Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-21-1998 - 8h ORANGE COUNTY BOARD COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Apri121, 1998 Action Agenda Item # ~_ SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - Floor Area for Existing Non-residential Uses in Residential Districts Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-residential Development DEPARTMENT: PL~-NNING & INSPECTIONS PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 Proposed Amendment 2/23/98 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 4/1/98 Draft Planning Boazd Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum floor azea allowed existing non-residential uses permitted in the AR, RB, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts. BACKGROUND: Institutional uses such as schools, governme~ b~ and places of worship are permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning Department. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor azea allowed for non residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1, and R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent, the standazd in the R-3 district. Since that time, the Board of Adjustment has reviewed at least three requests for variances from the standazds in Article 5.1.2 as applied to churches and schools. Several existing institutional uses aze at or approaching the current 8.8 percent limit on floor area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum floor azea allowed for non- residential uses legally existing as of 5/6/98 in the RB, AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in Planned Developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The text of the amendment is attached following additional background information. The proposed standazd is equal to the current limit on floor azea in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor azea of existing facilities. 2 The amendment was presented for citizen comment at the public hearing held on February 23, 1998. A representative of Ebenezer Baptist Church spoke in favor of the amendment. There were no questions or comments from the Planning Boazd or the Boazd of Commissioners. The item was referred to the Planning Boazd for a recommendation. On April 1, the Planning Boazd voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Article 5.1.2, the Schedule for Non-residential Development. 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT [DRAFT] REFERENCE: ZONING ORDINANCE Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-residential Development ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC _ _ Public X Other: County Manager EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 23, 1998 Purpose of Amendment: To increase the maximum floor azea ratio allowed in residential zoning districts for existing non-residential uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of worship. Impacts/Issues: Institutional uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of worship aze permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning Department. Traditionally, such uses aze located in or neaz residential areas. The architectural form that houses an institutional use historically has been massive, not only because of its function, but as a symbolic focal point for the local community. In many cultures worldwide, institutional structures typically serve as local landmarks due to their prominent size, accessible location, and use. Schools and churches often have one or more accessory structures such as a gymnasium and other recreational buildings, fellowship hall, or administrative/ educational building. The result is sometimes a campus or complex of buildings united by a similar purpose. The volume of buildings is usually balanced by open space on the lot in the form of playgrounds, courtyazds, athletic fields, or cemeteries. In Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, dimensional requirements aze established for each zoning district. Two sets of standards apply for each district to residential and non-residential uses. The numbers and ratios set forth in Article 5 establish site development criteria such as minimum lot size, building setbacks, lot width, maximum floor area, and building height Because of lazger land requirements, institutional uses frequently have difficulty locating where they are needed, or expanding to meet growing community demands. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor area allowed for non-residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1, and 4 R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent, the standazd in the R-3 district. Since that time, the Boazd of Adjustment has reviewed at least three requests for variances from the standazds in Article 5.1.2 as applied to churches and schools. Several existing institutional uses are at or approaching the current 8.8 percent limit on floor area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum floor azea allowed for non-residential uses legally existing as of 5/6/98 in the RB, AR, R-1, R-2, R- 3, and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in Planned Developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The text of the amendment is attached. The new standazd is equal to the current limit on floor azea in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor area of existing facilities. Other non-residential uses permitted in residential districts include the following: Botanical Gazdens Bus Passenger Shelters Governmental Protective Services Cemeteries (Class B SUP) Community Centers (Class B SUP) Pazks Ordinance Review Committee: Planning Boazd: BOCC: cn w *Permitted non-residential uses existing as RR R-1 R-') R_'2 and R_A ~..n;.,n rii ctri rte 5.1.2 SCHEDULE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT BY LOT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT M!N LOT MIN REQ REQ MAX MIN GROSS MAX GROSS LUI MAX REQ MIN REQ MIN AREA PER LOT FRONT SIDE do BLDG LAND LAND AREA RATING FLOOR OPEN PEDESTRIAN/ USE WIDTH SETBACK REAR HEIGHT AREA (PD's ONLY) AREA SPACB LANDSCAPE SETBACK (PD's ONLY) RATIO RATIO RATIO RB LOT 87,120 130 40 20 ZS - - 22 .088 * .84 .21 PD 87,120 130 - - 25 174,240 - 22 .100 * .84 .21 AR LOT 40,000 150 40 20 25 - - 22 .088 * .84 .21 PD 40,000 150 - - 25 80.000 - 22 .100 * .84 .21 RI LOT 40,000 130 40 20 25 - - 22 .088* ~ .84 .21 PD 40,000 130 - - 25 80,000 - 22 .100* .84 .2{ R2 LOT 20,000 100 30 IS 25 - - 24 .088* .83 .208 PD 20,000 100 - - 25 45,000 - 26 .l00* .82 .205 R3 LOT 15,000 100 30 IS 25 - - 28 .088* .81 .203 PD 15.000 100 - - 25 30,000 - 30 .100* .80 .20 R4 LOT 10,000 75 25 10 25 - - 33 .123* .79 .198 PD 10,000 75 - - 25 15,000 - 35 .141 .78 .195 RS LOT 7.500 SO 20 10 25 - - 30 .174 .77 .195 PD 7,500 SO - - 2S 10,000 - 40 .200 .76 .19 R8 LOT 5,000 50 20 8 25 - - 43 .246 .75 .088 PD 5,000 SO - - 2S 7,000 - 45 .283 .74 .185 R 13 LOT - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PD 3,000 SO - - 25 5.000 - SO .400 .72 - .l8 LCl LOT - 75 IS IS 2S - - 30 .IW .80 .20 PD - - - - 25 - 421.344 32 .115 .79 .198 NC2 LOT 2,000 ~ 20 50 35 0 - 40 .200 .76 .19 PD 2,000 - - - 35 - 421.344 42 .230 .75 .188 CCB LOT 2,000 20 SO - 45 0 - SO .400 .72 .18 _ PD 2,000 - - - 45 425,600 1,273,544 52 .459 .72 ,18 E GCH LOT 40,000 75 3S 45 - 53 .492 .71 .178 ~ PD 40,000 - - - 45 425,600 NO MAX. SS .566 .71 .178 u ECS LOT 40,000 ~ 75 35 - 45 - - 53 .492 .7l .178 A OI LOT 5,000 50 25 10 35 - - 40 .200 .76 i9 PD 5,000 - - - 35 200,000 NO MAX. 42 .230 .75 , .188 L ~ EI LOT 80,000 200 SO 50 45 - - 23 .200 .80 .20 . n of 5/6/98 shall be limited to a maximum floor area ratio of .141 in the AR, cn 2/x.3/98 PcJF~~-IG NE,4i:.J~ljC1 NlilltJ'T~s 1 fn response to a question Dy Commissioner Gordon, Eddie Kirk reviewed the sutrnunding uses 2 which include a CITGO station, 5everaf nesidences which are located in the Economic Devebpmer>< 3 Districts to the south and west. To the North is a residence in the Town of Hillsborough's jurisdiction. 4 He also indlgted that the sewer connection would either be at (=Wt Ridge or at the prison sky. 5 6 Commissioner Brown asked if there was a process in place whereby residents at the Eoonamic 7 Deveaoprr~erd Dastckt would be inbrrr~ed of the issues surrounding water and/or sewer services. Mr. lark 8 replied that the Planning staff always nzcornmends water & sewer but it is not required. 9 10 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE pLANNWG BOARD -None. 11 12 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS 13 14 Jay Smith, with O'BrieN-Atltins Associafies, Inc., indicated that this plan was first submitted in 15 March Of 1997 and they feel that this Latest plan is the best possible use of this site. They have worttect 16 with Orange County Transportation Planner Slade MkCalip to design the best circulation plan. The sewer 17 lines have been mowed in this last design so that parking could be moved m the back of the building. 18 Atso. they have left the large trees and increased the buffers as much as possible. He also mentioned 19 that this branch buildding wilt irx~ease the tax base by 1 million dollars. They have made many changes 20 twt they gnnot adhere to the ~ 00 toot buffer requirement 21 22 51u:ve Russ, with O'8rienlAtkins, indicated that he was available ro answer any questions. He 23 mentioned that Stsde Md:.afip felt that aligning with the CITGO Station would help with the trafRc flaw. 24 25 Jack Alphin, of Alphin Realty, mentioned that he does not have a vested interest in this facigty. He 26 was asked ~ submit an opinion on behalf of the State tlnpbyees Credit Union. He refierred to his letter 27 dated Oacember 17, 1997 a aopy of which as located in the pem>anent agenda file in the Clerk's aft'ice. He 28 indicated that the Cred'R Union faality would st the very least maintain the area and would most likes 29 enhance the ambiance and values of adjacent and area properties. 30 31 Robin Lewis, Manager of CredR Union, indigted that she would tie happy t0 answer any 32 questions. SM agreed that the cun~ent plan appears to 17e the best use of the site. The staff of the Credit 33 Union are corrrrrritAed to providing a needed service to the citizens of Northam Orange County. in 34 response to a question, she mentioned that they randy require a SheriRs Deputy tD provide an escort 35 while Credit Union employees transfer money. 36 37 A Letter from James C. Blaine, President, State Employees Credit Union, was distributed and is 38 inducted herein by reference. He stated that the Credit Union has made attempts to address each 39 oa~cern that was rt-emioned in his earlier discussion witt- John Lank. His comments in their endroty an! in 40 the permanent agenda flla in the Clerk's office 41 42 A motion was made by Chairwoman grown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis. to refer this 43 item to the Planning 9oard Uor a reeorrurierxtation Do be rotumed to the t3oar+d of Comnrtssioners no sooner 44 than ApN T,1998 45 VOTE uNANIMOUs 48 47 3. ZONIING ORDINANCE TEBT AMti9NOMENT 48 (a) _ Floor Arta For Existing Non-+rsidenttM uses in Residential Distrkts Article 5.1.2 49 Schedule far Non-residential Development 50 This item was presented by Orange County Planner Emig Cameron for the Purpose 51 of wcrivirp dtioeen ooemnent on a proposed afnsndmMt to the Zoning Orbinanoa to increase the 52 maximum floor arN atiovvad for e~dsting non-rcsideMtal uses pemtiltied ht the AR. R9. R-1, R-2, R-3 and 53 R~ Coining districts. She stated that hstittrtional uses such as schools. government lwildings, ane places 54 of worship ere permiftad in sal residential toning districts with site plan ~proval by the Planning . 55 Qepttrot~ent In 1989 the Zoning Ore~ana was amended ee increase the floor area altawed for non. 56 r+eaidential uses to t+ssidengaa districts (R8, AR, R-1 b R-2) from S.8 percent to 8. a percent limit on floor 57 area. The proposed arrrendmer-t would increase the ma~drnum floor ano Mowed torncn-residential uses z/z3/9t3 PUBC.tC {.~~,~~ MtA(U72g ~aY ex>sting as of S/6l98 in the R8, AR, R-1, Rd, R-3 and R-4 rosidentia! districts from 8.8 percent (10 perat+nt in Planned developments, 1Z.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 Percent. The Proposed standaro is equal ~ ~ me cement Unit on fbor area in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with ac~tuai }~ area of existing 4 t~ci6ties. 5 6 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMAAiSS1ONERS: None 7 $ QUEST~Ng qND/OR COMMENT$ FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None 9 10 ouESTIONS aNOroR coMMENTS FROM cfFtZENs 11 12 Rever~rxi Earl Ed~ois, Jr., with the Ebenezer Baptist Church, spoke in support of this Text 13 Amendmont.. tie commented that their current facility is too small to accommodate the size of their 14 congr8gation. He mentioned the number of children that they are currently serving and that it is important 15 to them to lncxease the size of thew church. They currently have 75.100 children in their congregation t6 eadt Sunday and they need to provide a facility that is conducive tv worship. 7T t $ A motion was made by Commissioner Carey. seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this 19 item to the Planning Board for a recomn>•nda0on to be referred to the Board of Commissioners ra sooner 20 than May a, 1998. 21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 22 23 This item was Chaired by Chairwoman Margaret Brown. She asked everyone who wished to speak 24 tv come forward and be sweet in by the Deputy Clerk. 25 26 27 4. CLASS A SPECULL USE PERMR PD-1-98 Grolina Friends School 28 The following citizens and staff were sworn in by tiw Deputy Clerk so that they could 29 speak to this item: Orange County Planner Emily Cameron, John Baird, Prindpal, Carolina Friends 3o School and Ellen Weinstein. This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron for the purpose of 31 r@Ceiviru~ Catlzen cemrnent on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends 32 Sd>ool to accorrwrwdatf a ten-year master plan for expansion of the existing privatt school approved as a ~ pied devebprrrent in 1990 and modified in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Carolina Friends school is an 34 existing Private school located vn the west side of Ftlends School Road (SR 1719). The property 35 contains 38.62 atx~es and is zoned PD-RB, planned Devebpment -Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a 36 Class A Speda! Use Permit was issued for Carolina Fronds School to allow the use of the school's 37 waslewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. A planned devebpmertt A also required where there aro 38 multiple prirx,+pa{ structures on anon-residential lot greater than two acres in size. This Special Use 39 Permit wee modified in 1992 and 1996. to 1997 the Scholl swapped land with Duks University !o acquire ~0 aaeage between the existing scinool and Friends School Road. The current request is to sccommodate a 42 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ expand the school inb the acreage acquired in 1997. Student enrollment is Proposed to increase by }hre fipr a total of 422 students. The staff will increase by one for a tool of 82 staff 43 members. The proposal includes a new entrance oo the school site south of the existing entrance on 44 Friends School Road. The new entrance wip have better sight distance than the existing entrance. The 45 exlstirq entrance will cont+nue to access a portion of the campus, but wiq not connect to the proposed 46 systsrn of driveways. Fare new buildings are proposed (37,150 aq. R): amulti-purpose center 47 (gymnasium). a rneetinQ house, a new Early School building, an athletic field house, and a coverall 48 service area. Several additbns to existing stn~dures are proposed totaling 14,700 square fleet. The 49 expansion also imrolves a baseball fkid, two soccer fields. and an outdoor anphitheeter. 50 51 QUESTIONS ANdOR COMMENTS FROM THE dOAttO OF COMiMISS1ONFRS: 52 53 Comrriisaiorrer Gordon asked for cbrlfkatlon on why the space is being increased but the student 55 ~~ is ony being increased by 5 stt,denb. 56 Johtl 88ud. Prindpad, Carolina Friends School. replied that the kmg-term vision floc the sd~ool calls 57 bran increase in tadlities but not tier a significant increese in enrollment The cement sae of the schod Ui D ~ ~ Q C~ 4/1!99 Pt.A~l~llt~lCt ~D g • ` ~ N~~~,~5 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development and Class A Special Use Permit Application per the findings (an attachment to these minutes on pages )and four conditions: 1. Sewer lines shall be installed at the time of site development. 2. Parking, landscaping and buffers shall be installed and maintained as shown on the February 6, 1998 site plan. Additional buffer requirements in the Economic Development District Design Manual shall be waived. 3. Sidewalks shall be constructed and maintained by the State Employees Credit Union until the property is annexed by the Town of Hillsborough. 4. NCDOT requirements shall be complied with as specified in their April 17, 1997 and September 16, 1997 letters (attachments to these minutes on pages ). r Seazles asked about the front entrance and Kirk responded that even though pazking has been moved to the rear, the front entrance to the building will remain. Katz asked for clazification regazding the rezoning and Special Use Permit request. Kirk responded that Staff had discovered that from the beginning, this should have been a Planned Development Special Use Permit. McAdams asked about the change in the number of employees. Robin Lewis, Manager of the Hillsborough Credit Union Office, responded that the expected increase in business and the drive through window would require the hiring of two additional full-time employees. Seazles expressed concern that an increase in the number of staff had not been proposed previously. Ms. Lewis stated that she felt the concern with the number of employees was related to the use of a septic system. Since public water and sewer is to be extended to the site, she felt that this is no longer an issue. Further discussion indicated that there would be an increase in the number of part-time employees. Total number of employees would be ten full-time employees and 4 part-time employees. The Planning Boazd reviewed the findings of fact (attached to these minutes on pages )and were in agreement with the findings as made by the Planning Staff. MOTION: Searles moved approval per the findings and conditions as proposed by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Price. VOTE: Unanimous. b. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (1) Floor Area for Existing Non-residential Uses in Residential Districts Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-residential Development Presentation by Emily Cameron. . o • © ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 .~ This item is for consideration of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum floor area allowed in existing non- residential uses permitted in the AR, RB, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R - 4 zoning districts. Institutional uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of worship are permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning Department. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor area allowed for non-residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1, and R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent, the standard in the R-3 district. Since that time, the Board of Adjustment has reviewed at least three requests for variances from the standards in Article 5.1.2 as applied to churches and schools. Several existing institutional uses are at or approaching the current 8.8 percent limit on floor area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed' amendment would increase the maximum floor area allowed for non-residential uses legally existing as of S/6/98 in the RB, AR, R-1, R- 2, R-3, and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in Planned Developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The proposed standard is equal to the current limit on floor area in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor azea of existing facilities. The amendment was presented for citizen comment at the public hearing held on February 23, 1998. A representative of Ebenezer Baptist Church spoke in favor of the amendment. There were no questions or comments from the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners. The item was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 6, 1998. The Planning Staffrecommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Schedule ofNon-residential Development. Barrows asked if there were requests just based on the possibility of expansion rather than on a particular need. Cameron responded that many times churches do have plans for expansion but must wait on funding. They also may not be aware of future needs for expansion. She noted also that some of the older schools have reached maximum capacity and have requested variances in order to expand. Katy asked what the increase to 8.8 percent in 1989 was based on. Cameron responded that the ratios did not change, they just moved up to the next highest density. Katz asked about the basis for the floor area limit and whether it relates to impervious surface. Cameron responded that it does not always relate to the impervious surface since there may be more than one floor. She continued that since she was not with Orange County when the ratios were established, she could not say how the original calculations wen established. Katz suggested that this be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for determination whether there should be a requirement or standard in the ordinance regarding floor area ratio. Cameron asked if this could be tied to one of the goals for future consideration. Members agreed. DG~'U~ 10 .f MOTION: Hoecke moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Price. VOTE: Unanimous. c. CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (1) PD-1-98 Carolina Friends School Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is for consideration of a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School to accommodate aTen-Yeaz master plan for expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990 and modified in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Cazo(ina Friends School is an existing private school located on the west side of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 38.62 acres and is zoned PD-RB, Planned Development -Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Cazolina Friends School to allow the use of the school's wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a lazge ground absorption system with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per day may be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development. A planned development is also required where there aze multiple principal structures on anon-residential lot greater than two acres in size. The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted afive-year master plan in 1991 for development of the school. In 1992 the Special Use Permit was modified to include expansion of buildings and pazking consistent with the school's master plan. In 1996 the Special Use Permit was modified to include 5100 square feet of additional floor azea. Last year, Cazolina Friends School swapped land with Duke University to acquire acreage between the existing school and Friends School Road. No additional construction was proposed when the school site boundazies were changed. The current request is to accommodate aTen-Yeaz master plan to expand the school into the acreage acquired in 1997. Student enrollment is proposed to increase by five for a total of 422 students. School staff will increase by one for a total of 62 staff members. The proposal includes a new entrance to the school site south of the existing entrance on Friends School Road. The new entrance will have better sight distance than the existing entrance. In 1996, the average daily traffic count on Friends School Road was 200 trips per day; therefore, turn lanes on Friends School Road will not be necessary. The existing entrance will continue to access a portion of the campus, but will not connect to the proposed system of driveways.