HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-2009 - 5cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. ~~
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area Economic
Development District (EDD) Buffer Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
2. November 24, 2008 QPH Minutes
3. January 14, 2009 Planning Board
Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Harvey, Planner. 245-2607
Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on and consider approval of a
staff initiated Zoning Ordinance text amendment to modify existing landscape buffer regulations
contained within Section 6.29.3a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: At the November 24, 2008 quarterly public hearing, staff proposed modifying
existing buffer regulations within the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD)to
require a less restrictive buffer for non-residential developments proposing to convert existing
single-family residential structures into office space.
Staff indicated the proposed buffer amendments would only apply in situations where an
applicant proposed the use of an existing single-family residential structure and was designed to
promote the preservation and reuse of existing residential structures within the Hillsborough
EDD.
Staff further testified that in cases where an existing single-family residential structure was
deconstructed and removed, the existing buffer standards, as detailed within the Hillsborough
EDD design manual, would apply.
During the hearing, there were several local property owners who spoke in favor of the
proposed amendments. Several BOCC members also commented favorably on the proposal
while identifying the following concerns:
1. Concern was expressed on allowing for multiple driveway cuts onto Old NC 86 and a
suggestion was made that a comprehensive access management plan be developed to
control turn movements.
Staff Comment: Staff understands and shares this concern. Unfortunately, there is no
ability under this buffer amendment proposal to address this issue.
It should be noted that if the BOCC approves the rezoning of certain properties to
Economic Development Linear Office District (ED-LNR) (this is a separate agenda item
2
and action from this item), there is a requirement under Section 6.29. 3a (2) (d) (7) that
there be interconnectivity between parking areas if determined necessary by staff.
2. Concern over the location of proposed parking facilities and a desire for additional
language within the Ordinance mandating parking be located to the rear of structures was
expressed.
Staff Comment: Once again, staff understands and shares this concern. Unfortunately,
there is no ability under this proposal to address this issue.
In reviewing this matter, staff has determined that we might be able propose language
within the Hillsborough EDD manual that encourages parking location to the rear of
buildings within the Economic Development Linear Officer district. This language would
be similar to existing standards contained within the master manual document.
3. More explanation was requested on how the buffer amendments would be affected, or be
complemented, by a staff generated rezoning for the various properties also presented at
the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Staff Comment: As staff testified during the hearing, this item and the rezoning will have
an impact on each other.
The proposed buffer amendments are designed to facilitate the preservation of existing
single-family residential structures in an effort to protect the visual character of the Old
NC Highway 86 corridor.
The rezoning request (a separate item), if approved, would essentially have the following
impact on these properties:
a. Limit the permitted uses to professional office (i.e. attorney, architect, doctor,
finance/insurance, etc,
b. Reduce the required minimum lot area from two (2) acres to twenty thousand
(20,000) square feet. This would mean that majority of the lots would be
considered conforming to the minimum lot area requirements of the Ordinance,
c. Reduce the required minimum lot width from two hundred (200) feet to one
hundred (100) feet,
d. Reduce the allowable height of proposed structures from sixty (60) feet to thirty
(30) feet,
e. Establish guidelines on the hours of operation for non-residential developments
that are currently not applicable under the current zoning designation,
f. Limit the total gross square footage of structures on the properties to five thousand
(5,000) square feet,
g. Eliminate a requirement, for properties zoned Economic Development Limited
Office, for any non-residential land use proposed for development within two
hundred (200) feet of a residential subdivision to obtain a Class A Special Use
Permit.
It is staffs opinion in cases where actions are preserving, and encouraging, the
adaptive reuse of existing single-family residential structures for professional office
use, the need for a Special Use Permit is not warranted. The scale of the
proposed development would be limited given the preservation of the existing
structure's architecture and size.
3
In reviewing this matter, staff believes there is an opportunity to allow for, and
encourage, the adaptive reuse of single-family residential structures by eliminating
the Special Use Permit requirement. Staff further believes that additional
language maybe necessary to require any new structure, built within two hundred
(200) feet of a residential subdivision, to obtain a Special Use Permit to ensure
that the scale of the project does not adversely impact existing residential dwelling
units.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its January 14, 2009
regular meeting.
Planning Board members agreed with the majority of the concerns identified by the County
Commissioners during the public hearing and expressed the need to complete a comprehensive
re-evaluation of the existing development standards within the various economic development
districts.
During review of the item, the following comments/concerns were discussed:
1. A resident of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision, Ms. Margo Pinkerton, informed the Board
that in her opinion the proposed amendments were reasonable as they related to the four
(4) single-family residential properties having direct frontage along Old NC Highway 86,
but expressed concern over the possible reduction of any required buffer that affected a
large parcel of property separating several residential structures within the subdivision
from Old NC Highway 86.
Ms. Pinkerton expressed concerned over requiring parking to be located towards the rear
of these properties in the event they were re-developed, specifically expressing concern
over light trespass, an increase in noise levels, an increase in pollution, and an increase
in crime.
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment would apply only to EDD zoned property
where an existing residential structure was proposed for use as a professional office. A
perimeter buffer to separate development within the Hillsborough EDD from external
developments would still be required.
With specific reference to the Cornwallis Hills subdivision, there are three (3) adjacent
properties that are located within the Hillsborough EDD and have frontage along Old NC
Highway 86. In the event these properties are developed, each property will have to
adhere to the one hundred (100) foot perimeter buffer established within the EDD Design
manual
The proposed amendment does not impact the perimeter buffer requirement.
2. Board members discussed the impact the proposed amendment would have on buffering
requirements in the event an existing single-family residence was deconstructed.
Staff Comment: As staff testified during the November Quarterly Public Hearing, the
proposed amendment would only apply in cases where an individual proposed to utilize
an existing single-family residence and maintain the residential facade of the building. In
the event an existing single-family residential structure was deconstructed, existing buffer
standards would be observed.
4
3. Some Board members indicated support for the proposed amendment while indicating
that they did not believe there was anything from an aesthetic point of view to preserve
within the Old NC Highway 86 corridor given recent construction activities within the area.
4. There was general concern over the potential impact any reduction in required
landscaping might have on stormwater runoff within the area.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment as
presented by staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for
the provision of County services.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC take
the following actions:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. Deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Approve the proposed zoning ordinance amendment allowing for a reduction of required
landscaping and buffer yards within the Hillsborough Economic Development District in
instances where an applicant proposes the adaptive reuse of an existing single-family
residential structure as a professional office space.
ATTACHMENT ONE (1): PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
Section 6.29.3(a) -Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual:
Section 3.2 Buffering of Neighboring Uses:
Section: Existin Re ulations -Pro sed Chan es;
3.2 Buffering of 1. A buffer of 100 feet in width (except as otherwise provided) is required at the
Neighboring Uses: boundary of the EDD and 100' along the roadway corridor Old 86 and New 86
except 50' Linear Office
Staff proposes to modify this section to read as follows:
A bu, fjer, one hundred (100) feet in width, shall be required along the Hillsborough
EDD boundary and along the Odd and New NC Highway 86 highway corridor. For
properties located within the ED-LNR zoning district, a fi, fly (SO) foot wide duffer shall
be required along the highway corridor.
Staff recommends the revision in an effort to make the section flow better and make
specific reference to the appropriate EDD zoning sub-district.
It should be noted that staff does not believe that the roadway corridor, of EDD
boundary, buffer ought to be amended.
While we would like to promote the adaptive reuse of single-family residential
structures we still believe it is essential to require a large buffer along the various
roadways to promote and preserve the aesthetic quality of the corridor.
2. A buffer of i00-feet is required adjacent to the right-of--way of interstate highways.
Staff proposes to modify this section to read as follows:
A buffer, one hundred (100) in width, shall be required for all properties that have
frontage, or are otherwise adjacent to, the right-of--way of an interstate highway(s).
Staff recommends the revision to make the section flow better.
3. Screening between adjacent land uses shall be provided in accordance with the
attached Schedule of Land Use Buffers.
Staff proposes to modify this section by adding the following language:
... Schedule of Land Use Buffers. In cases where an a licant ro oses to utilize an
existing residential structure to house a professional office or similar professional
service (i.e. doctor, beautician, dentist, etc), the screening standard(s) shall be as
follows:
a. Existing single family residential structures shall only be permitted to be
utilized in supporting professional office or similar service development.
b. Buffers along road rights-of--way or along identified highway corridors shall
be in accordance with previously established standards as detailed herein.
c. There shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot vegetative buffer along all common
side and/or rear property lines separating non-residential and residential land
uses.
d There shall be a minimum ten (10) foot landscaped strip along all aide and/or
rear property lines separating non-residential uses from other similar non-
residential uses
e. The required plantings shall be in accordance with those required within this
Section of the Ordinance.
f. The landscaped strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms asemi-
opaque intermittent visual obstruction, with a minimum initial planning height
from the ground of at dealt thirty-six (36) inches that will achieve a height of at
least fi, f teen (1 S) feet at maturity.
g. In cases where a joint use agreement(s) exists between adjacent property
owners allowing for shared ingress/egress and/or parking; the Zoning Off cer
shall be authorized to grant a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the
required buffers to avoid conflict.
Staff recommends the revision for the following reasons:
1. By modifying the landscaping requirement, it is expected the County will
actually be encouraging the preservation, and continued use of, existing
residential structures in an effort to preserve the visual appeal of the
identified roadway corridors.
2. As professional offices have different operational characteristics from other
non-residential land uses {i.e. restaurants, retail, etc) the need for a large
buffer is reduced as the impacts will not be the same.
7. In the LO district, the buffer may be limited to 50'
Staff is recommending that this provision be deleted as it is in conflict with the other
requirements of this Section of the Ordinance.
7
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:
Proposed Amendment: Part I
That Article Nine Six (6} Application of Dimrensional Requirements, 6.29.3(a) HillsBorough
Area Economic Development District Design Manual, be amended to read as follows:
3.2 BUFFERING NEIGHBORING USES:
1
.
A buffer one hundred 100 feet in wid shall be re uired alon the Hillsborou
EDD bound and alon the Old and New NC Hi wa 86 hi wa corridor. Fo
ro erties located within the ED-LNR zonin district a fift 50 foot wide buffe
shall be required along the highway corridor.
2
.
#ighwa~~
A buffer one hundred 100 in width shall be re uired for all ro erties that hav
frontage or are otherwise adjacent to the right-of way of an interstate hi way(s).
3. Screening between adjacent land uses sha!/ be provided in accordance with
the aftached Schedule of Land Use Buffers. In cases where an a licant ro ose
to utilize an existin residential structure to house a rofessional office or simil
rofessional service i.e. doctor beautician dentist etc the screenin standar s sha
be as follows:
a. Existin sin le-famil residential structures shall onl be ermitted t
be utilized in su ortin rofessional office or similar servi
development.
b. Buffers alon road ri hts-of-wa or alon identified hi wa corridor
shall be in accordance with reviousl established standards as detaile
herein.
c. There shall be a minimum twent 20 foot ve etative buffer alon a
common side and/or rear ro lines se arati non-residential an
residential land uses.
d. There shall be a minimum ten 10 foot landsca ed stri alon all aid
and/or rear roe lines gratin non-residential uses from oth
similar non-residential uses
e. The r uired lantin s shall be in accordance with those re uire
within this Section of the Ordinance.
£ The landsca ed stri shall be com rised of ve etation that forms
semi-o ue intermittent visual obstruction with a minimum initi
Tannin hei t from the ound of at least thi -six 36 inches th
will achieve a height of at least fifteen (15) feet at maturity.
In cases where a 'oint use a Bement s exists between ad'ace
ro ert owners allowin for shared in ss/e ress and/or arkin th
Zonin Officer shall be authorized to t a waiver re ardin the ex
location(s) of the required buffers to avoid conflict.
4. Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas. If existing vegetation is not
sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shall be augmented and interspersed,
consisting of 50-75% evergreen trees reaching a minimum mature height of 30-
feet.
5. Trees with a caliper of 6" -12" should be considered for preservation.
6. Access drives, utilities, and pedestrian paths are permitted within the required
buffers.
~:
Landscape buffer widths may be reduced if the buffer material is adequate t~
~~
- provide additional screening
9
9:8 Decorative walls may be used to augment required landscaping .for buff
reduction.
~A:9 Access drives, utilities, and pedestrian paths are permitted within require
buffers
-110 Access and utility crossings are to be made perpendicular to the length of th~
buffer.
~?ll No land disturbances for buildings, parking, or storage drainage, etc. ark
permitted within a required buffer.
X12. Limited breaks in required interstate buffers may be allowed if they are we~l
designed and provide a scenic vista or landscaped area. No more than one
break per lot shall be permitted, and the break shall constitute no more than
25% of.the interstate frontage.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adapted this the
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
day of ,
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
Attachment 2 ~ 0
Excerpt From Approved 11/24/08 QPH Minutes
APPROVED 1/22/2009
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
November 24, 2008
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:30
p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie
Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Clerk to the
Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Samantha Cabe, Nathan
Chambers, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mary Bobbitt Cooke, Larry Wright, Jeffrey Schmitt, and
Tommy McNeill
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jay Bryan, Brian Crawford, and Joel
Knight
6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: Review of Zoning Ordinance Amendments,
specifically to the Economic Development Design Manual, to revise existing buffer
regulations.
Michael Harvey made this presentation.
Review of a petition to AMEND the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
with respect to landscape standards within the Hillsborough EDD
Issue:
•Existing EDD landscape regulations do not allow for, or promote, the adaptive reuse of
residential structures,
•There ~is no flexibility in current landscape regulations allowing for a smaller buffer when a
single-family residence is being used for anon-residential purpose
•The required buffer reduces the available land area for the lot,
•There is no incentive to preserve or use the existing structures.
Proposal:
With this amendment, staff is proposing the following:
11
•Include a new landscape standard within the EDD Manual for professional offices proposing to
utilize existing single-family residential structures,
•Reduce the required landscaped area to twenty (20) feet,
•Establish a minimum planting height for such landscaped areas,
•Encouraged shared drive-way access and cross easements for shared parking
•The amendment would create more useable space,
•The reduced buffer would allow for the existing structure to be used for non-residential
purposes,
•The amendment would make it easier to preserve the aesthetic quality of roadway corridors
within the Hillsborough EDD
Staff Observations:
•This proposal is similar to recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance establishing the Efland
Cheeks Overlay Zoning District (ECOD),
•Staff believes we have an opportunity to preserve existing residential structures while allowing
for them to be used for non-residential purposes in designated economic development districts.
Staff Recommendations:
•Receive the rezoning petition,
•Conduct the PUBLIC HEARING and accept comments from all interested parties,
•Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County
Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 8, 2009
•Adjourn the PUBLIC HEARING until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation.
Chair Jacobs and Planning Board members asked clarifying questions, which were
answered by Michael Harvey.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Margo Pinkerton asked if there would be a minimum height for the buffer and suggested
having a maximum height for the buffer.
Michael Harvey said that there are maximum heights in the ordinance but not minimum
heights.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
receive the re-zoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to
be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the
public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Chair Jacobs encouraged the Planning Board and staff to consider #his item before the
other related item and see what was not adequately addressed as opposed to doing it in the
order that it was presented.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Attachment 3
Approved 2/4/09 12
Excerpt From Approved 01/14/09 Planning Board Minutes
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 14, 2009
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Vice-
Chair); Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Tommy
McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Larry Wright, Cedar
Grove Township At-Large; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Forrest Knight, Little River Representative; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large;
Bingham Township; Vacant; At-Large, Vacant
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey,
Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner, Tina Love,
Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Margo Pinkerton, Citizen; Jo Soulier, Citizen
(Document with subject line "Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request" was passed out by staff from Steve Yuhasz,
Attomeyfor Vernon Davis)
(Due to recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from written
notes and staff)
AGENDA ITEM 13: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS,
SPECIFICALLY TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DESIGN MANUAL, TO REVISE EXISTING BUFFER REGULATIONS,
To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the rezoning request heard at the
November 24, QPH.
Presented by: Michael Harvey, Planner II
Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract for this item as follows:
PURPOSE: To continue review of a staff initiated Zoning text amendment to modify existing landscape buffer
regulations contained within Section 6.29.3a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: Within the Hillsborough Economic Development District there are numerous properties along the
Old NC Highway 86 corridor with single-family residential structures located upon them. These lots are, for the most
part, have approximately one hundred (100) feet of road frontage along Old NC Highway 86, are typically twenty-five
thousand (25,000) to thirty-five thousand (35,000) square feet in area, and are still utilized to support single-family
residential land uses.
Over the years, the Planning Department has received numerous requests to locate professional offices within these
existing structures. Unfortunately, the existing landscaping regulations/standards made the adaptive reuse of the
existing single-family residential structures impractical as the typical buffer requirements for these properties would
be:
Approved 2/4/09 13
1. Fifty (50) foot buffer when adjacent to a residential land use,
2. Anywhere from a fifty (50) foot to a one hundred (100) foot front buffer separating the structure housing the
office from Old NC 86
Planning Staff believes there is an opportunity to modify existing landscaping standards in order to allow for the
adaptive reuse of existing single-family residential structures in an effort to preserve and enhance the character of
the area while allowing for non-residential development within the Old NC Highway 86 corridor.
PUBLIC HEARING: During the hearing, staff proposed modifying existing buffer regulations to require a less
restrictive buffer for non-residential developments proposing to convert existing single-family residential structures
into office space. Staff testified these amendments were based on similar efforts initiated by the County to
encourage the adaptive reuse of residential structures along Highway 70 with the adoption of the Efland Cheeks
Overlay District (ECOD) in December of 2007.
STAFF PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
1. Limiting the conversion of existing single-family residential structures to be used as professional offices,
2. Reducing the buffer to twenty (20) feet along common property lines in such cases where adaptive reuse is
proposed, and
3. , Establishing a minimum planting height ofthirty-six (36) inches.
Staff indicated these buffer amendments would only apply in situations where an applicant proposed the use of an
existing single-family residential structure. In cases where the existing structure were deconstructed and removed
from the property, the existing buffer standards would apply.
Further, staff testified this amendment was solely intended to address an immediate need, as defined by staff, in
promoting the preservation and reuse of existing residential structures within the Hillsborough EDD.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: During the hearing, there were several local property owners who spoke in favor of the
proposed amendments. Several BOCC members also commented favorably on the proposal while identifying the
following concerns:
1. Concern was expressed over allowing for multiple driveway cuts onto Old NC 86 and suggested that a
comprehensive access management plan be developed to control turn movements,
Staff Comment Staff understands and shares this concern. Unfortunately, there is no ability under this
proposal to address this issue.
It should be noted that if the BOCC approves the rezoning of these properties to Economic Development
Linear Office District (ED-LNR), there is a requirement under Section 6.29.3a (2) (d) (7) that there be
interconnectivity between parking areas if determined necessary by staff.
In reviewing this matter with the Planning Director, staff has been informed that we might be able to adopt,
as part of this amendment, a text picture for placement within the Hillsborough EDD manual that shows
restricted access and required connected service roads (behind the structures or running parallel with
existing roadways) accessing various properties.
2. Concern was expressed over the location of proposed parking facilities and wanted additional language
within the Ordinance mandating parking be located to the rear of these structures,
Staff Comment: Once again, staff understands and shares this concern. Unfortunately, there is no ability
under this proposal to address this issue.
In reviewing this matter with the Planning Director, staff has been informed that we might be able propose
language within the Hillsborough EDD manual that encourages rear parking within the Economic
Development Linear Officer district. This language would be similar to existing standards contained within
the master manual document.
2
Approved 2/4/09 14
3. More explanation was requested on how the buffer amendments would be affected, or be complemented,
by a staff generated rezoning for the various properties presented at the November 2008 Quarterly Public
Hearing,
Staff Comment: As staff testified during the hearing, this item and the rezoning will have an impact on each
another.
The proposed buffer amendments are designed to facilitate the preservation of existing single-family
residential structures in an effort to protect the visual attractiveness of the Old NC Highway 86 corridor.
The rezoning request, if approved, would essentially have the following impact on these properties:
a. Limit the permitted uses to professional office (i.e. attorney, architect, doctor, finance/insurance,
etc)
b. Reduce the required minimum lot area from two (2) acres to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
This would mean that majority of the lots would be considered conforming to the minimum lot area
requirements of the Ordinance,
c. Reduce the required minimum lot width from two hundred (200) feet to one hundred (100) feet,
d. Reduce the allowable height of proposed structures from sixty (60) feet to thirty (30) feet,
e. Establish guidelines on the hours of operation for non-residential developments that are currently
not applicable under the current zoning designation,
f. Limit the total gross square footage of structures on the properties to five thousand (5,000) square
feet,
g. Eliminate a requirement, for properties zoned Economic Development Limited Office, for any non-
residential land use proposed for development within two hundred (200) feet of a residential
subdivision to obtain a Class A Special Use Permit.
It is staffs opinion that in cases where we are preserving, and encouraging, the adaptive reuse of
existing single-family residential structures for professional office use the need for a Special Use
Permit is not warranted. The scale of the proposed development would• be limited given the
preservation of the existing structure's architecture and size.
In reviewing this matter with the Planning Director, staff believes there is an opportunity to allow
for, and encourage, the adaptive reuse of single-family residential structures by eliminating the
Special Use Permit requirement. Staff further believes that additional language maybe necessary
to require any new structure, built within two hundred (200) feet of a residential subdivision, to
obtain a Special Use Permit to ensure that the scale of the project does not adversely impact
existing residential dwelling units.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Planning Board:
1. Deliberate on the petition and review the various comments made during the public hearing,
2. Recommend the amendments be approved as presented by staff,
3. Recommend the BOCC direct staff to begin an analysis of existing parking and access
management standards in, and around, all EDD districts, Commercial/Industrial Nodes, and the
Rural and Community Activity Nodes for future presentation at an upcoming Quarterly Public
Hearing.
Brian Crawford said as this was a public hearing item if there was anyone in the audience that had any comments on
the proposal.
Ms. Margo Pinkerton was recognized and allowed to address the Board. Ms. Pinkerton said she was a resident of
the Cornwallis Hills Subdivision and expressed concern over reducing any buffer over a large tract of land separating
the residential subdivision with Old NC 86. Ms. Pinkerton said she was referring to the large parcel of property
3
Approved 2/4/09 15
inundated with flood areas and not the four (4) or so properties to the north of the main entrance to the neighborhood
and south of the Credit Union. Ms. Pinkerton said she felt it would be appropriate to allow for a reduction in required
landscaping if it would encourage the preservation of the existing residential structures and allow them to be used for
commercial purposes. Ms. Pinkerton said the proposed amendments were reasonable given the potential to allow
for these four (4) properties with residential structures to be re-developed. Ms. Pinkerton said she felt there were too
many environmental issues with the larger track in front of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision and that the County
needed to do everything within their power to preserve an appropriate buffer separating any commercial use
developed on the property and the subdivision. Ms. Pinkerton said she was also concerned over requiring parking to
be located towards the rear of the property. Ms. Pinkerton said she was worried about light trespass onto adjacent
residential lots. Ms. Pinkerton said she was also concerned about the possibility of having an increase in crime given
the fact that parking facilities would not be visible from the street or passing police cars.
Brian Crawford thanked Ms. Pinkerton and asked the Board members if they had any comments. Larry Wright said
he needed clarification on what exactly this proposed amendment would do. Michael Harvey said the proposed
amendment would only apply to EDD zoned property where an existing residential structure was proposed to be re-
used for non-residential purposes. Michael Harvey said there would still be a fifty (50) to one hundred (100) foot
perimeter buffer separating development on an EDD zoned parcel of property and a residential lot. Michael Harvey
said the proposed amendment would not reduce the required landscaped area separating any non-residential
development from the Cornwallis Hills subdivision. Michael Harvey said this amendment would only allow for a
reduction of the required landscape area for EDD zoned properties in cases where an existing residential structure
was proposed for use as a professional office space.
Tommy McNeill asked Michael Harvey to clarify staffs recommendation and what impact the proposed amendment
would have with respect to the demolition on existing residential structures and the construction of a new non-
residential building. Michael Harvey reviewed the specifics of the proposed amendment and said any new non-
residential building constructed within the area would have to abide by the established landscape and buffering
requirements. Michael Harvey said if an existing residence was removed and a proposed new non-commercial
structure was built then the landscape and buffer areas would be approximately fifty (50) feet from adjoining property
lines as required under the current Ordinance. Michael Harvey said the reduction in required buffer area would only
apply in cases where an individual proposed to utilize an existing single-family residence and maintain the residential
facade of the building.
Jeff Schmitt asked why the staff was proposing this amendment. Michael Harvey said the amendment served two (2)
purposes, specifically encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing residential structures and preserving the visual
integrity of the Old NC Highway 86 Corridor. Michael Harvey said the proposal was very similar to recent efforts to
preserve the visual integrity of the Highway 70 area of Efland with the adoption of the Efland Cheeks Overlay District.
Jeff Schmitt said he did not view the existing corridor as something that needed protection given the fact that there
were several existing non-residential developments that had recently developed in the area. Jeff Schmitt said the
Credit Union had recently started an expansion and removed several trees from the area and that, in his opinion, the
comdor was unlike the Highway 70 area in Efland and there was nothing significant to protect.
Brian Crawford said he had driven down the corridor and had come to the same conclusion but felt there may be a
need to allow for some flexibility in protecting these types of structures from demolition to avoid turning the entire
area into a modern commercial strip center.
Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if this would preclude the property owner from making any and all improvements to
the structure in an effort to maintain it. Michael Harvey said no it would not but that there would be a prohibition on
incorporating design elements inconsistent with the residential look of the structure. There was general discussion
on this point.
Jeff Schmitt said he supported what was trying to be accomplished but felt that the area in question was no longer a
residential area and that the preservation of these structures should not be a primary focus. There was general
discussion on this point.
4
Approved 2/4/09 16
Samantha Cabe said she was in favor of the proposal due to the fact that it would represent a viable solution to the
problems created with smaller lots within the Hillsborough EDD being re-developed for non-residential use.
Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if one (1) of the houses along the corridor was for sale. Michael Harvey said there
was a residence along the corridor; approximately two hundred (200) feet north of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision
entrance, was for sale. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if this structure was going to be used to support a commercial
operation. Michael Harvey said the interested buyer wanted to use the structure as a legal office. There was general
discussion on this point.
Brian Crawford asked how this. proposed amendment came about. Michael Harvey said it was developed in
response to the potential hardships that would be faced by a developer attempting to redevelop smaller parcels
within the Hillsborough EDD for non-residential land uses. There was general discussion on this point.
Larry Wright said he was unclear as to where the Board was with respect to the review of this item. Larry Wright said
he was extremely concerned about reducing the buffer given the impact it might have on adjoining property, and
property to the south, relating to stormwater runoff. Larry Wright said by reducing the required landscape and buffer
areas we would be eliminating the natural area that captured runoff and contributing to a flooding problem to the
south along Old NC Highway 86. Larry Wright said he took issue over the large parcel in front of the Comwallis Hills
subdivision not being totally within the flood plain. Lany Wright said he had drive through the area after storm events
and the property in question was always flooded. Larry Wright said he was concemed with any proposal that was
increase the likelihood that flooding would be prevalent within the area. Michael Harvey said this proposal would not,
in his opinion, have a demonstrative effect on the parcel of property Larry Wright was referring to and suggested that
if Larry Wright had a concern then he could make a motion relating to requiring that developers address stormwater
runoff issues when redeveloping property. There was general discussion on this point.
Jeff Schmitt said he wanted clarification on the impact this proposal would have. Michael Harvey reviewed the
impacts of the Ordinance.
Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said the amendment, if approved, would require a twenty (20) foot landscaped buffer along each
side of an existing structure. Michael Harvey said yes.
Jay Bryan asked how many properties this amendment would impact. Michael Harvey said there were approximately
five (5) existing parcels that had residential structures upon them. Mr. McNeil asked where these structures were
located. Michael Harvey said that four (4) of them were along Old 86 and one (1) of them was located on New
Highway 86.
Jay Bryan said he agreed with some of the points originally made by Jeff Schmitt in that there appears to be little to
preserve within the corridor but that this proposed amendment seemed to provide some measure of flexibility to
ensure what was still in existence could stilt be preserved. There was general discussion on this point.
Jay Bryan said he did not want to jump ahead but asked how this proposed amendment would be impacted by Item
Fourteen (14) on the agenda, specifically the rezoning of several properties within the corridor to ED-LNR. Michael
Harvey said this amendment was independent from the rezoning in that it applied to any adaptive reuse of a single-
family residential structure zoned to any of the existing Hillsborough ED designations. Michael Harvey said that Mr.
Davis would be explaining the rezoning request.
Brian Crawford asked if there were any other questions or motions relating to this item.
MOTION by Samantha Cabe to approve the proposed amendment as presented by staff. Samantha Cabe said she
felt the amendment was reasonable and would only apply in instances where an individual proposed to reuse an
existing single-family residence for non-residential purposes established appropriate safeguards. Seconded by Mary
Bobbitt-Cooke.
Approved 2/4/09 1 ~
Brian Crawford asked if there was any further discussion. Larry Wright said he would like to propose a friendly
amendment recommending that the County Commissioners direct staff to begin a comprehensive assessment of
existing regulations governing the location and development of parking facilities focusing on the impervious surface
issues as well as lighting. Larry Wright said he was concerned over the potential impact of stormwater runoff from
non-residential parking areas and the impact they would have on adjoining residential land uses. Larry Wright said
he would like for staff to focus on allowing for the use of pervious parking materials that would allow for the local
infiltration of stormwater on the subject property. Larry Wright said he was also concerned over the impact of
requiring parking on the rear of these properties and the impact it would have on adjoining residential land uses
specifically focusing on light trespass. Larry Wright said he was primarily concerned over the residents of Cornwallis
Hills and said something should be done to address their concerns.
Samantha Cabe said she did agree with the amendment.
Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said she also had a friendly amendment to the motion asking the County Commissioners to
direct staff to study existing access management regulations and consider amendments requiring shared drives and
access roads in these situations.
Samantha Cabe said she was not in favor of either amendment. Samantha Cabe asked if the Board could vote on
her motion and then vote on the other two (2) items separately. Brian Crawford said yes.
Brian Crawford said that there was a motion on the table to approve staffs recommendation on amending the
existing Hillsborough EDD standards to revise existing landscaping regulations. There was no further discussion
MOTION by Samantha Cabe to approve the proposed amendment as presented by staff. Samantha Cabe said she
felt the. amendment was reasonable and would only apply in instances where an individual proposed to reuse an
existing single-family residence for non-residential purposes established appropriate safeguards. Seconded by Mary
Bobbitt-Cooke.
VOTE: Unanimous
MOTION by Larry Wright, requesting that the County Commissioners direct staff to begin a comprehensive analysis
of impervious surface issues as well as required locations for parking lots. Seconded by Jay Bryan.
VOTE: Failed
The motion failed on a three (3) -four (4) vote with Lany Wright, Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, and Jay Bryan voting in the
affirmative.
MOTION by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke asking the County Commissioners to direct staff to study existing access
management regulations and consider amendments requiring shared drives and access roads in these situations.
There was no second and the motion failed.
6