HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-23-2009 - C2ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 23, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. _C1,9
SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment — Article Nine (9) Signs — Outdoor Advertising
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance Amendment
2. Abstract from September 10, 2009 BOCC
Work Session
3. Minutes from September 10, 2009 Work
Session
4. Memo Detailing Adoption of Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC)
regulations
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Name
Craig Benedict, Director
Michael D. Harvey, Planner
Phone Number
245 -2592
245 -2607
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a staff initiated zoning text amendment to Article Nine
(9) Signs of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of outdoor
advertising (i.e. billboards).
BACKGROUND: At the September 10, 2009 BOCC work session, the County Attorney and the
Planning Director presented an abstract providing information on the current regulation of `billboard
lighting' (Attachment Two). Staff requested guidance on how to address an existing billboard
dispute, specifically the ability for Mr. Ben Lloyd to re- energize lights on two (2) existing billboards
along the 1 -40/85 corridor.
The Board voted six (6) to one (1) to direct staff to:
1. Prepare an amendment to the applicable portion of the County zoning ordinance to
eliminate certain types of regulation of lighting of billboards where the regulation is in
conflict with State or Federal Law, and
2. Provide a historical synopsis of the review and adoption of the Major Transportation
Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, with specific focus on the rationale behind the County's
approach to billboard regulations.
The Board then voted unanimously to direct staff to request, in writing, from the NC Department
of Transportation (NC DOT) information concerning the digital lighting of signs and how the
County's regulations could be modified to address concerns over digital billboards. Staff is in
the process of submitting this request to NC DOT for review and anticipates sending out the
request by November 13, 2009.
2
REASON FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: During the September 10, 2009 work session, the
County Attorney had indicated that recent court decisions had severely limited the ability of local
governments to regulate outdoor advertising signage. In situations where there was a conflicting
state and local standard, the state standard preempted local regulation. In the absence of a
definable state standard, however, local regulations would apply.
With this in mind, the Planning Director directed staff to prepare this amendment for presentation at
the November 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing in an effort to bring existing regulatory standards in
line with established limitations as they relate to outdoor advertising structures and to provide further
detail as to when local regulations are enforceable.
Staff is proposing to amend the existing sign regulations by adding a new section to read as follows:
The provisions of this Article establish standards and review criteria relating to
the location, erection, maintenance, lighting, setbacks, and use of signs. This
includes regulations pertaining to outdoor advertising (i.e. Billboards).
The regulation and permitting of outdoor advertising is also subject to various
State, most notably the State Outdoor Advertising Control Act, and Federal
requirements. In cases where there is a conflict between County regulation(s)
and State /Federal regulation(s), relating to the location, erection, maintenance,
lighting, setbacks and use of outdoor advertising signage, the corresponding
State /Federal law shall take precedent.
In cases where there is no applicable State/Federal standard, then existing
County regulations shall be enforced.
The rationale for this amendment is to avoid future conflict with any applicable state or Federal
regulations and to ensure that the directive of the BOCC was carried out in an expedient manner.
The proposed wording should address the concerns of the County Attorney's office while maintaining
local authority to regulate outdoor advertising structures in instances were no state or Federal
standard exists thereby limited the extent of this provision.
It should further be noted that this revision was prompted by the apparent conflict between the
'grandfathering' provision(s) of NC DOT regulations pertaining to the re- establishment of billboard
lighting and the County's policies, as detailed within Article Eleven (11) of the Zoning Ordinance,
relating to the 'cessation of use' provisions relating to the continued use and illumination of non-
conforming signs.
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'. In analyzing this request, the Zoning Officer
offers the following information:
1. Staff was authorized to initiate a zoning text amendment by the BOCC to address the
aforementioned conflict(s) relating to the regulation of outdoor advertising at the
September 10, 2009 BOCC work session.
2. The request for a zoning text amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with
the requirements of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance.
3
3. The proposed language addresses the majority of the concerns expressed during the
September 10, 2009 BOCC work session. Additional research and amendments can be
made during the UDO process to address additional concerns.
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.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS: In accordance with Section 20.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance the Zoning Officer hereby certifies that the public hearing for this item was
advertised consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance within a newspaper of general
circulation in the County for two (2) successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less
than ten (10) days nor more than twenty -five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Officer recommends the Board:
1. Receive the zoning text amendment proposal,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment on the petition,
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the February 16, 2010 BOCC regular
meeting, and
4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 16, 2010 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Attachment 1 5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, there has been heightened scrutiny over existing regulations
relating to the review, processing, and approval of outdoor advertising signs (i.e.
billboards) within the County, and
WHEREAS, staff has been advised by the County Attorney's office that
recent court cases have found that State and Federal regulation(s) preempt local
zoning authority in cases were there are inconsistencies relating to the review,
processing, and approval of outdoor advertising signs, and
WHEREAS, staff has been advised that an amendment is necessary to
affirm that in those cases where there are conflicting regulatory standards that
State and Federal regulations preempt local restrictions, and
WHEREAS, this amendment is necessary to ensure proper enforcement
of regulatory standards as they relate to outdoor advertising signs.
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:
The provisions of this Article establish M.0dards and review criteri
relating to the location erection maintenance liahtina setbacks and use
of signs. This includes regulations pertaining to outdoor`advertisina (i e
Billboards).
Federal requirements In cases where there is a .Qonflict between C- inty
Mulation(s) and State/Federal- regulation(s), relating to the location
erection, maintenance.-lighting, setbacks and use of outdoor advertisinn
signage, t- e corresponding State /Federal law shall take precedent
In cases where there is no applicable State /Federal standard then
existing County regulations shall be enforced
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing Zoning
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 10, 2009
Action Agenda
Item No. I—
SUBJECT: County Regulation of Billboard Lighting
DEPARTMENT: County Attorney /Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Roberts 245 -2318
Carolina Advertising Air Photo Vicinity Map Craig Benedict 245 -2592
Recent Photos (2)
Matrix of Highway Billboards
PURPOSE: To present the Board with information regarding the current regulation of billboard
lighting.
BACKGROUND: Ben. Lloyd owns large parcels of land along the beginning of the 1- 85/1 -40
corridor in Orange County. Situated on a portion of these parcels are two outdoor advertising
signs ( "billboards "). Mr. Lloyd leased the billboards in question in this case to Carolina
Advertising, Incorporated. The billboards were in existence and, according to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation ( "NCDOT "), illuminated prior to 1972. NCDOT, records
do not go back to 1972 in complete detail, but they do reflect that the billboards have been
illuminated continuously from 1999 to 2009. Orange County. records indicate that the billboards
were not illuminated in 2002 and for some time period prior to 2002. Under the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance the billboards are a nonconforming use and as a nonconforming use when
some aspect of the use is discontinued it may not be restarted at a later time. At some point in
2002 Carolina Advertising, Inc. applied for a permit to illuminate the billboards. This application
was denied.
After the permit was denied Carolina Advertising, Inc. appealed the denial to the Orange County
Board of Adjustment. After hearing the case the Board of Adjustment upheld the planning
officer's denial of the permit. Carolina Advertising, Inc. appealed the decision to Orange County
Superior Court. Prior to hearing before the superior court Carolina Advertising, Inc. took a
voluntary dismissal of the case in June 2006. Although unverified, it is believed the reason for
this is Mr. Lloyd terminated Carolina Advertising, Inc.'s lease for failure to make their lease
payments. Regardless, the appeal was not re -filed within the one year period required to keep
the appeal alive. Prior to the dismissal petitioner's attorney in an ex -parte (outside the presence
of opposing counsel) communication with the superior court judge obtained a restraining order
against the County to prohibit the County-from ordering that the power be disconnected from
the billboards. This order became void upon the dismissal of the case. In October 2006 Mr.
7
0
Lloyd, through counsel, attempted to intervene in the case as a substitute party. This attempt
failed because the case had been dismissed four months earlier.
In March of 2008 Mr. Lloyd again submitted an application to the Planning Department for a
permit to illuminate one or both of the billboards. Craig Benedict informed Mr. Lloyd that this
application also was denied. Since the second denial there has been extensive
correspondence between Ben Lloyd and NCDOT, Geof Gledhill and the planning department,
both Geof Gledhill and the planning department and NCDOT, etc. As a result of this extensive
correspondence it has become apparent that NCDOT supports Mr. Lloyd's right to illuminate the
billboards, while the Planning Department, upon the advice of Geof Gledhill, maintains that it
has the right to deny Mr. Lloyd's application to illuminate the billboards based upon both the
Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the Board of Adjustment decision.
Available options recommended by the County Attorney:
1) Refuse any compromise and hold the matter adjudicated. Because this case has been fully
adjudicated and previously dismissed choosing this option is legally defensible. This will
probably result in litigation. If this option is exercised the County could, during the ongoing
.litigation, request local legislation delegating authority to Orange County to fully regulate
billboards and the lighting thereof. This would be a lengthy process, possibly resulting in the full
litigation of the case prior to- obtaining any such local legislation. This type of local legislation
also would likely be vigorously opposed by corporate sign companies because it could be seen
as opening the door to other local governments obtaining the same type of local bills. Litigation
could be costly with damages for Mr. Lloyd's lost rental income and attorneys-fees being billed
to the County.
2) Amend the applicable portion of the County's zoning ordinance to eliminate certain types of
regulation of billboards where the regulation is in conflict with State or Federal Law. This would
not exempt all billboards from regulation, nor would it open the door for more billboards to be
erected. It would, however, bring Orange County's ordinance into compliance with existing
State and /or Federal Law.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: An extensive amount of Planning and Attorney staff time and expense
has been expended on this issue.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Interim Manager recommends that the Board review the
recommendations above offered by the County Attorney and establish direction for County staff
to pursue.
�}f
} Y 33r
R zoo
t r NAM
- Qum
�
II�\
'1
M
t•J i
1 Ft
r �
s I
Lr
t} _
F Y
Too
j
,
c i
f f
f•�S �11ISupOR0UGH � �L��`� �� � 1 ►�
1! ,• C5 _ 3Y �f7 �Jre R' L>' d4 f.t A A G ✓i 1 .: Z 4 t f J y 9 t
```���_== ���CCC177,,``��__�� a L r � r �'f .,�� t �1 ��� 1-�• ,,a' 1� � } � � , '� :� ,�� .i
�i � � • "� u�' i�a }' .a,✓+ ��e%a4 , h i C � � F a ' C % U P
rx a�.t �x 4''• '�',rF LJ �. 1 i��t �K s r� s�� t t t ' t(
CM-4 IIAM
i � _ _ �r � � ,_ _ d. �.:, ,n*•.c �. ..,,.,_ ..�r�'.' ��7�> dt� '„�`�7�'�a�...�'"- .?wY;..,. :, r'P,... .r_. ,a M, _ , ...i_x.. ..., ... � .
�• �:4� 'fir '`_ �'i?,.�
V
I Fairway 088002 0.29 y y V -Type North Mebane Nlk East/ 9824373276 3.21 A38 NA W H WILSON FAMILY INVESTMENT GROUP
rc Wed
Fairway F - 088001 028 y Y V Type South Mebane EesH 9824485874 3.21A1A 321A 1A W H WILSON FAMILY INVESTMENT GROUP
Wed LLC
Fairway ` pggppg r 0.47 y y iffi V -Type North Mebane NA EAW 9824475450 3.21 A286 NA ARMSTRONG INSULATION PRODUCTS LLC
West ENT GROU
nc Y 77; S1kd19-By--SIft
Orange IBM' West 9824469890 3.42 5 342 6 W H WILSON FAMILY INVESTM P
and Hogan r _ LLC
DSSS y y at�F* single ace South Orange ,�30C . East 9824459890.3.42 5 321 A23 W H WILSON FAMILY INVESTMENT GROUP
053005 0.6 LLC
CB3 I 088007 0.85 W,5' Ingle Face 1 South 0 r C,t Fast 9824888922: 3.21.A:25 3 21 A 25 WYNN FREDDIE ALBERT
CBS n 088008 rr11 0.8 y y y Single Face 1 South Orange t� .Wed 9824888922 3.21 A.25 S 2 639 WYNN FREDDIE ALBERT
Fairway 088010 5 1 y y z rte WType North Mebane t� Eedf 9824862173 3.21 82B NA! • PATTER30N A H JR
x " :Wed s t
Earner 088008 c" 1.2 y Y " A WTypa North Mellene +N11 - Ead/ 9624972877 3.21.8.41D NA PYTHON ENTERPRISES
L" r west I LLC
1 CB6 068014 4 n n ' 1� Single Faos 1 North Orange v iy Ead 9844581433 3.31823 3 31 8.23 : ALLISON MARVIN
n D 7 WALTER HRS
Orange 3 35 D 74
North East 9844883047 3.38 ALSTON %THERESAA
FLORENCE
Y Y Single Few North Orange East 9844888048 3.36.0.1 335 Z IL EFLAND 8 L HRS
1 Ho9� 1 4.6 n n tt ' �:. Single Face 1 SpuOr Orange a Y; Wed 9844754885 3.40.E.7 340E 7 + SHARPE JESSIE HARRIS
x. WADE
nc f 4.02 y y � ne ace North Orange *g East 9844763221 3.35.C.10 3.3.5,:C.110 '; LOFTIN SARA 9 HRS % CLARENCE A
LOFTIN
1
Felrway
t7
088018
088021
;,;L i
1
6.1
8.15
n
y
n
Y
,:-4 0 N•:
" a:
mgm raw
Single Faoe
rwi u
North
-w
Orange
i Nlmge
G
x�sx;
tea..
Wed
o,,,,.•...,..�.
9854548930
...�.......
3.48..17.
348,17 'LLOYD
-- • - • _ - -' - -- - -- -
ANDREW
BENJAMIN JR ETAL
&MARIE LLOYD
DAMS
088022
,1. 8.22
y
y
wr yxs'
Face
jSotA
Orange
�
6
LLOYD ANDREW BJR
Tway
Y
Y n
e
NoM.
Orange��4
Wed
9654548930
3.48..17
348 17
LLOYD ANDREW
& MARIE LLOYD
?
.,
5 m
BENJAMIN JR ETAL
DAVIS
n
n
S
a0e
orth .
Orange
rOC
East
9893148071
528.300
528 300 k
CRENSHAW SANDRA G
;h
North
Orange
ix�
Wed
8883333390
528.33
525 30C
DENNIS CAROLYN WOOD
& GAYLON GLEN
GREGORY
Ho 9�
088004
a 13.6
y
Y
4
tt
Ingle Faoe
South '
Orange
it s �
Wad.
9883229508
526..33A
528 33A
t
LOCRMAX PROPERTIES
Hogan
_
itµ5y
088052
1 r 13.52
y
y
uk
Single Face
1 South
Orange
y .0 a:
Wed
9893229508
528..33A
528 33A
FORMAX PROPERTIES
1 n,d
LLC
Hogan
L
088027
1.1,1 391 13.8
y
Y
r' ? ,_
Single Face
1 North
Orange
% ;QC ,
East
9893333390
5.28..33
6126.X ;
DENNIS CAROLYN WOOD
& GAYLON GLEN
GREGORY
:1
Capital
a +
J4 @? 13.86
Y
Y
Y kY, 4, �
Single face
1 North
Orange
s
feast
8893333390
5.28..33
5 28 33
DENNIS CAROLYN WOOD
& GAYLON GLEN
GREGORY
2
Lunar
088028
11 14
s� s K' A . Y<.::a"
Single Face
1 South :
Orange
OG ut
West
9893215786
5.28..35
525 35 , '
CRASTREE BANE LLC
2
', i = t
-,
1a8i ".. 14.05
n
n
I* w n r
Single Face
1 North
0
OC
East
9893435304
5.28..35E
K26=
CRABTREE BANE LLC
DSSS Inc.
+
088005
17331 14.1
Y
Y
Y 7 kt
Single Face
1 South
Orange
OC .
West
9893215788
5.28..35
5 28 35 :
CRABTREE BANE LLC
Hogan
rrf a�
S�kr
15.85
n
n
, $nki"k�ii?
Single Face
1 South
Orange
7 O a
East
0803324208
5.2b..42
525 42
H M ROLL INC
CONSTRUCTION CO
BLUE BEACON
INC
ar
ri P {;
Y
Y
�* 4Y
ogle ace
Mebane
lx
East
9834178082
3.28..46
321829
-=
INTERNATIONAL _
N
Data Sources:
NCDOT
Orange Co4ntq GIS
Li Stit:~•j S•taf�5
jn lanr�• 5� <"L�
�)A� 0.c_h n,en) 13
APPROVED 10/612009
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
September 10, 2009
7:OOp.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday,
September 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Emergency Services Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the
Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
Pelissier to approve adding another closed session item to the agenda — "to consult with an
attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney - client privilege between the
attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143- 318.11(a)(3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1. County Regulation of Billboard Lighting
County Attorney John Roberts said that this issue involves some outdoor advertising
signs on the 1- 40/1 -85 corridor and that lighting is the issue. These signs are owned by Ben
Lloyd. He said that Mr. Lloyd petitioned the County several years ago to restore lighting on
these billboards and the petition was denied by the Board of Adjustment. There was a
subsequent Board of Adjustment hearing on it, and the BOA upheld the denial. The sign
company appealed to the Superior Court. At some point during the appeal, the sign company
voluntarily dismissed the appeal and did not, within a one -year period, re -file the appeal, and the
case died in Superior Court. What is left is the Board of Adjustment's decision that lighting
should be denied. There has been some case law decided since that time and the Court of
Appeals of North Carolina and the Supreme Court of North Carolina have ruled in a case of
Lamar OCI vs. Stanley County Board of Adjustment that a county ordinance that makes illegal
an action that the Department of Transportation (DOT) rules to make legal is preempted by the
DOT rules. That is part of what applies to this situation. This is a complex issue and involves
numerous arguments on both sides. He thinks that there are two options for the Board of
County Commissioners to take. One is to hold that this matter has been adjudicated and is
disposed of. The Board of Adjustment has the force of the law. The other option is amending
the applicable portion of the County Zoning Ordinance to reflect what DOT's rules say.
John Roberts said that the difference in the DOT rules and the Orange County
ordinance is that DOT says if the lighting was in the past and was depowered then it can be
powered again; Orange County's ordinance says that if lighting is depowered then it cannot be
powered again.
14
Craig Benedict said that this has been going on since 2002. When he came to Orange
County in 1999, the Planning Department was asked to do an inventory of all billboards along 1-
85/1-40 in Orange County. He said that when Carolina Advertising was leasing billboards from
Mr. Lloyd, the signs were unlit. It was determined that since the signs were unlit, that letting
them be lit would be an expansion of a non - conforming use. He said that in cases where DOT
has rules, they probably preempt local zoning, but where DOT rules are silent, then Orange
County zoning may take effect. DOT is silent on the issue of signs not being lit for more than
180 days, but it is in Orange County's rules.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked that if the County Commissioners went with Option 2 — to
bring Orange County's regulations into compliance with the DOT regulations — and if this would
allow any new billboards and Craig Benedict said no.
Commissioner Hemminger asked for an explanation of why the signs cannot be lit and
Craig Benedict said that the County has an outdoor lighting ordinance and new permitted lights
in the major transportation corridor cannot have lit signs.
Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the chart (Matrix of highway
billboards). Craig Benedict said that, of the 31 signs, Orange County and DOT were consistent
on 27 of those. On four of the sites, there is a dispute about whether DOT thought that the
signs could be relit and whether Orange County thought that they were unlit for more than 180
days. Mr. Lloyd's signs are #'s 15 and 16.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important not to single out Mr. Lloyd. He said that it
seems like this is not in the context of why the County did what it did originally with billboards.
He made reference to a handout from Durham City in reference to billboards and said that this
was a 40 -page document and everything after page 8 is about digital signs. He made reference
to page 4 about billboards in Durham. He would like to see Orange County's ordinance and
have a better understanding of why Orange County did what it did before making a change. He
hopes that the owners of the four signs agree to conform to the County's standards, regardless
of DOT's standards. He would like to be fair to Mr. Lloyd, but he would also like to be cautious
in making a decision.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that caution is in order but he does not think this is about
whether Orange County lighting standards should apply to billboards. He said that the real
question is whether or not any Orange County standards can apply to existing billboards that
come under DOT's purview as a result of the State of North Carolina's agreement with the
federal government. He said that the argument is that Orange County regulations are
preempted. He said that the County should acknowledge that it will comply with the state and
federal regulations. He said that it will have no affect on the current billboards and the number
in the County. He said that this is only looking at four billboards.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
to direct Planning staff to prepare an amendment to the applicable portion of the County's
zoning ordinance to eliminate certain types of regulation of lighting of billboards where the
regulation is in conflict with State or Federal Law. This would not exempt all billboards from
regulation, nor would it open the door for more billboards to be erected. It would, however, bring
Orange County's ordinance into compliance with existing State and /or Federal Law.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would still like more information and he thinks that it
is reasonable to request that if someone is going to light a billboard and the County does have a
legal standing to oppose it, that the County can at least try and negotiate that the applicant
conform to Orange County's lighting standards. He said that DOT's standards are not as
progressive as Orange County's standards. He does not want to apologize for being more
progressive. He thinks that the Board needs to understand how the County got here, regardless
of this situation.
15
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to add a friendly amendment to discuss
with Ben Lloyd and others that have lighted billboards regarding conforming with Orange County
standards and that staff bring back information about Orange County's ordinance.
Commissioner Yuhasz accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7.33 PM.
The County Commissioners asked for more information on the digital signs.
Commissioner Jacobs restated his amendment, which was to work with Mr. Lloyd to
encourage him to put in lighting that conforms to Orange County's lighting standard and that the
Board be presented with the major transportation corridor ordinance and the reasoning behind
the approach to billboards.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Nelson)
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that
when the result comes back to the Board, that the Board also get information in writing from
NCDOT concerning the digital lighting of signs and how the County's system would fit into an
ordinance amendment, and whether any other loopholes need to be closed.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Follow -up with Interim Manager
Frank Clifton made this presentation to the Board. He also provided a written
document which is attached and hereby made a part of these minutes.
September 10, 2009 — Work Session Presentation
Frank W. Clifton, Jr — Interim County Manager
To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Ms. Foushee, Chair Mr. Nelson, Vice Chair
Mr. Jacobs, Commissioner Ms. Gordon, Commissioner
Ms. Pelissier, Commissioner Ms. Hemminger, Commissioner
Mr. Yuhasz, Commissioner
This presentation follows the guidance provided and established by the County Commission
upon my initial employment as assignments. Briefly summarized below in respective order are
the items addressed:
I. Observe county government operations and develop a detailed summary of
`potential' items to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.
II. Pursue a review and propose revisions to the County's current "Agenda
Development Process ".
III. Look closely at organizational efficiencies and effectiveness.
IV. Identify where opportunities exist to expand upon and improve the County's
communication efforts at all levels.
V. Take a close look at the staffing levels in the manager's office with regards to
existing and future challenges.
16
VI. Look closely at reorganization options created by the potential retirements
resulting from the County's incentive program.
VII. Other duties as assigned (or as recognized by myself) needing management
oversight, input or direction.
Overview
Frank Clifton said that several of these items have some overlap and impact other functions
within the County's operating structures. When reviewing the information as presented, the
Board will see references between issues and functions highlighting expected outcomes or
impacts. Where impacts are obvious, they may not have been addressed. He said all of this
input is based on his professional experience, direct exposure as manager of two other NC
Counties and regular interaction with numerous county managers and staff in other counties
over a ten year plus period in NC.
He also called upon past experience as a city manager in other jurisdictions along with some
experience in private sector areas including manufacturing and land development activities.
Frank Clifton said that one tenet to keep in mind is there is "NO" one -size fits all perfect
method to do anything or everything. Any effort applied in delivering services must be
customized to local conditions BUT valuable lessons are to be learned from other applications
elsewhere. There is seldom an issue faced by local government "anywhere" that has not been
dealt with "elsewhere ".
Approach and Methodology
Frank Clifton said that it would have been easy for him to make a list of items for the Board
and the next manager to address and walk away saying the task is done. He said he
approached these tasks with two objectives. First, he said he felt it important to give the
BOCC his best effort responding to their directives. Second, regardless of who the next
manager is, they will have some personalized perspective of what that person will face and
can use this input to best judge what type of individual will be best suited and capable of
addressing these issues with some degree of success. Finally, "timing", "resources ",
"organizational response" and "persistence" will be the elements most impacting upon
successful change AND improvements will be incremental. (Slay one dragon at a time!)
He said his approach beyond addressing those challenges and opportunities that were readily
available and obvious, was to attempt to reach out to every department in an effort to gain a
better understanding of why "things are the way they are ". In most cases, department heads
and staff were fairly open about their operations. Many are proud of what they do and very
guarded about how they do it. Ms. Blackmon began a process of transitioning the organization
from that developed by Mr. Link over his 18 years as manager to more closely align with
today's challenges and "resource limitations ".
He said he spent time talking with Ms. Blackmon and Mr. Link to gain a personalized
perspective of their analysis of how the organization functions and could function better. Both
provided valuable insight and similar perspectives on factors that critically impact upon county
operations, and the ability of the organization to plan for and respond to change. He has
known both of these individuals for a number of years and value their opinions and
17
experience. However, every manager approaches similar situations from varying perspective
seeking similar measures of success. Again, no one -size fits all.
Summary:
Frank Clifton said each of the items assigned had been addressed to some extent. Certainly,
there are items that are not listed that could have been presented. Local government like any
organization should have a goal to pursue "continuous improvement". Whether resources
permit or not, it is prudent to know there are opportunities to be more efficient, but more
importantly more effective. In the end, effectiveness may be somewhat subjective depending
upon measurements employed, except that those paying for the services will always expect
quality at a reasonable cost.
He said that change that the BOCC does not support if pursued by staff will fail. Support by
the BOCC does not have to be unanimous but the BOCC consensus must be consistent or
implementation of change will be deterred accordingly. Organization staff has a history of
attempting to give every member of the BOCC what that individual wants. Sometimes that
occurs contrary to the BOCC consensus or knowledge.
Observe county government operations and develop a detailed summary of
`potential' items to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner.
Frank Clifton said that he took this on in a broad sense and he developed an extensive list of
different issues. He said that one tenet to keep in mind is that there is "NO" one -size fits all
perfect method to do anything or everything, it is just meant to say that the observations are
basic and not absolute. Following is the summary for this item.
SUMMARY
These observations are basic and not to be taken as absolutes. Further study and
analysis could be appropriate. None of recommendations is to be taken as overtly "critical"
of existing practices or personnel in a sense of "highlighting" weaknesses. Each comment
is an attempt to ask four basic questions:
(1) Why are we doing this or that in a certain manner?
(2) Are there contributing factors that prevent or prohibit other options?
(3) When was the last time these issues were addressed, reviewed or modified?
(4) Is there a better, more effective and /or efficient approach to be considered?
He said that on the next agenda, there is a recommendation to initiate the consolidation of Tax
Administration, Tax Assessment, and Land Records under the direction of the Tax
Administrator. This is consistent with the retirements that are occurring there. There will be
some shifting of responsibilities and not removal of positions.
II. Pursue a review and propose revisions to the County's current "Agenda
Development Process ".
18
There have been some steps initiated that will help this process. Staff is already working on
those items.
III. Look closely at organizational efficiencies and effectiveness.
He said that the County should never think that it is the best that it can be. He said that the
Board of County Commissioners creates some significant demands and then talks about
leaving staff positions open. He said that he is looking at every vacant position and will weigh
each one.
He said that there are lots of other technologies that the County could be using but it is not,
such as GPS units in EMS vehicles. There is also a huge amount of office space that the
County is using to store historic records.
Another issue is the long -term health coverage for employees, which is a great benefit, but it is
very expensive. He said that the goal should be for employees to be more healthy and
preventative in nature.
IV. Identify where opportunities exist to expand upon and improve the
County's communication efforts at all levels.
The problem here is reaching the public on a regular basis with a common tool that everyone
knows about. The key is to find someone with technical skills that can be taught about County
government.
VI. Look closely at reorganization options created by the potential retirements
resulting from the County's incentive program.
This is being done on a regular basis.
Regarding volunteer boards, he said that these all have to have staff support and a huge
amount of staff time. He said that there are some boards that need to be sunset because
there is some duplication. He suggested shifting some of the functions of volunteer boards to
a non - profit status so that it does not take up staff time.
He said that Orange County has a lot of dedicated employees and they do not always
communicate like they should between departments. He said that when there is an impact on
another department, those impacts need to be explored.
VII. Other duties as assigned (or as recognized by myself) needing
management oversight, input or direction.
Frank Clifton said that there is a concept within Orange County government called the Orange
County "way". He said that there is Board micromanagement. He said that staff thinks they
know what the Board likes and dislikes enough, and sometimes the options presented to the
Board are based on that rather than what is right or wrong. He thinks that sometimes the
Board does not hear what it needs to hear. His impression is that staff holds things back
because they are afraid that if they lay too many options out on the table that there will be
more work involved. He said that the Board of County Commissioners has to step up and
make a decision that may not be easy, but at least there was a decision.
19
He said that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does a lot and this County is into
services that other counties have not even thought of.
Commissioner Pelissier thanked Frank Clifton for the report. She said that this will help
in designing the upcoming retreat. She asked how the County Commissioners could give
feedback since he is just an interim Manager and since there is so much information in this
report.
Frank Clifton said that, as an interim, the important issues he is addressing or will
address while he is here can be used as a blueprint for the new Manager. He said that some
issues will take years and may require legislative action. He said that, as far as feedback, the
Board of County Commissioners sometimes needs to step out of the way and let the Manager
do his job. He wants to know the areas in which the County Commissioners want to be more
involved, but there are areas of business where the County Commissioners should not be
involved. He said that the more the Board involves itself, the less the Manager is in charge.
Commissioner Nelson echoed Commissioner Pelissier's comments about the value of
this document. He wholeheartedly seconded the comments about micromanagement.
He said that he has faith in Frank Clifton's judgment about reorganization and if there is policy
involved he hopes that staff will come back and touch base with the County Commissioners.
Regarding Human Rights and Relations, he said that it would be instructive for new
Commissioners to hear how that department evolved and the lawsuit that stripped the
department of its mission and to talk about whether this department is necessary.
Commissioner Nelson asked about recommendations for the large number of advisory
boards. Frank Clifton said that a lot of them are task forces that are finished with their work
and a letter of thank you could be sent to the members. He suggested that, when staffing
boards and commissions, that the membership should be turned over and the provisions
sunset or consolidated.
Chair Foushee said that the issue of boards and commissions should be discussed in
more depth.
Commissioner Yuhasz asked for more detail on the areas that could spin off into
independent agencies.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to how to use this report and suggested making
a list of direction given in the past, such as central permitting and a consistent sense of identity
of County departments, etc., and bringing it back to make sure that the Board is still on board
with the issues. Some items have already been blessed by the Board of County
Commissioners, but are not happening due to technical issues. He made reference to the
emergency services study and said that the Board is still in the dark about where this is. He
said that this has been dragging on for years and he wants some concrete information about
this.
Frank Clifton said that the RFP is out for consultants and Commissioner Jacobs asked
to see a copy of this. Commissioner Jacobs said that this was handled poorly before and he
does not want to make the same mistake twice.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to economic development and said that this
needs to be brought to the table and there needs to be a plan.
Commissioner Gordon thanked Frank Clifton for this thorough report. She said that the
Board needs to be clear about its goals and priorities and adopt them. Regarding Emergency
Services, she said that she is confident that the Board approved correcting the addressing
system, and this has not been done. Also, the 911 system has gone down twice lately and this
is a concern.
20
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the County Commissioners being involved
and said that the way it should work is that the Board should be clear about priorities and set
the priorities, and then the staff should carry them out. She thinks that one reason the County
Commissioners get too involved is that they either do not get what they thought they were
going to get, or somehow it is not complete and they try to fix it. This is not how it should work.
Frank Clifton said that it is not that the Board should not be involved, but it ought to be
as a Board and not as individual members.
Regarding the 911 service, Frank Clifton said the most recent incident involved
someone accidentally cutting the wires with a backhoe.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to things that the Board needs to discuss and
said that she agrees with most of the suggestions made by Mr. Clifton regarding
reorganization. She asked Frank Clifton to keep the Board up to date about retirements and
reorganization. She asked him to flag things that need to come up soon, such as freeing up
valuable office space that is currently used for storage. She said that the Board of Elections
move is going to be using 4500 square feet of office space for storage. While this is an
acceptable solution for now, it should be understood that as storage space is made available
elsewhere, we should think about reassigning the use of this space for offices rather than
storage.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the budget process and said that the County
Commissioners have tried to spread out the budget process, but there is still a small timeframe
to make major budget decisions. She suggested moving the process back so that the Board
does not get overloaded.
Frank Clifton said that it is important for staff to do the homework and bring to the
Board of County Commissioners the options for a budget. He thinks that in the end the County
Commissioners have to make the decisions.
Commissioner Gordon issued a memorandum to enter into the record:
"All,
This is a heads -up to let you know that the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC) is beginning a discussion of expanding the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) for the
MPO.
The staff is only recommending a limited expansion at this time, with further consideration of
expansion after the 2010 census. The areas recommended for consideration of expansion at
this time are "Area 1"
in Orange County, along the 1 -85 corridor toward Mebane and the Burlington- Graham MPO.
The other area is "Area 5" in Chatham County.
I will bring a copy of the relevant portion of the map to the meeting tonight.
I have asked Karen Lincoln to provide you complete information as part of her monthly report
on the TAC activities, and that should include the complete map.
Upon a motion by me (seconded by the representative from Chatham County), the TAC has,
upon a unanimous vote, directed the staff to come back to the October TAC meeting with more
information including the population in the areas for potential expansion, a more complete
explanation of the financial implications, and the implications for the TAC by -laws. I made the
motion to defer action until the next meeting and to bring back more information because I
wanted the BOCC and the county staff to have some time before the TAC took action.
The action that the TAC will consider taking in October is to initiate the process to expand the
DCHC MPO Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) in western Orange County along the 1- 85/1 -40
corridor (area #1) and in northeastern Chatham County to the Haw River and US 64 (area #5).
This action will enable the staff to do the work to initiate the process. The decision on whether
to expand the MAB or not will come later.
I recommend that the BOCC receive the report on this matter from Karen Lincoln very soon
and direct the staff to give the BOCC the additional information that the Board would like to
have, along with a timeline for receiving that information.
Please let me know if you have questions or comments.
Regards,
Alice"
3. Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to go into closed session at 8:54 PM for the purpose of:
"To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of
appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143- 318.11(a)(6); and "to consult with an
attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney - client privilege between the
attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143- 318.11(a)(3).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION:
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to reconvene into regular session at 11:00 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Valerie Foushee, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
21
22
23
Attachment Four
Synopsis of Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District
review and adoption:
BACKGROUND:
• Originally presented during a joint PUBLIC HEARING on January 23, 1984 (please see
attached minutes and agenda face sheet for the public hearing).
• At their November 15, 1983 regular meeting, Board members requested that staff prepare
an overlay district for the I -40 corridor providing for sign limitations, landscaping
requirements, and setbacks by the January 23, 1984 public hearing. Apparently similar
overlay districts had been established in Durham County, the City of Durham, and were
being reviewed in Wake County at the time of the request.
INTENT:
• As indicated by staff during the public hearing, the overall intent and purpose of the MTC
was to:
`... protect the attractiveness and orderly development of land and
enhance those natural and environmental features which constitute
important physical, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets along
major transportation corridors through the provision of a set of
development standards and regulations far application to public and
private development of lane adjacent to the corridors'
• Staff indicated that major transportation corridors served as both: `movers of traffic and
as entranceways to the County from outside areas'. The rationale for establishing the
district was that these corridors establish an indicator of the quality of life in the County
as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic movement through the area
• The MTC was also seen as a potential marketing tool to attract and accommodate
different types of development that: `often depends on the capacity of the thoroughfare
system and the character and quality of development along the major corridors'
• Ancillary benefits associated with the adoption of the proposed overlay district included:
noise reduction, the preservation of existing aesthetic quality of the County, and the
protection of existing natural and environmental features.
ISSUES:
• In reviewing the minutes one (1) of the many concerns expressed for establishing the
MTC was over the possible location and expansion of major interstates through the
County (i.e. Interstate 40). Staff did not want to see the `mass clearing' of interstate
corridors and believed that the County ought to take some measure to protect existing,
mature, forest along proposed transportation routes.
24
• The central objection(s) to the proposed MTC district appeared to focus on the required
one hundred (100) foot buffer from roadways as too excessive and that the district
represented a `taking' of property without just compensation.
SIGN RESTRICTIONS:
• During the same meeting, staff presented a separate amendment designed to modify
existing sign regulations relating to the placement of outdoor advertising sings (i.e.
billboards) within the MTC overlay district.
• The amendment limited the overall size and type of sign that could be erected within the
MTC overlay district
• The amendment also banned the erection of new outdoor advertising signs within the
MTC.
• The minutes do not provide a concrete rationale for the recommended ban but staff
believes the impetuous for the recommendation was based on maintaining the integrity of
the buffer, and the visual aesthetic quality, of major transportation corridors.
BOARD ACTION:
• These amendments were approved in June of 1984 (please see attached minutes)
• There have been various amendments to the MTC standards over the years, including:
a. On April 4, 1988 an amendment was approved to the intent section of the MTC
district,
b. On April 2, 1990 an amendment was approved re- numbering the MTC regulations
to make room for proposed Ordinance amendments. There were no modifications
to existing regulations within this amendment.
RELATED REGULATIONS:
• There have been additional amendments to existing development regulations dealing with
sign height and size within the MTC overlay district versus other areas and relationships
to the EDD Design Manual.
25
Attachment Four
Synopsis of Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District
review and adoption:
BACKGROUND:
• Originally presented during a joint PUBLIC HEARING on January 23, 1984 (please see
attached minutes and agenda face sheet for the public hearing).
• At their November 15, 1983 regular meeting, Board members requested that staff prepare
an overlay district for the I -40 corridor providing for sign limitations, landscaping
requirements, and setbacks by the January 23, 1984 public hearing. Apparently similar
overlay districts had been established in Durham County, the City of Durham, and were
being reviewed in Wake County at the time of the request.
INTENT:
• As indicated by staff during the public hearing, the overall intent and purpose of the MTC
was to:
`... protect the attractiveness and orderly development of land and
enhance those natural and environmental features which constitute
important physical, aesthetic, recreational, and economic assets along
major transportation corridors through the provision of a set of
development standards and regulations far application to public and
private development of lane adjacent to the corridors'
• Staff indicated that major transportation corridors served as both: `movers of traffic and
as entranceways to the County from outside areas'. The rationale for establishing the
district was that these corridors establish an indicator of the quality of life in the County
as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic movement through the area
• The MTC was also seen as a potential marketing tool to attract and accommodate
different types of development that: `often depends on the capacity of the thoroughfare
system and the character and quality of development along the major corridors'
• Ancillary benefits associated with the adoption of the proposed overlay district included:
noise reduction, the preservation of existing aesthetic quality of the County, and the
protection of existing natural and environmental features.
ISSUES:
• In reviewing the minutes one (1) of the many concerns expressed for establishing the
MTC was over the possible location and expansion of major interstates through the
County (i.e. Interstate 40). Staff did not want to see the `mass clearing' of interstate
corridors and believed that the County ought to take some measure to protect existing,
mature, forest along proposed transportation routes.
• The central objection(s) to the proposed MTC district appeared to focus on the required
one hundred (100) foot buffer from roadways as too excessive and that the district
represented a `taking' of property without just compensation.
SIGN RESTRICTIONS:
• During the same meeting, staff presented a separate amendment designed to modify
existing sign regulations relating to the placement of outdoor advertising sings (i.e.
billboards) within the MTC overlay district.
• The amendment limited the overall size and type of sign that could be erected within the
MTC overlay district
• The amendment also banned the erection of new outdoor advertising signs within the
MTC.
• The minutes do not provide a concrete . rationale for the recommended ban but staff
believes the impetuous for the recommendation was based on maintaining the integrity of
the buffer, and the visual aesthetic quality, of major transportation corridors.
BOARD ACTION:
• These amendments were approved in June of 1984 (please see attached minutes)
• There have been various amendments to the MTC standards over the years, including:
a. On April 4, 1988 an amendment was approved to the intent section of the MTC
district,
b. On April 2, 1990 an amendment was approved re- numbering the MTC regulations
to make room for proposed Ordinance amendments. There were no modifications
to existing regulations within this amendment.
RELATED REGULATIONS:
• There have been additional amendments to existing development regulations dealing with
sign height and size within the MTC overlay district versus other areas and relationships
to the EDD Design Manual.
KA
ORANGE COUNTY i0 36'
80ARD,OF C01VISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM! ABSTRACT ITEM NO.. &,f
MEETING DATE 7ANUARY 23, 1984
!1
SUBJECT: Piiopmi) a MSPOWAT1014 COPMDOR (MTc) . DrSmcT _
HILLSBO
CHAPEL HILL -- 967 -•9251
MEBANE - 227 -2031,
. DURHAM -- 688 -7331
PURPOSE: 'to z ceive public ioknent on the proposed Major Transpoxtati.on Cotx)dor `
(24TC) District.
NEED: At their November.35, 1983 melting, the Board of County Co�pdagianers
dizecs :ed the Planning riepartment to prespare fir► overlay district'
I -40 vrr3 dory 'p?idg fax si ga limitations, landscaping requirements '
c ,.y
and s tbecke, to go to public hearing on January 23; 1984. _t
simi.l districts along 1 -40 were established in- Vurham county anti Durha*
city in 1983 and are under consideration in Wake County. '
IMPACT: Tice p ovision of additional requirements along.the corridor would allow
for maintenance of an economically viable, visually pleasing and
enviri mentally sensitive area in the development of the 5 -40 gorrtdor.
i
DEPARTMENT: PLANN][NGI � PUBLIC NEARING: YFS NQ
AT['ACHME.iti'(5) : TEx7e; MAP INFORMATION fANTACi': BtisAN S�iITId
' PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH
- 732 -8 81
' - - ROU&F) •- 7329361
RECOMMENDATION(S): I __._.____ _
I
t
1
27
28
PROPOSED
ARTICLE 4
4.2.28
a) Intent
12/8/83
12/12/83
It is the intent of Orange County to protect and enhance those natural
and envirogmental features which constitute important physical, aesthetic,
recreationdl and economic assets through the provision of-special controls
on public and private development along major transportation corridors.
Major trap portation corridors serve a key function in the orderly development,
of an area as major traffic movers, as well as serve as entrances to Orange
County fron outside the area. These corridors and the character of, the
developmen which occurs along them establish for visitors and residents
alike an i dicator of the .quslity of life in the County, as well as the
efficiency nd safety of traffic movement through the area. In addition, the
ability of � afferent areas of the County to attract and accommodate different
types of development often depends on the capacity of the thoroughfare system
and the ehapecter and quality of development along major corridors.
The Major Transportation Corridor district is'intended to enhance the
attractiveness and orderly development of land adjacent to major transportation
facilities hrough the provision of a set of development standards and,
regulations for application to public and private development of land adjacent
to these corridors. The major transportation corridors include the interstate
system and isjor arterials as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan.
b) ApplicatibnlCriteria
The Major Tcensportation.Corridor (MTC) district is.established as a district
which overl ye other zoning districts established in this Ordinance. The
tny new use of land or any new structure within the MTC district shall comply
with use re ulations applicable to.the underlying zoning district as well as
the requiregents• off the MTC district.
1.. This d4trict shall be applied along any interstate highway in the County.
2. This district may be applied along any major thoroughfare designated
r as an aFterial in the Orange County Land Use Plan including, but not
limitedito, U5 70, NC-86, NC 54, NC 57 and Old NC 86 (SR 1009).
3. The min mum length of the district shall be a continuous distance alohg
the thoroughfare within the County's jurisdiction and outside of the
extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the Towns of Nillaborough,
Chapel till, Mebane and Carrboro.
036
M0]
3i
4. The min' width of the district may extend up to 1,250 feet from the I
right -o -way on each side of the roadway, except at interstate inter- !
changes where the District shall extend 1,250 feet from the right -of -way
on eacH side of the intersecting road(s) and extend 2,500 Feet along ;
intsrse Ling roads, the distance to be measured along the centerline of i
roads from the nearest right -of -way line off the interstate.
5. The district establishes development standards and a site plan review
process For development within the district.
24
6. Extra R for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District
6.24.1 Permittid Uses
Within he Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District, no structures or
land maf be used and structures erected, relocated, reconstructed or I'
atructuTally altered, unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, for
one or more of the purposes permitted in the underlying zoning district
or districts which are provided by the adopted Orange County Land Use Plan
under t e applicable plan category.
- The pro isions of this district shall not apply to any single or two -
family cwellings existing or to be erected.
i
The pro isions of this district shall not apply to any building or
structuie existing prior to the application of this district unless it
Is stru9turelly altered to the extent of increasing the floor area by
fifty percent (50%) or more or is enlarged to occupy a vacant lot.
6.24.2 Lot Coverage_Reguirements
A minimum of 25% of the total area shall remain in its natural vegetated
conditic,n. Where the lot area contains wooded areas or areas with trees
12" in ismatei or greater at breast height„ these areas, if possible,
shall b retained and set aside to meet this requirement before other }
areas a e so used. I`
6.24.3 Approve Requirements e
Within t1he Major Transportation Corridor District, no construction activity,
shall begin nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or
disturbs ice of vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign
erected until such time as a permit has been approved by the Zoning Officer.
6.24.4 Site Plan Requirements
Each appkication for a permit shell be accompanied by a site plan or plans i
showing he following:
a) a vic pity map clearly establishing the location of the project. I
b) a development summary including total acres, proposed use(s), total
building square footage, required and proposed parking spaces. !
c) the dimensions and acreage of each lot or portion thereof to be
built) upon or otherwise used.
d) the 1pyout of the entire project including the proposed uses of all
buildings and their relation to surrounding properties.
e) the location and dimensions of present and proposed streets and highways.
I
I i
M
6.24.5
6.24.6
Q i3 dS
f) the ocation of points of entry and exit for motor vehicles and
inte•nal vehicular circulation pattern.
g) the ocation and layout of all off- street parking and loading areas.
h) the ocation of proposed trash dumpsters.
i) all xisting and proposed topography at contour intervals of
five (5) feet.
j) grading, drainage, sedimentation and erosion control activities.
k) the location of existing wooded areas or trees to be retained,
existing wooded areas or trees to be removed and future tree planting,
shru`Ib planting and other screenings.
1) the location of existing and proposed water - courses, floodplains,
streim buffers and drainage easements.
M) the location of walls, fences, railings and berms and an indication
of their height and construction materials.
n) the 4ocation and size of all existing. and proposed utilities
incl ding water, sewer, gas, and electric lines and structures.
o) ides 11fication and location of all site improvements including
buildings, streets, water and sewerlines, storm drainage
faci sties and any other significant site features.
p) the location and dimension of all yard setbacks.
q) title; north arrow; scale; names of owner(s), developer, engineer,
landscape architect and surveyor; and the date of preparation of
the plan(s).
Revelop -lent shall conform with landscaping and screening requirements
spscifi d in Article 12 Landscaping and Screening of this Ordinance.
A minim of one - hundred (100) feet of buffer area from the edge of the
right -o way of an interstate highway shall be reserved. Where• this
area is wooded at the time of the proposed construction, it shall remain
in its natural state; where it is not wooded, although it may have
significant trees,,landscaping shall be in accordance with an approved
plan which considers the growth and maturity of existing trees, the policy
of fostering wooded areas in the buffer.,and other landscaping factors.
Within the buffer areas, necessary ingress, egress and utility service
may be a lowed, but no other disturbance For site improvement shall
be permuted.
Buildingi setback and required yard areas for the district are as follows:
a) The front yard requirement shall be Fifty (50) feet where the
frontlyard is adjacent to an intersecting road at a interchange
and o e hundred (100) feet where the front yard is adjacent to
an interstate highway.
6.24.7
b) The rear yard requirement shall be fifty (50) feet where the rear
yard is adjacent to an intersec.bing road at an interchange and
one hundred (100) feet where the rear yard is adjacent to an
interstate highway.
i
c) The side yard requirement shall be fifty (50 ) feet where the side
yard is adjacent to an intersecting road at an interstate and one !
hundred (100) feet where the side yard is adjacent.to an interstate
highway.
Off= SJeet Parkin
as sp 3
Ordin
6.24.8 Sian R
I
Uevel
in Arti
6.24.9 Varisnc�
In a ce
due to
there m
the Bova
in equi
the var
it shall conform with off - street parking requirements
ied in Article 10 Off- Street Parking and Loading of this
ant shell conform with the signage requirements specified
Is 9 Signs of this Ordinance.
e where an individual property has been rendered unusable
he establishment of the yard and /or buffer requirements,
y be grounds for a variance. In granting any such variance,
d of Adjustment shall ensure that the applicant compensates
elent landscaping improvements for any' encroachment into
and /or buffer area.
03
31
32
SUBJECT: Pftoposa
DEPARTMENT: PLANNx
ATTACH14ENT(S): TEXT
PURPOSE: To r8i
Sigsis
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF CDMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
14EETING DATE January 23, 1984
TEXT AMENDMBNT9 To AkXCLE 9 SIGNS.
public 66 mtent.on th
fated with the estab
ACTION AGENDA 4
ITEM 140. C -S'
1
-i
I
i
6
PUBLIC HEARING: x`YES NO
INFORMATION CONTACT:susAN MUTH
PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732:47ai 1
HILLSBOROUGH - 732 -9361
CHAPEL. HILL 967 -9251
MEBANE -- 227 -2031
DURHAM - 688 -7331
proposed teict amendments to Article 9
lishment _of ' the 14TC District.
I�
1
:NEED: At thei November 15, 198$ melting, the Board, of, County Commissioners i
directed the Plann� ng Departfnent to prepare an overlay distcriet fo); the
I -40 a. idor, pxgv;L g.for sign limitations as -well as lindsoipikj anii
sethft requiriimintsr to go to'puolic hearing on Jandai7j 23, 1984:
i
I
IMPACT: The provision of additional requirements along the coicridor would'i2164
for maintenance of an economically viable, visually plqkasing and.
environintally sensitive area in the development of tine 1-40 cosric�or. I
'Y4ie proposed amendments would limit the plact&ent of outdoor advertising
to specifie.areas of the County and restrict permitted signs within the
MTC district to informational and incidental signs. The proposals aait,
establieA additional signage requirements for.the size,.dimensiontand
spacing If signs.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
a
' i
C.0
C.0
9-11 !'4NT7R :t471
il,itl" ' 11m ill,
ARIt1r04'PJAL
'
ars•Txa.•1•s
ntt/nl
All Other 1:r-1
tit: -2
CC-7 GC-4
W-S
OT
RI
Z -i
I -2
1 -3
As
LID
NAx -mO Ol+ SZGWSa
�D AV- AMOPSrGAf6/AWC1'
1
1 3
2
5
5
5
a Tom SQ. FT. MR-
S
Ar.4 uw
4
4
as
400
Z�
A
200
.2
200
2
2
as
2
:4
100
3
�
100
3
2
2
a
:
too
200
100
OS
MAX SQ. PT. mc-
tow ANY SIGN
} ^AAzv&rr, AIiMJ� �.
;;
�
05
200
200
200
300
100
300
p K". 41EIR4T OF*
p/A
WA
30
7"
35
ZZ
00
�
'
200
200
85
SIGN IN LM1'
AW PA G I#,= t
6
40
40
40
30
$
34
30
-_ I-,TN SIGN AWNS
...-.� .OG PARAPJIM
N/7._ x WA.
-X!
AS_-- 30
/z
- - -10` �� �
wPj
� �
X
FROSNCTION FROM
BUIMING WN.Lt
(IVA)
` . C
N/A
-x�
I A
(Ix
`
t N>
_�•
YES
US
Us
j
YES
YES
>V5
YES
i UMNAL^Er.+
S1GNS AM042 H
x
x
YES
YES
Yes
YES
YES
YES
YES
YBS
YES
VIM
YKS
YES
4004+9 -HOUWM 31"S
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
TMATUIN AP STAU
HV stWML' c
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
PPORT, UISTANCH
HNON lvw 07'.
I
l
i
IS
10
10
10
15
i0
25
25
25
I5
25
=PB/REAR FROM
.
RelriY LrI4E
I
1
10
10
10
10
10
25
-10
25
15
is
.14
is
ShrOWK TO AOJACLTM
MM. 2� A*
N/A
N/A
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
70
30
.
70
agamu mVAum/ h-ex
X
X
X
X
104
><
X
)4
)4
X
X
?4
X
wrir000R AOVHRTISINO
ACS; t
x
A
x
x
x
YMS
)(
x
X
TES
)/ $
YCS
x
x
+>OUmOoi, AOVEf<r arm
NA
WA
WA
NjA
NM
1
MIA
WA
N/A
i
(
1
N/A
N/A
LO skate tBtMM
M
MACK BAOM t4i4R7'
OF NAY
f
ir/A
N/A
WA
tt /n
6G0
/
11/A
WA
660
660
WA
WA
I .
7f �
I��
VELET�" in
AAOitACi So. FT.
To
400
'WA
NSA
6u0
N/,1
N/A
N/A
600
tr/A
600
Wt<
600
!r/A
N(A
UffERSRATE
L%� A4tEA 2N SQ.m
0 us 70
.IY//� .
N/A
WA
�IA
N/A
�
N/A
XIA
WA
200
r0
200
WA
WA
!K%
rx 46,141.57* j;vrdt *
T
jj
lIEtG44T IN 1'Ti WA
s fxx--
R/A
�
ii/A
sfa
WA
X /t4 WA 25
� - ..3« WA
N/A
UOL UI&Aed
/R
N/A
#4
)VA
AIA
AW
VA
i1A
N%A
/=1
jaV'
f='
N/A
111A
* See appropriate
section of Article
9
C.0
C.0
34
043
J3 9 SIGNS
1 i
9.12
9.12 13 1 1
1. outdoor advertising signs shall not exceed one sign i
every thousand (1000) feet measured in a radius.fr m the sig#_
9.12 ( ) within the major Transportation Corridor (MM) bistrict the I
following additional requirements shall apply: j
1. outdoor advertising signs shall not be permitted in the
MW district.
2. Permitted signs within the MTC district are limited to
identification and incidental signs. i
! 3. Within the RTC district the maximum area of any sign face
in a non - residential district shall not exceed seventy -two
(72) square Beet. j
,
i
I
I �
35
ultmbt WUN 1 y
BOAKD•OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEN 044
ACTION AGENDA ITE14 ASS-TRACT t ITE14 NO. &.,
MEETING DATE sxNOxRy 23, 1984
SUBJECT' PROPOSED T XT. AMENDMENTS To AIMICLE 22 DEPINITYONS
DEPARTMENT: SUSAN sMIT4 PUBLIC HEARING: x YES-
•- f'10
AITACMENT(S) :. INEOMATION CONTACT:
SUSAN stAlTti
PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSSOROUGH 732-8181.
HILLSBOROUGH - 732.9361
CHAPEL HILL - 9ir7 9251
MEBANE -- 227- 2031„
_ DURHAM 688 -7331
.PURPOSE: To'rece've public oomment on the proposed text amendMQPts to Artiole 22 .
1Dhfini.t ons associated with the establishment of the •N= blstr3,ct:`
,, r. _ •R I 1.
NERD: At theil Member J5, 1984 noeting, the Board bf County cc:hwi,ssicine;
d1xe6t6A the Planning DepaXthent to pxep8xe en overlay district for the
iw4D corridor, 'proviLdi.ng fox additional si feg
�gw ":AAkn saapi. and set6a6k s
'kequirerdents, to go ',to. p bllc heart nrj on 'denaury 23, 1.984. r.;• ` s
The proposed, sign regiiireinento asscididted with the MTC distri.ctvl•6it
signs within the district to ianformationi and incidental signs. hafini L-,
of then two sigh'tXises are not presently contained within the Zoning ord#n 04. IMPACT- ?Che iollowi_ng pzopo "sed ambndments,woul8 clarify:-the text anenclmet" to = :a
i. Article 9 Signs of the Zoning ordinance by defining incidental and informat o »al'
signs. +he amendments ::to Artielp 22 Definitions are as followsz
;r si L, idenafiaation. on premise tvign identlfting a business,:personc
serbice, activity, commodity or product.
.Sigh, . Xndf4a1=tal. on- pxemisa sign pxovidi.n' 9 information for the
convenience hnd necessity of the public, such a
"exit", "no admittance ", "parkihg ", etc.
RECOMMENDATION(s): __.._....
I '
C
37
JOIM PLANNING HEARIiNIG
January 23, I984
PUS irr :
Don hTillhoit (chair), Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Nornan Walker, Richard
Whitted.
i Alice Gordon, (Acting Chair), Valerie Greenberg, Steve Kizer, Nancy
Laszlo, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl [falters.
pjAMING STAFF PRE5,01T e
Marvin Collins, Jeff Coutu, Susan Smith, Joanna Bradshaw, Sue Snaman
PUBLIC HEARINGS- Chaire(e by Alice Gordon
Proposed Principal Amendment to the Land Use Plan requested by Trendsetter
Homes, Inc. (LUP 84 -1)
This agenda item is to receive public comment on the proposed principal
amendment to the Land Use Plan for 20+ acres located north of Eubanks Road and
west of the NC 86 /Eubanks Road (SR 1727) intersection from Rural Buffer to
Twenty -Year Transition.
It was noted by Smith that this was a secondary amendment, not a principal
amendment as specified on the abstract.
Presentation by Smith as follows:
The applicant, Trendsetter Hones, Inc., has requested an amendment to the
Land Use Plan for orange County to redesignate approximately 20 acres of a
tract identified on Tax Yap 18 as Lot 8, located on the north side of Eubanks
Road west of NC 86 in Chapel Hill Township and containing" 43.66 acres from
Rural Buffer to 'Twenty Year Transition. The portion of the lot under
consideration fronts on SR 1727 Eubanks Road.
The redesignation of an area from one plan category to another requires
the application of locational criteria to determine suitability for
redesignation from Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition Area. These
locational criteria are given and compared in the agenda. They include an
evaluation of land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public
services /utilities, historic and cultural facilities, transportation system,
energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, and population
density. The area meets the criteria for land slope, hydrology, flora and
fauna, soil conditions, historic and cultural facilities, energy. use,
agriculture and forestry, and poses no undesirable impact under these
conditions.
Further consideration, however, should be given to the locational criteria
public services /utilities, transportation system, existing land use and
f. population density.
-" With regard to
g public services and utilities the locational criteria for
the Ten Year Transition Area assumes that the area is or can reasonably and
efficiently be served by centralized public services and utilities. OWASA has
provided some comments on the extension of public water and sewer to serve the
area. Both water and sewer facilities extend as far as Timberlyne Shopping
Center located northeast of the site, south of Weaver Dairy Eoad. Uith the
construction of the Nunn Mountain elevated water tank later this year south of
Timberlyne, water service could be extended to the area and beyond. However,
the area under consideration is located in the NeP: hope Creek sub - basin. The
sub -basin runs approximately through the southernmost portion of Northwoods
subdivision located south of the area under consideration. OWASA has nnr
38
extended public sewer service into the New Hope Creek sub -basin at this time.
Extension of sewer service will require decision as to the appropriateness,
desireability and feasibility of extending services into a new sub -basin on a
pump system basis. Given the presence of Northwoods subdivision, an
industrially zoned tract, two commercially zoned tract and considerable
development interest in the Eubanks /NC 86 area, the issue of servicing a new
sub -basin needs to be considered seriously. Since water service could easily
be provided, OTIASA has indicated that it is preferable to extend water and
sewer services at the same time, rather than allow for disjointed service
provision. However, ONASA at this time is not interested in financing such
service e;ftension, but would look favorably on the extension of lines by a
developer to serve a given afea so long as the line size and location meet
OWASA criteria.
The area under consideration fronts on Eubanks Road which is a paved state
maintained secondary road. The remainder of the tract fronts on NC 86. The
portion under consideration has access to NC 86, which is an arterial road,
from Eubanks Road. The proposed construction of I -40 will require the
acquisition of the eastern portion of the original tract for the right -of -way
for t -40 and also the realignment of Eubanks Road at the I- 40 /11C 86
interchange.
Existing land uses in the area include-the following: to the north,
undeveloped land and 1 -40, to the east, single family residential units and
1 -40; to the south, Northwoods subdivision, a subdivision of single family
units, a chuck and undeveloped land; to the west undeveloped land, a warehouse
facility, an undeveloped industrially zoned tract and the County landfill.
Considerable residential and commercial development has and is continuing to
take place to the south of the area along NC 86 and Weaver Dairy Road. The
area south of the proposed alignment of I -40 is facing considerable development
pressures and is clearly in transition from rural or low- density uses to urban
and higher density uses, particularly as a result of the proposed presence of
the interstate interchange °immediately to the south. At present the population
density of the area north and west of Eubanks Road remains very low density;
however, the density of the area in the Weaver Dairy Road area to the south
east is moderate to high and will continue to increase in density. The absence
of population west of the tract is most likely due to the presence of the
county landfill and the Southern Railroad line. The density of Northwoods to
the south is one unit the acre on a community water system and individual
septic tanks and is already established.
Two other considerations need to be made in evaluating the amendment
request. The first consideration is that at the time the Land Use Plan was
develoed and adopted the County was still in litigation with -the State over the
proposed alignment of I -40 through Orange County. The Land Use Plan categories
y, for the area under consideration reflect planning criteria which did not fully
recognize the presence of the I -40 corridor immediately east and north of the
tract.
The second consideration is that as part of their final activities the
Joint Planning Commission recommended that given the trend in development
patterns around the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro that the Ten Year
Transition Area be extended north to the edge of the Rural Buffer and the
Twenty Year Transition Area be shifted south of the Town of Chpel Hill. 140
action was taken on the recommendation.
It was noted by smith that Chapel Hill Planning Board wished to hold 39 the
Public hearing open for its comments to be made at the Plnning Board's February
6, 1984 meeting.
)Marshall cautioned the Planning Board and staff to give careful
consideratin to the "chewing away" of the Rural Buffer. Smith noted there was
a North Chapel Hill area study undervray which would address this matter.
B.E. Olive noted that this property is relatively close to the County
landfill. He expressed concerns for wells and the extremely high water table
near the landfill. He suggested expert advice on the landfill is needed before
a. decision is made on this request. He also expressed interest in the
protection of New Hope Creek for research purposes and referred to a resolution
passed some years ago by the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources on
this item.
Dester Smith of Trendsetter Homes stated Trendsetter had no intentions of
installing wells and that the preference is for public utilities which has
already been discussed with OWASA. Given all factors, this area deserves a
bearing of transition category.
With no further public cosaaent, the Board adjourned the Land Use Plan
amendment public hearing to the Board of County Commissioners meeting on
February 21, 1984 to receive the Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill Planning
Board's comments and recommendations.
PD -1 -84 (Planned Development) - Hampton Downs, Inc. Karvin Collins,
Planning Director, and Rick Cannity (representing the developer), were sworn
in.
Collins made the presentation as- follows: Hampton Downs; Inc. is
requesting that the zoning be changed on 29.7 acres of property located south
of the Southern Railroad and west of N.C. Highway $6. The property is directly
adjacent on the west to the proposed «ildwood subdivision - Phase Ii. it is
shown as a portion of lot 4 of Tax tiap 45 - Hillsborough Township.
The present zoning is R -1 Residential which would allow one (1)
residential dwelling unit per acre.
The requested zoning is Planned Development Housing /R -8 Residential
(PD& -R8) which would allow up to eight (8) dwelling units per acre with a
minimum lot area requirement of 5,000 sq. feet per dwelling unit. A special
use permit would also be required. This applicant has submitted a site plan
for approval which indicates that 237 townhouse units would be constructed on
the -site. Recreational facilities are also proposed, including a swimming
pool, clubhouse, walking /jogging trails-and natural areas.
Property to the north of the site is vacant and zoned R -1 Residential. To
the south and west is also- vacant land with similar zoning designations.
Property'to the east is zoned R -4 and R -5 Residential and is under development
as Wildwood subdivision - Phases I and II.
- The Land Use Plan designation for the property was changed on (:arch 7,
1983, from 20 Year Transition and Rural residential to 10 -Year Transition. The
change was made in conjunction with a rezoning request -for an R -4 designation
on an adjacent 10 -acre tract to the east Wildwood Subdivision -Phase D.
The intent of the R -8 district is to provide locations for high- intensity
residential development and supporting recreational, community, service and
educational uses in areas where the full range of urban services are available.
The Zoning Ordinance states that this district will usually be applied
where the following conditions exist:
(1) The area is designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Transition
40
Area which can reasonably be annexed by a municipality in the ensuing 10 -20
years.
(2) Water and sewer lines should exist at the site or be assured of
installation as part of the development process.
(3) vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street classified
as either arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan.
(4) The full range of urban services exist or are proposed at the time of
the development including fire, police, recreation, education, commercial and
cultural activities.
As indicated previously, the property in question has been designated as
10 -Year Transition in the Land Use Plan by action of the Board of Commissioners
in March 1983.
The property does not have "direct access" to the North Carolina Highway
86, a route which has been designated as an "arterial" in the Land Use Plan.
Access to the site is by way of existing or proposed residential streets which
traverse rildwood Subdivision. A- requirement that the portion of the proposed
Oakdale Drive Extension adjacent to the development be reserved, and subsequent
construction of the same, would provide access (long -term) to a "collector"
street approved as part of the Central Orange Land Use Plan.
Hater and sewer lines have been or are being extended to serve the
property. Initial service could be provided by way of an extension of a six
inch water line from Wildwood Subdivision Phase I. Staff proposes that a 12
inch line to be extended to Wildwood Subdivision -Phase II be extended to serve
latter phases of Hampton Downs and provide a complete loop system with better
water pressure.
Sewer lines are available to serve the site, and they extend along the
entire eastern boundary of the project. These lines connect to a pump station
".' located near Wilmore Electronics.
Police and fire protection would be provided by the Orange County
:> Sheriff's Department and the Orange Rural Fire District respectively. No
problems in providing service to the development are anticipated, provided fire
hydrants are installed.
In terms of the impact on schools, development of the property at R -8
densities could result in as many as 190 new students. All schools serving the
proposed development would be impacated, including Grady -Brown Elementary,
Stanford Jr. High, Stanback diddle School, and Orange High school.
The LUI or Land Use Intensity System comes into play on this request.
Specifically, it applies to all projects located in R -5, R -8 or R -13 zoning
districts. It applies because of the high - density nature of such projects and
sets standards for open space, recreation, liveability, and building spacing.
These.standards have•been net with one exception. The applicant is required to
provide 1.25 acres of recreational space for the use of the residents. More
than that amount has been designated on the plan, but-it includes an access
easement specifically required as part of the Wildwood Subdivision development.
Since it was required for that site and is not a part of the Hampton Downs
development, it cannot be counted in the acreage figure.
Another problem with the recreation space provided is the applicant has
included pedestrian paths and walkways in the area calculation. Specific
designations as to which walkways are included for recreational purposes must
be shown on the site plan and revised area computations provided.
As shown it is unclear as to whether walks between parking areas and
buildings have been included. Such walks would not be counted as meeting
S rP['rAT1'�ARTi Rnace recuiresents.
41
A final problem is related to the swimming pool /clubhouse facility. The
pool does not include an area large enough to serve the projected 600+
residents that would ultimately reside in the development. The pool is only
slightly larger than 1,000 sq. feet in area, and .a pool of 2,000 -2,500 square
feet is more desirable to serve the anticipated number of residents. Clubhouse
activities and plans also need to be stated /designated clearly so that specific
uses of the facility will be known.
- In addition to the criteria set forth for rezoning, the applicant must
also comply with additional standards which apply to Planned Developments.
Article 7 of the Zoning ordinance contains these standards and indicates the
purpose for such a district designation - the establishment, for specialized
purposes, where tracts suitable in location, area and character for the uses
and structures proposed are to be planned and developed on a unified basis.
Section 7.14 of the Zoning Ordinance contains those standards which apply
specifically to Planned Development - housing designations such as that proposed.
The Planning Staff has reviewed the site plan submitted by the applicant for
compliance with these standards and has the following comments:
(1). A storri drainage plan for the development must be prepared, showing
how drainage will be handled in relation to proposed building. and parking
areas.
(2).
Recreational plans must be revised to delete the access easement
serving jiilcwood Subdivision -Phase II. Recalculation of those pedestrian paths
included as part of the recreation system must be provided and those paths
designated
on the plan. The proposed pool must be enlarged to serve the
population
projected in the development, and plans for the clubhouse provided,
showing the use of interior spaces.
(3).
Proposed sewage collection plans must be revised, where necessary,
to address
the following:
A. Sewer mains are located to close• to buildings in some
instances. These must be relocated and easements designated if the
lines . are to be dedicated to Hillsborough for maintenance. A 30'
easement is to be provided for maintenance.
D. Connections to three existing manholes are shown. The engineer
should provide invert elevations which indicate that access to
these manholes is accessible.
C. Several lines appear to be running uphill. The engineer should
provide an indication that sewer lines will be located at a
{a•
sufficient depth to attain a gravity flow.
D. An additional manhole is needed in one line which makes a bend
or curve.
(4).
Proposed water distribution plans must be revised, where necessary,
to address
the following::
A. Extend the 12 -inch crater line in the proposed Oakdale Drive
Extension as shown on the plans for Wildwood Subdivision. Phase II
to connect with the six -inch line running through Hampton Downs to
form a loop system. The six -inch line proposed for Walter Clarke
Drive may then be deleted.
B. Two additional hydrants are required, and two others must be
relocated to provide a total of five hydrants, all more or less
equally spaced 500' apart.
C. All dead end two -inch water lines must have blow -off valves to
clear stagnant water.
42
D. All two -inch plater lines serving 40 or more -units must be
upgraded to four -inch lines.
(5). Comments concerning traffic circulation are as follows:
A. The proposed Oakdale Drive must be shown on the plan with a
notation that the road is to be built to North Carolina Department
of Transportation standards during Phase 3. This thoroughfare is
needed to provide access to a collector street and to implement
part of the approved central Orange band Use Plan.
B. The proposed Walter Clark Drive does not aliSn properly with
the stub -out shorn on the plan for Wildwood Subdivision -Phase II.
Corrections to the plan must be made to account for this.
C. A major concern is the use of swales in conjunction with a
private road. slopes are step (Above 10 %) in some portions of the
site, and swales may require a higher level of maintenance for
homeowners association. Plans for the development of the swales
must be submitted which indicate how the proposed private road is
to be constructed and how the swales relate to it from a
construction standpoint. In areas where slopes exceed 10 %, the use
of curb and gutter section is strongly recommended.
(6). Additional comments are as follows:
A. Specific use of facilities and property must be clearly
delineated on the plan. This would include the swimming pool and
associated recreational facilities, parking areas, pedestrian paths
buildings, etc.
B. Additional comments and documents which indicate how the
proposed homeowners association will operate.
C. Designation of number of individual off - street parking spaces
and specific count,of such spaces. Some redesign of access drive
and parking areas is necessary to be functional.
Cannity made the following , presentation, as representative of the
developer:
The proposed Hampton Downs project represents a first for Northern Orange
county. This development will offer attached single family housing for sale in
the price range of $40,000- $4S,000.' The unique combination of low price and
attached design offers prospective buyers the opportunity to purchase a home
during a time of rising prices for housing. The marketing effort of the
developers will be aimed at the young, first time house buyers:• this may
include students of area universities, medical professionals and technicians.
Since the units are only 2 bedrooms and less than 1000 sc. feet in size
it is not anticipated that there will be a larger number of school age children
living in Hampton downs. It is the developers intent to build a project which
will fill a housing need in Northern Orange County and which will be an asset
- to the community.
There are several items which need to be addressed based on the planning
staff review and the continued discussions with the developers. These changes
will be reflected on a revised site plan for the Planning Board's
deliberations.
(1). The rear yard area to be deeded with each unit will be
reduced from 20' to 121. This will allow the homeowners
association to control more area around the perimeter of the site
and maintain the natural buffer.
(2). It is proposed that no building
will be closer than 50' to
::, the nronAr;-v lino. in addition we nrnzose a 35' natural area within.
43
the 501, the other 15' would be used as yard areas and for drainage
ways around units. As much as possible of the 50' area will be
left in a natural state.
In the recreation area we are proposing to add a volleyball court near the
swimming pool and clubhouse. A nature area will be designated in the loop of
the jogging trails. This area will be used for passive recreation by the
residents of Hampton Downs. The club house is proposed to be 2300 square feet.
Included within the clubhouse will be bathhouse facilities, restrooms, meeting
areas, offices for the homeowners association, a sales office, a kitchen area,
wet bar, and vending machine area. There may also be a game room with pool
tables, ping pong and video games for use by residents. The proposed
recreation area available. to Hampton Downs residents will exceed the area
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The following comments are directed toward
the Planning Staff's review of Hampton Downs;
Utilities: It is proposed that the Town of Hillsborough would maintain
the utility system for Hampton Downs. This would include the water
distribution system up to the individual meters and all sewer lines 8" or
greater in size. The access road and all parking areas will be dedicated as
easements for utilities and access. In addition, sewer lines will be placed
within easements. In the Final design of the utility layout sever lines will
be placed outside of any area to be decided to individuals, however designated
sewer easements may encroach into these deeded lots, as necessary.
vie are in basic agreement with the staff concerns about the water system.
The proposed layout of fire.bydrants meets the minimum required for fire
protection and we feel that it is adequate. The fire chief should have the
final say on the appropriate location of hydrants.
Access and Road Construction: The access for phase 1 of Hampton Downs
will be through Wtildwood via John Brickenridge Drive. That road will serve
approximately 26 lots in Wildwood Subdivision Section 1. It was stubbed out to
allow it to be continued through this property. It is the intention of the
developers to build a private road in Hampton Downs which will have a cross
section very similar to a raved state secondary road. That means a gravel base
and asphalt travel surface with drainage swales on each side to handle
stormwater runoff.
The swales are considered adequate by the state for roads which they
maintain and we believe they will prove adequate for Hampton Downs. In those
areas where the slope exceeds 10t we can place rip rap in the swales to reduce
the velocity of. the storm water. We do not believe that the- installation of an
underground storm water system and curb and gutter will better address the
drainage problems - the storm water will be concentrated and there is no
possibility of infiltration with curb and gutter.
We do propose to use gutter along the parking areas to direct storm water
away from buildings and into natural areas where it might be absorded into the
ground. It is our intention to maximize infiltration, and minimize the
concentration of store grater. The store drainage system will utilize sheet
drainage where possible.
On the site plan there are several sediment structures shown which
encroach on the 35' natural areas. It is the intention of the developers to
dismantle these as each phase is completed and the site is stablized. Once the
•struct
ures are no longer used they will be stablized themselves and planted.
The major differences between the planning staff and the developers
44
concern the need for curb and Sutter in the access road and some off -site
construction the planning staff feels is necessary for this project..
i have already discussed the Swale vs. curb and gutter. The offsite
improvements include extension of a 12" water line across the northern boundary
of this project and the dedication of a 70' wide right -of -way for the proposed
Oakdale Drive extension, and the construction of that portion of the road that
would run along the project boundary. We will dedicate the right -of -way for
the road if it is necessary. The construction of this collector road is not a
burden which should be borne solely by the developers of this property. if and
when the road connects new and old 86 it will be used by far greater numbers of
vehicles that is projected for Hampton Downs and Wildwood Development. x't
should'serve as a service road for 1 -85 and reduce the number of vehicles which
use the interstate to go from one road to-the other.
Staff indicated concern about Hampton Downs connecting to minor streets as
referenced in section 7.14.3. Bost of the streets in Wildwood would fit into
the local; sub collector or even possibly the collector category. These
streets should be able to carry the increase in vehicle trips associated with
Hampton Downs. For these reasons we do not feel it should be the
responsibility of the developers of Hampton Downs to construct the proposed
Oakdale Drive extension.
Gordon inquired of Collins what kind of road John Breckenridge Drive would
be. Collins replied residential street and if Hampton Downs was approved it
could become a sub - collector or collector street. Gordon inquired further if
it would meet the requirements. The answer was that it was designated as a
collector street.
Gordon also raised the question of Oakdale Drive Extension Collins
answered it was designated as collector in the Land Use Plan, but that there
were problems obtaining the necessary easements.
Gordon inquired about the relationship between the required 100' setback
and the proposed 50' setback. Collins responded that the PD -H district
requires a 100' setback around the perimeter of the property, but that due to
steep slopes in the eastern portion of the tract the developer was proposing to
shift development to the west, encroaching on the setback but leaving a much
larger area to the east in its natural state.
Rr. Olive inquired how much water would be used by the proposed
development. Mr. Cannity could not answer the question
Barbara Page from the audience asked if the houses would be stick -built or
modular as this would impact on the schools and tax base. The answer by
Cannity was stick built.
Mr. Horace Johnson, Town of Hillsborough Commissioner, was sworn in. He
_
addressed the public water /sewer question indicating that there are problems
regarding water service provision.
__.
He continued that the lines must be dedicated to the Town before takeover.
The town will require that all plans must be prepared by a certified engineer-
and be submitted to the Town and State for review and approval. The lines will
be constructed privately and the State must certify the person(s) doing the
tap -ons. Mr. Johnson further noted that at the present time water pressure is
low in the Hampton Downs area.
45
With no further questions or evidence on this item the public hearing was
adjourned until February 21, 1954 to receive the Planning Board recosaendation.
2-1 -84 (Rezoning Request) - Wood Brothers, Inc.
Presentation by Coutu.
The request is for rezoning from R -1 Residential to GC -4 General Commercial
to enable commercial development as well as office use The property is
located across from the present Moods Brothers office site. The lot size is
4.74 acres or 212,137.20 square feet and at present is vacant land.'
To the north is existing and projected single -- family residential
development (Wildwood Subdivision zoned R -4 & R -5 Residential and Joppa Oaks
Subdivision zoned R -2 Residential). To the south is Duke University School of
Forestry (Duke University Tower Class - "B" Special Use Permit) and single - family
residences zoned R -1 Residential district. To the east is Piedmont Power
Company zoned Planned Development - Office Institutional, and single - family
residences zoned P. -1 Residential. To the west is Woods Brothers, Inc. (4.34
acres tract); various commercial uses on 2.94 acres zoned Existing Commercial -5
and single family homes, mobile homes and duplexes on 2.0 acres zoned R -1
Residential. The subject property is within the node, as revised in the
adopted Central Orange Area Plan, and located at the intersection of Interstate
85 and. NC 86. The plan category for this node is Commercial- Industrial
Transition.
Section 4.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the district designation
will be applied when the following conditions exist:
1. The site is within an area designated as either Commercial or
Industrial Transition Activity IIode, by the adopted Land Use Plan in Eno or
Hillsborough Townships.
Staff Comment: As indicated previously, the site is within the HS -4,
Harmon Young node which is designated in the Land Use Plan as a Commercial -In-
dustrixl Activity Node and is located in Hillsborough Township.
2. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or are to be made available as
part of the development process, or the lot size for individual uses is
appropriate to the pethod of water supply and sewage disposal.
Staff Comment: water and sanitary sewer service can be provided by the
Town of Hillsborough through an extension of the facilities previously
installed to serve the Wildwood Development. However, water and sewer service
will not be available to this site until the town receives approval from the
state for the facilities which were installed for the 17ildwood Development.
Depending on density, the site will probably be served by an individual well
and septic tank; if more than one use, public water and sewer is likely.
3. All property to be designated for new development under this
classification shall have direct access to major collector streets, as
designated by the adopted Land Use Plan.
Staff Comment: The subject property is located within the HB -4 Activity
Node. This node is focused on the interchange at the intersection of an
interstate (I -05) and an arterial highway (NC86). This site is located and has
direct access on the east side of an arterial (NC86) as designated in the Land
Use Plan.
There were no questions and no citizen comments.
The public hearing was adjourned until February 21, 1984 to receive the
Planning Board comments
Proposed Major Transportation corridor ((4TC) District presented by Smith as
follows:
46
Major transportation corridors, whether interstates or heavily traveled
secondary roads, serve as both movers of traffic and as entranceways to the
County from outside areas. These corridors and the development which occurs
along theca establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator of the
quality of life in the County, as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic
movement through the area. in addition, the ability of different areas of the
County to attract and accomodate different types of development often depends
on the capacity of the thoroughfare system and the character and.quality of
development along the major corridors.
It is the intent of Orange County to protect the attractiveness and orderly
development of land and enhance those natural and environmental.features which
constitute important physical,-aesthetic, recreational and economic assets
along major transportation corridors through the provision of a set of
development standards and regulations for application to public and private
development of land adjacent to the corridors.
The Major Transportation Corridor District is, therefore, proposed as a
district which overlays other zoning districts established in the Zoning
Ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure within. the RTC
district shall comply with the use regulations applicable to the underlying
zoning district as well as the requirements of the MTC - district. The district
does not address the use of land. use is provided for by the underlying zoning
district and guided by the Land Use Plan and its applicable plan category.
The 14TC district:
a. shall be applied to lands adjacent to 1--40 and I -85;
b. may be applied by additional action of the Board to any major
thoroughfare designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan including, but not
limited to US 70, 1:C 54, NC 86, NC 57 and Old 86.
c. the district shall be applied along a continuous distance along the
thoroughfare of lands within the County's jurisdiction and outside the
extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the Towns of Mlebane, Hillsborough,
Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
d. the district shall extend up to 1,250 feet from the right -of -way on
each side of the roadway, except at interstate interchanges where the District
shall extend 1,250 feet from the right -of -way on each side of the intersecting
roads rights -of -ways and extend 2,500 feet along the intersecting roads from
the nearest right -of -way of the interstate.
e. the district specifically establishes development standards and a site
plan review process for development within the district.
f. the provisions of this district shall not apply to any building or
structure existing prior to the application of the district unless structurally
altered to the extent of increasing the floor area-by fifty percent or more or
enlarged to occupy a vacant lot.
The provisions of this district shall not apply to any single or two family
dwelling existing or to be erected. No construction activity shall begin nor
shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced nor any sign erected until such time.
as a permit has been approved.by the Zoning Officer.
Where an individual property has been rendered unusable due to
establishment of the yard setbacN, there may be grounds for a variance.
Variances shall be considered and granted by the Board of Adjustment. However,
the Board of Adjustment shall ensure that the applicant compensate in
equivalent landscaping improvement for any encroachment into the yard or buffer
area.
47
The site plan requirements are as follows:
Each application.for a building permit shall be accompanied by a site plan
or plans which show the information specified in the proposed text.
Proposed site standards include:
a) Conformance with the landscaping and screening requirements in.proposed
Article 12 Land sap �IIS+ screenjy�.
b) The provision of a 100 foot buffer area from the edge of the
right -of -way of an interstate highway that shall remain in its natural state at
the time of construction where wooded and landscaped in accordance with an
approved plan which takes into consideration the growth and maturity of
existing trees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in the buffer, and other
landscaping factors. Within these areas, ingress, egress and utility service
shall be permitted, but no other disturbance for site improvement shall be
permitted.
c) A 100 foot setback adjacent to the interstate regardless of whether it
be the front, side or rear yard.
d) A 50 foot setback adjacent to intersecting roads at an interchange for
the entire width of the district at these interchanges.
e) Conformance with off - street parking requirements specified in Article
10 O Street $a. kr inc anc_Agadiinn-
f) Conformance with the signage requirements of Article 9 signs,
Proposed amendments to the Article 9 would not allow outdoor advertising in the
MTC district, and would restrict signs to incidental and information signs
only.
g) A minimum of 258 of the total area shall remain in its natural
vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas with trees 12" in
diameter at breast height shall be retained and set aside to meet the
requirement before other areas are so used. Commissioner Willhoit referred to
6.24.2 and suggested using the term "circumference" instead of "diameter" and
define the tern or instead of "breast high" use a standard height.
Myron Martin of Hillsborough Planning Board stated that with the impact of
>} I -40, this board also wants to consider and make recommendations on the
proposal.
S.B. olive urged the Boards to provide protection for the Upper New Hope
Creek basin. New Hope Creek has been used for research and it is important to
avoid spills. . He noted that catch basins maintained by DOT would be most
useful. He added there is also a possibility of danger to Duke Forest.
John McAdams, engineer and representative of J.P. Goforth, felt that the
proposal would benefit the County and he does support site planning, yet he
feels a 100' buffer is inequitable and amounts to a "taking of land ". He
referred to DOT procedures and actions on acquiring lands for the I -40
right -of -way.
Whitted clarified the proposal does not apply to single and two family
dwelings. Kizer added it does apply to higher residential densities.
Willhoit asked if the basis for DOT's requisition and settlement was
residential property. licadans responded it was the status of the property at
the titre not enhancement value.
McAdams stressed that care should be taken so that the proposal is
equitable so that we do not end up with a very pleasing visual buffer for the
good of the entire community and the transents the cost of which buffer is
borne by the property ovmers within the district.
Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amounted to
taking land with no compensation. He felt it was excessive and that property
owners were being forced into accepting I -40. He commented that the concern
was keeping the land green., but with no compensation for owners and that land
was effectively removed from the tax base.
Dexter Smith expressed concern with 6.24.4, the 259 natural vegetation
provision. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation.
Henry Mitfield, property owner in the I -40 corridor, noted that the
corridor would cost the owners he represented about 10 acres of property.
Accordng to Mr. Whitfield the buffer would take an additional 23 acres with no
payment to owners. He was particularly concerned with land split by the
corridor.
r
Mr. Whitfield asked for a show of hands for property owners in the corridor
in favor and against the buffer. This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in
favor of the buffer.
He felt that site plans would take care of the fear of contamination of the
landscape with unsightly buildings. Kizer, Planning Board member,"noted that
it is important to understand t.r. McAdams point that this proposal constitutes
an uncompensated "taking ". He continued that it should be a point of order to
prevent a "taking" of land inadvertently or inventionally. Since he'felt this
might result in an uncompensated "taking ", he requested that the County
Attorney conment on the possibility of an illegal taking of land.
Commissioner Willhoit noted the attorney will be-reviewing the entire
ordinance for legality.
Ron [Merritt of Northwoods Homeowners Association inquired about property
owners being notified of particular applications and permit approvals for
development. i =;hitter noted that changing the underlying zoning would require
notice. Merritt stated he would like to see the inclusion of a provision
regarding notice of adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building
permit approvals for sites with correct zoning.
Joe Kistler, property owners adjacent to I--40 but outside of 100' buffer,
urged the Board to consider individuals beyond the corridors. He indicated
vegetation is very important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers
could pursue creative uses of land within the statutes.
Jack Mosely, owner of the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns
regarding signs such as his directional sign for customers off N.C. 86.
Smith responded the proposal would not allow off - premise signs in the
district. She clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal
and that future single and two family houses were not subject to the proposed
development standards. She' clarified that both single family houses and
duplexes can be developed with normal setbacks and without being subject to
vegetation provisions.
McAdams questioned the application of the 100' setback. to approval of six
(6) subdivisions and their. designs. If so, he continued, this must be
qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and two- family
dwellings.
The public nearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1984 public hearing.
Proposed Text Amendments to Article 9 Signs
Presentation as follows by Smith:
The proposed text amendments to Article 9 Signs address two main issues:
1) the types of signs permitted in the I'VIC district and 2) the placement of
outdoor advertising outside the MITC district.
Out .00r advertising signs are o - •prer:ise .signs by the out -door advertising 49
industry and. relating, its subject natter to a business, service, com.=iitr,
attractio:, or other activity corxiucted, sold or offered at a location other
than the premises on r.+hich the sir_r: is located.
Me proposed arerrmerts ;haild also lirdt the number and size of
infornationa signs in the b-TC district.
Outside the MM district the proposed amendments w,�ould limit outdoor
advertising signs place::ent to crews designated as activity nodes in the lxk:
: Uri Plan and sites specifically zoned General Commercial (tea) and Industrial
1,2, and 3 located adjacent to 'ITC EG, MC 57, _M 54, nc 70. The proposals also
include a provision, for siccing of outdoor advertising which a tplies to 1000'
radius spacing lira betraeen signs.
' s
Handler Cates, indepen?ent merchant, noted that signs are already
regulated by State and 3edera regulations. He further noted the County gets
1% of all sales tax revenue fron retail merchants uiio acvertise.
Tillhoit questioned the role signs play in generating local inco::e and
ash.ed staff to obtain studies on how effective signs were as a :.leans to
generate local business. Fe thought inforn tional and logo signs v+ere the
primary means to generate business at interchanges. with responded the staff
vmld obtain studies.
ire Board discussed logo signs.
Joe Crews of NcDonal.c:s noted sales increases of 24S to 45% with logo signs.
Ile also felt establishments which cannot use a logo (such as Dar: al °.cone
Village) should be allo;a-1 to place signs on the interstate.
(:%uck Millard, president of Daniel Boone r4erchant3 Association, expressed
concern with the re;oval. of signs advertising the Daniel Boone Village anc its
businesses on Interstate 85. Fe cited possible loss of income Frith sign
renosal. Smith responded the proposal does not affect signs in the
Hillsborough jurisdiction an-' if a sign in the County's jurisdiction was found
to be nonconforr..ing, there is a five year rw.*Val period wdzich reflects the
=—e necessary for amortization of the investment.
An uriuentified ran asked that an e.nor -le of logo signs iDe preaare•3.
?shitted clarified only ;as, food and lodging establishments are shown on logo
signs.
Smith indicated cost savings could be realized through use of logo signs,
citing the state average for sign rental is $2,000 - 53,000, and for loco rental
was only $150.00. Tloyc; c_ruestioned the high figures. Crews indicated he could
vouch for the figures for McDonald's zdvertiserunt.
Benny Cecil, o::aer of Efland Gulf Station on I -05 irdicated his reliance or
signs and advertising to car -ate with other gas establis`tin ents.
_• Jerre Baileys, Hi.11sborowh Daniel Boone Shell, indicated one -third of his
: business of the interstate was generated by his higa -rise sign. He added yhe
only wh-ay to sell is to coTZ)ete. He noted many travelers look for a. sL .ecific
gas or lodging establishr. ..
T.Tillhoit clarified the purpose of logo signs was to inform the traveling
Public of the speci -ic establishzwent. ^nailey resoon W- that a specific gas
reference may be a full service station or cuickie -rnrt. Another individual
noted the absence of prices with logo signs.
John Sivins cited ti-e benefit realized through outdoor advertising on I -25
to the Colonial Lnn.
Jig•. Pa' iourus, Chxis' Restaura t end Sunoco, ire- icated that outecer
advertising siq are L.ralue le and account for 10% increase of his business.
71:n irriiir a-�..� 1eca1 rami.ficat90n.^ of the rrc�osed r°culations.
3i1
With no further questions or evidence on this item the public hearing was
adjourned until February 21, 1984 to receive the Planning Board recommendation.
Z -1 -84 (Rezoning Request) - Hood Brothers, Inc.
Presentation by Coutu.
The request is for rezoning from R -1 Residential to GC -4 General Commercial .
to enable commercial development as well as office use. The property is
located across from the present Woods Brothers office site. The lot size is
4.74 acres or 212,137.20 square feet and at present is vacant land.
To the north is existing and projected single-family residential
development (wildwood Subdivision zoned R -4 & R -5 Residential and Joppa Oaks
Subdivision zoned R -2 Residential). To the south is Duke University School of
Forestry (Duke University Tower Class - "B" Special Use Permit) and single- family
residences zoned R -1 Residential district. To the east is Piedmont Power
Company zoned Planned Development- Office Institutional, and single - family
residences zoned R -1 Residential. To the west is Woods Brothers, Inc. (4.94
acres tract); various commercial uses on 2.94 acres zoned Existing Commercial -5
and single family homes, mobile hones and duplexes on 2.0 acres zoned R -1
Residential. The subject property is within the node, as revised in the
adopted Central Orange Area Plan, and located at the intersection. of Interstate
85 and 'NC 86. The plan category for this node is Comnercial- Industrial
Transition.
Section 4.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the district designation
will be applied when the following conditions exist:
1. The, site is within an area designated as either Commercial or
Industrial Transition Activity Node, by the adopted Land Use Plan in Eno or
Hillsborough Townships.
Staff Comment: As indicated previously, the site is within the HE--4,
Harmon Young node which is designated in the Land Use Plan as a Commercial -In-
dustrial Activity Node and is located in Hillsborough Township.
2. Dater and sewer mains exist at the site or are to be made available as
part of the development, process, or the lot size for individual uses is
appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal.
Staff Comment: mater and sanitary sewer service can be provided by
'the
Town of Hillsborough through an extension of the facilities previously
installed to serve the Wildwood Development. However, water and sewer service
will not be available to this site until the town receives approval from the
state for the facilities which were installed for the Wildwood Development.
Depending on density, the site will probably be served by an individual well
and septic tank; if more than one use, public water and sewer is likely.
3. All property to be designated for new development under this
classification shall have direct access to major collector streets, as
designated by the adopted Land Use Plan.
Staff Comment: The subject property is located within the HS -4 Activity
I]ode. This node is focused on the interchange at the intersection of an
interstate (I -85) and an arterial highway =86). This site is located and has
direct access on the east side of an arterial (1:C86) as designated in the Land
Use Plan.
There were no questions and no citizen comments.
The public hearing was adjourned until February 21, 1984 to receive the
Planning Board comments.
Proposed t:ajor Transportation corridor (TC) District presented by Smith as
:;is follows:
51
Major transportation corridors, whether interstates or heavily traveled
secondary roads, serve as both movers of traffic and as entranceways to the
County from outside areas. These corridors and the development which occurs
along them establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator of the
quality of life in the County, as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic
movement through the area. In addition, the ability of different areas of the
County to attract and accomodate" different types of development often depends
on the capacity of the thoroughfare system and the character and quality of
development along the major corridors.
It is the intent of Orange County to protect the attractiveness and orderly
development of land and enhance those natural and environner_tai features which
constitute important physical, aesthetic,- recreational and economic assets
along major transportation corridors through the provision of a set- of
development standards and regulations for application to public and private
development of land adjacent to the corridors.
The Major Transportation Corridor District is, therefore, proposed as a
district which overlays other zoning districts established in the Zoning
Ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure within the MTC
district shall comply with the use regulations•applicable to the underlying
zoning district as well as the requirements of the I -TC district. The district
does not address the use of land. Use is provided for by the underlying zoning
district and guided by the Land Use Plan and its applicable plan category.
The MTC district:
a. shall be applied to lands adjacent to I -40 and I -85;
b. may be applied by additional action of the Board to any najor
thoroughfare designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan including, but not
limited to US 70, 11C 54, 14C 86, NC 57 and Old 86.
e. the district shall be applied along a continuous distance along the
thoroughfare of lands within the County's. jurisdiction and outside the
extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the Towns of Mebane, Hillsborough,
Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
d. the district shall extend up to 1,250 feet from the right -of -way on
each side of the roadway, except at interstate interchanges where the District
shall extend 1,250 feet from the right--:of-way on each side of the intersecting
roads rights -of -ways and extend 2,500 feet along the intersecting roads from
the nearest right -of -way of the interstate.
e. the district specifically establishes development standards and a site
plan review process for development within the district.
f. the provisions of this district shall not apply to any building or
structure existing prior to the application of the'district unless structurally
altered to the extent of increasing the floor area by fifty percent or more or
enlarged to occupy a vacant lot.
The provisions of this district shall not apply to any single or two family
dwelling existing or to be erected. No construction activity shall begin nor
shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including, trees, be commenced nor any sign erected until such time
as a permit has been approved by the Zoning Officer.
Where an individual property has been rendered unusable due to
establishment of the yard setback, there ray be grounds for a variance.
Variances shall be considered and granted by the Board of Adjustment. However,
the Board of Adjustr►ent shall ensure that the applicant compensate in
equivalent landscaping improvement for any encroachment into the yard or buffer
• �raA.
52
The site plan requirements are as follows:
Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by a site plan
or plans which show the information specified in the proposed text.
Proposed site standards include:
a) Conformance with the landscaping and screening requirements in proposed
Article 12 lands ng_�nc� acrPeny .
b) The provision of a 100 foot buffer area from the edge of the
right -of -way of an interstate high% :ay that shall remain in its natural state at
the tire of construction where Wooded and landscaped in accordance with an
approved plan which takes into consideration the growth and maturity of
existing trees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in the buffer, and other
landscaping factors. within these areas, ingress, egress and utility service
shall be permitted, but no other disturbance for site improvement shall be
permitted.
c) A 100 foot setback adjacent to the interstate regardless of whether it
be the :Front, side or rear yard.
d) A 50 foot setback adjacent to intersecting roads at an interchange for
the entire width of the district at these interchanges.
e) Conformance with off - street parking requirements specified in Article
10 It Par klilg an :Loading..
f) Conformance with the signage requirements of Article 9 • Signs.
Proposed amendments to the Article 9 would not allow outdoor advertising in the
VITC district, and would restrict signs to incidental and information signs
only.
g) A minimum of 258 of the total area shall remain in its natural
vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas with trees 12" in
diameter at breast height shall be retained and set aside to meet the
requirement before other areas are so used. Commissioner willhoit referred to
6.24.2 and suggested using the term "circumference" instead of " diameter" and
define the term or instead of "breast high" use a standard height.
Myron ttartin of killsborough Planning Board stated that with the impact of
I -40, this board also wants to consider and make recommendations on the
proposal.
S.B. Olive urged the Boards to provide protection for the Upper New Pope
Creek basin. New hope Creek has been used for research and it is important to
avoid spills. He noted that catch basins maintained by DOT would be.most
useful. He added there is also a possibility of danger to Duke Forest.
John McAdams, engineer and representative of J.P. Goforth, felt that the
proposal would benefit the County and he does support site planning, yet he
feels a 100' buffer is inequitable and amounts to a "taking of land ". He
-:
referred to DOT procedures and actions on acquiring lands for the I -40
right-of-way.
r
Whitted clarified the proposal does not apply to single and two family
dwelings. Kizer added it does apply to higher residential densities.
willhoit asked if the basis for DOT's requisition and settlement was
residential property. McAdams responded it was the status of the property at
the time not enhancement value.
McAdams stressed that care should be taken so that the proposal is
equitable so that vie do not end up with a very pleasing visual buffer for the
good of the entire community and the transepts the cost of which buffer is
borne by the property owners within the district.
Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amoun e3 to
taking land with no compensation. He felt it was excessive and that property
owners were being forced into accepting I -40. He commented that the concern
was k in the land green, but with no compensation for owners and that land
wa e f t ely removed from the tax base.
xt Smith expressed concern with 6.24.4, the 25% natural vegetation
provis n. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation.
Hen 4xhitfield, property owner in the 1 -40 corridor, noted that the
irr or would cost the owners he represented about 10 acres of property.
co ng to Mr. Whitfield the bu er would take an additional 23 acres with no
nt to owners. He waq& p #tict#arly concerned with land split by the
iridor.
\or . Whitfield asked f of hands for property owners in the corridor
and against the bu This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in
of the buffer.
He felt that site pla ould take care of the fear of contamination of the
landscape with unsightly ildings. Kizer, Planning Board member, noted that
it is important to unde d I•Ir. McAdams point that this proposal constitutes
an uncompensated "taki He .continued that it should be a point of order to
prevent a "taking" of inadvertently or intentionally. Since he felt this
might result an mpensated "taking", he requested that the County
Attorney comment n possibility of an illegal taking of land.
.;.: Commissioner 11 t noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire
ordinance for legs t
Ron Merritt thwoods Homeowners Association inquired about property
owners being n i d of particular applications and permit approvals for
k
development. I tt noted that changing the underlying zoning would require
notice. F_erri.t ed he would like to see the inclusion of 'a provision
regarding notic adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building
permit app aIs or es with correct zoning.
Joe gist , props owners adjacent to I -40 but outside of -100' buffer,
urge a oa o cons r individuals beyond the corridors. He indicated
vegetat ery important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers
could purs c eative uses of land within the statutes.
Jack No ely, owner o! the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns
arding si s such as his directional sign for customers off N.C. 86.
th re nded the proposal would not allow off- - premise signs in the
distric . Sh clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal
and that t re single and two family houses were not subject to the proposed
development tandards. She clarified that both single family houses and
duplexes ca be developed with normal setbacks and without being subject to
vegetation provisions.
McAdams questioned the application of the 100' setback to approval of six
(6) subdivisions and their designs. If so, he continued, this must be
qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and two - family
dwellings.
The public hearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1984 public hearing.
Proposed Text Amendments to Article 9 Signs
Presentation as follows by Smith:
The proposed text amendments to Article 9 Sgt, address two main issues:
1) the types of signs permitted in the VTC district and 2) the placement of
outdoor advertising outside the MTC district.
54
The proposed amendments would limit signs within the proposed DITC district
to identification and incidental signs only. Outdoor advertising signs would
not be permitted.
Identification signs are on-- premise signs identifying a business, person,
service, activity, commodity or product.
Incidential signs are on- premise signs providing information for the
convenience and necessity of the public, such as "parking ", "no exit ", etc.
Outdoor advertising signs are off - premise signs by the outdoor.advertising
_
industry and relating in its subject matter to a business, service, commodity,
attraction or other activity conducted, sold or offered at a location other
than the premises on which the sign is located.
The proposed amendments would also limit the number and size of
s
informationa signs in the NTC district.
Outside the MTC district the proposed. amendments would limit outdoor
advertising signs placement to areas designated as activity nodes in the Lnd
Use Plan and sites specifically zoned General Commercial (GC4) and Industrial
1,2, and 3 located adjacent to NC 86, NC 57, UC 54, NC 70. The proposals also
include a provision for spacing of outdoor advertising which applies to 1000'
radius spacing limit between signs.
Chandler Cates, independent merchant, noted that signs are &!ready
regulated by State and Federal regulations. He further noted the County gets
18 of all sales tax revenue from retail merchants who advertise.
i;illhoit questioned the role signs play in generating local income and
asked staff to obtain studies on how effective' signs were as a means to
generate local business. He thought informational and logo signs were the
primary means to generate business at interchanges. Smith responded the staff
would obtain studies.
The Board discussed logo signs.'
Joe Crews of McDonalds noted sales increases of 248 to 458 with logo signs.
He also felt establishments which cannot use a logo (such as Daniel Boone -
Village) should be allowed to place signs on the interstate.
Chuck I4illard,.president of Daniel Boone Merchants Association, expressed
concern with the removal of signs advertising the Daniel Boone Village and its
businesses on Interstate 85. Ee cited possible loss of income with sign
removal. Smith responded the proposal does not affect signs in the
Hillsborough jurisdiction and if a sign in the County's jurisdiction was found
to be nonconforming, there is a five year removal period which reflects the
time necessary for amortization of the investment.
..
An unidentified man asked that an example of logo signs be prepared.
Whitted clarified only gas, food and lodging establishments are shown on logo
signs.
Smith indicated cost savings could be realized through use of logo signs,
_.-
citing the state average for sign rental is $2,000- 83,000, and for logo rental
was only $150.00. Lloyd questioned the high figures. Crews indicated he could
vouch for the figures for McDonald's advertisement.
Benny Cecil, owner of E €land Gulf Station on I -85 indicated his reliance on
signs and advertising to compete with other gas establishments.
Jerry Bailey, Hillsborough Daniel Boone Shell, indicated one -third of his
business of the interstate was generated by his high -rise sign. He added the
Only way to sell is to compete. He noted many travelers look for a specific
gas or lodging establishment.
Willhoit clarified the purpose of logo signs was to inform the traveling
rmhlir of rrA anor•ifin PntAhliethmc�nt_. Bailee r.esnonded that a specific bas
55
reference may.be a full service station or quickie -mart. Another individual
noted the absence of prices with logo signs.
John Bivins cited the benefit realized through outdoor advertising on 1 -E5
to the Colonial Inn.
Jim Paliourus, Chris' Restaurant and Sunoco,- indicated that outdoor
advertising signs are invaluable and account for 10% increase of his business.
Lloyd inquired about legal ramifications of the proposed regulations.
Gledhill responded the five year amortization period specified in the
ordinance already with regard to removal of non - conforming signs was
-- constitutionally proper. He noted a recent North Carolina Appellate court case
suggests that three years is a proper period and another that allows zoning
solely on the basis of aestketics.
Smith clarified that the five year period for removal or compliance is
appliable upon application of the standard and a finding that a sign is
non- conforming.
Proposed Text Amendments to Article 22 Definitions
Presented by Smith
This agenda item is to receive public comment on the proposed text
amendments to Article 22 DefiniIiDDa associated with the establishment of
the MTC District.
The proposed sign requirements associated with the IBTC district limits
signs within the district to informational and incidental signs. Definitions
of these two sign types are not presently contained within the zoning
ordinance.
The amendments to Article 22 Definitions are as follows:
Sign. Ujentif_jrd jna_ On- premise sign identifying a business person,
service, activity, commodity or product.
Sign incidental - on premise sign providing information for the
convenience and necessity of the public, such as "exit" "no admittance ",
"parking ", etc.
Proposed 'Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Landscaping and Screening
Requirements.
This agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendment to
the Orange County zoning Ordinance regarding landscaping and screening
requirements.
Presented by Collins.
Mr. Olive inquired if Chapel Hill had a landscaping ordinance. He noted
there should be compatibility between Chapel Hill's and Orange County's
ordinances on landscaping. He further stated that comments and suggestions on
th proposal should be received from landscape architects.
Commissioner Marshall notes that Chapel Hill, through experience, found it
desirable to tie the landscape provisions to the planting seasons with regard
to the certificate of occupancy.
Mike Foods, developer, inqurred if an engineer must do the site plan or if
there were guidelines that could be handled by a layman. Collins responded
yes, the site plans do not require an engineer.
Woods also inquired about screens. Collins responded giving a list of
screen types. Woods inquired about the cost of a 20' tree. Collins responded
the last word he had was $125.00 per tree. Woods noted this would cause a
delay in acquiring building permits. Collins responded that review and
approval of landscape plans should only take 1 -2 days.
i
56
Pearson inquired" if additional staff would be required to enforce the
landscaping ordinance. Collins responded no, since this would'be applicable in
the 10 and 20 Year Transition areas and the activity nodes.
Pilkey inquired as to the time element involved in the additional
provisions. Collins responded that under the ordinance, landscaping must be in
place before a certificate of occupancy is issued or'the owner must post bond
if he wishes to occupy the structure before installation of landscaping. The
Public Searing on this item was adjourned to February 21, 1984 Commissioners
meeting.
Proposed Updated Building Ordinance for Orange County.
The purpose of this agenda items is to provide information to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding a public hearing proposed.foe February 27, 1964,
for the purpose of considering the adoption of an updated-Building Ordinance
for Orange County.
Willhoit proposed changing the word adoption in the first paragraph of the
notice to amendment. In paragraph four, he suggested including wording that
the copies of the text of the proposed ordinance will also be available in the
public libraries of Orange County. He suggested that the Building Core
sections be referenced and noted that they are applicable as amended from time
to time.
With no farther business to come before the Boards, the meeting was
adjourned.
Don Willhoit, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
APPROVED 3/5/84
57
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMt41SSIONERS
JUNE 4, 1984
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on
Monday, June 4, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County
Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Commissioners Present: Don Willhoit, Chair, and Commissioners
Marshall, Lloyd, Walker and Whitted.
A. BOARD CQMMRKrS
None
B. AUnIE110E CQHMENTS
1. Ma e , on the 2rri ent d Agenda
Chair Willhoit announced that those who want to comment on items
on the agenda will be recognized and given an opportunity to speak at the
appropriate time on the agenda.
2. Natters Not n the printed Aaeada
None
C. APPQT= r ra
Chair Willhoit announced the appointment of Valerie Greenberg to
represent the Planning Board on the Resource Conservation and Development
Board.
ono i- DQVelopmant Comission - Motion was made by Commissioner
Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall that Elaine Parker be reappointed
to the Economic Development Commission for a three year term.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
Nomination was made by Commissioner Marshall that Pat Crawford be
considered for appointment to the one year AT LARGE vacancy on the Economic
Development Commission.
Nomination was made by Commissioner Lloyd that Robert Greer be
considered for appointment to-the one-year AT LARGE vacancy on the Economic
Development Commission.
NOMINATIONS CLOSED
VOTE: Pat Crawford - Commissioners Marshall, Willhoit, Whitted.
Robert Greer - Commissioners Walker and Lloyd.
Pat Crawford was appointed to the Economic Development Commission for a one
year term.
NjjHsTr , norl - CoMMuNTXX nvT 98X COMMTTT _ . — Motion was made by
Commissioner h*hitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Mary Ann
Matteson to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
ARC- pOARD - Commissioner Walker nominated Dr. Jack Moore for the
vacancy on the ABC Board. Commissioner Whitted nominated Caleb Moore for the
vacancy on the ABC Board.
NOMINATIONS CLOSED
VOTE: Dr. Jack Moore - Commissioners Walker and Lloyd.
Caleb Moore - Commissioners Willhoit, Marshall and Whitted.
Solid Waggg Task _Fgorca - Commissioner Willhoit nominated Armand
Gammarino, Leslie Weiner, Carole L. Crumley and Linda Balfour. Commissioner
{ Marshall nominated Blair Pollock, William Oldenburg, Terrence Pierson and
Jane S. Sharp.
MOMINATIONS CLOSED
58
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall that all the above nominations be appointed to the Solid Waste Task
Force.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ngangp Cgnnty Planning Board - Commissioner Walker nominated William
Dorsettl Commissioner 11illhoit nominated Ruth Burnette; and Commissioner
Marshall nominated Peter Kramer for consideration for appointment to the
Orange County Planning Board.
VOTE: William Dorsett - Commissioners Walker and Lloyd.
Ruth Burnette - Commissioners Willhoit, Marshall and Whitted.
Peter Kramer - No votes.
Ruth Burnette was appointed to the Orange County Planning Board for the AT.
LARGE vacancy.
For the Hillsborough representative on the Orange County Planning Board
Commissioner Walker nominated Steve Yuhasz for consideration for appointment
to the Orange County Planning Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
- notion was made by Commissioner
Whitted, -seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the appointment of
Douglas Ludy to the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment..
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
rhan�i Hill P anniog hpard - Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted,
seconded by Commissioner Marshall to appoint Carol Weissert to the Chapel
Hill Planning Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
g, e� Firg Protection ARSoe±atjon - Motion was made by Commissioner
Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the appointment of Gary
Dean to the Eno Fire Protection Association.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
PUBLIC EMBING-8
Olt 1'NOB P PAVING PRORRAM PROJECT(see file 1-6 .. for
resolution)
Susan Smith, Planner, presented the preliminary assessment role
for Oak Knob Road (SR 1605) to receive public comment. This is the final
action the Board will take for approving this project.
NO COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Walker to approve the confirmation of the assessment role, acceptance of the
certificate of mailing offered by the Clerk and to direct the Tax Collector
. to collect the assessment. This approval took place at 8 :02 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
2. RAIM GOOD S MnTVi ION PARTTGT_PATORv P".ING REWE=
Susan Smith presented the Rangewood subdivision Participatory
Paving Project to obtain public comment on the Preliminary Assessment
Resolution which was approved by the Board on May 7, 1984 and to take action
on the - adoption of the final assessment Resolution.
Nat Davis, property owner in the Rangewood Subdivision, requested
additional information about the cost of the project and the method of
assessment.
Smith explained the assessment at $2.00 per lineal front foot
plus a-small fee for administrative charges which covers attorney charges and
publications. The assessment will be on the first tax bill after the public
hearing and is to be paid within 1 month of that notice. You can pay 5tlie
entire fee or pay an equal amount over the next five years. The total cost
for construction is $55,000 plus $700 administrative costs and the balance is
paid by the State of North Carolina.
Commissioner Lloyd asked about the $700 administrative -costs.
Smith explained this cost covers attorney fees, publication, xeroxing and
mailing costs. The attorney cost is for reviewing the project and is a
normal procedure for all Participatory Paving Programs and is not billed to
the County until after the final assessment resolution is adopted and the
money appropriated.
Smith explained the work -will probably not begin until September
_. or October because of the backlog by the Department -of Transportation. The
larger projects are usually started in the Spring.
CHAIR WILLHOIT CALLED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A CLOSE.
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Lloyd to adopt the final assessment resolution, accept the certificate of
mailing as offered by the Clerk to the Board and schedule the public hearing
on the preliminary assessment roll for July 2, 1984.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
E. TTEMS FOR DE TSTON
1. propos d Secondary Ameandmen - to Land Use- Plan - Tr _ da ers
H�meS.__Tne.
Smith presented for consideration of the Board the proposed
Secondary Amendment to the Land Use Plan for 20+ acres located north of
Eubanks Road and west of the NC 86 /Eubanks Road (SR1127) intersection from
Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition. The Planning Board reviewed this
item on May 21, 1984.
Commissioner Walker requested explanation of the difference
between the 20 year transition and rural buffer designations because they
don't have water and sewer in that area at this time.
Smith explained that the ,Rural Buffer area with its present
zoning would only permit one residential unit per acre. In the Ten to Twenty
Year Transition area the range of zoning permitted would be Rl -R -13. When
the applicant can't adhere, to the present zoning a subsequent request for
rezoning or proposal may be submitted. This area will be subject to'any of
the stipulations as outlined in the Joint Planning Agreement.
Chair Willhoit asked about the rationale for changing from Rural buffer
to Twenty Year Transition when sewer will not be available to that area for
another nine (9) years.
Smith explained that although OWASA is not interested in
extending water and sewer at this time, they would look favorably on the
extension of lines by a developer so long as the line size and location meet
OWASA criteria.
Hotion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Lloyd to approve the request for amendment to the Land Use Plan from Rural
Buffer to Twenty Year Transition based on the following criteria:
1. The Planning Board for the Town of Chapel Hill recommends
extension of the Twenty Year Transition Area, and
2. OWASA's long range Capital Improvements Budget calls for
water and sewer in this area between 1993 -1998.
VOTE= Ayes, 4, Noes, 1 (Willhoit).
2. Proposed__ Secondary ammandment to Land Use p]Bn - W. Si_mball
Partin
1.111
Smith explained the proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use
Plan for approximately 89.862 acres of a 114.022 acre tract located between
US 15 -501 and Lystra Road (SR 1915) and split by the Orange County and
Chatham County lines from Rural Buffer to Ten Year Transition. The Planning
Board reviewed this request and the vote was six in favor of the request and
two against. The Chapel Hill recommendation was for a Twenty Year
Transitions the Orange County Planning Board recommended a Ten Year
Transition designation based on the development of the area.
Smith further explained the zoning designations for the area:
1. Chapel Hill -Rl which allows for 17,000 square foot lots
and R2 which allows for 10,000 square foot lots.
2. Carrboro,- R20 which allows for 2-0,000 square foot lots and
R40 which allows for 40,000 square foot lots.
3. Chatham - Residential and Agricultural
The Planning Board also looked at the projects that had been
approved by Chapel Hill and there are four (4) projects just north of the
proposal:
1. Dogwood Place
2. Obey's Creek
3. Woodlake
4. Southbridge
Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd to approve an amendment to
the Land Use Plan extending the Ten Year transition Area for approximately
89.862 acres located between USIS -501 and Lystra Road.
Commissioner Marshall questioned the Ten instead of the Twenty
year recommendation since the water and sewer would not.be available in that
area until 1993 -1998.
Smith explained the Planning Board's recommendation for Ten Year
Transition was based on the development characteristics of the immediate
area.
Mgti on FaII&A fgr Lack of a ae_CenA
Chair Tfillhoit expressed two concerns about the request which
will determine the growth in that area.
1. does represent leapfrogging close to the County line.
2. A large portion is in Chatham County.
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to approve a change from Rural Buffer to Twenty Year Transition for
approximately 89.862 acres located between Us 15 -501 and Lystra Road based on
the pace of the development and the plans of OWASA to have water and sewer in
that area by 1998.
Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, advised that the Board could
approve a change from Ten to Twenty Year Transition but could not go from
Twenty to Ten.
VOTE: Ayes, 3s Noes, 2 (Walker and Willhoit)
3. MaJor Transportation Corridor Pxor,� (See #4W---2d in the
permanent file)
Smith presented the Major Transportation Corridor proposal that
was presented at a public hearing on January 23, 1984 for consideration by
the Board. The overlay zoning district for the I -40 corridor provides for
sign limitations, landscaping requirements and additional setbacks and
buffers. It does not affect existing land use or future single family and
61
duplex dwellings unless expanded by 50% in square footage or extended onto an
adjacent lot.
Smith summarized the changes recommended by the Planning Board.
Gledhill noted that the recommendations made by the Planning
Board were included in the copy he distributed. The only other changes were
In form and clarification and not in intent.
notion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted that the proposed amendments to Articles 4 and 6 of the
Zoning Ordinance as presented by the attorney be approved.
Chair Willhoit announced that this was not a public hearing. The
following people voiced oppositions (1) James Freeland, John Dear, Fred
Dear, Curtis Bain, Betty Mann, Jim Poris and Henry Whitfield, David Smudski.
Mary Ellen Priestly who owns 32 acares on NC86 along both sides of the
corridor spoke in favor of the proposal.
Chair Willhoit explained that the ordinance does not apply-to the
area that is in Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and does not
apply to single or two family dwellings. Only single or two family dwellings
could be built within the 100 foot buffer.
Commissioner Marshall pointed out thgt the same restrictions
contained in Orange County's Major Transportation Corridor have been approved
in Durham County, Durham City and Wake County. The 'restrictions are
necessary to do the most for the future development of our County.
Commissioner Lloyd noted that Orange County has not had any
industrial growth and feels industry wants to locate on a major highway so
they are in view of the traveling public. He expressed disagreement with the
proposal stating it unnecessary and over regulatory.
Commissioner Willhoit noted the aesthetics along a major
thoroughfare to be a plus in attracting high quality industry.
VOTE; Ayes, 31 Noes, 2 (Walker and Lloyd)
60 proposed Text Amendmeo a tg Artinl^ 9 sknA-22 Assoni a a with a►.
MTV Empasal (see fileAN-.4 in the permanent file)
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to adopt the proposed amendments to Article 9 Signs and Article 22
definitions of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the
additional signage requirements applicable within the Major Transportation
Corridor overlay district.
Those speaking in opposition of these proposed text amendments
were James Ray Freeland, Chuck Miller, Dick Knight, John Hogan, and Betty
Mann.
Commissioner Lloyd requested Gledhill to speak to the legal
ramifications of this ordinance. Gledhill noted that outdoor advertising
signs along I-85 which are properly permitted by' the North Carolina
Department of Transportation will need to be purchased by the County if the
County requires their removal. The Board can zone on aesthetics alone
provided the regulations are reasonably necessary to promote the purpose
sought and that they do not interfere with a property owner's right to use
his or her property to a "reasonable degree." The court is going to uphold
the ordinance if it finds the public benefits exceed the private property
rights lost as a result of the zoning regulation. The proposed regulations,
in the case of outdoor advertising signs, contain an amortization provision
whereby the signs may remain for a period of five years. With the exception
of having to buy the signs in order to have them removed at the end of a five
upar no -inA. r;lRahillvs opinion is there is no constitutional or statutory
62
problem wth the sign limitations and sign regulations that are proposed in
this ordinance.
Commissioner Lloyd contended that the ordinance will cost the taxpayers
and get the County into legal trouble.
Chair Willhoit requested clarification on the buying of the signs
by the County at the end of the five year amortization period.
Gledhill indicated that the requirement is that the County must
pay for the removal of signs that are erected in accordance with a valid
Department of Transportation permit and that this is a statutory requirement,
not a constitutional requirement. This act requires local governments to
compensate the owners of signs validly permitted by the state under its
permit process. The amortization provisions are constitutionally based and
determine if the sign has remained long enough after being prohibited for the
owner to recover the money on his investment. Five years has been
determined to be'a sufficient time by the North Carolina Courts to satisfy
this requirement.
Commissioner Walker recommended to table the ordinance until the
Board ,fully discusses all the things that will be done when the signs are
removed and the plan for compensation to the people has been determined and
also further time to study the information just received from the attorney.
Commissioner Lloyd seconded the motion.
VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 3 (Commissioners Willhoit, Marshall and Whitted)
VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Walker and
Lloyd)
5. PrnpnSed Zoning 0rdinanrC Text Amen . mantg - LaarjaC&Djag an8
_ Screening RPQt {*gam (see file 4'9Yd in the Clerk's permanent file for a
copy of these zoning ordinance text amendments)
Smith presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments for
Landscaping and Screening Requirements. - The proposed text amendments would
establish procedures for plan review and approval as well as'standards for
landscaping off - street parking and loading areas, and screening between
incompatible land uses. Proper installation standards would be designated to
insure the life of new plants and protection of existing vegetation would be
encouraged. The amendment would apply primarily in Ten and Twenty year
Transition Areas and Activity Nodes where commercial, industrial and
medium/high density residential development would occur. Single family
dwellings and duplexes would not be affected by the amendment.
Motion was, made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to adopt the proposed Article 12 - Landscaping and
Screening Requirements.
VOTE: Ayes, 3; Noes, 2 (Commissioners Walker and Lloyd)
6. groglamati,QD - Rane PreYCniA pn Booth (see file MALAWfin the
Clerk's Permanent file)
Potion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall Co proclaim the month of June as Rape Prevention Month.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
NOTE: At 11:15 Commissioners Walker and Lloyd left the meeting.
# _ for a copy of contract agreement)
Thompson presented this amendment to Orange County's October 4,
1962 contract with the N.C. Department of Administration. This contract
enabled Orange County to receive $4,219 in State matching funds for the
purchase of computer equipment to be installed in Carrboro to provide access
to the Land Records System in.the southern end of the County.
iiotion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to approve the amendment to Orange County's October 4,
1983 contract with the N.C. Department of Administration.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Housing_ Rababi13tati_on egatrAcrt Award
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to award one Rousing Rehabilitation Contract as follows:
D_U.# MEE CONTRACTOR BID_ MOUNT
88 Daye Street Taylor Home Improvements $10,960.00
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9. entrant for Direct Mail of Fnnd Stamp Cnilnons
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to approve an extension agreement for the direct mail of
Food Stamp Coupons for which the funds are included in the agency 84 -85
budget.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10. Contract for T.egal Aarzjc&jL for Dement of Sec" ;Sgr ec
Thompson explained this agreement as a continuation of the
agreement between Northern and Little (attorneys) and Orange County.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to continue the agreement between Northern and Little
and Orange County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11. Tax Refund Recd en
Kermit Lloyd, Tax Supervisor presented seven- (7) request for
refunds as follows:
TAXDAXER ACCg=Ni1MRRR AND IM R .F[R DED
Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. 34052 $ 23.97
E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co. 34238 238.23
Milton C. & Evelyn ti. Albrecht 15514 46.27
Victor B. & Nancy H. Thegze 55695 42.09
Victoria Neal Ralston 73301 62.15
Erle E. & Mary L. Peacock 69501 194.53
Robert T. Anderson 63455 116.28
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by
Commissioner Whitted to approve all seven refund requests as presented by the
Tax Supervisor.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
F. T ON THE =ATUS OF EFFORTa TO aAr I COUNTY TO EPHOUE .sv�EM
PROBLEMS
Mark Rees, Director of Purchasing, told the Board that additional
incoming lines have been added to handle the incoming calls. Also, some
telephone lines have been rededicated to more efficiently take care of
outgoing calls. Lines will be monitored to determine the peak hours.
ADTOURNLENT
Motion was made by Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to adjourn the meeting.
Don Willhoit, Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
64