HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2001-011 Non-residential Approval Procedure for Subdivision, Zoning and Economic Development Ordinance Amendmentso A C -Boa /- U 1) ` - / 7
Administration Ordinance 4�
An Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Ordinance of Orange County
Bold = Proposed Text
6tFikethF9U§h = Deleted Text
Amend Article III -D APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS by
creating a new section as follows:
III-D-1 -j Approval Procedures for Subdivisions in the Economic
Development, Commercial and Industrial Nodes as identified in the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan
Initial review of all subdivisions in the Economic Development, Commercial
and /or Industrial nodes shall be performed by the Orange County Planning Staff.
Following review by the Orange County Planning Staff all subdivisions shall
follow the preliminary plan major subdivision approval procedures as specified in
Section III -D -3. All subdivisions shall submit the application in accordance with
requirements as specified in Section III- D -3 -a. All roads in these zoning districts
are required to be public and constructed to North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards.
Final plat approvals shall follow the final plat approval procedures in Section III -
D-4 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Orange County
Commissioners that the Ordinance Amendment is approved.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner _
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of
Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so
much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as
relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are
recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of ,
2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
gAeddie\iii -d -1 j \11- 10 -00 \dg
The Case Study - Site Conditions:
The basic premise of the "case study" is
that a developer has acquired a two -acre
site and wishes to build a small office
complex. A prototype plan has been
successfully used in other communities,
but adjustments must be made for the
complex to fit the site.
As shown on the following page, the site
is a rectangular- shaped lot with
extensive frontage (440 feet) on a major
thoroughfare leading to an interstate
highway interchange. Although the site
terrain is level, the floodplain of a
drainage tributary flowing through the
southwest corner of the property covers
almost half the site. Coupled with the
shallow lot depth (200 feet) and the
presence of a bottomland hardwood
forest, the site presents formidable
building constraints.
g:'.craig\edd\manual\ 11- 10.00 \dg
A Case Study Approach
To assist landowner, developer, and
citizen alike in understanding how to use
this manual, a local site was selected and
"developed" in accordance with the
performance standards and design
criteria contained in this document.
Although the "case study" presents a
range of design considerations, it does
not attempt to portray every situation.
Neither does it represent the only
approach to site evaluation and design.
Each site is different, and the land
owner /developer should discuss his/her
ideas with the Planning & Inspections
Department and Economic Development
Commission staff to assure the "best fit"
between the site, performance standards,
and design criteria.
It should be noted as well that this
Design Manual is not to be used as the
only source of information. All
subdivision activity in the Economic
Development District shall follow the
review and approval process as
specified in Section III -D -1 -j of the
Orange County Subdivision
Regulations. Also, Appendix A
contains a list of ordinances, technical
reports, and other information which
must be used in combination with the
Manual. In addition, Appendix B
contains provisions from the Orange
County Zoning Ordinance which explain
the site plan approval process. A
thorough knowledge of this information
will assure the preparation of acceptable
plans as well as an expedited approval
process.
0
Planning Board Ordinance
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of Orange County
Bold = Proposed Text
8tr+kethF9 Jh = Deleted Text
Amend Article 6.29.2 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS as follows:
Before any new, site development may be undertaken in an Economic Development
District, a site plan must be approved . and a zoning compliance permit issued in
accordance with the provisions of Article 14 (Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this
Ordinance. Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants will be
required to meet with representatives of the Planning and Inspections, and Economic
Development Departments to identify policies, procedures, regulations, and fees
applicable to development proposals. _
Plans for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by
the Planning and Inspections Department staff for compliance with the standards
contained in the following section. Such review will also be carried out in accordance with
the provisions of Article 14.3 (Site Plan Review) of this ordinance. Any proposed
subdivision in the Economic Development District shall follow the approval
procedures as specified in section III-D-1 -j of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations and have a minimum lot size of 4 acres. In a Planned Development
master plan of 20 acres or more, pods may contain lots of 2 acres in size.
(Signature)
Clerk, Board of County Commissioners
Date and Seal
gAeddie \6- 29- 2 \11- 13 -00 \dg
(Signature)
Chair, Orange County Commissioners
7
DRAFT DECEMBER 12, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES 8
I A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
2 accept the staff and public input into the public hearing record, and to refer item C1 d to the
3 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no
4 sooner than January 18, 2001.
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7 e. Amendments to the Orange County Economic Development District (EDD) Design
8 Manual related to the 140 /Old NC86 and 1- 85/NC86 economic development district
9 to include abridging and revising the manual to cite more objective standards of
10 review in the areas of performance standard, landscaping, buffers, parking
11 lighting, setbacks and architecture. These standards would be used in site plan
12 review of EDD /Limited Office Districts as well as future EDD special use zoning
13 districts.
14 Craig Benedict said that this was an abridged version of the existing manual. The
15 volume ratios are deleted and replaced with guidelines about building and parking area volumes.
16 Planning Board member Rachel Preston asked where the tree and shrub list came from.
17 Craig Benedict said that this list is the original list from the 1993 -94 design manual. He would be
18 willing to work with someone on this.
19
20 Public Comment
21 Scott Radway requested an electronic file of this abridged manual.
22 Vic Knight made reference to area two and asked whose area this was in and Craig
23 Benedict said that area two is within Hillsborough's jurisdiction. The jurisdictional boundary
24 between Orange County and Hillsborough is Cates Creek.
25 Vic Knight asked if the manual that is being discussed tonight will be adopted by the
26 Town of Hillsborough and Craig Benedict said that they are working toward a code that is similar or
27 the same as the County's. Mr. Knight has asked Robert Davis for. a copy of the abridged manual.
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
29 accept the staff and public input into the public hearing record, and to refer item C1e to the
30 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no
31 sooner than January 18, 2001.
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33 At this time, it was 10:35 p.m. The Board agreed to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m.
34
f. Non - residential subdivision amendments continued from November 27, 2000
36 public hearing.
37 Craig Benedict said that this would set standards for non - residential subdivisions.
38 Presently, there are no minimum lot sizes for non - residential subdivisions. The amendments
39 would establish a minimum lot size of four acres in an EDD. If someone brings forth a master plan
40 of 20 acres or more, they have the ability to have pods that could be two acres in size.
41
42 Public Comment
43 Vic Knight feels that the current subdivision regulations address this issue. There are
44 many uses for parcels of property less than four acres. For an office building, a four -acre lot is
45 extremely large. He understands the issue with curb cuts but feels that there are other ways to
46 control traffic within a parcel.
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to
48 accept the staff and public input into the public hearing record, and to refer item C1f to the
49 Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no
50 sooner than January 18, 2001.
51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
52
FEBRUARY 7, 2001 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9
1 AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 12/12/00
2
3 a. EDD Non - Residential Subdivision Amendment
4
5 Benedict made the presentation.
6
7 At this time in the EDDs, there are no minimum lot sizes. Based on the amendments, there will be minimum
8 lot sizes and requirements that the access is limited to the major roadways.
9
10 b. EDD/Text Amendments
11 (1) Creation of ED -LO -1 District
12
13 The new zoning district would be known as Economic Development - Limited Office- 1 District. This is a
14 very low intensity district that the County or Hillsborough could use to assign to properties. The rezoning of
15 the property 3a and 3b would eliminate the existing zoning categories and assign the limited office district.
16 Some of the uses in areas 3a and 3b would then be non - conforming. The uses can continue as normal, but
17 there are some criteria. If someone wants to rezone from limited office to another use, they will probably
18 come to the County for a planned development and a special use permit. These standards are very elaborate.
19 The purpose of the EDD task force was to have good presentation at the entranceway into Hillsborough (two
20 I -85 access points and I -40 access point).
21
22 c. EDD Design Manual (Abridged Version) Amendment
23
24 The design manual handles two parts - design standards and special use standards. The moratorium on the
25 700 acres in the EDD will expire on April 18`h. The revised manual will be in effect at that time.
26
27 The task force will now evolve into an EDD Transportation Task Force. They will be addressing issues such
28 as the possibility of bypasses in and around Hillsborough to take the stress off of Churton Street. The task
29 force will meet over the next seven months to come up with a joint Orange County and Hillsborough
30 recommendation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization in Durham. The task force is looking for a
31 representative from the Planning Board to serve.
32
33 The staff needs a recommendation from the Planning Board to adopt the new subdivision standards, create
34 the new limited office district, adopt the new design manual, and recommend rezoning 3a and -3b to ED -LO-
35 1 district.
36
37 Several clarifying questions about the rezoning were answered satisfactorily by Benedict.
38
39 Schofield asked if there had been any discussion about an EDD architectural review board to address
40 continuity. Benedict said that the unabridged version of the EDD manual had a format for development, but
41 no Commission or Planning Board approval. The new process involves a legislative process, allowing for
42 input from the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. He said that architectural
43 guidelines could be implemented in the legislative process.
44
45 Schofield asked if there had been any conversation about an affordable housing component as a required
46 provision for this area. He said that an affordable housing component would make sense in this area because
47 it would be in immediate proximity to services and transportation. Benedict said that an affordable housing
48 component has been discussed. He said that the density of housing in this area would be able to
49 accommodate multi - family and affordable housing. Affordable housing will not be addressed in the manual,
50 but with a separate affordable housing policy.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
10
Woods said that he was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they have not addressed any interfacing
with this area at all. The work has been Countywide and not site specific. He will bring a report to the next
meeting on the Affordable Housing Task Force.
McAdams said that there was one homeowner that was for the rezoning and one homeowner that was
opposed to it. Also, Chandler Concrete is opposed to the rezoning. He asked if there was any way to leave
the one homeowner and Chandler Concrete out so that they do not have to go through an arduous process to
be rezoned to their current use. Benedict said that the board could recommend that some properties be left in
or out. He said that it was generally not good to spot -zone.
Woods said that he was in favor of 9a, 9b, and 9c. In regards to 9d (listed as l Ob in the agenda), he does not
understand why a truck stop is not appropriate at the intersection of 1 -40 and NC 86. He asked where it
would be appropriate to have a truck stop.
There was no public comment about 9a, 9b, or 9c.
MOTION: Woods moved approval of the proposed amendments as given in item 9a.
Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: Ayes, 8; No, 1 (McAdams - he thinks four acres is an extremely large lot for
a business.)
MOTION: Allison moved approval of the creation of an Economic Development-
Limited Office 1 District in the Orange County permitted use zoning tables
as given in item 9b. Seconded by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous
MOTION: Selkirk moved approval of the proposed EDD Design Manual - Abridged
Version. Seconded by Allison.
Benedict said that, in regards to item 9c, smaller lot sizes are allowed by virtue of rezoning. This is in the
planned development standards.
VOTE: Unanimous
d. Zoning Atlas Amendment for Areas 3a and 3b located at NC 86/1-
85 /Old NC 10 Intersection
Allison said that there should be some type of "grandfathering" for non - conforming properties that already
exist.
Benedict said that residential structures could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 75% or more of the floor
area. No expansion is allowed, but there is an appeal process. With commercial/industrial structures, they
could be rebuilt if they are destroyed up to 60% or more of the floor area.
Woods said that he understands that the intent was that this area (700 acres) would be a high - density
commercial area totaling 6.6 million square feet. He asked when the Planning Board would talk about the
6.6 million square feet of mixed -use development intended for the 700 -acre tract. He reiterated his concern
about an appropriate place for a truck stop in Orange County.
Strayhom asked what an appropriate use would be for the site at Chandler Concrete. Benedict said that an
appropriate use would be small office buildings or small retail uses.
I A 0% 10% 1 -1
The Board considered a Planning Board recommendation on proposed comprehensive plan
amendments concerning the Hillsborough area activity node.
Planning Director Craig Benedict made the presentation for this item and items d, e, and f.
These items have to do with the Hillsborough area Economic Development District, which is located on I-
85,140, Old NC 86, and New NC 86. The public hearing on these items continued to the Planning
Board, and the Planning Board has heard the amendments and sent the recommendations to this Board.
In all cases, the Planning Board recommended approval with a similar recommendation of the
administration to delete area 3a from the zoning amendments. This has to do with the Chandler
Concrete area, some single-family residences near the Hampton Pointe project, and the truck stop area.
There are a lot of existing uses in this area and there are some special use applications in effect. He
explained the background and history of these items.
Craig Benedict said that this item has to do with comprehensive plan changes. This proposal
is adding area 1, area 2, area 3b, area 3a, and area 3c to the Economic Development guidelines. These
are land use changes only. The suggestion is to rezone all of the properties, except area 3a, to
Economic Development-Limited Office-1. An abridged EDD manual has also been developed that sets
forth the specifics of site analysis.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve
the proposed comprehensive plan amendments CP-1-01 and CP-2-01 concerning the Hillsborough area
activity node.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Establishment of EDD Subdistricts and Development Regulations:
The Board considered proposed EDD subdistricts and text amendments for the proposed
Hillsborough Economic Development District.
Commissioner Gordon feels that these amendments are very complex. She suggested
adding a section seven to page 17 which says, "This ordinance will be reviewed by the staff and the
Board of County Commissioners two years from the effective date of the ordinance with respect to the
effectiveness, including the role of the master plan process, ease of utilization by citizens, developers,
and other appropriate dimensions." Craig Benedict agreed with this addition. Geoffrey Gledhill
suggested saying, "on or before two years."
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to approve the proposed EDD subdistricts and
text amendments for the proposed Hillsborough Economic Development District, with the addition as
stated above.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 33 and suggested that the Planning Director
check to make sure that the shaded areas are properly reflected. He seconded the motion with this
addition.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Board considered proposed approval procedure amendments for the economic
development, commercial, and/or industrial districts amendments in the subdivision, zoning ordinance,
and economic development district design manual. He made reference to the subdivision regulations and
said that they were suggesting changes that would have all subdivisions with non-residential activity
come to the Board of County Commissioners with a set of criteria that would ensure joint access
between properties, limited access to major highways, and an evaluation of shared accesses.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve
the procedure amendments for the economic development, commercial, and/or industrial districts
amendments in the subdivision, zoning ordinance, and economic development district design manual.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS