Minutes - 19990330 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Alderman Zaffron stated that given the nature of the rezoning process and the level of discretion that the Board of Commissioners has in determining these standards, the Board could ask for additional information if they felt that was necessary to satisfy questions that they have. Chair Gordon asked if it would be possible to bring up an issue after the Master Land Use Plan process was complete. For example, could you bring up a traffic issue that was not brought up in the rezoning process. Mr. Brough said that you could bring up a traffic issue with the Board of Aldermen if it were a public health and safety issue. Chair Gordon said that if a rezoning and a conditional use permit were being considered there would be a focus on public health and safety, harmony and traffic issues because those findings must be determined. A Master Land Use Plan does not have to focus on these issues but if they do come up, then the presumption is that they have been dealt with. If they do not come up then the presumption is that you have not dealt with them and you could bring them up later. Mr. Brough said that even if they had been dealt with they could be dealt with again if you could show "by clear and convincing evidence" that they should be considered again. Commissioner Brown stated that she was not convinced that using the Master Plan process really works well for the neighborhoods. She referred to earlier examples where this process was not effective, i.e. Meadowmont and Southern Village. Mayor Nelson asked Commissioner Brown to share with the Town of Carrboro any suggestions she has which would strengthen the Master Plan process. b) Comments by Orange County Planning Staff County Planning Director Craig Benedict stated that in reviewing these proposed amendments County staff asked the following questions: 1) Are they consistent with the Facilitated Small Area Plan. 2) Is there anything in this implementation ordinance that was not in the plan. 3) Was there anything that was in the Plan but missing from the implementation Ordinance. He referred to Attachment 3)b.1, entitled Orange County Planning Staff Comments - Consistency Between the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area and Proposed Amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance in which staff reviewed the document for consistency and applicability. He mentioned that there was a very high degree of consistency. He briefly reviewed Section 1 through Section 29. He then referred to attachment 3)b.2 in the agenda packet, entitled Orange County Planning Staff Comments -Plan Recommendations not reflected in Proposed Ordinance Amendments. This document contains, on asection-by-section basis, a list of recommendations that were not carried forward in the proposed ordinance amendments. These documents are in the permanent agenda file. He mentioned that the general category that Orange County staff felt needed strengthening had to do with greenway connectivity. There is mention of greenways and floodplains within the ordinance, however, it only addresses areas within the Carrboro area. It would be helpful to take a look at how this fits into the County Conservation Corridor Plan and the Triangle Land Conservancy Wildlife Corridor Plan to determine if these areas could be connected. Also, he suggested that there be a higher percentage of conservation lands that are not severely constrained by flooding, wetness or steepness. He mentioned that the Transportation Plan needs to be carefully coordinated so that this area is connected to some of the major transportation routes in the area. He noted that comments had been made this evening indicating that Carrboro has carefully reviewed potential traffic patterns/changes, which could result from additional development. Some of the higher densities could be handled by widening