Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-009-Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area-ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 ,9~~0 ,,~ ~~ ~ ~ , Action Agenda Item No.~~ ~ -~ SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (EDD)~Buffer Regulations DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) 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. ` Sfaff 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 ofFce (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. 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: 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. 'S ATTACH ONE (1): PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Section 6.29.3(a) - HiIIsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual: Sectian 3.2 Buffering of Neighboring Uses: Section: Existing Re ations -Pro osed 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 con~idor OId 86 and New 86 except 50' Linear Office Staffproposes to modify this section to read as follows: A buffer, one hundred (100) feet in width shall be required along the Hillsborough EDD boundary and along the Old and New NC Highway 86 highway corridor. For properties located within the ED-LNR zoning district a, fi, fly (SO} foot wide buffer shall be required along the highway corridor: Staff recommends the revision in an effort to make the section flaw 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 aught 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 100-feet is required adjacent to the right-of-way of interstate highways, Staffproposes to modify this section to read as follows: A buf `er, 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..ln cases where an licant ro ose~s to utilize an existing residential structure to house a professional o,~ce 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 o„~lce or similar service developmerr~ b. Br ffers along road rights-of-way or along ident~ed highway corridors shall be in accordance with previously established standards as detailed herein. c. There shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot vegetative bujr 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 grou»d of at least thirtysix (36) inches that will achieve a height of at . least, fitfteen (IS) 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 t~cer shall be authorized to grant a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the required bu,~ers to avoid canjlici. 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 af, 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 IA district, the buffer may be Limited to SO' 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 Diinensionat Requirements, 6.29.3(a) ~llsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual, be amended to read as follows: 3.2 BUFFERING NEIGHBORIlVG USES: 1. A rear ~~~i4hin 4Mn 11ic+f~Ci.fo A buffer one hundred 100 feet in wid shall be re aired alon the Hillsboro EDD bound and alon the Old and New NC Hi wa 86 hi wa corridor. o ro rties located within the ED-LNR zoni distri a fift SO foot wide b shall be required along_the hi~hwav corridor. 2. IaiE~ways: A buffer one hundred 100 in wid shall be re aired for all ro erties that hav frontage or are otherwise adiacent to the right-of-wav of an interstate hi~hwayfsl. 3. Scr~eening between adjacent land uses shall be provided In accordance with the attached Schedule of Land Use Buffers. In cases where an licant ro se to utilize an exis ' residential structure to ouse a rofessional office or simil rofessional service i.e. doctor beautician dentist etc the screenin standar s sh be as follows: a. Existin sin a-famil residential structures shall onl be ermitted t be utilized in su rtin rofessio office or similar servi development. • b. Buffers alon road ri is-of-wa or alon identified hi wa comdo shall be in accordance with reviousl established standar as detail herein. c There shall be a minimum twent 20 foot ve etative buffer alon common side and/or rear roe lines se ara ' • non-resid fiat an residential Iand uses. d. There shall be a minimum ten 10 foot landsca ed stri alon all aid and/or rear roe lines s •non-residential uses from oth similar non-residential uses e. The r aired lantin s shall be in accordance with those uire within this Section of the Ordinance. f. The landsca. ed stri shall be com riled of ve etation that forms • semi-o a intermittent visual obstructio with a minimum initi tannin hei t from the and of at least thi -six 36 inches will achieve a height of at least fifteen (IS) feet at maturity In cases where a 'oint use a Bement s exists be Ben ad'ace ro o ers allo for shared in ss/e ress and/or arldn th Zo 'n Officer shall be authorized to ant a waiver re ardi the e location) of the regnirecl buffers to avoid conflict. 4. Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas. ff existing vegetation is riot sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shat! be augmented and interspersed, consisting of 5U-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~ pcavide additional screening • }:8 Decorative walls may be used to augment required taridscaping ,for buff reduction. ~A:9 Access drives, utilities, and pedestrian paths are permitted within require buffers -1-1:10 Access and utility crossings are to be made perpendicular to the length of th~ buffer. -~11 No land disturbances for bu'Idings, parking, or storage drainage, etc. ar~ 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 the Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of 2009 and shall become effective upon adoption. seconded by foregoing Zoning Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners Attachment 2 1 U 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, Lany Wright, Jeffrey Schmitt, and Tommy McNeill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jay Bryan, Brian Crawford, and Joel Knight 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS• Review of Zonina Ordinance Amendments. specifically to the Economic Development Desian 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, •Esfablish 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 this 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 Bobbin-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 RepresentaCroe; 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 Beny, 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, Attorney for Vernon Davis) (Due fo recorder malfunction there are no recorded minutes. The following is a summary of meeting from wriffen notes and sfat~ 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 inflated 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 propetties 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 typicallytwenty-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. Unfortunatery, the existing landscaping regulations/standards made the adaptive reuse of the existing single-family residential stn~ctures impractical as the typical buffer requirements for these properties would be: Approved 2/4/09 ~ 3 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 moditying 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. ADDRIONAL 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 whiff identifying the following concerns: 1. Concem 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 interconnectiv~ty 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. Concem 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 ~ 4 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, Sfaff 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, financernsurance, 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 n~uirement. 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-commeraal 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 corridor was unlike the Highway 70 area in Efland and there was nothing sign cant 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 modem 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 its 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 stomtwater 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 Cornwallis Hills subdivision not being totally within the flood plain. Larry Wright said he had drive through the area after storm events and the property in question was always flooded. Lary Wright said he was concerned 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 Lary Wright was referring to and suggested that 'rf 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 clamcation 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 Bti. 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 still 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. Lany 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 penrious 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. Lany Wright said he was primarily concerned aver 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 iwo (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 nonresidential purposes established appropriate safeguards. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. . VOTE: Unanimous MOTION by Lary 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 Lary 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 ~ -/?_a- ~ 5G No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing and approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2009-2010 in the total amount of $369,420 with a local match of $46,173; and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program Resolutions, which are incorporated by reference, and annual certified statements of participation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Zoning Atlas Amendment IRezoninal- 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation on and considered approval of a petition submitted to rezone a 2.8 acre parcel of property located at 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL5.26.40 /PIN 9893-00-8606) from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1 ). Planner Michael Harvey said that this is a continuation of a public hearing for this property. This item was presented at the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing, where staff testified that there was an existing auto body garage on the property. In 1981, when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the zoning of this property was changed to EC-5 in an effort to bring it into compliance with the standards and requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Since that time, the existing auto body shop has ceased. The current property owners were unaware that it was zoned commercial and do not want it zoned commercial. The Planning Board has reviewed this and recommended unanimously that the property be rezoned. He read the Administration recommendation. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to close the public hearing and approve the zoning atlas petition by: approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2); and approving the Resolution of Rezoning Approval (Attachment 3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (EDD1 Buffer Regulations The Board received the Planning Board recommendation on and considered approval of astaff-initiated Zoning Ordinance text amendment to modify existing landscape buffer regulations contained within Section 6.29.3a of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Michael Harvey said that the staff put forward astaff-initiated text amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 6.29.3a, which is the Economic Development District Design Manual, to amend existing buffer regulations within the Hillsborough EDD. This was heard during the November Quarterly Public Hearing, and the impetus for initiating this amendment was to address concerns staff had over the potential for development within the Hillsborough corridor, specifically along NC 86. There has been interest in converting one of the existing residential structures into a professional office. Current buffer regulations would require a 50-foot landscaped area separating non-residential from residential development. Staff proposes buffer amendments that would allow for an individual to adaptively reuse existing single-family residential structures to obtain a reduction in the required buffer in order to increase the usable area. During the public hearing, there were numerous concerns. One concern was that if an individual deconstructed then they might be able to make use of this buffer allowance. The answer to that is no. The only way to make use of the buffer allowance is to use the existing residential structure for anon-residential purpose. Another concern is what would constitute a suitable screen when there were joint or shared driveways. Staff proposed language that would allow the Planning Director, at his discretion, to weigh certain landscape requirements. The Planning Board reviewed this item after a long deliberation and has recommended that the Board approve the amendment as presented by staff. He read the Administration recommendation. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 3.2.3g and said that it does not make sense to talk about granting a waiver of the location of a perimeter buffer. He said that the waiver should be for some of the planting requirements along the common lot line where there may be a shared use easement in place. Michael Harvey said that he understands this, but the rationale for writing it this way was to require and force dialog. Chair Foushee asked if there was compromised language here. Commissioner Jacobs suggested using the word "parameters" instead of "locations." Michael Harvey agreed with this. It was agreed to use the word "parameters." Commissioner Jacobs said that there were a number of questions at the public hearing that were left out of the minutes on page 11. The way that he reads the staff comment is that this amendment, while it addresses buffer issues, it is not the venue for addressing the other issues that were raised that relate to the buffer. He asked, if the buffer regulations are approved and then the Board wants to make adjustments to other aspects of these parcels that might affect the buffers, whether this would be possible or if it would be precluded because the buffer regulations have been approved. He does not want to approve something that will then preclude him from addressing limiting road access. Geof Gledhill said that the Board could come back and change the text. However, property owners who have vested rights in the present use of their property or some permitted use of the property that arise after these changes are adopted but before the text changes get adopted are going to continue to have the vested rights to do that. Commissioner Jacobs asked for the Clerk's office to go back and transcribe the clarifying questions and answers from the public hearing in November and bring back to the Board some identification of issues as well as the South Churton Street Access Management Plan to see what it says. He wants to make sure that what the County is doing is consistent with this. Commissioner Yuhasz verified with staff that this ordinance would only affect these few houses. He said that it would be difficult to try and provide any common access to these houses and provide parking in front, etc. He said that to put additional requirements would preclude adaptive reuse of these structures. Commissioner Jacobs said that there could be language that encourages parking to the rear or to the sides. There is limited flexibility. He said that Old NC 86 is already a mess and he is concerned about moving forward. He said that it might be more important to have an access road than a buffer behind the buildings. He said that he does not want to approve something that he will later regret. Commissioner Gordon about the Planning Board's deliberations. Michael Harvey said that the Planning Board deliberated for a long time on this matter and there were several friendly amendments to the motion that were not approved. Those friendly amendments would have asked the County Commissioners to direct staff to begin the process of amending the ordinance to address these concerns. There was unanimous approval. He said that clarifying points were that there was a similar problem when the Efland- Cheeks Overlay District was adopted. There may be existing language within the EDD Design Manual that would encourage and require shared driveway access. He thinks that there are some existing regulatory standards that eliminate four independent commercial access points for these properties. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the topic come back at the next meeting so that the Board can discuss directing staff to do an analysis on the access points so that the problems are not exacerbated on Old NC 86. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to close the public hearing, 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; and also direct staff to begin comprehensive analysis on impervious surface issues as well as required locations for parking lots, and direct staff to study existing access management regulations and consider amendments requiring shared drives and access roads in these situations within the Hillsborough EDD. This motion includes changing the noun from "location(s)" to "parameters" as stated above for page 6, item `g'. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoningl: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (West Side of Old NC 86) The Board considered 1) receiving the Planning Board recommendation; 2) closing the public hearing and 3) approving aCounty-initiated general use zoning atlas amendment petition in the Hillsborough Area EDD. Planner Robert Davis said that this is the actual atlas amendment that rezones the property on Old NC 86 from ED-LO-1 to ED-LNR. The main difference between the two is generally the lot sizes. The uses are virtually similar. The tract is on the south side of the Credit Union property. Tract 1 consists of seven lots and tract 2 consists of four lots. There are five single-family houses on tract 1, four of which front out on Old NC 86. There is one single- family house on tract 2. He showed the property on a map. The recommendation is to rezone both tracts. He said that the Planning Board did discuss an issue with flooding and that some lots within Cornwallis Hills were approved in the flood plain. This does not affect these two tracts, however. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the Planning Board took separate votes on each tract. She asked why this was and said that it looks like it was concern for the neighbors impacted and the fact that they would not have the ability to participate in the special use permitting process at all. Robert Davis said that the vote was 6-2 for the south tract and unanimous for the north tract. A portion of it was a misunderstanding that the buffer was going down to 25 feet. Once it was explained that the buffer was 50 feet, there was less concern. The main thing is that there were two residents within Cornwallis Hills that were asking that the ED-LO-1 stay in place because it requires a special use permit within a certain distance. If the ED-LO-1 stays in place, then potentially aseven-story building could come online and would have to be approved because it meets the requirements. Craig Benedict said that these lands are still within the EDD and the Design Manual still applies. The design manual has guidelines such as interconnectivity. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS oZ-3 -09 %a,d/P c~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 3, 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): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592 Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607 PURPOSE: To reschedule the public hearing regarding the review of a proposed zoning amendment to the. Hillsborough Economic Development District concerning landscaping regulations. BACKGROUND: This item was reviewed at the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing where the Board adjourned the hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to allow for the Planning Board to review the request and make a recommendation to the BOCC. The Planning Board reviewed this item at its meeting on January 14, 2009 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning petition. However, approved minutes of the Planning Board meeting will not be ready in sufficient time to allow the County Commissioners to re-convene the public hearing on February 3, 2009 to take action on the petition. The Zoning Officer recommends the Board re-convene and then adjourn the hearing until March 17, 2009. This will allow for the minutes to be completed and approved by the Planning Board for the County Commissioners to review. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact with re-convening the public hearing and adjourning it until March 17, 2009. The public hearing was previously advertised as part of the November 24, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing advertisement and the Board may continue the hearing to a date and time certain without re-advertising the hearing.. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration.recommendsthe Board: 1. Re-convene the public hearing on this item, 2. Adjourn the hearing to March 17, 2009 to allow for the Planning Board to review and approve the minutes from its January 14, 2009 meeting. The Planning Board concurred that the existing regulations were no longer applicable and needed to be studied comprehensively. The Planning Board has recommended that the application be tabled, and that the County Commissioners direct staff to begin the process of identifying various options to rectify the problem within the White Cross Node and other nodes, and that this recommendation will be brought forth as soon as the Planning Board is done with its deliberations. The Administration recommendation is to close the public hearing, table the application, and direct staff to begin the process of identifying options. This matter will be discussed at tomorrow night's regular Planning Board meeting. Commissioner Hemminger asked what happens to the septic system in the meantime and Michael Harvey said that it is working, but that is why they want to move forward now. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to: 1) Close the Public Hearing; 2) Table the application, as requested by the applicant, allowing for a review of the various zoning and development issues within the White cross Node, and 3) Direct staff to identify various options for resolving the identified issues, including estimated timelines for completion, for review and discussion by the BOCC as part of its identification of goals for 2009. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ~ c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District (EDD) Buffer Regulations The Board considered rescheduling the public hearing regarding the review of a proposed zoning amendment to the Hillsborough Economic Development District concerning landscaping regulations. Michael Harvey said that the purpose of this item was just to open the public hearing and then re-adjourn the public hearing to March 17th for this item to be reviewed because the Planning Board minutes could not be finalized with respect to this item. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the public hearing to March 17th at the time designated by the Board regarding the review of a proposed zoning amendment to the Hillsborough Economic Development District concerning landscaping regulations, to allow for the Planning Board to review and approve the minutes from its January 14, 2009 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoninal: Hillsborough Area Economic Development District The Board considered rescheduling the public hearing concerning the review of a rezoning petition seeking to rezone several properties within the Hillsborough Economic Development District. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the public hearing to March 17th at the time designated by the Board to allow for the Planning Board to review and approved the minutes from its January 14, 2009 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Rezoning) - 4115 Old NC 10 (Jones) The Board considered rescheduling the public hearing concerning the review of a rezoning petition seeking to rezone 4115 Old NC to from Existing Commercial Five to Rural Residential One.