Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-17-2009 - 5dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. 5 - c~ SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning): Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (West Side of Old NC 86) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENTS: 1. Petition Boundary Map 2. Comprehensive Plan Map 3. Transportation Map 4. Statement of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan 5. Resolution of Rezoning Approval 6. Resolution of Rezoning Denial 7. Comments & Issues Raised at QPH 8. November 24, 2008 QPH Minutes 9. Photos Presented @QPH & Planning Board Meeting 10. January 14, 2009 Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, Planning Director 245-2592 Robert P. Davis, Planner III 245-2580 PURPOSE: 1) To receive the Planning Board recommendation; 2) to close the public hearing and 3) to consider approval of aCounty-initiated general use zoning atlas amendment petition in the Hillsborough Area EDD. BACKGROUND: In April 2001 the Board of County Commissioners rezoned all of the land within the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District and adopted an abridged version of the EDD Design Manual for the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. This was a product of an 18-month collaborative planning effort with the Town of Hillsborough. The intended purposes of the 2001 rezoning and text changes were to adjust future land uses in this EDD, to better align uses, and to streamline the project approval process. To that end the Comprehensive Plan categorized associated land use designations into targeted geographic areas within the Hillsborough EDD. The specific areas were adjacent to Interstate 40, along Old NC 86, on the eastern side of NC 86 at the I-85 interchange, and along NC 10 (See Attachment 2). Additionally, conceptual road network layouts were schematically diagramed and approved (See Attachment 3). As a part of the same efforts six new Economic Development General Use Districts were adopted that comported with the new land use designations. The Economic Development Mixed Use District would be allowed only as a Planned Development. The smaller sized, narrow properties along the western side of Old NC 86, five of which have existing houses, are the subject of this rezoning. Petition Request From: Economic Development Limited Office One (ED-LO-1) To: Economic Development Linear Office (ED-LNR) Watershed: Lower Eno -Unprotected Size: Tract 1: 8.83 acres Tract 2: 12.68 acres Tract 1 PIN's: 9863-96-5912, 9863-96-5768, 9863-96-5688, 9863-96-6573, 9863-96-4502, 9863-96-3812, 9863-97-1293 Tract 2 PIN's: 9863-95-8966, 9873-05-1814, 9873-05-0697, 9873-05-3116 Existing Land Uses: Tract 1: Five single-family residential dwellings and 2 undeveloped lots Tract 2: One single-family dwelling and undeveloped land (Orange Water and Sewer Authority has a water interconnect between OWASA and Hillsborough on a small parcel) Surrounding Land Uses: Tract 1: North -Undeveloped commercial uses (Oakdale Village) East -Commercial, office and light industrial uses (Citgo, NCDOT Maintenance) South and West -Residential subdivision (Cornwallis Hills) Tract 2: West and North -Single family subdivision (Cornwallis Hills) East -Four single-family dwellings across Old NC 86 South -Predominantly undeveloped with one abandoned residential structure Reason for Zoning Atlas Amendment Recently staff has noticed an increased commercial and office interest in properties located along the Old NC 86 corridor between I-85 and I-40, specifically in the area between the State Employees Credit Union (SECU) and I-40. Land on the western side of Old NC 86, excluding the SECU and Cornwallis Hills subdivision, falls within the County's zoning jurisdiction. A public hearing to amend the Zoning Atlas may be scheduled by the Board of County Commissioners either: 1) upon receipt of a valid petition from the public, or 2) upon the Board's own initiative. This petition has been requested at the County's own initiative to address issues relating to land development along Old NC 86. Regardless of the origination type of petition, the zoning ordinance requires that a purpose of rezoning be stated along with the petition. In this particular case, Article 20.3.2 d) gives a reasonable justification, and is stated verbatim as follows: The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare'. Both Tracts 1 and 2 under consideration are linearly situated along Old NC 86 (See Attachment 1). As a part of the adoption of the 2001 zoning and text amendments in the Hillsborough Area EDD six zoning districts were created, one of which is the ED-LNR district. The district was created in the zoning text, but not affixed to any specific parcels. The primary purpose of the ED-LNR district is to allow land use conversion of these existing lots and residential dwellings to small-scale offices and/or low impact services provided that the structures are limited to 5,000 square feet in gross floor area with a district maximum height of 30 feet. Due to these aforementioned limitations on project intensity, the ED-LNR allows a reduction in the normally required 100-foot width EDD perimeter buffer to 50 feet. However, all buffer planting requirements are still required to be met. The existing ED-LO-1 district severely restricts usage for some of the lots in both Tract 1 and Tract 2. The original thought was that some of the tracts would recombine and develop as one project. This has not occurred even though some properties offered for sale adjoin each other. There are, or have been recently, three properties offered for sale along this corridor. Anecdotal comments have indicated that the primary reason for lack of sales and conversion of these properties to offices and low impact services has been due to the current zoning district requirements. However, the EDD Design Manual that sets the internal buffer requirements between adjacent land uses is just as likely the reason. The proposed buffer text amendments (addressed at this same meeting) to the EDD Design Manual will allow buffer flexibility for existing structures and will provide, if approved, the necessary language to allow these existing residential properties to develop individually rather than as a part of a larger scale project. ZONING OFFICER ANALYSIS: As required under Section 20.3.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer is required to: `...cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. Staff Findings and Analysis 1. Both Tract 1 and Tract 2 are located within the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District, which by definition is an Economic Development Node. 2. The ED-LNR district was created to allow for low impact uses on smaller lots, and also to allow for adaptive reuse of existing structures provided that all subdivision, zoning, and building code provisions are met. 3. Both the ED-LNR and the ED-LO-1 districts permit a maximum impervious surface coverage of 50%. 4. The maximum height of structures in the ED-LNR district is 30 feet. The maximum height of structures in the ED-LO-1 district is 60 feet. 5. When a site within an ED-LNR district adjoins the exterior boundary of the EDD the perimeter buffer may be reduced to fifty-(50) feet. The perimeter buffer of a site within the ED-LO-1 district is 100 feet. All of the parcels in Tract 1 are less than 200 feet in width. 6. All interior landscape buffer requirements are the same in each district. Due to the fact that the ED-LNR district was originally created for future application to lands included in the petitioned areas, a County initiated petition is reasonable and necessary to remove impediments to conversion to more suitable land uses. In conjunction with the proposed buffer text amendments, land in the area can more easily convert uses. For future 4 reference there are two other areas in the Hillsborough Area EDD along NC 86 near I-85 also targeted as appropriate ED-LNR districts, but are not subject to this petition (See Attachment 2). Notification of property owners and adjacent owners All property owners whose properties are subject to this petition were mailed notification letters in accordance with ordinance requirements. Adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the petitioned areas were also notified. Signs have been posted on both tracts. The certification of mailing to adjoining property owners letter was presented to the Boards at the public hearing. Quarterly Public Hearing Issues: This request was heard at the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing. Attachment 7 contains staff responses to issues and comments raised at the public hearing by both Boards and the public. Planning Board Discussion and Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its January 14, 2009 meeting. The Planning Board recommended, on separate votes., that the County Commissioners rezone both tract 1 and tract 2 to the ED-LNR zoning district. The recommendation was unanimous on Tract 1. The vote was 6-2 for approval on Tract 2. Four main issues were discussed: 1) Stormwater -The amount of permitted stormwater discharges will not be affected as a result of this rezoning issue. Stormwater drains from Tract 1 both to the north and to the south depending on the precise location of water on the parcel. The natural drainage of Tract 2 is to the south towards Cates Creek. The Neuse River rules apply to both tracts with regard to pre- and post-runoff of stormwater regardless of the zoning district. The impervious surface maximum is 50% for all land within the Hillsborough Area EDD. 2) Flooding in Cornwallis Hills subdivision -This rezoning petition is completely downstream from the problems shown in photos that were presented at the QPH and PB meetings. (see Attachment 9). Cornwallis Hills is within the town limits of Hillsborough. No portion of stormwater runoff from tract two would impact the areas depicted in the photos. 3) Security and crime -Security and crime are not zoning petition-specific issues. Regardless of ED-LO-1 or ED-LNR, security and crime will have to be addressed by property and business owners and by public safety officials. Planning staff encourages site design methods that work towards creating a safe environment for the public. Site design standards are set forth in the EDD Design Manual. 4) Potential of driveway access off of Bonaparte Drive - A small portion of Tract 2 has direct access to Bonaparte Drive, a residential street within Cornwallis Hills (see Attachment 1). A stream originates at the location that a driveway could be installed. ,Prior to any crossing of these streams approval from Division of Water Quality Compliance with State requirements of 401 (DWQ- water quality certification) and 404 (Corps of Engineers approval) permits would be required. The driveway would serve little benefit for business purposes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public fiscal impact regarding this petition. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC: 1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation. 2. Deliberate on the petition for the zoning atlas amendment. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Approve both Tract 1 and Tract 2: a. Statement of Consistency (Attachment 4) b. Resolution of Zoning Approval (Attachment 5) Prop°sed Ep-L-`~R A~,achn~ent 1 mendm~r't R ,...,. 4 Feel 0 Attachment 2 EDD _.. ,. ~.. i _ _ - _ ,._~ . .. ~ l .4. ~. ~ _ I -.. - ~ ~ _~ ~ I r- ~ I 1 ^'f/ i-~ -1'.T-_ _ __~ -__ \~ , ~ - ~ _ ~ ~ k - - ~~ , ~ . _. _ -,_ Linear Office Office /Office Flex Office/Office Flex with Residential Mixed Use Office /Moderate Density Residential ~..~. 7 Attachment 3 g EDD Buffers & Transportation Plan j~~ -~ ;~ - ~ ,-__ - E ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ,-~ ._ <,~~ ~~ ~ i j " ~ . A \ ~ 11 ,~ ~~/Y ~~~ ~~y Y~' ~ * ~~ )'{ , l I r' ~'~ f-~s ' ~ ,~'! r i _' .~_~_-__ ~ ~. ~ ! 1-85 1 ., „ i ' - ~,J i .~ 't - - -i f . ~~ 1 ,, ~, . , ~ - ~. I ~ ~ ~ ~ I _ r .r~ t ~'-'~ ~ ~ ~ i+~ i~ ~/ F ~~ ~~ , ,r} y, ~ ~'f r 'rl - --; ~ ~ i ,, i_ ; ~ ~ --- _ ,. -_~ ~ -~ i t, _ ~ i . t ,~ `~~~ ~_L r"J \ /: .~ `, .~,_ ~~~' Streams 100' Buffer !Steep Slope Area ~_ Office /Moderate Density Residential ~~ Office !Office Flex Office !Office Flex wRh Residential Linear Office C^,~ Mixed Use Note: Transportation Access Management Plan will be analyzed for each collector road. N w~e 5 1 " = 2000' 9 Attachment 4 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PURSUANT TO NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 153A-341 REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS Orange County has held a public hearing regarding the petition of Orange County to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning two tracts of real property from Economic Development--Limited Office-One (ED-LO-1) to Economic Development- Linear Office (ED-LNR). The parcel identification numbers of the properties included in the petition are as follows: 9863-96-5912, 9863-96-5768, 9863-96-5688, 9863-96-6573, 9863-96-4502, 9863-96-3812, 9863-97-1293, 9863-95-8966, 9873-05-1814, 9873-05- 0697, and 9873-05-3116. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that the petition is consistent with Orange County's adopted comprehensive plan, and the Board of Commissioners proposed action on the amendment is in the public interest for the following reasons: 1) The proposed Amendment will allow for the development of the parcels of property within the County consistent with existing overall policies and development strategies embodied within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of , 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to BOCC SEAL 10 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY ORANGE COUNTY Date: March , 2009 Applicant: Orange County The Orange .County Board of Commissioners (hereafter "Board") hereby approves a petition to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Economic Development-Limited Office-One (ED-LO-1) to Economic Development-Linear Office (ED-LNR) the following parcels: TRACT 1: 9863-96-5912, 9863-96-5768, 9863-96-5688, 9863-96-6573, 9863-96- 4502,9863-96-3812, 9863-97-1293 TRACT 2: 9863-95-8966, 9873-05-1814, 9873-05-0697, 9873-05-3116 The property is further identified by the following descriptions: Tract 1: BEGINNING at a point, said common point being the southwest corner of Parcel .9863-96-4502 and northwest corner of Parcel 9863-96-3376; thence, north approximately 1,000 feet along the western property lines of Parcel 9863-96-4502, Parcel 9863-96-3812 and Parcel 9863-97-1293 to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-97-1293, said corner falling in the southern right-of--way line of Oakdale Drive; thence, east approximately 200 feet along the right of way of Oakdale Drive to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-97-1293; thence, south approximately 490 feet along the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-97-1293 to the northwest corner of Parcel of 9863-97-1293, said corner falling in the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-96-3812; thence, east approximately 300 feet to the western right-of-way line of Old NC 86; thence, south approximately 650 feet along the western right-of-way line, said line also being the common eastern property lines of Parcel 9863-96-5912, Parcel 9863-96-5768, Parcel 9863-96-5688 and Parcel 9863-96-6573 to the southeastern corner of Parcel 9863-96-6573; thence, west approximately 530 feet along the southern lines of Parcel 9863-96-6573 and Parcel 9863-96-2502 to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 8.83 acres more or less). Tract 2: BEGINNING at a point, said point being the northeast corner of Parcel 9863-95-8966 and lying at the western right-of-way line on Old NC 86; thence, south approximately 1,590 feet along the western right-of-way line of Old NC 86, said line also being the eastern property lines of Parcel 9863-95-8966, Parcel 9873-05-1814, Parcel 9873- 05-0697, and Parcel 9873-05-3116 to the southeast corner of Parcel 9873-05-3116; thence west approximately 200 feet along the southern property line of Parcel 9873- 05-3116 to the common corner of Parcel 9873-05-3116, Parcel 9873-04-5166 and Parcel 9873-04-4531; thence, northwest approximately 50 feet to the common corner of Parcel 9873-04-5166, Parcel 9873-05-3116 and Parcel 9873-04-1738; thence north approximately 1180 feet along the western property line of Parcel 9873-05- 3116and Parcel 9873-05-0697 to the northeastern property corner of Parcel 9863- 95-6694; thence west approximately 180 feet along the northern property line of Parcel 9863-95-6694 to the western property corner of Parcel 9863-95-6694 said 11 Attachment 5 corner falling in the eastern right-of--way line of Bonaparte Drive; thence, north approximately 120 feet along the western right-of-way line of Bonaparte Drive to the southwest corner of Parcel 9863-95-6863; thence, east approximately 160 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 9863-95-6863, said corner falling in the property line of Parcel 9873-05-0697; thence, north approximately 410 feet along the western property lines of Parcel 9873-05-0697 and Parcel 9863-95-8966 to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-95-8966 said corner falling in the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-96-5112 and also being the southwest corner of Parcel 9863-96-7169; thence, east approximately 400 feet along the common property line of Parcel 9863- 96-7169 and Parcel 9863-95-8966 to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 12.68 acres more or less). In cases where lots, in both tract one and tract two, abut a public street(s) the zoning district boundary line shall extend to the centerline of the said street. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the appropriateness of the petition: 1. That the petition has been processed to conform to the submittal requirements detailed within Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance generally, and more specifically Section 20.3.2 d) which states, `The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare'; 2. That pursuant to Section 20.3.2 e) of the Ordinance, the Board finds that the petition is consistent with, and will carry out, the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The purpose, intent, and goals of the Growth Management System adopted by the BOCC in 2003. b. The purpose, intent, and goals of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District as amended by the BOCC in 2001. This Ordinance shall become effective upon approval. This Ordinance shall be placed in the file of unpublished ordinances. Adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of , 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to Board Date SEAL Attachment 6 ~ 2 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO DENY AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY ORANGE COUNTY Date: March , 2009 Applicant: ORANGE COUNTY The Orange County Board Commissioners (hereafter "Board") hereby DENIES a petition to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas, submitted by Orange County by rezoning from Economic Development-Limited Office-One (ED-LO-1) to Economic Development-Linear Office (ED-LNR) the following parcels: TRACT 1: 9863-96-5912, 9863-96-5768, 9863-96-5688, 9863-96-6573, 9863-96- 4502,9863-96-3812, 9863-97-1293 TRACT 2: 9863-95-8966, 9873-05-1814, 9873-05-0697, 9873-05-3116 The property is further identified by the following descriptions: Tract 1: BEGINNING at a point, said common point being the southwest corner of Parcel 9863-96-4502 and northwest corner of Parcel 9863-96-3376; thence, north approximately 1,000 feet along the western property lines of Parcel 9863-96-4502, Parcel 9863-96-3812 and Parcel 9863-97-1293 to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-97-1293, said corner falling in the southern right-of--way line of Oakdale Drive; thence, east approximately 200 feet along the right of way of Oakdale Drive to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-97- 1293; thence, south approximately 490 feet along the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-97-1293 to the northwest corner of Parcel of 9863-97-1293, said corner falling in the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-96-3812; thence, east approximately 300 feet to the western right-of-way line of Old NC 86; thence, south approximately 650 feet along the western right-of--way line, said line also being the common eastern property lines of Parcel 9863-96-5912, Parcel 9863-96-5768, Parcel 9863-96-5688 and Parcel 9863-96-6573 to the southeastern corner of Parcel 9863-96-6573; thence, west approximately 530 feet along the southern lines of Parcel 9863-96-6573 and Parcel 9863-96- 2502 to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 8.83 acres more or less) Tract 2: BEGINNING at a point, said point being the northeast corner of Parcel 9863- 95-8966 and lying at the western right-of-way line on Old NC 86; thence, south approximately 1,590 feet along the western right-of--way line of Old NC 86, said line also being the eastern property lines of Parcel 9863-95-8966, Attachment 6 13 Parcel 9873-05-1814, Parcel 9873-05-0697, and Parcel 9873-05-3116 to the southeast corner of Parcel 9873-05-3116; thence west approximately 200 feet along the southern property line of Parce19873-05-3116 to the common corner of Parcel 9873-05-3116, Parcel 9873-04-5166 and Parcel 9873-04- 4531;thence, northwest approximately 50 feet to the common corner of Parcel 9873-04-5166, Parcel 9873-05-3116 and Parcel 9873-04-1738; thence north approximately 1180 feet along the western property line of Parcel 9873- 05-3116 and Parcel 9873-05-0697 to the northeastern property corner of Parcel 9863-95-6694; thence west approximately 180 feet along the northern property line of Parcel 9863-95-6694 to the western property corner of Parcel 9863-95-6694 said corner falling in the eastern right-of--way line of Bonaparte Drive; thence, north approximately 120 feet along the western right-of--way line of Bonaparte Drive to the southwest corner of Parcel 9863-95-6863; thence, east approximately 160 feet to the southeast corner of Parcel 9863- 95-6863, said corner falling in the property line of Parcel 9873-05-0697; thence, north approximately 410 feet along the western property lines of Parcel 9873-05-0697 and Parcel 9863-95-8966 to the northwest corner of Parcel 9863-95-8966 said corner falling in the eastern property line of Parcel 9863-96-5112 and also being the southwest corner of Parcel 9863-96-7169; thence, east approximately 400 feet along the common property line of Parcel 9863-96-7169 and Parcel 9863-95-8966 to the point and place of BEGINNING. (Said tract containing 12.68 acres more or less) In accordance with the Ordinance, the Board hereby makes the following findings as to the denial of the petition: That pursuant to the Ordinance, the Board finds that the petition will not carry out Article 20.3.2 (d) which states: `The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare'. This Ordinance shall be DENIED. This Ordinance shall be placed in the file of unpublished ordinances. DENIED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this day of 2009. Ayes: Noes: Donna Baker, Clerk to Board Date SEAL Attachment 7 14 Comments -and issues raised at the Public Hearing 1) Will other areas be targeted for ED-LNR zoning? There is no staff initiative to rezone other areas at this time. 2) There is a significant floodplain on Tract 2. Are there wetlands on this tract too? How will development be performed with such a wide floodplain on the site and how will the streams and wetlands be protected? The County regulations require stream buffers to be placed along the outside edges of floodplains. Where no floodplain is designated, the measurement is made from the top of bank of the subject stream. In this area of the County, and depending on the slope of the adjacent land, the buffer maybe either 65 feet or 80 feet. Additionally, the Neuse River Basin standards require that for all new developments the pre-development and post- development stormwaterrunoff volume for the 1-year, 24-hour storm shall stay the same. 3) Lighting and parking in the rear are problematic for adjacent neighborhood (Cornwallis Hills). The ED-LNR district does not require parking in the front or side, nor does it prohibit parking in the rear. The lower building intensity (i. e. maximum of 5, 000 sq. ft.) and less intense uses generally translate to lower parking standards (i.e. impervious sun`ace). The County lighting standards apply to all development in the EDD. 4) Perimeter buffer reduction to 50 feet is a problem. Although the perimeter buffer is reduced to 50 feet in the ED- LNR the buildings are less intense. 5) Direct access is permitted in the ED-LNR rather than requiring an access street as the ED-LO-1 does. The ED-LNR does permit direct access due to the likelihood of conversion of existing uses and also due to the relatively small 15 size of the lots. Currently, tract 1 has four lots which fronton Old NC 86. The EDD guidelines would limit access to 4 driveways or one drive per lot. Sharing of drives would be encouraged. Because structures in the ED-LNR are limited to 5, 000 square feet, and the uses are somewhat restricted, staff anticipates low volumes of traffic to and from these four lots. If the lots were to be subdivided to create additional lots and structures, the subdivision regulations would restrict driveway access at the subdivision stage. Another reason the frontage road is not required in the ED-LNR is that the lots are not deep and impervious surface is limited to 50% total for. access, parking and the structure. The additional impervious surface in an access road would severely impact the usability of the lot. For example, a 20 feet width street 100 feet in length would use 2, 000 square feet, leaving only 3,000 square feet for both parking and the building. Attachment 8 16 Excerpt of November 24, 2008 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 REZONING of several properties along Old NC Highway 86 from Economic Development- Limited OfFce One (ED-LO-1) to Economic Development Linear Officer (ED-LNR) Planner Robert Davis made this presentation and gave some background. The district before the changes allowed all types of uses to go on all of the land. Staff created land uses that would be more specific to the quadrants. This item is to revisit the implementation of the land use ED-LO-1 that was written in 2003. This should open up the potential properties for potential uses. He gave specfics on what could be included in this designation. Staff is recommending approval, sending it back to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and that it come back at the second meeting in February. A Planning Board member asked clarifying questions about the wetlands and floodplain. He said that he does not know how there could be small plots without covering up the stream for parking, etc. Robert Davis said that there is a stream that goes up the back of the red line, which is also a buffered stream. There is not a lot of buildable area here. PUBLIC COMMENT Debbie Braxton is a resident of Hillsborough, but was speaking as a Real Estate agent for Audrey Miller. Audrey Miller's property is listed at 2411 Old NC 86. There has been some interest in the purchase of her home for a small office and her property meets both of the zoning plans, but definitely meets the criteria of the proposed rezoning. The home is brick, which could be a small office with parking in the back. Her client is in favor of the rezoning. Sue Spaccarotella spoke on behalf of her mother, Audrey Miller. She said that her mom has decided to move after 59 years and her home is on the market. She said that they are now hopeful to sell the home with the amended rezoning. Attachment 8 1 ~ Excerpt of November 24, 2008 QPH Minutes Robert Smith was representing his mother, who owns the land where Comwallis Hills is. His mother needs to sell her property and they are in favor of the rezoning. He just wants to look out for his parents. Margo Pinkerton lives in Comwallis Hills and said that she has a long history in planning. She said that the idea of small offices makes perfect sense for this land but there was a proposal on this property 18 months ago and the same concerns are current today. She said that one of the proposed changes in the zoning involves the buffers and this concerns her. She said that one acre of impervious surface produces 16 times more runoff than one acre of meadow. There is already flooding at the end of the neighborhood. She showed a picture of the flooding. She said that if buffers will be reduced and impervious surfaces are increased, the flooding will get worse. She asked if the Planning Board had consulted with the river keepers of the Neuse River. This is a very sensitive river with national sensitivity. She has concerns about parking behind buildings because the police cannot see what is going on behind buildings. She would urge parking in front or beside buildings. Jo Soulier lives in Comwallis Hills. She said that last year the neighbors fought a medical complex because of the buffering and because the parking in the back of an office does not lend itself to safety. She agreed that parking should be offset to the side. She asked that the lower piece be a special tract where there is much discussion when a use comes up. Member of the Planning Board also gave their comments. Mary Bobbit Cooke asked how many times this area floods per year and the citizens said many times in the lower section (tract 2). Tommy McNeill asked clarifying questions and Robert Davis said that the impervious surface is the same for both designations, but the difference is the lot size. Robert Davis said that there is no requirement that parking go in the rear of the building. This is an area that Hillsborough would serve with water and sewer. Chair Jacobs said that there are tradeoffs here. He said that asix-story building located to the east of a residential neighborhood would be a big wall between the people and the morning sun. He spoke in favor of limiting access points and said that this proposal has nothing about limiting access points and in fact would make road capacity worse. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Attachment 9 18 rn r- o~ ... C d t v Q Attachment 9 2 ~ ~,~ -~ >, ,_a ~. Attachment 10 21 Excerpt of January 14 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 w-th subject line "Vernon Davis NC 54 rezoning request° was passed out by staff from Steve Yuhasz, Attorney for Vernon Davis) (Due to recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from written notes and star AGENDA ITEM 14: REZONING OF SEVERAL PROPERTIES ALONG OLD NC HIGHWAY 86 FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -LIMITED OFFICE ONE (ED-LO-1) TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LINEAR OFFICE (ED-LNR). To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding the rezoning request heard at the November 24, QPH. Presented by: Robert Davis, Planner III (Document with subject: "Proposed Rezoning of land abutting Cornwallis Hills Neighborhood on Old 86" was distributed by staff from. Citizen Jo Soulier.) Robert Davis gave a presentation and explained that the reason that it was up for rezoning. Robert Davis: This is a County initiated rezoning action. There are a couple of people who want to sell their property for specific uses and based on the buffer, there are issues with being able to do a review. All homes are non conforming right now on both tract one and tract two which means from a single family perspective: if they were to bum down there could be problems with reconstruction. Jay Bryan: How many houses are there in tract two? Robert Davis: Only one. There are four on the other tract. This land was included in the ED comprehensive plan amendments that were done back in 2001. Earlier there were three economic development districts, Buckhom, Durham-I-85, and then you had this one. Until 2001 they all had generally the"same standards. In 2001 the County Commissioners, after a joint study with Hillsborough, decided to break this down into more geographic specific land uses. The areas we're talking about tonight were set up to be districts that were smaller, but were adjacent to residential areas. By being adjacent to residential areas, the volume of the building was reduced to 5,000 sq. ft. maximum under the ED-LNR district and the Attachment 10 2 2 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes height limitations reduced from 60 ft. to 30 ft. Also, because of the linear type of district, the 100 ft. buffer around the outside perimeter of the EDD, basically; was a complete taking of some of these lots. To avoid all that, we created the district but we didn't map it. There was no indication that the County Commissioners wanted to map it at that time. Now, this is the first part of the implementation to bring these parcels to the ED-LNR. You have non-conformities under the EDLO-1 you have a minimum two acre lot size, most of these lots do not approach two acres. You have 200 ft. lot width minimum, most of the lots do not exceed 100-120 ft. There is a 100 ft. perimeter buffer, no one has tried anything but would have problems if they did. You have a service road requirement in this district, with small lots; putting a service road in would impact their impervious surface which is limited on a small lot anyway. Both districts only allow 50% impervious, so if you have a one acre lot and you put a 20 ft wide road across the frontage of a 100 ft. lot, you are taking 2000 sq. ft. there plus you have to accommodate the storm water. You could do it on a two acre lot but none of these lots in tract 1 are close to two acres. Interconnectivity, that's in both, we don't have a problem there. Maximum building size of 5000 sq. ft. in the district we're proposing to do which is a lesser impact to adjoining residential structures. I passed around some information that came up at the public hearing. Ms. Soulier is here. The drainage here (referring to map) regardless of what develops, is going to go where it currently is, they can't redistribute or redirect the water coming off the site and in this district under the Neuse River rules you have to accommodate pre vs post development. When this was approved by the Town of Hillsborough, these two bottom lots were in an existing 100 year flood plain. The structures themselves are not in it but the actual lot is listed in a flood plain. The drainage is to the east. I went there with Erosion Control and none of the drainage for this rezoning impacts any of these properties down here. Larry Wright: Where does it drain? Robert Davis: This drains back into Cafe's Creek. It ultimately ends up in Eno. Lary Wright: That's not what I asked. Where does parcel one drain? Robert Davis: It sits on top of the hill. If you notice the Credit Union parking lot, the storm drainage is in the front, so assume it releases toward 86. That would probably be the most likely place to drain. In my opinion, it's not going this way. I can verify that before the Commissioner's meeting. This district is to implement what was recommended in 2001 under the EDD. Nothing is changing in regard to uses. The uses are roughly the same with one little difference, which we have interpreted to be small scale repair of appliance and things, not cars, not transmissions, or anything like that. That's basically all I have to say on the amendment. In your packet, there is a statement of sufficiency. Both districts are Economic Development Districts and it's clearly in a transition area. You'll also see a recommendation of approval. I am open for questions. Brian Crawford: Before questions and comments by the Board, are there any further statements or presentations by the public? Margo Pinkerton: Basically, we put our comments on this paper, and a couple of hand written notes at the end. I will disagree a little bit about the drainage in the lower portion. If you go to the neighborhood, you can look right across old 86 and if you'll look from the neighborhood you're looking out and a little bit up old 86 and anything happens in that property, it does slope down into a now acknowledged tributary that goes into Cafe's Creek so when we have heavy rains there is flooding in that little recently acknowledged creek and so forth. We're certainly very supportive of parcel one and think that makes total sense. It's not fair to hold the current owners hostage because of things that have happened with zoning that weren't around when they were there. The only thing, and I think we agree to the general plan, is we would like you all to be mindful that there is flooding elements it isn't just at the bottom of the pictures I showed you when I went to gather photographs, of course it wasn't flooded. A lot of times if you talk to the neighbors in that area they will tell you that little feeder stream does get flooded, very much so. It is, as you can see, very close to old 86 and if you could just be mindful that this part of the neighborhood is generally inhabited by young Attachment 10 2 3 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes families. These are small starter houses, so it's young families with children. Any development that does go into this corridor type of arrangement, any lighting is going to shine into second story windows, all of that sort of thing, so we respectfully ask you to keep that in mind as you make your plans, thank you. Samantha Cabe: I have one question for you, I think Michael Harvey touched on this, but since that is now an acknowledged tributary, the stream buffers do apply so they would have to build out from that stream? Robert Davis: Right, you have along the flood plain, depending on the slope, 7'/z % or less, in this area it's 65 ft., if it's over 7'/z% it would be 80 ft., in addition on the outside edge of the floodplain or on this particular one where there's no floodplain it would be measured at the top of the bank. This one looks like it's over 7 '/~ % the one that runs along the back. In either zone you have to control your storm water runoff to the predevelopment rate which right now, all of this is undeveloped there's a little house here. That is as you can see 12.68 acres you probably only have maybe an acre, less than acre, not even that much impervious surface on that parcel right now. Lany Wright: How is that pre-runoff, how is that measured before and after? Robert Davis: Generally you take a runoff co efficient of the existing land use and most of this is meadow, and there are some trees in the back. There are accepted practices of what is a reasonable runoff depending upon the use. Trees have one, meadows, fields, parking lots have others. So, they would take that calculation what it is now, and most of it being undeveloped, it's a fairly low runoff right now. That's one of the benefits of it being undeveloped is you have a low base from which to control your runoff. Jay Bryan: Robert, how long have these two tracts been zoned Economic Development Limited Office 1? Robert Davis: April 17, 2001 is when this district was put in place. Prior to that it was just regular Economic Development District zoning. Jay Bryan: The primary difference between these two zones, is it not true, is that one requires a special use permit class A, the one that exists there, is that true? Robert Davis: No, in this case right here, because it's within 200 ft. of a residential district that's a provision that was placed in the ED-LO-1 when adjoining recorded neighborhoods. That was put in there not so much for this neighborhood but for Beckett's Ridge when it came through the original rezoning. Because what you did have in the original EDD were primary and secondary development standards. They did not have to worry about, with it being a secondary area which allowed residential they didn't have to worry about it, then we took residential out of the ED-LO-1 so the neighborhood was concerned that there would not be any protection for the neighborhood when we removed that primary and secondary designation and went to the individual district. So that's why that provision was put in there that if you're within 200 ft. of a residential subdivision area it needs to have a SUP for their protection. You don't have that requirement in the ED-LNR but the buildings are limited to 5000 sq. ft. . Jay Bryan: Nevertheless, in tract 2 and in tract 1 as they're currently zoned there's the SUP that would apply to those tracts, is that correct? Robert Davis: Potentially, if they're within 200 ft. Samantha Cabe: I think the other big distinction I got from your presentation was the 100 ft. buffer really prevents anything from being built on these currently under their current zoning. At least the lower tract. Robert Davis: Actually, there are 3 lots and 100 ft. takes all but 20 ft. along the western line of tract 1, the lower one, those lots get hit pretty hard. Attachment 10 24 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes Citizen: My name is Jo Soulier and I just want to address a couple of things that some of you were questioning. Why save these four little houses, if you think about coming off the highway and what people might think of Hillsborough, you come off the highway and so far there's grass and then our neighborhood and then these four little houses slowly you're working your way up, yes, there's the gas station, and the credit union. Then you go over and you get slammed with fast food so if we could keep it gradual going in. We are all for whatever helps those four houses stay in there. What Hillsborough did was take everything all the way around and they took us too but they left those four little houses because the water and sewer doesn't make it down to there. Our water arid sewer comes from behind there's a water tower up there. There is no water and sewer down the street there, so that's another consideration. Hillsborough didn't even want to take them in. That's why they're not part of that. I can't say enough how much we oppose trying to put parking behind these building where it's not visible. What I'm hoping with these four little houses if that all passes and we can keep the houses there is with a shared driveway kind of thing, maybe the driveway can go in between and the parking lot can be in the space you can see between the houses and not actually go up behind them. Keep it in the space that is still visible from the road that way the parking lot can still be behind but visible. My last little problem, if you will, the lower tract, if you see it's got that one little finger sticking out. That use to be one of Cornwallis Hills lots and that does come all the way through into our neighborhood onto the street. When the owner bought that lot thinking they were going to build a church there and all of Cornwallis would come through there to go to church. I do believe its no longer on the books as part of Cornwallis Hills but it's still real interesting how things can troop back and forth there and we're worried about our safety and what might want to continue on. 1 don't know what you can do about that but it's kind of a funnel in and we're scared about it. I thank you for looking out for us and for even being here and looking at all of this. Brian Crawford: Thank you. Robert Davis: There's a stream right there at that comer crossing that I'm not sure of all rules that would come into play but I'm sure there would be Neuse River rules so it would be somewhat expensive from an engineering perspective. I can't imagine anyone wanting to use it for primary business access -maybe emergency access. I'll talk to the erosion control supervisor and find out what that would entail. That would add quite a bit of costs to a project. MOTION by Jay Bryan to approve a statement of consistency regarding tract one and a resolution to approve ordinance for zoning atlas amendment for rezoning for tract one. Seconded by Larry Wright. Brian Crawford: Is there any discussion? Tommy McNeill: Is that what is presented by the staff. Jay Bryan: I'm not moving regarding tract two. Tommy McNeill: Is that what you are presenting as well? Robert Davis: We've recommended both tract one and two. Statement of consistency is fine, he's got to do that anyway. Once you get to the recommendation. We've recommended tract one and tract two to be rezoned. Brian Crawford: We have to go back to tract two. He's only recommending tract one right now. Tommy McNeill: The question I would have are we also going to vote on two as well. Brian Crawford: Yes, if someone makes motion. Attachment 10 25 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes Jay Bryan: My motion was a statement of consistency, Robert, regarding tract number one. I am not making a motion that there's a statement of consistency regarding tract number two. Tommy McNeill: I'm afraid that if we look at them individually that there's a high probability that tract two wilt not pass. Robert Davis: Just to give you clarification, when I prepared the legal description, I made tract one and tract two to stand independent. You can approve one, you can approve both, you can approve neither. They can be separated on the recommendation based on the legal description that's in your packet. Tommy McNeill: Staff is suggesting both? Robert Davis: We're recommending that they both be rezoned to implement what is on the comprehensive plan. That's our recommendation. Brian Crawford: I understand your concerns, Tommy, there's a motion that has been seconded. We're bound to vote on it. You can come back and make a motion for the second tract. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I just have a question as to why you decided to separate them. Jay Bryan: I don't support a rezoning of tract number two. Forme, rather than voting against the whole thing, because I do want to honor the issue, frankly I don't like to do rezoning that specifically address individual properties in the manner that we're doing for tract one but in the spirit of trying to help those people, I'm supporting that. Even though in principle I wouldn't support doing either. But to address their concerns, I'm certainly going to vote to support tract number one. MOTION by Jay Bryan to approve a statement of consistency regarding tract one and a resolution to approve ordinance for zoning amendment for rezoning tract one. Seconded by Larry Wright. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION by Samantha Cabe to accept the staffs recommendation with regard to tract two. Seconded by Tommy McNeil Samantha Cabe: I can tell you the basis of why I support doing the amendment. I'm always opposed to making property unusable by the person who owns it and basically in its current zoning state it's unusable. From the planning staff, I think they've thoroughly explained that the post development runoff will not be allowed to exceed what it is currently and in its current undeveloped state, it's a very low amount of runoff. So whoever does decide to develop this property is going to have a very high bar with regard to controlling its runoff. The net effect on those properties behind should not be any more. The third reason is I've had a recent entanglement with the flood plain ordinance and it is very expensive and difficult to do anything in or near a floodway. So the fact that there are these floodplains and the stream buffers that apply, are going to not only increase the costs and require whoever does develop this to really thread the eye of the needle with regard. to what they do near streams and floodways. They're going to have a high bar to get through our planning department with regard to that as well. I feel like our current planning department in the language of the new linear office designation has the protections that will not increase the runoff with regard to the property behind. I feel like our County errs on the side of caution in protecting things like that and I feel certain that our planning department and our current ordinances do that. Tommy McNeill: I'd like to make a comment in addition, staff spends an enormous of time doing research on issues such as this and knowing that this is a flood plain, staff still supports the fact that it should be rezoned. Therefore, I'll support and endorse their recommendation based on their experience. Attachment 10 2 6 Excerpt of January 14 Planning Board Minutes Brian Crawford: So, it's been moved and seconded that we recommend the approval of the statement of consistency and the resolution of rezoning for tract two. Jay Bryan: Just to let me explain my vote against it. I think the points you are making are fair and I certainly don't disagree with you. My issue is with the 20 ft. buffer that we approved because it was essentially a general change in that ordinance not because of what might happen if we oppose the ordinance in a specific place. If we are opposing this designation on this tract, we're effecting a whole lot more neighbors and lots that are residential in character that are going to be much more impacted by a 20 ft. buffer on the backside of this property and also without an ability to be a participant in a special use permitting process. Robert Davis: The perimeter buffer goes to 50 ft., I may not have explained that. The perimeter buffer along the EDD goes to 50 ft. rather than the 100 ft.. The 20 ft. is the intemal between units. Jay Bryan: The intemal being side to side? Robert. Davis: The intemal lot lines. It's still 50 ft. back there but the buildings are a lot smaller. Brian Crawford: Any more discussion? MOTION by Samantha Cabe to accept the staff's recommendation in regard to tract two. Seconded by Tommy McNeil. VOTE: 6 to 2 Motion Passed (Jay Bryan and Lany Wright opposed)