HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840123U~~
1
.TOI1`'T PLF,TdT•IING BEARING
January 23, 1884
'~ I~~~OT•:AIIS~S~QP2E~:~_~ESEI~~_
Don Cs'illhoit (chair) . Shirley T•larshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman C•~?alker, Richard
T?hitted.
p ~ is r=~ ~a S ~4 A~ P _ l? R~ ~+~,
Alice Cordon, (Acting Chair), Valerie Greenberg, Steve I:izer, Tdancy
i
_._ Laszlo, Frank Pea.rsan, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanl:lin, Carl V7alters.
PI~A~717~~,~D.%_F PP.ES ~EY'T:
Alarvin Collins, Jeff Coutu, Susan Smith, Joanna Bradshaw, Sue Snaman
PUBLIC HEARINGS- Chairec by Alice Gordon
Proposed Principal Amenament to the Land Use Plan requested by Trendsetter
•ciomes, 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 TIC £36/Eubanl:s Roar (5R 1727) intersection from Rural Buffer to
Twenty-Rear Transition.
It was noted by Smith t)~at this was a secondary amendment, not a principal
amendment as specified on the abstract.
Presentation by Smith as follows:
The applicant, Trendsetter Homes, Inc., has requested an arnenciment to the
Land Use Plan for Oranue County to redesignate approximately 20 acres of a
tract identifies: on Ta:: Asap 18 as Lot 8, located on the north site of Eubanks
Road west of A'C 86 in Chapel Hill To'vlnship and containing 43.66 Gcres frog
Rural Buffer to Twenty Year zrarsitiar_. The portion of the lot under
consideration fronts on SR 1727 Eubanks Road.
The redesignation of an area from one plan category to anotl-,er requires
the application of locational criteria to determine suitability for
redesignatior, 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, anti population
density. The area meets the criteria for land slope, hydrology, flora anG
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 locatiar_al criteria
_- public services/utilities, transportation system, existing land use and
population density.
With regard to public services and utilities the locational criteria for
the Ten Xear Transition Area assur.~es that the area is or can reasonably and
efficiently be served by centralized public services and utilities. OTvASA has
provided same comments on the extension of public water and sever to servo the
area. Both water and sewer facilities extend as far as Timberlyne Shopping
Center located northeast of the site, south or" Cleaver Dairy Foal. Cvith the
construction of the Aiunn •Iountain elevates water tanl: later this year south of
Timberlyne, water sezvice could be extended to the area and beyond. Hovrever,
the area under consideration is located in the i3e1;~ Rope Creel: sub-basin. Tl~e
sub-basin runs approxiraateiy throuch the southernmost portion of A~orthwoods
subc;ivision lacated south of the araa under consideration. OT~ASb mss nnr.
U~~
z
extended public sewer service into the New Hope Creel: sub-basin at this time.
Ertensian of seraer service Trill require decision as to the appropriateness,
desareability Gnd feGsibality of extending services into a new sub-basin on a
pump system basis. Given the presence of Nozthwoods subdivision, an
industrially zoned tract, two corsiercially zoned tract and considerable
development interest in the Eubanks/NC 86 area, the issue of servicancl a neer
sub-basic. neecs to be considered seriously. Mince water service could easily
-- be provided, oI9ASA has indicated that at is preferable to e~:tend water and
sewer services at the same tare, rather tY~an allow for disjointed service
provision. However, Oi•7ASA at this time is not interested in financing sucY,
service- ~::~~nsion, but would look favorably on the extension of lines by a
developer to serve a given area so long as the line site 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 'ras access to NC 86, which is an arterial road,
from Eubanks Road. The proposed construction of 2-~0 will require the
acquisition of the eastern portion of the original tract for the right-of-tvay
for T-40 and also the realignment of Eubanks P.oad at the I-~0/IIC 86
interchange.
E~cistang land uses in the area include the following: to the nori.h,
undeveloped land and 2-nQ, to the east, single family residential units and
1-90; to the 50uth, Northvroods subdivision, a subdivision of single zanily
units, a chuck and undeveloped land; to the west undeveloped land, a warehouse
facility, an undeveloped andustri~lly zoned tract and the County landfill.
Considerable residential and commercial development has and as continuing to
take place to the south cf the area along NC 86 and teTeaver Dairy Road. The
area south of the proposes alignment of I-~40 is facinc, 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 interstai:e 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 urea in the ti•~eaver Dairy Road area to the south
east is moderate to high and will continue to increase in density. The absence
of population Brest 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 as one unit the acre on a cor:~r:unity water system and indavic:ual
septic tanks and is already established.
Two other consaderGtions need to be made in evaluating the araendment
recuest. The first consideration is that at the time the Land Use 1?lan was
develaed and adopted the County was still in litigation with .the State over the
proposed alignment of X-n0 through Orange County. The Land Use Plan categories
for the area under consideration reflect planning criteria e.hich cad not fully
recognize the presence of the 5-40 corridor immediately east and north of tY:e
tract.
The second consideration is that as part of their final, activati.es the
.joint Planning Corunission recorunended that given the trencr in development
patterns around the Torrns of Chapel Bill and Carrboro that the Ten Year
Transition F~rea be extended north to the edge of the Rural >;ufzer and the
Tv,=enty Year Transition Area b2 shifted sau~h of the Towr. of Chpel I3i11. iJo
action was taken on the recommendation.
os~
3
It was notes by Smith that Chapel Hill Planning TaoGrd wished to hole the
public hearing open for its comrients to he made at the Pinning Board's Februari~
6, 1984 meeting.
i~iarshall cautioned the Planning Board and staff to give careful
corsideratin to the "thawing away" of the Rural Buffer. Smith noted there was
a Forth Chapel Y.ill area study undervray which vaould address this matter.
L.E. Alive noted that this property is relatively close to the County
landfill. f?e expressed concerns for wells anti the extremely high water table
near the landfill. He suggested enpert advice on the landfill is needed before
a. decision is made on this request. He also expressed interest ir. the
protection of idew Ylope Creek for zesearch purposes and referred to a resolution
passed some years ago by the worth Carolina Board of T•later and Air Resources on
s
this item.
Daster Smith of Trendsetter domes states; Trendsetter had no intentions of
installing v:ells and that the preference is for public utilities which has
already been discussed with OWASA. Given all factors, this area deserves
bearing of transition category.
L?ith no further public corrsnent, the Board Gdjourned the Land Use Plan
amendment public hearing to the Eoarc: of County Commissioners meeting on
February 21, 198Q to receive the Orange County anti Tovm of Chapel Bill Planning
EoarG's cor•,ments and recommendations.
PE-1-84 (Flapped Development) - Hampton Doeans, Inc. I~tarvin Collins,
Planning Director, and Rick Cannity (representing the developer), were sworn
in.
Collins made lrY?e presentation as_ follows: Hampton Dawrs; Inc. is
requesting that the zoning be changed on 29.7 acres of property located south
of the Southern Railroac and wrest o~ N.C. Highway 8G. The property is c;ireatly
adjacent on the west to the proposed TJildvrood Subdivision - Phase II. Tt is
shown as a portion of lot 4 of Tax.ieap 45 - Hillsborough Township.
The present zoning is R-1 Residential which would allow one (1)
residential dwelling unit per acre.
The requester zoning is Planned Development iiousin.g/R-8 Pesidential
(PDH-R8) vrhich would allow ua to eight (8) cwellinc units per acre with a
minimum lot area requirement of 5,000 sc. feat per swelling unit. A special
use permit would also be recuired. This applicant has submitted a site plan
for approval which indicates that 237 townhouse units would be constructer on
the -site. Fecreational facilities are also proposed, including a swirr.ing
pool, clubhouse, walking/jog5ing trails and natural areas.
Property to the north of the site is vacant and zoned R-1 Residential. To
the south ant: west is also vacant land with similar zoning designations.
_.. ._ Property 'to the east is wor;ed R--4 and R-5 Residential and is under development
as ~?ildwood Subdivision - Phases I and II. .
--- The Lane Use Plan desicnation for the property was changed on i•:arch 7,
1983, from 20 Year ^ransition and Rural F.esic~ential to l0-Year Transition. The
change eras made in conjunction with a rezoning request foz an F,-~: designation
on an adjacent 10-acre tract to the east (T•aildwood 5ubdivisior,--Phase I).
The intent of the R-8 district is to provide locations for high-intensity
residential development and supporting recreational, community, service gnu
educational uses in areas where the full range of urban services are avGil~.:ble.
The Zoning Ordinar_ce states that Iris district will usually be applied
where the following conditions e~:ist:
(1) The area is designates by the adopted Land Use Plan as Transition
o~~
a
Area which can reasonably be anne::ed by a riunicipality in the ensuing 10-20
years.
(2) t'~ater and set•:er lines should e~:ist at the site or be assured of
installation as pant of the deveiopraent process.
(3) Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street classified
as either arterial or collector as r:esign2ted by the adopted Land Use Plan.
(n) The full range of urban services e:;ist or are proposed at the tine of
the development including fire, police, recreation, education, corcmercial ar,d
cultural activities.
As indicated previously, the property in cuestior. has been designated as
10-Year Transition in the Land Use Plan by action of the Board of Commissioners
in I•iarch 19E3.
~'he property noes not have "direct access" to the North Carolina Highway
86, a route which has peen designated as an "arterial" in the Land Use x'lan.
Access to the site is by way of existing or proposed residential streets W:11Ch
traverse Y:ildwood Subdivision. A requirement that the portion. of the proposes
Oakdale Drive Extension adjacent to the development be reserved, and subsecyuent
construction, of the same, trould provide access <long--term) to a "collector"
street approved as part of the Central Crange Land Use Plan.
j•~ater and setaer lines have been or are being extended to serve the
property. Initial service t:ould be provided by way of an e~:tension of a six
inch tuater line from baildvrood Subdivision Phase I. Staff proposes that a 12
inch line to be extended to ;}ildwood Subdivision-Phase TI be etended to serve
latter phaSe5 of tiarapton Dovrns and provide a complete loop system with better
water pressure.
Sewer lines are available to serve the site, and they e~:tenci along the
entire eastern boundary of the project. These lines connect to a pump station
located near F7ilmore Electronics.
Police and fire protection t•:ould be provided by the Orange Courtin
Sheriff's Department and the Orange Rural Fire Distzict respectively. No
problems in providing service to the development are anticipated, provided fire
hydrants are installed.
In terms cf the impact on schools, development of the property at P,-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. Hich, Stanback diddle School, and Orange High School.
The LUT. or Land Use Intensity System comes into play on this rec,+u est.
Specifically, it applies to all projects located in R-5, R-8 or R-13 zoning
districts. It a~}plies because of the high-density nature of sucri ~:rojects and
sets standards for open space, recreation, liveability, and building spacing.
These .standards lave been met with one e:;ception. The applicant is required to
provide 1.25 acres of recreational space for the use of the residents. I~iore
than tY-,at amount has been designated on the plan, but it includes an access
easement specifically required as part of the Glildtvood Subdivision development.
Since it was required for that site and is not a part of the Hampton Dotens
development, it cannot be counted in the acreage figure.
Another problem faith the recreation space provided is the applicant has
included pedestrian paths and t•:alkways in the area calculation. Specific
designations as to which tralkways are included for recreational purposes must
be shovan on the site plan and revised area cor,~putatiors provided.
As shown it is unclear as to whether t•~alks between parking areas anc,
buildings have been included. Such walks trould not be counted as meetinn
rcr-raai-inr~, ; grace reci:iremen.ts.
~~IG
5
A final problem is relates to the swimming pao 1/clubhouse facility. The
.pool does not include an area large enough to serve the projected 600-~
resic.ents that vaould ultimately reside in the development. The pool is only
slightly larger than 1,000 sc. feet in area, and a pool of 2,000-2,F00 seu~:re
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 vaill be known.
Ir_ 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 Orcinance contains these standards and indicates the
purpose zor such a district designation - the establishment, for specialized
purposes, where tracts suitable in locata.on, area and character for the uses
and structures proposed are to be planned and developed on a unifiec7 basis.
Section 7.14 of the mooning Ordinc.nce contains those standards which apply
specifi.Cally to Planned Development-Iiausing 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 storr:~ drainage plan for the development must be prepared, shoe;ing
how drainage caill be handled in relation to proposed building. and parking
areas.
(2). Recreational plans must be revised to delete the access easement
serving Y7ildwood Subdivision-Phase II. Recalculation of those pedestrian aths
included as part of the recreation system must be provided and those paths
designated on the plan. The proposed pool ;gust be enlarged to serve the
population projected in the development, and plans £or the clubhouse ~>rovided,
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. Connedions 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 indica4ion that sewer lines will be located at a
sufficient c,epth to attain a gravity flow.
D. An additional manhole is needed in one line which makes a bend
or curve.
(~). Proposed caater distribution plans must be revised, where necessary,
to address the following::
A. Extend the 12-inch water line in the proposed Oakdale Drive
E:aension as shoe:°n on the plans for I~iildwood subdivisior. Phase II
to correct with the six-inch line running through f:arrpton Dooms to
form a loop system. The six-inch line proposed for [•lalter C1arl:e
Drive may then be deleted.
5. Two additicral hydrants are recuired, and two others must be
relocated to provide a total of five hydrants, all more or less
ecually spaced 500' apart.
C. All dead end Iwo-inch water lines must have blov;-off valves to
clear stagnant caater.
i~~
D. All tyro-inch ~•rater lines serving s0 or more units must be
upgraded to four-inch lines.
(5). Comments concerning traffic circulation are as follovas:
A. The proposed Oakdale Drive must be shoem on the plan with a
notation that the road is to be built to Piorth Carolina Department
of Transportation standares during Phase 3. This thoroughfare is
needed to provide access to a collector street and to implement
part of the approved central Orange Land Use Plan.
B. The proposed ti;alter Clar}: Drive does not align properly with
. the stub-out shoran on the plan for T~Tildwood Subdivision-Phase zz.
Corrections to the plan must be made to account for this,
C. A major concern is the use of swales ir. conjunction with a
private road. Slopes are step (Above 10ti) in some portions of the
site, and scaales may require a higher level of maintenance for
hameocrners association. Plans for the development of the swales
must be submitted tah ich indicate how the proposed private roar is
to be constructed and how the sraales relate to it from a
construction standpoint. Tn areas where slopes exceed 1D;, tY,e use
of curb and gutter section is strongly recommended.
(6) . Additicnal coruaents are as follows:
A. Specific use of facilities and property must be clearly
delineated on the plan. This would include the swiran,ing pool anG
associFted recreational facilities, parking areas, peuestrian paths
buildings, etc.
B. Additional. comr.~ents and cocuments eahirh indicate how the
praposeG homeo~~ners association will operate.
C. Designation of number of indivic:ual off-street pari;ing spaces
and specific count.of such spaces. Some redesign of access drive
and parking areas is necessary to be functional.
Carnity mace the follo~~ring presentation, as representative of rhp
developer:
The proposer: >:ampton Docans project represents a first far ivortl~ern Oran,+e
county. This development ~~ail1 offer attached single famil;~> housing for sale in
the price range of 50,000-S4S,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 Yiouse buyers;. this may
include students of area universities, medical professionals and technicians.
Since the units are only 2 becrooms and less than 1000 sq. feet in site
it is not anticipated that there Drill be a larger number of school age chil~ren
_ living in Hampton downs. zt is the c:evelopers intent tc build a project t,7hich
will fill a housing need ir. r7ortherr. Orange County and which will be ar. asset
--- to the community.
There are several items which need to be addressed based on the planning
staff revieva and the continued discussions with the developers. These chances
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 12'. This will allow the hor~eo~aners
association to control more area around the perimeter of the site
and maintain the natural buffer.
(2). It is proposed that no building ~~rill be closer than 50' to
t-hn nrn^,ar;-~ ~ -; nP , i n ar3r ; r i nn G:P nrnoose a 35' natura 1 area ~•:ithin
~o~.
the 50', the otter 15' would be used as yard areas and for drainacc
ways around units. As much as possible of the 50' area will be
left in a natural state.
In the zeczeation area we are proposing to add a volleyball court near file
swimming pool and clubhouse. A nature area will be designated in the loop of
the jogging trails. This area will be used far passive recreation b}~ the
residents of Hampton Dovms. The club house is proposed to be 2300 square feet.
Included within the clubhouse will be bathhouse facilities, restroorns, meeting
areas, offices nor the homeovrners association, a sales office, a kitchen azea,
- wet bar, and vending machine area. There may also be a game raorn stiith pool
tables, ping pong and video games for use by residents. The proposed
recreation area available. to Hampton Downs residents will e::ceed the area
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The following comments are directec toward
the Planning Staff's revie~~ of Hampton Downs:
Utilities: It is proposed that the Town of flillsborough would maintain
the utility system for Hampton Downs. This would include the crater
distribution system; up to the ir_dividual meters and all sewer lines 3" or
greater in size. The access road and all p«rking areas will be dedicated as
easements for utilities and access. In addition, setter lines will be placed
within easements. In the final design of the utility layout sewer lines svi11
be placed outside of any Grea to be decided to individuals, however designated
sewer a«sements may encroach into these deeded lots, as necessar}~.
67e are in basic ag.-eer:~ent with the staff concerns about the water system.
The proposed layout of fire.hydzants meets the minimum required far fire
protection and we feel that it is adec,~uate. The fire cY:ief should have the
... _.: final say on the appropriate location of hydrants.
Access and Road Construction: The access for phase 1 of Hampton Dovrns
- will be through G~tildwood via John Brickenridge Drive. That road will serve
approximately 26 lots in G~~ildsvood Subdivision Section 1. It eras stubbed out to
allow it to be continued through this property. It is the intention of the
developers to build a private road in Iiampton Downs which will have a cross
section very similar to a Z•aved 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 consiciered adequate by the state foz roads which they
maintain and we believe they will prove adequate for Har.;pton Downs. xn those
areas vrhere the slope exceeds 10~; we can place rip rap in the svrales to reduce
the velocity of. the storm water. l•?e 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.
G•?e 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 storm vratez. The storm c.rGinage system Trill utilize sheet
drainage where possible.
On the site plan there are several sediment structures shown c~rhich
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
structures are no longer used they will be stablized themselves and planteci.
The major differences between the planning staff and the cevelopers
r
~o~
concern the need for curb and softer in the access road and some off-site
construction the planning staff feels is necessary for this project.
T have already discussed the Swale vs. curb and cutter. 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 t,ie proposed
Oakdale Drive extension, and the construction cf that portion of the roar: that
.would run along the project boundary. P7e 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. Tf and
when the road connects new ant old S6 it will be used by far greater numbers of
vehicles that is projected for Hampton Downs and 47ildwood Development. It
should serve as a service road for 2-85 and reduce the number of vehicles which
y
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. feast of the streets in Udildwood 4•roLld fit into
the local; sub callector or even possibly tk:e collector category. T1:ese
streets should be able to carry the increase in vehicle trips associated <<*ith
Hampton Downs. For these reasons we do not feel it should be the
responsibility or the developers of I3ampton 17owns to construct the proposed
Oakdale Drive extension.
Gordon inquired of Collins what kind of road John Breckenridge Drive erould
be. Collins replied residential street and if Han-~pton Dawns was approved it
could become a sub-co ].lector or collector street. Gorton inquired further if
it would meet the reuuirements. The answer was that it was designated as a
collector street.
Gordon also raised the question of Oa!:dale 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 10G' setback
and the proposed 50' setback. Collins responded that the PD-I•i district
requires a 100' setback arpund 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 ],caving a much
larger area to the cast in its natural state.
2•ir. Olive inquired how much crater ~+ould be used by the proposed
development. 2~_r. Cannity coulc not answer the question
Barbara Page from the audience asked if the ilOllSeS would be stick-built or
modular as this would impact on the schools and tax base. The answer by
Cannity was stick built.
t•ir. Horace Johnson, Town of Hillsborough Commissioner, was sworn in. He
_ addressed the public water/server cuestion indicating that there are problems
regarding water service provision.
-. He continued that the lines must be dedicated to the Totan before takeover.
The tov;n will require that all plans must be prepared by a certified engineer'"
and be submitted to the Town and State fcr revievr and approval. The lines will
be constructed privately and the State must certify the person(s) doing the
tap-ans. t~_r. ,7ohnson further noted that at the present time water pressure is
low in the Hampton Downs area.
~~~
9
l-path no further e~uesta.ons or evidence on this item the public hearing ryas
adjourned until February 21, 1QS4 to receive the Planning Board recor:.r.;encataan.
Z-1-Sr (Rezoning Reruest) - T,'ood Brothers, Inc.
Presentation by Coutu.
The request is for rezoning from R-1 Residential to GC-4 General Corsaercial
to enable commercial development as well as office use. The property is
located across from the present l~ioods Brothers office site. The lot size as
- 4.74 acres or 212,137.20 scuare feet and at present is vacant land.
Ta the north as existing and projected single-fama.ly residential
development (t4alc!tsood Subdavi Sion zones P.-4 & R-5 Residential and Joppa Oa;;s
Subdivisicn zoned R-2 Residential). To the south is Duke Universat~~ School of
Farestry (Duke University Toter Class--"B" Special Use Permit) and single-family
residences zoned R-1 Residential district. To the east is Piedmont Pourer
Company coned Planned Development-Office Institutional, and single-fG-roily
residences zoned P.-1 Residential. To the vrest is hoods Brothers, Inc. (4•.94
acres tract); various commercial uses on 2.R4 acres zoned Existing Commercial-~
and single family Names, mobile rorles and duplexes on 2.0 acres zoned R-1
Residential. The subject property is within the node, as revised in 4he
adopted Central Orange Area Plan, and located at the intersection of Interstate
85. and NC 86. The plan category for this node is Conunercial-Industrial
Transition.
Section n.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the district desigration
-. .' will be applied whey, the follooring conditions exist:
_ 1. Tl~e site is wathan an area designated as either Comrlercaal or
Industrial Transition ~lctivaty Tiode, l:y the adopted Land Use Plan in Eno or
__.. Hillsborough. Townships.
Staff Comment: As indicated previously, the site is within the Y);-4,
Harmon Young nods which is designated in the Land Use Plan as a Commercial-In-
dustriGl Activity P:ade and is located in Hillsborough Township.
2. U:ater and setrer 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 o;: taater supply and sewage disposal.
Staff Comment: t4ater and sanitary sewer service can be provided by the
Totvn of Hillsborough thrcugh an extension of the facilities previously
installed to serve the t~talctvood Development. Notaever, water ar~d seorer service
will not be available to this site until the totm receives approval frorn the
state for the facilities trhich were installed for the ~Tildwood Development.
Depending an density, the site will probably be served by an individual well
and septic tank; of more than one use, public water and setrer is likely.
3. All property to be designated for new development under this
- classification shall have direc~ access to major collector streets, as
designated by the adopted Land Use Plan.
Staff Comment: The subject property is located within the ~IB_4 Activity
Y.ode. This node is focused on the interchange at the intersection of an
interstate (I-~5) ant an arterial highway (IdC86). This site is located and has
direct access on the east side of an arterial (ivC86) as 6esicnated in the Land
Use Plan.
There were no questions and ro citizen comments.
The public heGrang ryas adjourned until February 7.1, 1984 to receive the
Planning Eoard comments.
Proposec:tiajor Transportation corridor ([~,TC) District presented by Smith as
follows:
1Q5
zo
[,ajor transportation corridors, whether interstates or heavily traveled
secondary rands, serve as both movers of traffic and as entranceways to the
County from outside areas. These corridors and the aevelonnent which occurs
along them establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator of the
Cuality of life in the County, as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic
movement through the area. Tn addition, the ability of c.ifferent areas cf the
County to attract and accomodate different types of development often depends
on the capacity of the thoroughfare systerl and the character and cuality of
development along the major corridors.
It is the intent of Orange County to protect the attractiveness and orderly
develo~~ment of land and enhance those natural and environmental features ~vliich
constitute important ph,Tsical, aesthetic, recreational anc] 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.
The PSajar 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 revs structure within the IiTC
district shall comply with the use regulations applicable to the underlying
zoning district as well as the recuirements of the I2TC district. Tne 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 biiC district:
a. shall be applied to lands adjacent to I--~0 and T-a5;
-- b. may be applied by additional action of the F3oard to any major
thoroughfare designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan including, bu:. not
- limited to US 70, T?C 54, idC 86, t~C S7 and Old 86.
r.. 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 1•ebane, fIillsborough,
Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
d. the cistrict shall extend up to 1,250 zest from the right-of-way on
each side of the roadway, except at interstate interchanges cohere the nistrict
shall extend x,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 eisting prier to the application of the district unless structurally
altered to the e::tent of increasing the floor area. by fifty percent or more or
enlarged to occupy a vacant lat.
..._ The provisions of this district shall not apply to any single or two family
dwelling existing or to be erected. ivo construction activity shall begin nor
shall any e:ccavation, 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.
I•;here an individual property has been rendered unusable due to
establishment of t'r_e yard setback, there may be grounds for a variance.
Variances shall be considered and granted by the Eoard of F~djustment. 1?owever,
the hoard of Adjustment shall ensure that the applicant compensa4e in
ecuivalent landscaping improver:ent for ary encroachment into the yard ar buffer
area.
.'~Q~
11
The site plan recuirements ~~re as follows:
Each application .f or a building permit shall be accompanied by a site plan
or plans which show the information specified in the proposed te:,:t.
Proposed site standards include:
a) Conforr.~ance with the landscaping and screening requirements in proposes
Article 12 ,~~;,sc~niAga_s~BS_Ss~3.•.~~A.lA~.
b> The provision of a 1G0 f-oot auffer area frari the edge cf the
right-of-way of an interstate highway that shall rennin in its natural state Gt
the time of construction where ~aooded and landscaped ir. accordance with an
approved plan vahich takes into consideration the growth and maturity of
existing trees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in the buffer, anti other
landscaping factors. 4~ithin 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 regarcless 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 v.idth of the district at these interchanges.
e) Conformance with off-street parkin, requirements specified in article
10 Off S$~~Q~ parkinan~;_yg,~~jp~
f) Conformance with the signage requirements of ArticlE 9 ~~~
Proposed amendments to the Article .~ would not allow outdoor advertising in the
PITC district, and would restrict signs to incidental and information signs
only.
g) A ninirium of 25~ of the total area shall remain in its natural
vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas witl; trees 12" in
diameter at breast heicht shall be retainer and set aside to meet the
requirement before other areas are so used. Commissioner I~7i11hoit referred to
6.24.2 and suggested usina the term "circumference" instead o~ "diameter" and
define the term or instead of "breast high" use a standarc height.
Myron I•iartin of I:illsborourh Planning Board stated that with the impact of
I-40, this board also wants to consider and make recommendations on the
proposal.
B.R. Olive urged the Boards to provide protection for the Upper Ivew Hope
Cree}: basin. riew f?ope Creek has been used for research and it is important to
avoid spills. fie noted that catch basins maintained by DOT wculd be most
useful. fie added there is also a possibility of danger to Duke Forest.
John I~icAdams, engineer and representative of 3.P. Goforth, fElt that the
proposal would benefit the County and he does support site planning, }%et he
feels a I00' buffer is inequitable and amounts to G "taking of land". fie
referred to DOa procedures and actions on acquiring lands for the T-40
right-of-way.
t7hitted clarified the proposal does not apply to single and two family
dwelings. I:izer added it does apply to nigher residential densities.
T•7illhoit asked if the basis far I;OT's requisition and settlement was
residential property. i~IcAc;ams responded it was the status of the property at
the time not enhancement value.
f~IcAdaras stressed that care shouts be taken sp that the proposal is
equitable so that tae do not end up with a very pleasing visual buffer for the
good of the entire cor:;munity and the transepts the cost of vahich buffer is
borne by the property ovaners within the district.
3U'~
12
Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this ropcsal Griounted tc
taking land vrith no compensation. H2 felt it was excessive and that property
owners were being forced into accepting T-40. Fie comr:rented that the cancerr.
~•ras keeping the land green, but with no compensation for owners and that lane
was effectively removed from the tax base.
Herter Smith expressed concern with 'u .24..4, the 25v natural vegetation
provision. He c?uestianed the provision where there is no existing vegetation.
Henry i•7hitfield, property owner in the I-40 corridor, noted that the
corridor would cost the ovrners he represented about 10 acres of property.
Accordng to tir. Whitfield tire buffer v:auld take an additional 23 acres v;ith ro
payment to ovrners. He was particularly concerned with land split by the
corridor.
[=iz. ti•7hitfield asked for a shoc~r of hands fcr property owners ir. the corric::or
in favor and against the buffer. This shovred approxiriately 25 against and 5 in
favor of the buffer.
He felt that site plans would take care of the fear of contamination of the
J.andscape with unsightly builcincs. F(izer, Plan;,ing Board member, noted that
it is important to understand t_r. 11cAdams paint that this proposal constitutes
an uncompensated "taking". Fie continued that it should be a point cf order to
prevent a "taking" of land inadvertently or intentionally. Since he felt this
might result in an uncompensated "taking", he recuested that the County
Attorney comrnert an the possibility of an illegal talcing of land.
Commissioner i~+Ti11Y'ioit noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire
ordinance fcr legality.
Ron [Merritt of Pdorth~,oods Horieowners Association ineruired about property
owners bein, notified of particular applications and perr,~it approvals for
development. t;hittec rioted that changing the underlying zoning crould recyuire
notice. Fierritt stated he would lid:e to see the inclusion of a provision
regarding notire of adjoining property owners within 1000 feet for building
permit approvals far sites with correct zoning.
Joe Izistler, propert~r owners Gdjacent to 2-40 but outside of 100' buffer,
urged the Board to consider individuals beyond the corridozs. He indicated
vegetation is very important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers
could pursue creative uses of land within the statutes.
Jack I.losely, owner of the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns
regarding signs such as his directional sign for customers off Iv.C. 36.
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 fariily houses were not subject to the prOAOSed
development standards. She clarified that both single family houses and
- duplexes can be developed with normal setbacks inc. without being subject to
- vegetation provisions.
•. i•IcAdams ruestioned the application of the 100' setback to approval of six
(6) subnivisions and their. designs. If so, he continued, tY:is must be
qualified in the communication to the public regarding single and tyro-family
dvrellings.
The public hearing was adjourned until the February 2]., 1954 public hearing.
Proposed Text F,mendraent~ to Article 9 Signs
Presentation as follows by Smith:
The proposed text an:endr:;ents to Art].Cle 9 5i__w _ns address tore main issues:
1) the types of signs permitted in the idiC district and 2) the placement of
outdoor advertising outside the I-_TC district.
1~~
Out~oor acvertisinc, liens are ofa-~rer.ise.signs by the outdoor advertisinc
industr~~ anu rela4inr __. i.ts. subject ratter to a business, ser~~ce, cor~::ocitz;,
attraction or ot_~er activit~,- cor_c?•uctec„ sold or offerer z.t a location other
than t11e i~reTt11SL'S O^ ?'rl?~Ch 4.'7e Sl;'; IS loaateG.
"'lzn ^,ro~:.oseu w-~rdrierts .}~oulc. also li mat the nurr~er ~,nc s;-r:o of
inform~ationa signs in the i TM' district.
outside the ~""~ district *he proposer: arlersinents ~~;ould limit outdoor
acvertising signs place:~rt to ~.rec~s designated as activity nodes in ~-~e L,nc
Use plrn zna sites s~cificalltT gored General Ccr:~rcial (^Ca•) and Industrial
.... lr'r enc. 3 located adjacent tD i?C ~"u, "_?C 57, *?C 5~', ??C 70. 'I'l:e rrDposwls ~.1so
include a ?provision for spacin7 of Dutdoor ac.v°rtising ~ahich a Nlies to 1000'
radius spacing liru.t bet-?,-een lisps.
a
C:;~`~2',C:IL'r CatC'3, 1nuE'72n`'Cnt i,1L'rChant, nDtedLrtdt .:i].Gn3 ZrL' c^~lread1r
re7ulatec; ay State anu ?ec;Frri rec+ulations. ~Ie further notea the Cow'~t}~ gets
to of all sales tai: revenue fro-; retail merchants ~;ho acvertise.
'•:illt~oit nuestiened :he role signs play in generatinc local iilco::~ any'
~..:.er. stc^.f to ebtin .~tuclies o:'. 1'~O,a effective signs ~rere as ~ ~~ans to
generate local business. He thought in=orr.tional anu logo lisps ~_~ere trc
primary means to gcrerate business a.4 intercha:^.ges. with responder: the staff
,scald obtain stuc:ins.
'°e 13oarn discusser loco signs.
Toe Crea+s of I:cAc.•lalcs rotes sales increase: cf 2~• to 450• t•rith lco sig~.s.
Tie also felt cstaalisz-gents which cannot use a logo (: uch ~.s Dar.:.ol r~one
Village) should be allo;•r.::~ to nlrce signs on ti,~ interstate.
-- Chucf: '7illard, president of i7a.riel i;oone Merchants Association, e;;r,ressec:
concern erith the reov_1 of signs advertising t±~e Daniel ?3oone Village anc: i:.s
businesses or. Znterst~.te fi5. z~.e cites possible loss of income v:ith sig
reno•~al. with res~r~:ed the i/roposa'_ does not affect lisps in 4he.
uillsborough ,jurisdiction and if a sign in the County's jurisdiction :•><zs found
to be nonconforring, "sere is a five year removal period ~~•hich reflects tine
ti~x? necessary for a7ortization of the investment.
~z ur.icentified ran .~sl:ed t'.1at an ..:.am^le o_ logo signs :oe prepare~~.
t•?l;itted clarified only gas, food an. lodgirr estaalishrents are ~hotan or. logD
signs.
Smith indicates cost savings could be realized through use of logo lisps,
citing the state averace yor sicn rental is 52,000-53,C00, and for loco rental
:~ras only 5150.00. to;~d uestionec w7e high figures. Crews inc7icater'. he could
vouch for t'~e rigures for_ic~or,4'±1d's adverb serent.
ferny Cecil, o~;•r:er of iufland Gulf. Station on r-85 invicat~ his reliance or:
signs and advertising to cor..~te ~•:ith other gas establish,lents.
_- ~Terr~• ~aile~~, :Iillsborauh ~a^.ip1 scone Shill, ir,ciicated one-third of Y:i:
business of the interstate e:as venerated by his his;~-rise Nign. :.e adder ~'~e
• - - orgy gray to sell is i~o ::orr:ete. He notes rt3ny trzvelers loot; f0!' c. S~.eC1f1C
cgs or lociginv establish::~nt.
`?ilL~oit clarified .the purpose of logo sig:>a was to inform the gaveling
pub;.ic oy the snscific esta,;~~1i s:u:~nt. Bailey re; rx,; deg that e. s`7eci f i c vas
reference rat= be a fu11 service station or auic;:ie-r:art. Another indivi?ua'
noted the ebsence of ~ricea r;? th logo si g~~s.
john Bivins cited t1.e benefit realizes trrou;h outdoor asvertisi:le~ on I-85
to the Colonial ?nn.
Jir" Paliourus, Chris' nestaurcnt and vu^.occ~ i:lr;icated Chet outr.ocr
ac,vertisinc. si^::s re i:~vaiuz~~le an:: account far 10;; increase c; his business.
T,1 n*.~~'• i nr-ni rc ~ ~"-nn` l [.n=1 rgmi.l=lCat~ pn O` t.~7e '~rC17JSed reCLll'''ion5.
i~~
14
C•?ith ro further questions or evidence on this item the public hearing eras
adjourned until February 21, 1981 to receive the Planning Board reconmenc;ation.
u-1-84. (Rezonir_gP,eauest) - Ciood Frothers, Inc.
Presentation by Coutu.
The request is for rezoning from R-1 Resicential to GC-4 General Cpr~unercial
to enable coru~ercial aevelopment as well as office use. The property is
located across from the present Yioods Brothers office site. The lot size is
4.74 acres or 212,137.20 square feet 4nd at present is vacant land.
To the north is e~:istinr and projected single-far,:ily residential
__. development (Wildvrood Subdivision zoned R-~ & R-5 Residential am Joppa Oa~~s
Subdivision zoned R-2 Residential). To the south is Duke University School of
Forestry (Duke University Tower C1Gss-"S" Special Use Permit) and single_family
residences zoned P.-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 C•?nods Frothers, Inc. (4.9u'-
acres tract); various commercial uses on 2.94 acres coned E:istin~~ Commercial-5
and single family horses, mobile homes and duplexes on 2.0 acres zoned R-1
.Residential. TYie subject property is within the node, as revised in the
adopted Central Orange Area Plan, and located at the intersectio,_ of Ir_terstate
85 and 1`.TC 86. The plan category for this node is Cor[uaercial-Industrial
Transition.
Section 4.2.x1 of the Zoning OrGinance states that the district designation
~+ill be applied when the follos:ing conditions exist:
1. The site is within an area designated as either Comrercial or
-- Industrial Transition Activity tiode, by the adoptec Land Use Plan in Eno or
HillsborougP~ Townships.
• Staff Comment: As indicated previously, the site is vrithin the II);-4,
Harmon ioun+~ node which is designated in the Land Use Plan as a Carmnercial-In-
dustrial Activity P3ode and is located in f?illsborough Township.
2. C•dater and sewez mains e.cist at the site or are to be made available as
part of the development process, or the lot size for inrliviGUa1 uses is
appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal.
Staff Comment: C•later and sanitary sewer service can be provided by the
Town of Hillsborousl~ through an extension of the facilities previously
installed to serve the C~Tildwooa Development. However, water and sewer service
will not be available to this site until the town receives approval Exam the
state for the facilities vrhich were installed for the C~ildwood Development.
Depending on density, the site will probably be served by an individual cvell
and septic tank; if mare than one use, public water and sevrer is likely.
3. A11 property to be designated for seta 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 I3B-G Activity
I]ode. This node is focused on the interchange at the intersection. of an
interstate (I-85) and an arterial righwa~T (PbC86). This site is located and has
direct access an the east side of an arterial (I;C86) as designated in the Land
Use Plan.
There s•;ere no ciuestions and no citizen conments.
The public hearing eras adjourned until February 21, 1984 to receive the
Planning Board comrlents.
Pronoscd t_ajor Transportation corridor (I:TC) District presented by Smith as
follows:
~1G
is
t•lajor transportation corridors, whether interstates or heavily traveled
secondary roads, serve as bola rovers of traffic and as entrancewa;~s to tre
County from outside areas. These corridors and tl?e development S~Thici, occurs
along them establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator a~: the
quality of life in the County, a5 well as the efficiency and safety of traffic
movement through the area. In adGition, the ability of different Freas of the
Count;' to attract and accomodate different types of development often depends
on the capacity o the thoroughfare system and the character and cuality of
development along the major corridors.
2t is the intent of Orange County to protect the Gttractiveness anc orderly
development of land and enhance these natural and environmental features ~~rliich
constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational and econor,~ic assets
along Major transportation corridors through the provision of a set of
development standards and regulations fvr application to public and private
development of land adjacent to the corridors.
The Major Transportation Corridor District is, therefore, proposed as a
district ~•rhich overlays other zoning districts established in the Zoning
Ordinance. The new use of any land or cny new structure within the t,iTC
district shall comply with the use regulations applicable to the underlying
zoning district as well as the requirements of the iiTC 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 Alan anu its applicable plan category.
The tdTC r'.istrict:
a. shall be applied to lands adjacent to I-~0 and I-E5;
• b. may be applied by additional action of the Eoard to any r.-~ajor
thoroughfare designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan including, but no ;,
limited to US 70, t?C 54, taC 86, NC 57 and Old S6.
c. the district shall be applied along a continuous distance along the
thoroughfare of lands within the County's jurisdiction and outside the
e3,traterritorial planning jurisdictions of the Towns of Aiebane, Hillsborough,
Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
d. the district shall er:terd 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=ox-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 revievr process for development within the district.
f. the provisions of this district shall. not apply to any building or
structure e~:isting prior to the application of the district unless structurally
_. altered to the e.,tent 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 tyro family
dwelling existing or to be erected. Y?o construction activity shall begin nor
shall any e::cavation, soil re::~oval, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, includinc• trees, be commenced nor any sign erected until such time
as a permit has been approved by the Zoning Officer.
4;here an incividual property has been rendered unusable due to
establishMent of the yard setback, there r,:ay be grounds for a variance.
Variances shall be considered end granted by the Board of Fdjustraent. I_orrever,
the l;oarc of F,djustr.~ent shall ensure that the applicant compensFte in
equivalent lanascap_ng improvement for any encroachment into the yore or buffer
AYPF1 _
a.~~
16
The site plan. requirements are as follows:
Each application for a building ,permit shall. be accomL~anied by a site plan
or plans which show the information specified in the proposed text.
Proposed site standards includE:
a} Conformance v.ilh the landscaping and screening requirements i.n proposed
Article 12 ~~~~~,' ~ nine.
b) The provision of a 100 foot buffer area from the edge of the
right-of-way of an interstate highv:ay that shall remain in its natural state at
the time of construction where c~aoded and landscaped in accordance wilt: an
approved plan which takes into consideration the growth and naturity of
existing frees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in tae buffer, and other
Landscaping factors. i•Iithi~a these areas, ingress, egress and ulilit}> service
shall be perrlitted, but no other disturbance for sire 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 setbacl: adjacent to inlersectinc roads al an interchange for
the entire width of the district at these irterchanres.
e) Conformance vrith off-street parking requirements st~ecified in Article
ID ~~~-L~~la~~9 anc„ L~~s~1D~a,:.
f) Conformance with the signaye requirements of Article 9 ~.,gns.
Proposed amendments to the Article 9 would not allow outdoor advertising in the
P•1TC district, anG would restrict sicrns to incidental and information signs
only.
g) A minimum of 25b of the total area shall remain in its natural
vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas with trees 12" in
c~iameler at breas~ heichl shall be retained and set aside to meet the
requiren;ent before other areas are so used. Commissioner jdillhoit referred to
6.2E.2 and suggested using the term "circurnference" insteac: of "diariieter" and
define the term or instead of "breast high" use a standard height.
Y-Tynan iiartin of Hillsborough Planning Eoard stated that with the irnr~act of
T-40, this board also wants to consider and make reconu:~endatiors on the
proposal.
}3.B. Olive urged the l;oards to provide protection for the Upper i.ew ~Iope
Creek basin. )3ew f?ope Creek has been used far research and it is important to
avoid spills. I?e poled that catch basins maintained by DOT caould be.r.~ost
useful. Fie added there is also a possibiJ,ity of ganger to Dul;e Forest.
John ~~cAdams, 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 "taY,iny of land". 1=e
referred to DOT procedures and actions on acquiring Lands for the I-40
right-of-way.
T•'rtritted clarifies: the proposal does not apply to single anc: two far~i ly
dwelings. itizer added it does apply to higher residential densities.
WiLLhoit askeG if the basis far BOm's reciuisition and settlement wc;E
residential property. I~IcP_dams responded it was the status of the property a.t
the time not enhancement value.
I.1cAdams stressed that care should be taken so that the proposal is
equitable so that we do r_ot end up vaith a very pleasing visual buffer for the
good of the entire community and the transerts the cost of v~hich buffer is
borne by the property owners within the district.
.~ ! ~.
17
Charles Johnston (property owner) stated he felt this proposal amounted to
taking 1Gnd with no corpensation. He felt it svgs e~:cessive and that ~-roperty
owners were being forced into accepting T-40. He conmlented that the concern
was k in the land Green, but with ro compensation for owners and that 1Fnd
wa eff t ely removed from the tax base.
xt Smith e~:pressed concern with 6.24.4, the 25ro natural vegetation
provis n. He questioned the provision where there is no existing vegetation.
Hen V7hitfield, property owner ir_ the I-40 corridor, noted that the
Gorr or would cost the owners he represented about i0 acres of property.
A co "ng to I:r. t•dhitfield the bu er would take an additional 23 acres crith no
nt to owners. He wa p tic arty concerned with land split by the
ridor.
Iir. 47hitfield asked f r of hands for property ocvners in the corriGOr
von and against the bu This showed approximately 25 against and 5 in
avo o; the buffer.
I•ie felt that site pla could take care of the fear of contamination of the
landscape with unsightly ildzngs. Kizer, Planning Board member, noted that
it is important to untie c:Ilr. T~icAdams point that this proposal constitutes
an uncompensated "talci He continued that it should be a point of order to
- prevent a "taking" of inadvertent]_y or intentionally. Since he felt this
might result an rtpensated "taking", he recuested that the County
Attorney comr,:ent n t aossibility of an ille,al taking of land.
Co;nmissioner ll t noted the attorney will be reviewing the entire
ordnance for lega 't
- Ron I~territt ~ rthwoocs Homeowners Association inquired about property
owners being n ti d of particular applications and permit approvals far
development. t 'tt noted that changing the underlying Honing would reGUirE
notice. I•_errit ed he would like to see the inclusion. of a prcvision
regarding notic adjoining property ovrners vrithin ].000 feet far building
permit app als or es with correct zoning.
Joe Mist , prope owners adjacent to I-40 but outside of 100' buffer,
urge he oa - o cons er individuals beyond the corridors. IZE indicated
vegetats ery important to the decrease of sound. He felt developers
could pars creative uses of land within the statutes.
Jack FIo ely, owner o~ the Farmhouse Restaurant, expressed concerns
arding si s such as his directional sign for customers off T.C. 86.
ith re onded the proposal, would not allow off-premise signs ir. the
distric Sh clarified that this was the only use provision in the proposal
and that t re single and t~•ro family houses were not subject to the proposed
development tandards. She clarified that both single family houses and
_- cuplexes ca be deV210ped orith normal setbacks and without being subject to
vegetation provisions.
_. --.- IicAdams cruestioned 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 anG two-family
dwellings.
The public hearing was adjourned until the February 21, 1584 Nublic hearing.
Proposec Te]:t Amendrzents to Article 9 Signs
Presentation as follows by Smith:
The proposec= text araendments to Article 5 ~ic?ns address two rain issues:
].) the types of signs perrnitted in the b`_:C c.istrict and 2) the placement of
outdoor advertising outsie:e she iITC district.
.Llu`
18
'i•'i7e proposed amendr;~ents would limit signs within the proposed ti^_'C district
to identification and incidental signs only. Outdoor advertising signs would
nit be permitted.
Identification signs are on-premise signs identifying a business, person,
service, ac~ivity, car,:modity or product.
Incidential signs are on-premise signs providing information for the
convenience and necessity of the public, such as "parking", "no e3:it", etc.
Outdoor advertising signs are off-premise signs by the outdoor advertising
industry and relating in its subject matter to a business, service, cor;~r~iodity,
_ attraction or other activity conducted, sold or offered at a location other
than the premises on vrhich the sign is located.
I'he proposed amendments e:~ould also limit the number and size of
informationa signs in the i>iTC district.
Outside the t•ITC district the propose&. amendments would limit outdoor
advertising signs placement to areas designated as activity nodes in the LnG
Use Plan and sites specifically zoned General Commercial (GC4) and Industrial
1,2, and 3 located adjacent to I.C t36, NC 57, I3C 54, NC 70. The nroposa_s also
include a provision for spacing of outdoor advertising which applies to 1000`
radius spacing limit betvreen signs.
Chandler Cates, independent merchant, noted that signs are already
regulated by State and Fereral regulations. He further noted the County gets
l~ of all sales tar, revenue from retail merchants who advertise.
T7illhoit c-uestionec the role signs play in generating local inco;.ie and
• askew staff ~o obtain studies on how effective signs were as a means to
generate local business. He thought informational and logo signs vrere tine
primary means to generate business at interchanges. Smith responded the staff
vroulr obtain studies.
The Board discussed logo sicns.
Joe Crevrs of I~cDonalds noted sales increases of 24~ to 45~ vrith logo signs.
fie also felt establishments which cannot use a logo (such as Daniel Boone"
Village) should be allowed to place signs on the interstate.
Chuck Willard,.president of Daniel Soone Merchants Association, e3:pressed
concern with the removal of sirens advertising the Daniel Boone Village and its
businesses on Interstate 85. FIe cited possible loss of income with sign
removal. Smith responded the proposal does not affect signs ir. the
Hillsborough jurisdiction and if a sign in the County's jurisdiction Baas fount;
to be nonconforming, there is a five year removal period crhich reflects the
time necessary for amortization of the investment.
An unidentified man asked that an er:arrple of Joao signs be prepared.
TJhitted clarified only gas, food and lodging establishments are shovrn on logo
signs.
Smith indicated cost savings could be realized throuch use of logo signs,
-.- citing the state average for slop rental is $2,000-$3,000, inn for logo rental
vras only 57.50.00. Lloyd questioner the high figures. Crevrs indicated he could
vouch for the figures for I~icDonald's advertisement.
Benny Cecil, owner of Efland Gulf Station on 2-85 indicated his reliance on
signs and advertising to compete v:ith 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. lie adced the
only way to sell is to compete. Ile noted many travelers 1001: for a specific
gas or lodging establishment.
r.rillhoit clarified the purpose of logo signs was to inform the traveling
r,„h1 ; r n,= •r i^a ar,ar.; ri ~ ~ctnhl i ~hnc-+nt, Rai 1 P~~ resnonc~ec, ti~at a saeci_z"; is aa5
i. ~ ~
19
referer;ce may be a. full service station or quickie-mart. Another inciivic:ual
noted the absence of prices caith logo signs.
john Bivens cited the benefit raaleaed through outuoor advertising or. I-05
to the Colonial Inn.
aim Paliourus, Chris' Restaurant c-.nd Sunoco,' indicated that ouL-door
advertising signs are invaluable and account far 10; increase of his business.
Lloyd inquired about legal ramifications oL- the proposed regulations.
- Giechill responded the five year amcxtiaatian period speci;ied in the
ordinance already with regard to removal of non-conforming signs was
-- constitutionally proper. Le noted a recent T?orth Carolina Appellate court case
sungests that three years is a proper period and another that allows zoning
solely on the basis of aesthetics.
Smith clarified that the five year period for removal or compliance is
appliable upon application of the standard and a finding that a sign es
non-conforminc.
Proposes: Text Amendments to Article 22 Definitions
Presented by Sn.eth
This agenda item is to receive public comment on the proposeu te~.t
amenr~ments to Article 22 ~;j,~~•j,Qy~, associated vvith the establishment of
the i•iTC District.
The proposes: sicn requirements associated with the i=_TC district limits
signs within the district to enfarraational and incidental signs. Definitions
of these tyro sign types are not presently contained within the zoning
ordinance.
The amendments to Article 22 Definitions are as follows:
5i.n. I~2~1?~~~s~~i9~~ Cn-premise sign identefying a business person,
service, activity, commodity or produc4.
~I1 , incidental - on premise sign providing information for the
convenience and necessity of the public, such as "exit" "no admittar:ce",
"parking", etc.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Te::t Amendrents - Landscaping and Screening
'steauirements.
This agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed te~:t amendment to
the Orange County zoning Drcinance regarding landscaping and screening
requirements.
Presented by Collins.
Pir. Olive incuire.d if Chapel hill had a landscaping ordinance. kle noted
there should be compatibility between Chapel k?ill's and Orange County's
ordinances on landscaping. xe further stated that carunents and suggestions on
th proposal should be received from landscape architects.
Commissioner :iarshall nntec that Chapel Hill, through e:cperience, found it
desirable to tie the landscape provisions to the planting seasons with regard
to the certificate of occupancy.
T•~il:e j•~oods, developer, insuried if an engineer must do the site plan or if
there vrere guidelines that could be handled by a layman. Collins responded
yes, the site plans do not rec:uire an engineer.
T•:oods also inquired about screens. Collins responded givir_g a list of
screen types. i7oods enquired about the cost oz a 20' tree. Collins responded
the last word he had was X125.00 per tree. t?oocs noted this vvould cause a
delay in acquiring buelding permits. Collins respon~ec that review anc:
approval of landscape plans should only rake 1-2 days.
zo.
Pearson inquired if additional staff would be recuired to enforce the
landscaping ordinance. Collins responded ra, since this ~~ould be applicable in
the 10 and 20 fear Transition areas and the activity nodes.
Pilkey inquired as to tine time element involved in the additional
provisions. Collins responded that under the ordinances landscaping must be ir.
place before a certificate of occupancy is issued or the owner must post bond
if he washes to occupy the structure before installation of landscaping. The
Public Hearing on this item was adjourned to February 21, 19~n Commissioners
_ meeting.
Proposed Updated Building ordinance for Orange County.
The purpose of this agenda items is to provide information to the Boars of
County Commissioners regarding a public hearing proposed .f or February 27, 198',
for the purpose of considering the adoption of an updated. Building Ordinance
for Qrange County.
17i17.hait proposed changing the word adoption in the first paragraph of the
notice to amenc,nent. In paragraph four, he suggested including t~~ording that
the copies of the te.:t of tl'ae proposed ordinance will also be available in the
public libraries of Orange County. F?e suggested that the Building Corse
sections be referenced and noted that they are applicable as amender. from time
to time.
vdith na ~urther business to come before the Boards, the meetinc was
adjourned.
Don ~•?illhoit, Chair
Beverly A. Elythe, Clerk
APPROVTsD 3/5/8+