres x 4 units per acres = 20 permitted dwelling units
Residential
density shall be applied:
a)
On
a lot existing at the time of the initial adoption of this Chapter, where there
in not adequate area to comply with the applicable standard residential density
requirement;
b) To single-family
residential uses; and
c)
To
multifamily residential uses with fewer than five (5) units.
2) Residential accessory
structures shall be located in side or rear yards and shall be setback a
minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line.
3) Maximum height may be
exceeded in multifamily developments as detailed in §200A-60 (Supplemental
Requirements) SR 1.6 (Dwelling, Multifamily, Five (5) or More Units), provided
such developments do not exceed 50 feet in height.
Potential Solution 3:
Eliminate duplexes and/or triplexes as permitted uses from the R2 zoning
district or permit them only special uses.
Potential Solution 4:
Develop an overlay district with a minimum lot size requirement of 2/3 of an
acre (in order to prevent creating numerous nonconforming lots) and apply this
overlay district to large contiguous parcels which are currently zoned R-30 and
R-40.
Tedd Pearce felt that
the best solution to the R-40 and R-30 zoning problem was to try to mirror the rights
with a suburban overlay on land that is presently zoned R-30 or R-40.
Planning Staff would
look at other possibilities and bring them back to the Board.
TEXT OPTION 2:
Special Subdivisions
Issue: The public had expressed concerns that the elimination
of family subdivisions will create a hardship for people who create small
subdivisions for family members or for sale.
Potential Solution 1:
Change the existing minor subdivision standards so that all minor subdivisions
with five (5) or fewer lots will be exempt from building roads or other
infrastructure. Currently, minor
subdivisions with four (4) or fewer lots are proposed to be exempt from
building roads and other infrastructure.
However, there are no exemptions for minor subdivisions from zoning
regulations proposed in the draft Land Development Code. With this option all subdivisions must meet
the applicable density requirement for zoning.
Potential Solution 2:
The special subdivision option could be used to replace regulations for 1 to 4-lot
minor subdivisions or as a stand alone option to replace family
subdivisions. This option provides for
the creation of five (5) lots over five (5) years. Special subdivisions would be required to
meet the density requirements of zoning or have a minimum lot size of ½ acre in
size, whichever is less. As with 1 to
4-lot minor subdivisions, road standards do not apply with this option. Revisions to other subdivisions regulations
will be required if the special subdivision option is used. See language below for special subdivision.
200A-75. Special
Subdivisions
1.
Special
subdivisions shall consist of a total of five (5) or few lots.
2.
Special
subdivisions may be phased but no more than 5 lots within a five year period
shall be allowed within the boundaries of the tract that was the subject of the
original special subdivision application.
3.
Special
subdivisions are exempt from road requirements in §200A-77 subsection C (Roads)
when private roads are proposed.
4.
Special
subdivisions shall adhere to the road requirements in §200A-77 subsection C
(Roads) when public roads are proposed.
5.
Special
subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the following subsections of
this Article: §200A-77 subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and M. Final plats for special subdivisions shall
adhere to the final plat requirements for minor subdivisions.
B. Review of Special
Subdivisions. A special subdivision
application may be approved by the Subdivision Administrator under the
provisions of this subsection and under the provisions of §200A-246 (Review for
Minor, Special and Nonstandard Subdivisions).
The Subdivision Administrator may, for good reason, refer a special
subdivision to the Planning Board for review. The Planning Board shall review the
subdivision under the provisions of the subsection and §200A-246 (Review for
Minor, Special and Nonstandard Subdivisions).
C. Zoning Requirements for
Special Subdivisions. Lots created in a
special subdivision must meet the minimum residential density requirements for
the applicable zoning district or each lot created must have a minimum lot size
of at least ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size, whichever is less.
D. Expansion of Special
Subdivisions. If a special subdivision
is ever expanded (more than five (5) lots are created within the five (5) year period) then the applicant must,
depending on the number of lots created, comply with the procedures for minor
subdivision (§200A-75) or major subdivisions (§200A-77). If expansion occurs the applicant will be
required to reapply under the applicable minor or major subdivision
provisions. Expansions of special
subdivisions shall comply with the following requirements.
1.
The
applicant will be required to build all infrastructure required by §200-A75
(Minor Subdivisions) or §200A-77 (Major Subdivisions).
2.
The
subdivision must meet all applicable zoning district regulations found in
Article II (Zoning District Regulations).
3.
The
reviewing agency may require the upgrading of improvements, including road
paving, utility upgrading and additional right-of-way dedication.
4.
All
lots created by a special subdivision will count toward the total number of
lots for any minor or major subdivision densities.
5.
Final
plats for special subdivision must have the following certificate, signed by
the property owner, provided on the face of the plat:
Certificate of Understanding
I
(we) hereby certify that I am (we are) the owner (s) of the property located
within the subdivision-regulation jurisdiction of Henderson County as shown and
described hereon, and that I (we) hereby adopt this plan of subdivision. I (we) understand that expansion of this
subdivision may result in the upgrading of road infrastructure, utilities and
additional right-of-way dedication and other applicable requirements as
required by the Subdivision Regulations (Article III) of the Land Development
Code (Chapter 200 of the Henderson County Code).
______________________ ________________________
DATE OWNER (S)
County Manager Steve
Wyatt suggested following up on emergency access for the residences as a public
safety issue. Mr. Wyatt asked Mr. Starr
to get with the Fire Marshal for advice.
TEXT OPTION 3:
Development in areas of Steep Slope & Floodplain
Issue: The current draft LDC provides the same
residential density for area containing steep slopes or floodplain areas as
other more buildable areas of land. The
concern expressed by the public had been that some protection of these areas
should be provided and that developers should not receive the same density
credit for these areas. The County
cannot impose a rule that would not allow any development of these areas as
that would be a regulatory taking under the constitution and would require
“just compensation.”
Potential Solution
1: The County can provide rules that set
a much lower density for areas that contain steep slope or floodplain. Each residential zoning district could be
amended to indicate that area with slope greater than 25% or within the
100-year floodplain. Language for such a
provision could be as follows:
“The maximum residential
density for areas with slope greater than 25.0% or within the Special Flood
Hazard Area shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres.”
This language would
appear in Article II of the LDC below each dimensional requirements table. This language would provide a more
appropriate density for these areas and should not encourage
overdevelopment.
TEXT OPTION 4:
Off-site Access
Issue: Concern that out current regulations are not
restrictive enough regarding development of properties that have inadequate
off-site access or frontage on a public or private road. Table 3.2 of the proposed subdivision
regulations in the Land Development Code shows a maximum number of lots allowed
for properties that have inadequate off-0site access (less than 30-foot
right-of-way) or inadequate frontage (less than 30 feet of frontage). This provision allows 1 lot per acre. This is the same provision as in our current
Subdivision Ordinance.
Potential Solution
1: One solution is to limit development
on these properties to a maximum of 1 lot per 2 acres.
Potential Solution
2: Another solution is to limit the
total amount of units that would be allowed.
The overall consensus
was to limit development on these properties to a maximum of 1 lot per acre
with a maximum of 25 lots and the Board would look further into it before
making a final decision.
TEXT OPTION 5:
Commercial Uses in R-3
Issue: Concerns were raised regarding the limited
amount of commercial and business uses allowed in the R-3 residential zoning
district.
Potential Solution
1: One solution is to allow more
commercial and business uses in the R-3 zoning district as a special use
permit. Provided below is a list of uses
the Board of Commissioners may want to consider adding to the Table of
Permitted and Special Uses as a special use permit in R-3:
Accessory Uses:
Childcare Facility (as
an accessory for a principle business)
Drive-Thru Window
Fuel Pumps
Recreation Uses:
Educational and
Institutional Uses:
Place of Assembly, Small
Business, Professional,
and Personal Services:
Automobile and Equipment
Service
Exterminating and
Office: Business, Professional and Public
Tire Recapping
Urgent Care Clinic
Transportation,
Warehousing and Utilities:
Septic Tank and Related
Services
Manufacturing &
Industrial Uses:
Chip Mill
*Machining and Assembly
Operations, Limited
**Manufacturing and
Production Operations, Limited
*Machining
and Assembly Operations, Limited is a new type of use. If added to the Table of Permitted and
Special Uses, it would allow an establishment of a limited size to engage in
the assembly, fabrication and/or modification of products. Staff suggests that
these establishments to limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet in the R-3
zoning district.
**
Manufacturing and Production Operations, Limited is a new type of use. If added to the Table of Permitted and
Special Uses, it would allow an establishment of limited size to engage in the
mechanical, physical or chemical transformation of raw materials, substances or
components into new products. Staff
suggests that these establishments be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square
feet in the R-3 zoning districts.
Commissioner McGrady
requested that the Planning Department look back at the uses allowed in R-3 and
reconsider if they should or should not be allowed. It may be that standards or restrictions
need to be added.
TEXT OPTION 6: Board
of Commissioner Approval for Referred Subdivisions
Issue: Concern that the Board of Commissioners
should review larger subdivisions.
Potential Solution
1: Provide a provision in the
Subdivision Regulations (Article III) of the Land Development Code that would
allow the Planning Board to refer any major subdivision to the Board of
Commissioners for review and approval.
See language below.
§200A-248, D 4 - Referral
to Board of Commissioners
The Planning Board may, for
good cause, refer any subdivision included under §200A-248 to the Board of Commissioner
for review after giving due notice to the applicant. Good cause in this provision may include but
is not limited to size of development, location within the County, impact on
local community and infrastructure, or particular environmental features that
make this subdivision substantially unique from other proposed subdivisions.
TEXT OPTION 7: Sign
Regulations – Freestanding Signs
Issue: The issue of freestanding sign heights had
been raised by some of the Commissioners.
Staff seeks directions as to what the appropriate height should be for
commercial districts. Currently, the
proposed maximum height is 18 feet.
Potential Solution
1: Lower sign height to 12 feet for
Office, Institutional and Commercial Districts.
Potential Solution
2: Leave the current proposed height of
18 feet for signs in Office, Institutional and Commercial Districts.
Potential Solution
3: Increase sign height for Office,
Institutional and Commercial Districts as specified by the Board.
The Board decided to
stay with solution number 2.
TEXT OPTION 8: Sign
Regulations – Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards)
Issue: The issue outdoor advertising signs, commonly
referred to as billboards, had been brought to the attention of planning
staff. The current regulations require
that such signs be placed at 1000 feet from other outdoor advertising signs and
residences. The draft LDC only provides
a 300-500 space requirement between signs with no spacing requirement from
residences. The draft LDC language could
allow new outdoor advertising signs in area that no additional signs are
currently permitted.
Potential Solution
1: Leave the current proposed LDC
language in place.
Potential Solution
2: Increase the proposed spacing
requirement to 1,000 feet form other outdoor advertising signs and
residences. See the proposed language
below.
200A-164 Commercial and
Industrial Districts, Urban Service Area
Outdoor advertising signs
are permitted only in commercial and industrial districts where they are
located in the Urban Services Area as identified by the Comprehensive
Plan. Outdoor advertising signs shall be
classified based on size and include:
Outdoor Advertising Signs Type A, B and C.
|
Table 7.1 Outdoor
Advertising Sign Requirements |
||||
|
Outdoor Advertising
Sign |
Square Feet Permitted |
Maximum Height (ft.) ² |
Minimum Setback (ft.) ³ |
Spacing (linear ft.) |
|
Type A |
0 to 72 |
25 |
10 |
1,000 |
|
Type B |
>72-300 |
35 |
20 |
1,000 |
|
Type C |
>300-380¹ |
35 |
20 |
1,000 |
¹ Signs greater than 380
square feet are considered billboards and are not permitted in the County.
² Maximum height shall
be measured from the existing road grade to the uppermost point on the sign structure.
³ Minimum setback shall
be measured horizontally from the adjacent edge of right-of-way to the nearest
edge of the sign structure, provided that no part of the
sign or sign structure shall encroach upon a public right-of-way. Where property abuts more than one (1) road, signs shall be set back an
equivalent distance from each road no less than a minimum setback required.
Outdoor advertising
signs shall be spaced so that such outdoor advertising sign (or its structure)
is placed no closer to the next outdoor advertising sign (or its structure) or
any existing adjacent residence than the minimum spacing distance
required. Spacing shall apply to outdoor
advertising signs located on either side of a road. The minimum distance between signs or between
a sign and a residence shall be measured horizontally between the nearest
points on either structure. If, because
of terrain, vegetation or practical difficulties, a point-to-point accurate
measurement cannot be obtained, the Zoning Administrator may extend any point
of measurement to a logical corresponding location and measure from this
point. Using the extended measuring
method a variation of five (5) percent is acceptable for the purpose of this
Article.
The minimum distance
between a sign structure and a residence shall not be less than 1,000 feet,
except:
A. Where the adjacent
residence is a nonconforming use;
B. Where the sign was
erected after the original effective date of this article (May 21, 2986, as
amended) and predates a residence, the sign shall not be nonconforming because
of distance from the residence;
C. Where the sign was
erected prior to the effective date of this article (May 21, 2986 as amended)
and duly registered, the sign shall not be nonconforming because of distance
from another sign or a residence; or
D. Where the topography
obscures the sign from sight by the residents of the dwelling.
The spacing requirement
may be reduced by up to 25 percent where the topography obscures the sign from
sight by the residents of the dwelling.
Tedd Pearce stated that
the Planning Board recommended allowing some industrial uses in commercial use
and some commercial uses in industrial use.
Planning Director
Anthony Starr stated that not every industrial use was compatible in commercial
use areas.
Steve Wyatt instructed
the Planning Staff to develop some specifics; generally a less intensive use
but with the traffic aspects.
The Board of
Commissioners would like for the Planning Board to review this item and bring
it back before the Board.
Direction only was given
to staff and no decisions were made.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to adjourn
at 9:23 p.m. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Attest:
Teresa L. Wilson, Deputy Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer,
Chairman