HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-05-2013 - 6bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -b
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
and Zoning Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts
in the Efland Area - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional
Comments Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) I Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Comprehensive Plan /Future Land Use
Map and Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) Amendment Outline Form
(UDO/Zoning-2012-13)
2. Staff - Recommended Ordinance
Approving Amendment
3. Planning Board - Recommended
Ordinance Approving Amendment
4. Resolution - Statement of Consistency
5. Ordinance Denying Amendment
6. Resolution — Statement of Inconsistency
7. Excerpt from Draft Minutes - November
19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing
8. Excerpt from Approved Minutes —
December 5, 2012 Planning Board
Meeting
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 919 - 245 -2578
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919 -245-
2592
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified
Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts
in the Efland area. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village
and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by
public water and sewer systems.
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the November 19, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input. While the
BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from the public
shall not be solicited.
BACKGROUND: The form in Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis
regarding these County initiated amendments, which are consistent with the adopted Efland-
Mebane Small Area Plan. The amendment package in Attachment 2 includes a map showing
the extent of the two proposed zoning overlay districts.
Ninty -eight (98) parcels containing approximately 157 acres are located in the proposed Efland
Village Overlay District. Sixty -four (64) parcels containing approximately 275 acres are located
in the proposed Efland Interstate Overlay District. These figures include road and rail rights -of
way.
Planning staff held a Public Information Meeting on November 14, 2012. Ten people and one
BOCC member attended the meeting to learn more about the proposal.
Public Hearing
This proposal was heard at the November 19, 2012 joint public hearing. Please see Section
C.1.b of Attachment 1 for a summary of questions and comments made at the public hearing
and staff responses. Comments #4 and 5 of the referenced section contain comments on which
the Planning Board was asked by staff to make a specific determination.
Procedural Information
In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not
presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's
recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is
for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. The public hearing is held
open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Additionally, as a result of a 2012 NC Supreme Court decision, governing bodies are required to
take two separate actions addressing a proposed zoning atlas amendment, specifically:
1. Adoption of an Ordinance approving or rejecting the proposed atlas amendment
(included in Attachments 2 and 3), and
2. Adoption of a separate statement denoting the atlas amendment complies with an
adopted comprehensive plan (this is the Statement that comprises Attachment 4).
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board considered this item at its December 5, 2012 meeting. The Planning Board
unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item with recommended changes, specifically
that pedestrian circulation and connectivity should be provided in the Efland Village Overlay
District. (See Section C.1.b, comment 5 in Attachment 1 for additional information). The
Planning Board's recommended additions are included in the text of Attachment 3 in green font
color. The Planning Board approved minutes are included in Attachment 8.
Planning Director's Recommendation
The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and
Zoning Atlas amendments contained in Attachment 2. The additions in Attachment 2 address
comments made at the Quarterly Public Hearing regarding provision of an internal pedestrian
system in multi - family and larger commercial projects but do not require project applicants to
provide a pedestrian system that connects to adjacent parcels. The recommendation for
approval is based on the following:
• The amendments further implement recommendations in the Efland - Mebane Small Area
Plan; and
3
• The amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted Comprehensive plan or part
thereof; and,
• The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Special Note: As noted above, the Planning Board deliberated and recommended the addition
of "Pedestrian Circulation" requirements in the Efland Village overlay district (noted in green on
pages 6 -34 and 35 of Attachment 3). The discussion arose from a comment made at the
Quarterly Public Hearing regarding the inclusion of internal pedestrian systems for larger -scale
non - residential and multi - family projects in the Efland Interstate overlay district without a similar
requirement proposed for the Efland Village overlay district (see Section C.1.b, comment 5 in
Attachment 1).
For smaller scale projects in a `village' setting, the appropriate pedestrian plan would be within
the road right -of -way. However, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
responsible for road maintenance in counties and does not maintain sidewalks (see link to work
session materials on this topic in Section B.1 of Attachment 1). Therein a quagmire exists - the
goal of walkability but no locational public accommodation unless on private property which has
associated issues. These issues have been discussed with the County Manager and County
Attorney's office.
Issues
1. The imposition of `requiring' public use of private property including the cost
(potentially upwards of $100 per linear foot, depending on site conditions), liability and
maintenance. Do issues of partial taking arise?
2. Would this pedestrian system have to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
compatible (i.e. paved)?
3. The legal authority to enforce lack of maintenance.
4. The increase in impervious square footage due to the walkway causes a restriction in
the potential building size.
5. Would the `piece -meal' implementation cause "sidewalks to nowhere" and /or affect
the development design of adjacent parcels?
6. Associated liabilities to third parties by individual property owners.
7. Lack of an overall master plan for walkability.
Admittedly, these issues are counterbalanced with the benefits and safety of walkability and
therefore the Planning Director recommends that additional study occur to create more logical,
legal and cost effective regulations in regards to pedestrian systems. The development of a
village pedestrian master plan with associated private maintenance authorities could potentially
be explored. In the interim, the proposal in Attachment 2 should be considered for adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Deliberate as necessary and decide accordingly. The Manager recommends 3.a. below
at this time.
a. If the Board decides to adopt the changes recommended by the Planning
Director, the Board should adopt Attachments 2 and 4 which authorize the
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and
Zoning Atlas and provide the required Statement of Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(In addition, research potential solutions to the issues noted.)
b. If the Board decides to adopt the changes recommended by the Planning
Board, the Board should adopt Attachments 3 and 4 which authorize the
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and
Zoning Atlas and provide the required Statement of Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
c. If the Board decides not to adopt any changes, the Board should adopt
Attachments 5 and 6, which consist of an ordinance denying the amendments and
the Statement of Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2012 -13
Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
F-] Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
® Zoning Map: Add Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
From:
To:
F-] Other:
Text Amendments
® Comprehensive Plan Text:
Appendix F - Land Use and Zoning Matrix: Add tick marks to potentially allow
a "Special Zoning Overlay District" in all of the Transition land use
classifications.
F;j UDO Text:
ZUDO General Text Changes
ZUDO Development Standards
F IUDO Development Approval Processes
�
ection(s): Text Amendments to: Sections 2.5.7 and 4.4
Add New Sections: 4.5, 4.67 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
Renumber Existing Sections: 4.5, 4.6, and 6.6.3
Reference Changes in Existing Sections: 4.5.1, 6.8.12, and 7.13.2.
F-] Other..
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
To re -start a process that was begun in early 2010 but put on hiatus so staff could
focus on developing the initial UDO and subsequent amendments related to
1
61
economic development. The Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP)
Implementation Focus Group (IFG) had begun meeting to develop design standards
for the Efland "core" area, as recommended in the adopted EMSAP. The adopted
plan is available at:
At the June 19, 2012 BOCC meeting, the Board authorized staff to proceed with
developing the design standards in conjunction with the EMSAP IFG.
2. Analysis
Eel
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based
upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning
Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. The following information is offered:
The proposed zoning overlay districts are consistent with the recommendations made
in the adopted Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan which called for design standards in
the "core area" of Efland. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide
for a more village and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or
intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems. The affected area is also
designated as a Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node ( CITAN) on the
County's Future Land Use Map. It is pertinent to note that some of the zoning
districts allowed in a CITAN land use classification allow residential uses "by right."
The proposed overlay districts have been written so that the requirements will not
pertain to existing or new single - family detached residential uses. All other
residential uses (e.g., duplexes, multi - family) proposed in the overlay districts will be
required to conform to the requirements of the overlay districts.
Because County development regulations pertain primarily to areas that are not
intended to be served by public and water systems, which tends to result in larger lot
sizes and lower density, some of the County's regulations are not suitable for areas
intended to have denser or more intensive development on smaller lots. For
example, some of the land use buffer requirement in Section 6.8 of the UDO would
be infeasible to meet on a parcel of property that is less than 100 feet in width and
has an area measurement typically referred to in square feet rather than in acres.
However, in areas of the county slated for denser development than the outlying rural
areas, smaller sized lots with buildings closer together is to be expected. Therefore,
development regulations must be modified to reflect these physical differences while
continuing to strive for quality development. The proposed overlay districts endeavor
0,
to encourage development while ensuring quality.
Development will still be required to meet the impervious surface limitations
contained in Section 4.2 of the UDO. Because the impervious surface limitations
stem from State statutes /rules, modifications to the allowable percentages are not
permitted except as allowed in Section 4.2.8.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Objective LU -1.1
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non -
residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation,
commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e.,
water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding
areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed -use zoning districts where
adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development
Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW -2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the
revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential
uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development
pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are
planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses
on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing
policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green building
approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also Cultural
Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED -4.1.)
4. New Statutes and Rules
Not applicable.
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
3
7
E:]
Several BOCC and Planning Board members had questions or comments, which
are summarized below and, if appropriate, include a staff response:
1. A BOCC member asked about the existing Efland- Cheeks Overlay District
(ECOD) and who was involved in that effort, since the proposed new
overlay districts are essentially a part of a larger effort.
Staff Response: The Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation
Focus Group worked on the ECOD effort and the proposed overlay
districts. This is an group appointed by the BOCC and comprised
primarily of people who live in the Efland area, many of whom also served
on the initial group that developed the Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan.
2. Two BOCC members asked about the architectural design standards
related to chain businesses and how buildings would have to be altered to
comply with the regulations. One of these BOCC members expressed
concern about the requirement.
Staff Response: The recommendations in the EIVISAP (page 66) state
that the "eclectic, vernacular character of Efland be preserved to the
greatest extent possible" and that "there is no desire on the part of Efland
residents to become a homogenous, `anywhere U.S.A.' community."
Page 69 of the EIVISAP specifically addresses the portion of the planning
area proposed for the two new overlay districts and states that "Residents
have long viewed the area as a `gateway' into the core of Efland" and that
"the character of the gateway is an important factor in the perception of
Efland as a rural village." Additionally, this section of the plan states "there
is a desire among residents of the area for managed, orderly growth in
conjunction with the desire to preserve the character of the area" and that
"both desires can be accomplished if development of done in a context
sensitive manner." The plan then goes on to state that site and
architectural design guidelines (now referred to as "standards" in order to
fit into the context of the Unified Development Ordinance) should be
develODed and adODted Drior to develODment DrODOsals being acceDted for
11
the area. Several policy areas are listed, including architectural details.
01
Because the same types of concerns pertained to the area covered by the
existing ECOD, the ECOD regulations also contain many of the same
restrictions as those proposed for the two new overlay districts. In fact,
most of the proposed requirements come directly from the requirements for
ECOD or from existing requirements for economic development districts
(see, for instance, existing Section 6.5 of the UDO).
Determinations on proposed designs are made during the site plan review
process when a project is proposed, which is in keeping with the existing
processes (See Section 6.5.1(C) for existing requirements).
3. A BOCC member questioned the prohibition against drive - throughs in the
proposed Efland Village Overlay District.
Staff Response: The existing ECOD also prohibits drive- throughs (See
UDO Section 6.6.2(G)(1)(b)). This prohibition along Highway 70 and in the
"Village Core" (currently under consideration) was seen as an important
issue by the EMSAP Implementation Focus Group in preserving
community character in this geographic area. The proposed Efland
Interstate Overlay District does not prohibit drive- throughs.
4. A BOCC member asked about the proposed "tick" for a Special Zoning
Overlay District in the 20 -Year Transition land use classification in the
Land Use and Zoning Matrix of the Comprehensive Plan. The member
suggested that the "tick" not be included for the 20 -Year Transition
classification since the classification is residential in nature and instead the
Comprehensive Plan be purposefully amended in the future if necessary.
Staff Response: If the BOCC desires, the "tick" can be removed from the
20 -Year Transition classification in the matrix. Staff was proposing it be
included since many of the 20 -Year Transition areas are "Primary Service
Areas" for water and sewer service and in case water and sewer
planning /engineering require the use of a special zoning overlay district,
the ability to employ this type of zoning technique would already be
established.
The Planning Board was asked by staff to make a specific
recommendation on this point at its December 5, 2012 meeting. After
discussion, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that
the "tick" be retained as presented in the public hearing materials.
5. A BOCC member asked about the "internal pedestrian circulation system"
and whether a pedestrian system would be required in the Efland Village
Overlay District on a large multi - family project. (The proposed Efland
Interstate Overlay Districts is written to require an internal pedestrian
circulation system on large projects. "Large" is defined in the text.)
5
Staff Response: The UDO has requirements for "Livability Space"
(pertaining to residential projects) and for "Pedestrian /Landscape Space"
(pertaining to non - residential projects) (see Section 6.3). The definitions
for these two terms (Article 10 of the UDO) include counting walkways as
part of the required ratio. The exact ratio required is dependent on the
zoning district (see charts in Article 3). Projects in the Efland Village
Overlay District would have to conform to the ratio requirements; however,
it would be possible to meet the required ratio without installing walkways.
The Planning Board was asked by staff to make a specific
recommendation on this point at its December 5, 2012 meeting. The
Planning Board believes that providing pedestrian systems (and other
modes of transportation) is very important, especially in denser areas of
the county, and not only in larger projects. The Planning Board voted
unanimously to direct staff to include language to require privately -
owned, connecting walkways in the Efland Village Overlay District
area and to circulate the proposal via e-mail for any comments. Staff has
done so and the proposed text in Attachment 3 contains the additions in
green text.
The reason the Planning Board voted to require privately -owned
connecting walkways is because county governments in North Carolina
have limited ability to fund and maintain sidewalks (see materials in
October 2011 work session link in Section B.1 of this form). Staff is not
recommending that the Planning Board's recommendation be adopted due
to the reasons outlined in the abstract. Instead, staff has included
language in Attachment 2 that will require internal pedestrian systems on
multi - family and larger non - residential projects in the Efland Village overlay
district. Additionally, staff recommends the County continue to study and
look for ways connecting pedestrian systems can be provided outside of
municipal areas.
6. The Planning Board member who also serves on the EMSAP
Implementation Focus Group and was a member of the original EMSAP
planning group confirmed the Group's desire to not have fast food type of
restaurants north of the railroad tracks and to have some architectural
controls on projects south of the railroad tracks.
7. A Planning Board member asked about allowing 15% of parking in the
"front yard" and asked if this allows parking on grass.
Staff Response: Staff clarified at the public hearing that this means in a
designated parking area that conforms to the requirements of the UDO for
parking (Section 6.9) and that the UDO refers to the required setback as a
"yard," which may not be the same way a layperson thinks of their front
yard.
8. A BOCC member asked about non - conforming properties and how this
action affects non - conforming properties.
0
10
Staff Response: Some properties in the area already are non - conforming
and the lessening of setback and buffer requirements proposed in the
overlay districts may actually help some of the properties become
conforming (or lessen the non - conformity). Regardless, Article 8 of the
UDO addresses how various nonconformities (e.g., lot size, uses,
structures, etc.) are regulated. Non - conforming uses may continue to
operate but cannot be enlarged, altered, or replaced. Staff is not aware of
any instances where an existing conforming use will be made non-
conforming by adopting the proposed overlay districts. Property owners
who have questions or concerns related to this issue are encouraged to
contact Planning staff to discuss their concerns and receive a
determination.
9. A BOCC member asked about the requirement on intra -site accessibility
and whether this might be a problem for certain lots.
Staff Response: Staff is not aware of lots in the proposed overlay districts
where this requirement would be difficult or impossible to meet. This
proposed requirement is an existing requirement in the economic
development districts (Section 6.9.10(F)(2)(a)) and is being suggested for
the Efland overlay districts because of the positive effects the requirement
tends to have on circulation on public streets.
c. BOCC UDdates /CheckDOints
October 16, 2012 — approval of legal ad
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: The Quarterly Public Hearing public involvement process shall be
consistent with North Carolina State Statutes and UDO requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
December 5, 2012 - recommendation
(The Planning Board's Ordinance Review Committee did not review this
ordinance amendment as staff is working with the EMSAP IFG on this project.
The EMSAP IFG's membership includes a member of the Planning Board who
reports back to the Planning Board after EMSAP IFG meetings.)
b. Advisory Boards:
EIVISAP Implementation Focus Group
met on August 29, 2012 to review and
comment on the proposed overlay
7
11
districts.
c. Local Government Review:
Not applicable
d. Notice Requirements
Notices to affected and adjacent property owners were mailed on November 2,
2012. A total of 108 letters were mailed to affected property owners and 76 post
cards were mailed to adjacent property owners.
A legal advertisement was run in the Chapel Hill Herald on November 4 and 11
and in the News of Orange on November 7 and 14.
25 notification signs were posted in strategic areas of the affected area on
November 8, 2012.
e. Outreach:
® General Public: Planning staff held an "open house" style public information
meeting on November 14, 2012 at the Efland- Cheeks
Community Center. Ten people and one BOCC member
attended the meeting.
® Small Area Plan Workgroup: The EIVISAP IFG met on August 29, 2012 to
review and comment on the proposed overlay
districts. The group decided that additional
meetings were not necessary as the proposed
overlay districts were consistent with the intent
of the adopted EIVISAP.
F-1 Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
This project required a fairly substantial amount of Planning staff time to complete
and was accomplished by existing staff. The legal advertisements, notification
mailings, and posted signs were paid using Planning Department FY12 -13 funds
budgeted for these purposes.
Adoption of the two new zoning overlay districts is not expected to impact County
funding needs.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Adoption of the amendments will mean that new development (other than detached
single family houses) in the affected area will be subject to the requirements of the
zoning overlay district. In some cases, such as required buffering, this is a lessening of
611
12
existing regulations to reflect the smaller sized lots that exist in the affected area. In
other instances, such as architectural requirements, the proposed regulations are
slightly more restrictive than existing regulations.
The regulation requirements are consistent with the recommendations contained in the
adopted Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan and are being proposed in order to encourage
a more urban style of development in the proposed Efland Interstate Overlay District and
a more urban village style of development in the proposed Efland Village Overlay District
while also promoting good planning /development practices and quality development.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please see Attachment 2.
Primary Staff Contact:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III
(919) 245 -2578
pholtz @orangecountync.gov
I
13
Ordinance #: ORD- 2013 -005 Attachment 2
14
(Staff Recommended Ordinance)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as established in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.7
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in order to establish two new
zoning overlay districts and accompanying regulations in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary
to promote implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendments will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted Efland - Mebane Small Area Plan and is internally consistent with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new
mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See
also Economic Development Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water
and Wastewater Objective WW-2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through
the revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian
friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where
public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote
higher intensity and high density uses on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve
existing policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green
building approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also
Cultural Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED-
4.1.)
and
15
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district will be placed are depicted on the
map in the attached pages and are identified as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18 of 4.64
acre parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77 of 1.93
acre parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40 of 0.93
acre parcel
16
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
9854283244
1.84
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79 of 5.5
acre parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82 of 5.02
acre parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
and
17
WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed amendments to be reasonably necessary to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas are hereby amended
as shown on the attached pages.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
day of
seconded by
, the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
.2013.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on , 2013 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2013.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
w
19
Amendment Package for Two Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts
in the Efland Area
Notes
The pages that follow contain the amendments necessary to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text, Zoning Atlas, and Comprehensive Plan text to adopt two new
zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. These amendments are proposed as a result
of, and consistent with, the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (adopted in 2006). The
primary purpose of the zoning overlay districts is to modify existing development
regulations to provide for a more village and urban style of development in an area of
the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems.
Proposed additions /changes to existing UDO text that were part of the quarterly public
hearing materials are depicted in red. Proposed additions /changes recommended
by staff after the public hearing are depicted in green. Many of the proposed
changes utilize footnotes to provide a brief explanation as to rationale. Users are
reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available on-
line at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
The adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan is also available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /admin EM SAP.asp
The Comprehensive Plan is available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /compre cpupdate.asp
Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that these
sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment. Text
with a large "X" is not proposed for deletion; proposed deletions are shown in
red strikethreug4 text.
As was noted in the legal advertisement for this proposal, existing sections 4.5 and 4.6
will be renumbered to 4.7 and 4.8, respectively. Additionally, existing Section 6.6.3 will
be renumbered to 6.6.5. References to the following sections are also included in this
packet: 4.5.1, 6.8.12, and 7.13.2.
Article 2: Procedures 20
Section 2.5: Site Plan Review
under G.S. 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right
valid until i
(B) Thssite specific development plan for a project which requires the p aration of an
EnvirdlNz,,ental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with Sect' 6.16 of this Ordinance
shall not be proved until the EIS has been made availab or public review, and has
been presente the Board of County Commissioner accordance with Section 2.23
of this Ordinance.
2.5.6 Guarantee of Improvements
(A) If a guarantee of i m prove me ntsigreq1ked as a condition of site plan approval, the
applicant shall provide Or e County wit security bond, escrow agreement, or
irrevocable letter of cr by an approved insti n.
(B) The guarantee all be effective for 12 months and sh include the cost of the
improvem s plus 10 %.
(C) Pri o issuance of any site plan approval, the guarantee shall be roved by the
ounty Attorney.
If a guarantee is not submitted, the developer must install all required improvNqPnts to
the satisfaction of the County prior to issuance of the zoning compliance permit.
2.5.7 Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts
(A) Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD), no
construction activity shall begin nor shall any conversion of existing single - family
residence to a non - residential land use, excavation, soil removal, grading or
disturbance of vegetation including trees, land disturbing activity associated with
a non - residential land use, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Sections 2.4 ;;arm 6-6.21 of this Ordinance.
(B) Efland Interstate Overlay District2
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin
nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use
subject to the requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan
has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance
with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(C) Efland Village Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
1 Staff suggests this reference be removed so that the potential for omissions in future amendments is minimized.
Section 2.5.3 already requires compliance with Article 6 (and other articles).
2 The two additions here are formalities to ensure grading and /or construction does not commence prior to the
issuance of necessary permits.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -12
Article 2: Procedures 21
Section 2.6: Floodplain Development Permit and Certificate Requirements
Within the Efland Village Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin nor
shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of vegetation,
including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use subject to the
requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan has been
approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance with this
Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(D) Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District3
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Major Transportation Corridor District, no construction activity shall
begin nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
.8 Additional Requirements for Economic Development Districts
(A) Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants shall meet h
representatives of the Planning and Inspections, and Economic Development
Departments to identify policies, procedures, regulations, and fees applicabl o
development proposals.
(B) proposed subdivision in an Economic Development District shall f ow the approval
pro dures as specified in Section 2.16.
(C) In additi to the submittal requirements contained in this Secti a complete application
shall also i Iude:
(1) Bui\elevation drawings for each proposed st cture; and
(2) A mwo drawings of sections throu the site illustrating existing and
pros, as well as the refationsh' of different site features.
2.6.1 Requirements for Special Flood Hazard NgXOverlay District
All projects proposing the development ox, o p N., located within the Special Flood Hazard Area
Overlay District shall be required, regar ess of roposed land use, to submit a site plan
prepared by a registered engineer, I dscape archite , or land surveyor in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.5.
2.6.2 Plans and Application Regyrt"rements
Application for a floodpl development permit shall be made to PV Floodplain Administrator on
forms furnished by the fanning Department prior to any developmeNkztivities proposed to be
located within flood rone areas.
The followin o ems/ information shall be presented to the Floodplain Administ for to apply for a
floodplain velopment permit:
(A) A plot plan drawn to scale which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the Ilowing
specific details of the proposed floodplain development:
(1) The nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area of \
development/disturbance; existing and proposed structures, driveways, utility
systems, grading /pavement areas, fill materials, storage areas, drainage
facilities, and other development;
s This subsection is currently (B).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 22
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
4.3.6 Compliance
No str e , ex e rted, altered, oimpro way without full compliance with the ter s
er applicable regulations.
4.4.1 Intent
(A) The Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) is established to
provide for compatibility of uses between existing single - family residential land uses and
non - residential developments along a designated portion of Highway 70 within Cheeks
Township.
(B) The Highway 70 corridor covered under this overlay district is part of the Efland Mebane
Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27, 2006,
which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including allowing
for additional non - residential development along Highway 70.
(C) The regulations contained in this Ordinance are designed to preserve and enhance the
character of the community while allowing for mixed, but compatible, land uses by
permitting logical expansion of existing non - residential developments throughout the
corridor.
(D) It is the intent of this overlay district to encourage land use patterns that will:
(1) Protect existing single - family residential land uses,
(2) Protect the character of the area,
(3) Enhance property values,
(4) Maintain the economic viability and carrying capacity of the corridor,
(5) Preserve open vistas whenever possible,
(6) Encourage small businesses to locate in appropriate areas, and
(7) Continue to promote and provide for the general welfare of local citizens and
property owners.
(E) Standards are established in Section 6.6.2 to allow for the development of additional non-
residential land uses within the ECOD in order to maintain and enhance the economic
vitality of the area while protecting the less intensive mixture of existing residential land
uses
4.4.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for properties adjacent to Highway 70 within Cheeks Township of
Orange County in accordance with the boundaries shown eR the map belew aR d 4 on the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to ECOD apply to all non - residential land
uses and developments within the Highway 70 Overlay District except for existing non-
residential land uses located within previously established general commercial or Existing
Commercial -5 (EC -5) zoning districts.
4 Rather than populating the UDO with maps that are redundant to the Zoning Atlas (which is where overlay districts
must be shown), staff is suggesting that the boundaries of overlay districts be maintained only on the Zoning Atlas.
Staff also believes this may decrease any future problems if overlay district boundaries were ever changed (e.g.,
someone forgetting or not realizing that both a text amendment to the UDO and a Zoning Atlas amendment are
necessary).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -12
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 23
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
0L sin
-gas MINI
�IIIIIRIf
E1S��rr�•o,�on�l
ny7see�s�ws ��!III��I �C,�
11111111 l ��= ' –���.�
w# 'I
wi4■,.,I�,:..,:�rlll,
��� - 65 ���
lilt Liar:
`�[l! JI
i �—�I d1,�'�,II
-.,,d �,r..a ■Ilai
I�..... ,off *• �
�•i r� y�y�i ��
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 24
Section 4.5: Efland Interstate4F
The minimum lot width for all lots created after December 3, 2007 shall be 130 feet,
unless the lot is served by public sewer and shared ingress /egress in which case the
minimum lot width shall be 75 feet.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) The setbacks and building heights for all structures, regardless of the proposed
land use, shall conform to the setbacks of the underlying zoning district.
(2) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 5-2.2(A) 6.2.2(A)5, in no case shall building height exceed 35 feet.
(3) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -way as designated in the Orange County Thepeughfar° oi°., Comprehensive
Transportation Plan6.
(C) Floor Area Ratio
(1) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses in the pre- designated
commercial area shall be 0.200 with a maximum building square footage total of
20,000 square feet.
(2) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses along the Highway 70
Corridor shall be 0.100 with a maximum building square footage total of 6,000
square feet.
(D) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of non - residential uses unless a
demonstrated need can be shown.
(2) Within the pre- designated commercial area, vinyl- coated chain link fencing shall
be permitted for non - residential uses.
(3) Outside of the pre- designated commercial area but within the boundaries of the
Highway 70 Overlay District, chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted
for non - residential uses.
(E) Gutside Storage of Materials
(3) This PFGhihi +ir_.A AG-+ inGII -Ide the -- StGpagc° Gf mate•riais; �.Vrhe•re. trr�6e
EA the - PFE)PeFty ORGludestrhv^ e6 itsl{iv°-- cdisplaay-^ef-'gveeds f a I e
a64G rRm°vha.'rl °c ,�h °9 at ,�rrR °vhaiT d- +h + lis isYl7Fe� + e f
s s n, °s, ets�rte- ma�eFaa, � z-aF AF
sale -'
4.5.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Interstate Overlay District is established to provide for a more urban style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
s Correct reference is 6.2.2(A)
6 There has been a change in the name the plans the NC Department of Transportation uses. This change is only to
update the name. Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being
developed, it has not yet been adopted.
7 Suggest deleting this because it also appears in Section 6.6.2(B)
s Existing Section 4.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to become Section 4.7 and existing
Section 4.6(Stoney Creek Basin) has been renumber to become Section 4.8. Because of this renumbering, an
reference is Section 7.13.2 will also be updated.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -14
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 25
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Interstate Overlay District is part of the
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
June 27, 2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area,
including allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this
overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.3 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor)9
4.5.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located south of the railroad tracks and north of
Interstate 85/40 in the general vicinity of Mount Willing Road in accordance with the
boundaries shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 10
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Interstate Overlay District
apply to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.5.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Minimum Setbacks
(1) The minimum side and rear setback shall be with width of the required buffer in
6.6.3(B) or the setback required in Article 3 or Section 6.2.8, whichever is less,
except as provided in (a)."
(a) For parcels subject to the setback and yard requirements in Section
4.7.4, the requirements of said Section shall apply. 12
(2) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -way as designated on the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan.
4.6.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Village Overlay District is established to provide for an urban village style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
9 This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for the
two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
10 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
" A lessening of setbacks is suggested in order to allow for a more urban style of development (e.g., building closer
together and/or more density).
12 Clearly stating that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) requirements will still apply.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -15
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 26
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Village Overlay District is part of the Efland -
Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27,
2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including
allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.4 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) 13
4.6.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located north of the railroad tracks in a
geographic area commonly referred to as "Efland" in accordance with the boundaries
shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 14
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Village Overlay District apply
to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.6.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Village Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the minimum front yard setback
for properties fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be 30 -feet. 15
(2) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the front yard setback for parcels
located in the overlay district but not fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be in
keeping with the front setback provided by adjacent uses. 16
(3) The minimum side and rear setback shall be the width of the required Land Use
Buffer (Section 6.8.6) or the setback required in Article 3, whichever is less, but
in no case shall be less than 10 -feet. 17
" This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for
the two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
14 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
15 This setback is suggested in order to have a more uniform setback along Highway 70 while providing enough of a
setback to accommodate any future widening of the road. (No widening of the road is currently planned, but it is
good planning practice to attempt to ensure for future possibilities).
16 This is suggested in order to have a more uniform building line along a street where there could be more of a
"patchwork" of zoning districts that have different front setback requirements.
17 A lessening of setback requirements is suggested in order to allow for a more urban village style — building closer
together and/or more density than is currently permitted.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -16
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 27
Section 4.7: Major Transportation Corridor
(4) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -war as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation
Plan' .
(5) Although a portion of the Efland Village Overlay District is within the Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, the requirements of the MTC do
not apply. The parcels are included in the MTC only because they fall within the
prescribed distance criteria but do not fall under any existing requirements
pertaining to the MTC. 19
(6) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 6.2.2(A), in no case shall building height exceed 40 feet. 20
(C) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of lots, other than those used for
single - family detached residential purposes, unless a demonstrated need can be
shown . 21
(2) Chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted for uses other than single -
family detached residential.
4.7.1 Intent
(A) It is the intent of Orange County to protect and enhance those natural and environmental
features which constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational, and economic
assets through the provision of special controls of public and private development along
major transportation corridors.
(B) The Board of County Commissioners finds as a fact that:
(1) Major transportation corridors serve a key function in the orderly development of
Orange County as major traffic movers, as well as serve as entrances to Orange
County from outside the area.
(2) These corridors and the character of the development which occurs along them
establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator of the quality of life in the
County, as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic movement through the area.
(3) In addition, the ability of different areas of the County to attract and
accommodate different types of development depends on the capacity of the
thoroughfare system and the character and quality of development along major
corridors.
(C) The Major Transportation Corridor district is intended to enhance the attractiveness and
orderly development of land adjacent to major transportation facilities through the
provision of a set of development standards and regulations for application to public and
private development of land adjacent to these corridors. The major transportation
corridors include the interstate system as designated in the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
"Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being developed; it has not
yet been adopted.
19 This language is suggested so that it's clear that none of the requirements of the MTC apply to the parcels in this
geographic area that are also located within the MTC. The MTC boundary is based on distance from the
interstate /interchanges but none of the parcels in this area fall under the text requirements of the MTC.
20 Some of the zoning districts that could be applied in a CITAN allow buildings taller than 40 feet. A building
height limitation of 40 -feet is suggested in order to maintain an urban village character.
2' The fencing regulations [(1) and (2)] are in keeping with the ECOD regulations in order to discourage unaesthetic
fencing in the front yards of properties.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -17
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 28
Section 4.8: Stoney Creek Basin
(D) The district establishes development standards (see Section 64 64 and a site plan
review process for development within the district. (See Section 2.5).
4.7.2 Applicability
(A) The Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) district is established as a district which
overlays other zoning districts established in this Ordinance. The new use of any land or
any new structure within the MTC district shall comply with the use regulations applicable
to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of the MTC district.
(B) The provisions, requirements and restrictions of this district shall not apply to the use of
land within the district for single family or two - family dwellings or to any building or
structure existing prior to the creation of this district unless it is structurally altered to the
extent of increasing the floor area by 50% or more or is enlarged to any degree to occupy
a vacant lot.
(C) This district shall be applied along any interstate highway in the County designated in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan as such and to any proposed interstate highway
designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan as such.
(D) The minimum length of the district shall be a continuous distance along the thoroughfare
within the County's jurisdiction and outside of the extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of
the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro and the City of Mebane.
(E) The minimum width of the district is 1,250 feet from the edge of the right -of -way
measured along a line which is perpendicular to the edge of the right -of -way on each side
of the roadway, except at interstate interchanges where the District shall extend 2,500
feet from the right -of -way on each side of the intersecting road.
4.7.3 Permitted Uses
Within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District, uses of land and structures are those
permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All other requirements for the use of land
and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be met unless otherwise provided.
4.7.4 Building Setback and Yard Requirements
Building setback and required yard areas for the overlay district are as follows:
(A) The front yard requirement shall be 100 feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an
interstate highway or 50 feet from the edge of an intersecting road at an interstate
interchange.
(B) The rear yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the edge of the rear property line or 100
feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an interstate highway when a rear yard is
adjacent to the interstate.
(C) The side yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the side property line or 100 feet from the
edge of the right -of -way of an interstate highway where the side property line is adjacent
to the interstate.
The purpose of the Stoney
Basin Small Area Plan by:
ng density increases within
aster Stoney Creek
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -18
Article 6: Development Standards 29
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(f) Windows on the street frontage side of a building shall be Iim' d to 40%
of the total building fagade.
(g) The principal building shall be oriented facing towards t fronting street.
(h) Building Access
0) A functional doorway for public or direct- try access into a
building shall be provided from the fro ng street.
(ii) Corner entrances should be provid on corner lot buildings.
iii) Additional entrances to a buildin may be provided.
(i) Rd flines & Materials
(i) Decorative cornices shall /e provided for buildings with a flat
of, defined as roofs wi a pitch less than 3:12.
(ii) Ea s shall be prov' ed with a pitched roof, defined as roofs with
a pit c greater th 3:12.
(iii) Pitched ofs a generally preferred over flat roofs.
(iv) All rooftop echanical equipment (i.e. vents, ducts,
commun' atio antennas, HVAC units, etc) shall be screened
from vi or de ' ned and installed in a manner using materials
and lors
'or i le with the building architecture.
(v) hly reflective roofs materials shall be avoided. All proposed
etal roofing should be tanding seam or copper. Galvanized
steel and tin roofs are pe itted.
Q) R idential manufactured structures re not permitted for conversion to a
on- residential use.
(H) Additional A chitectural Standards for existing single 17ily structures being
converte nto non - residential use:
(1) he exterior fagade of an existing single - family residen proposed for
conversion into non - residential use shall not be altered to ccommodate new
non - residential land uses except where modifications are n essary to address
building or fire code requirements.
(2) Any structures proposed for removal shall either be moved to an er location for
re -use contemporaneously with the construction of the new structu or be
deconstructed in such a manner that the resultant materials are suit\efor -
use by the deconstructing party or others in future building projects. intent of this Sub - Section that the removed structure be recycled to
possible.
6.6.3 Efland Interstate 22
(A) Circulation and Connectivity
(1) All site planning for property east of Mount Willing Road shall take into account
the need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and the
Interstate 85 /U.S. Highway 70 Connector.23
(2) All site planning west of Mount Willing Road shall take into account:
22 Existing Section 6.6.3 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to 6.6.5. References is existing
Sections 4.5.1 and 6.8.12 will be updated.
23 (1) and (2) are putting concepts from the EMSAP and an adopted access management plan into regulations.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -31
Article 6: Development Standards 30
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(a) A possible re- alignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road under the existing
railroad track to connect to Mount Willing Road, as described in the
adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan.
(b) The need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and
Buckhorn Road, as depicted on the Efland - Buckhorn- Mebane Access
Management Plan, adopted November 11, 2011.
(3) In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be permitted no more
than one entrance /exit point unless justified by site configuration, trip generation,
and traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement .24
(4) Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be required to enter
the public street in order to move from one area to another on the same site.
(5) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines . 25
(6) Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the property line;
however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway
entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(7) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(8) Shared Access
(a) In order to manage access on Mount Willing Road, developments
subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing Road, and located
contiguous to one another shall provide shared access.
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the separate
property owners and have the same recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement agreement shall be
sufficient to allow for the development of a private service road
or driveway to channel access from Mount Willing Road to each
property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared
access.
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing
Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated development
shall be required to designate stub outs to adjoining properties
on the site plan so that shared access can be developed if and
when the adjacent property is developed in either a manner
which subjects it to this Section or if individual curb cut for a
single - family detached residential land use is deemed to be a
traffic safety hazard by the County and NCDOT.
(9) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
24 (3) and (4) are current requirements for properties in EDDs and is good practice for many types of projects.
However, it should be noted that NCDOT may not approve more than one entrance /exit point - see (9)
25 (5) through (9) are current requirements of ECOD and are suggested as good practices to be implemented in the
Efland Interstate overlay district as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -32
Article 6: Development Standards 31
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(10) Pedestrian Circulation 26
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during site plan
review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an internal pedestrian
circulation system, owned and maintained by the property owner. The
system shall provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels and also within
any large parking areas.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is defined as one
located on 5 or more acres or proposing more than 50,000 square feet of
building area. A large parking area is one containing parking for 100 or
more vehicles.
(B) Landscaping and Buffering27
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating non - residential and residential land uses. The required
plantings shall be in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet. Joint use
agreements between adjacent property owners for shared ingress /egress and /or
parking may result in a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the required
buffers.
(4) The provisions of this subsection do not waive the buffer requirements found in
Section 6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor).
(C) Architectural Design Standards
(1) In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards),
the national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses shall be altered as
necessary to complement the surrounding area . 28
(2) Drive - through facilities on non - residential uses are allowable in this area.
6.6.4 Efland Village
(A) Circulation and Connectivity29
(1) Shared Access for Properties Fronting on U.S. Highway 70
26 In October 2011, the issue of sidewalks was discussed at a BOCC work session and the decision was made that,
due to NC counties' inability to fund maintenance of public sidewalks, that public sidewalks would not become a
requirement for development in Orange County. However, walkability in large commercial projects is generally
desirable as is the ability of pedestrians to safely traverse large parking areas. Therefore, staff is suggesting that
some projects may be required to provide privately maintained sidewalks.
27 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
28 This language is suggested in order to ensure that any proposed "chain architecture" will blend better with the
surrounding area.
29 Please see footnoted explanations for the Efland Interstate overlay district as they apply to this section as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -33
Article 6: Development Standards 32
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(a) In order to manage access on U.S. Highway 70, developments subject to
this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway 70, and located contiguous to one
another shall provide shared access.
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the separate
property owners and have the same recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement agreement shall be
sufficient to allow for the development of a private service road
or driveway to channel access from Mount Willing Road to each
property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared
access.
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing
Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated development
shall be required to designate stub outs to adjoining properties
on the site plan so that shared access can be developed if and
when the adjacent property is developed in either a manner
which subjects it to this Section or if individual curb cut for a
single - family detached residential land use is deemed to be a
traffic safety hazard by the County and NCDOT.
(2) In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be permitted no more
than one entrance and exit point unless justified by site configuration, trip
generation, and traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement.
(3) Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be required to enter
the public street in order to move from one area to another on the same site.
(4) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines.
(5) Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the property line;
however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway
entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(6) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(7) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
(8) Pedestrian Circulation 30
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during site plan
review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an internal pedestrian
circulation system, owned and maintained by the property owner. The
system shall provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels and also within
any large parking areas.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is defined as one
located on 2 or more acres or proposing more than 15,000 square feet of
building area. A large parking area is one containing parking for 50 or
more vehicles.
(B) Outside Storage of Materials Prohibited 31
so This language was added by staff after the November 19 public hearing and December 5 Planning Board meeting
in order to address comments made at the public hearing about internal pedestrian circulation in larger projects .
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -34
Article 6: Development Standards 33
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(1) All outside storage of materials on lots other than those used for single - family
detached residential purposes is prohibited.
(2) This prohibition includes the storage of goods or materials which are not an
integral part of the use of the property and which are not obviously for sale.
(3) This prohibition does not include the storage of materials where the primary use
of the property includes the outside display of goods for sale such as
automobiles, boats, mobile homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for
sale.
(C) Landscaping and Buffering32
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(a) Parcels fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall provide buffer plantings in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating uses subject to the requirements of this overlay district
and single family detached residential land uses. The required plantings shall be
in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within Section
6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet. Joint use
agreements between adjacent property owners for shared ingress /egress and /or
parking may result in a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the required
buffers.
(4) Although portions of the Efland Village Overlay District are also within the major
Transportation Corridor Overlay District, the buffer requirements found in Section
6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) do not apply since said section applies only
to properties that abut the interstate.
(D) Parking Lot Design 33
(1) Up to 15% of the required parking spaces may be located in the front yard. The
remainder of the required parking spaces shall be located at the side or rear of
the structure.
(2) Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non - residential land
uses, in accordance with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance.
(3) Parking areas with spaces in excess of 110% of the minimum parking spaces
required, per Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
(4) Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided in accordance with
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
31 This is a restriction currently found in the ECOD and is suggested for the Efland Village overlay district as well.
32 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
" These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village. An exception being that
ECOD requires parking to be located solely in the side and rear yards. Staff is suggesting that a few parking spaces
be allowed at the front of buildings in the Efland Village overlay district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -35
Article 6: Development Standards 34
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(E) Signage34
(1) Signage shall conform to all requirements within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance.
(2) Only monument style signs that do not exceed six feet in height are permitted
within the Efland Village Overlay District.
(3) Pole signs are not permitted.
(F) Architectural Design Standards35
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards), the
following design standards shall apply:
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(a) Under no circumstances shall modern corporate franchise building
design be permitted.
(b) Franchise or'chain' businesses desiring to locate in the Efland Village
Overlay District shall be required to design the building in accordance
with these guidelines.
(c) For purposes of this Sub - Section, "modern corporate franchise building
design" means a building design that is trademarked, branded, or easily
identified with a particular chain or corporation and is ubiquitous in
nature.
(2) The principal building shall be oriented facing towards the fronting street.
(3) Building Access
(a) A functional doorway for public or direct -entry access into a building shall
be provided from the fronting street.
(b) Additional entrances to a building may be provided.
(4) Human Scale and Fenestration
(a) Buildings shall be designed to contribute to a human scale. Large
expanses of blank walls shall be avoided and fenestration (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a
building) shall be provided in such a way that a building is relatable to
humans and does not overpower the area.
(5) Drive - through facilities are prohibited on all non - residential uses.
(6) Mirrored glass is prohibited.
6.6.5 ansportation Corridor (MTC)
(A) Landscapi d Buffers
In addition to the requireme t forth ction 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall be met:
34 These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
" (1) through (3) and (5) and (6) are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
(4) is suggested in order to articulate that we are encouraging human scale architecture in the Efland Village overlay
district. The existing requirements in Section 6.5 basically implement this point but "human scale" is a more
modern term that will likely be recognizable to people in the development community.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -36
Article 6: Development Standards 35
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
(Cr--, The Planning Director may grant the extension on requests for planting extens
s fitted between May 15 and September 15 of each year, and may gr e
extensi at other times if there are unfavorable conditions for p ng.
(D) If the initial LRE expired and conditions are still d ed unsuitable for planting, an
applicant may request o dditional extension to 90 days. During periods of
extreme drought, as evidence the offi eclaration of Stage 3 or greater mandatory
water conservation requirements, t nning Director, or designee, may authorize
additional 90 -day extensions and the on tension typically allowed. These
extensions may be co . ed throughout the perio i which the extreme drought
conditions rem ' .
(E) The cant shall also acknowledge that no Final Zoning Complia Permit shall be
ued while there is an active (pending) LREC unless a performance gua ee (such as
a letter of credit or performance bond) sufficient to cover 110% of the installed
landscaping costs has been posted with the Planning and Inspections Department.
6.8.12 Additional Standards for Economic Development Districts
(A) Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan
The Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Section 6.8.10.
(B) Preservation of Existing Features
(1) Natural features such as streams and ponds, hillsides, rock formations, unique
vegetation and natural areas, wildlife habitats, and other similar features must be
incorporated into the overall development concept.
(2) Building sites, parking areas, and other uses shall be situated in such a way as to
protect existing tree stock having a diameter of one -foot or greater when
measured four and a half feet above ground level.
(3) Trees to be saved shall be noted on the landscape and tree preservation plan
and appropriate measures to protect the tree stock from damage during
construction, including no grading within the critical root zone, shall be indicated
in accordance with Section 6.8.4.
(4) Where possible, trees shall be protected in stands or clusters.
(5) The siting of buildings shall take advantage of scenic views and take into
consideration the impact of new structures on views from off -site.
(6) Where ever possible, access to views are to be preserved for adjacent property
owners and passing motorists.
(7) Scenic views and visual elements within the visual corridor shall be identified and
preserved where possible.
(C) Buffering Neighboring Uses
(1) A minimum buffer of 100 feet in width is to be provided at the boundary of all
Economic Development Districts.
(2) In accordance with Section 6 6 2 6.6.5, a buffer of 100 feet in width is to be
maintained adjacent to the right -of -way of interstate highways.
(3) In the Buckhorn EDD, a buffer of 150 feet is required on the portion of the
boundary adjacent to the Clearview Subdivision and adjoining residential area on
the north side of West Ten Road.
(4) In the Hillsborough EDD, a buffer of 100 feet is required along the Old 86
roadway corridor. For properties located within the EDH -1 zoning district, a 50
foot wide buffer is required.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -55
Article 6: Development Standards 36
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
(5) Limited breaks in required interstate highway buffers may be allowed in
accordance with Section 6.6-3(5) 6.6.5(5).
(6) Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas. If existing vegetation is not
sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shall be augmented and interspersed,
consisting of 50 -75% evergreen trees reaching a minimum mature height of 30-
feet.
(7) In lieu of the Land Use Buffers required in Section 6.8.6, buffers between
adjacent land uses, whether internal or external to the project, shall be provided
in accordance with the Land Use Buffer Schedule that follows.
(8) Trees with a caliper of six inches or greater should be considered for
preservation.
(9) No grading for building or parking shall encroach upon required buffer.
(10) Landscape buffer widths may be reduced if the buffer material is adequate to
provide additional screening.
(11) Decorative walls may be used to augment required landscaping for buffer
reduction.
(12) Access and utility crossings are to be made as close to perpendicular as possible
to the length of the buffer.
(13) No land disturbances for buildings, parking, or storage, drainage, etc. are
permitted within a required buffer.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -56
A
WHEN THIS LAND USE IS BEING
DEVELOPED AND...
Residential, all types
TABLE 6.8.12.C: LAND USE BUFFER SCHEDULE &��
B ABUTS THIS EXISTING LAND USE...
NOTE: "ABUTTING LAND USES INCLUDE THOSE ACROSS A
STREET (OTHER
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Residential, all types
"A" PROVIDES
BUFFER WIDTH OF ....
N/A
Finance
20
Government, Information, Recreation, Retail, Services,
Non - Residential Use /Reuse of Historic Buildings
30
Other all other Use Types in Section 5.2.2
50
Interstate Highway (See also Section 6.6.3)
100
Arterial Road
30
Collector Road
20
Railroad
40
Transmission Lines
40
Undeveloped Parcel
20
Finance
Residential, all types
20
Finance
20
Government, Information, Recreation, Retail, Services,
Non - Residential Use /Reuse of Historic Buildings
20
Other all other Use Types in Section 5.2.2
N/A
Interstate Highway See also Section 6.6.3
100
Arterial Road
20
Collector Road
20
Railroad
20
Transmission Lines
20
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -56
Article 7: Subdivisions 37
Section 7.13: Flexible Developments
rovide for the active and low impact recreational needs of idents,
includ-F T�ementation of the Master Recreatio s Plan.
(8) To provide greater efficien i ing of services and infrastructure by
reducing road i ity runs, an unt of paving for development.
9 create compact neighborhoods accessible to open sp enities and with
a strong identity.
7.13.2 Applicability
(A) All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and
standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances
to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions.
(B) Flexible Developments located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall
comply with provisions of Section 44 4.836 of this Ordinance.
(C) The Village Option for a Flexible Development shall not be located in the Rural Buffer
(RB) zoning district.
(D) Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning
Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and
preserving open space areas as part of such developments.
7.13.3-,,Open Space Standards
(AN Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Develo ent as
specified herein, at least 33% of the total land area in the Fle i le Development
ust be set aside as protected open space.
(2) Su open space shall meet the standards contained this Section unless the
develo r chooses to seek approval of a conventio I subdivision as specified
herein.
(B) Planning for Open Sp e
(1) Open space design subdivision proj s shall be planned as part of a
comprehensive project sign.
(2) The long -term success of op ace is improved when a layout is chosen with a
perspective of future usefuln s, fficiency, connectivity and compatibility with
both existing developme nd oth types of open spaces.
(3) Open space is an im rtant amenity for bdivision residents and an essential
part of the County' character and environ tal quality.
(4) Open space nning must indicate a thoughtful derstanding of that
importanc , and shall be evaluated based on its me
(5) A Fle i e Development subdivision plan shall always pro ide open space which
pro inently meets at least one of the three following goals in en space design:
a) The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and /or Habitat;
(b) The Preservation of Rural Character; or
(c) The Creation or Protection of Space for Outdoor Recreation.
(6) When relevant, a Flexible Development subdivision plan shall address the
following additional goals in open space design:
36 This reference change is necessary due to renumbering Sections in order to insert the two proposed overlay
district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -37
cn
cn
_m
L
O
0)
N
a)
cn
O
O
L
Ii
1
�_I►
uo In
.-
-
I
S.
/I/I
OR
\ \�
�
Ulm
I1■rJ.'llr,r
IRA
c
MEE
III
■
■
■�
■
``..
II��!�
i
(14
Lo CO
Ii'
�1
•
�
11111
I;
I—
.�;A�a 7l1�/■
amIm
�
■ ■= �IIII�1■
��i��
•
•
i�iiif`� ■ ■��1�11
— m ■II
'
•
Inv
1�����11
_-
�
III
•�
�I ■1
411
-:
.
■
. .
• ,
iii.
a�ld__�
.
�_.,__-
1 ��
■
@goo
NOWNE
■
\``�1NMI
•�
CL
CL
\`I��j
��
�11�
i
•
> •
�■ Inv
� 2
§ \
\ \
§\o
± § o
/7§
a7
te=SO
E0
\E
0 0
220
°±e5
\\Co
0
Z \$\
X 0 0 0
.2 o a)
t ° 2 E
<=07
\ /f/
777=
= o = e
@ 0 —
RE\\
\22e
/352
=2E�
\f)
\ % _
ooco
Ecg£
0a
Oqa\
£ =o/
§ - @\
. /$o
_ \
f u
o§7
cu 0
m = > E
m m = E
om ==
§ /$o
77 c=
§e
\ /� \
\ \ \\
%w
a CU
= o a >
cu
/�u>
c m o 0
=t£o
o =mom
U) CU
\ e 2 R
/.� Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Matrix
Ora*iq,e,Eou*it/ Ecivtprehe+u-�v&fla�
Page Aa
C
,
bA
§v
■
E 7
/
Hm 9mE� %mA
0 ®
!2
°
d
/
1
\
'
2I
S
C
44
■
■
7
� /
to
ƒS-3
El
§\
yJ-9
9d
Ja
u-
J&
2 ?
EJ�
� $
E!- �� � `� �
■
■
� /
7
%
H
■
,
!-
2v
2
2'd
,
�
t�
/
%J
/
0 °
m
§
\
2
k
2
\
Ld 2
di
U
U
%
lu
g
Ld
di
-
@
B
B
2
k
0§
� 2\
di
)¢
c
¥
¥'
/
Ld a»
a
q
B
c
2 a
P
§ 5
�
�
\
5
§
i
E 2§
§■
B 2
B®
B\
—
k
2
=%
Q Q
k
o-
Q k
o
Q
u
mew
m I
ap � q
Ora*iq,e,Eou*it/ Ecivtprehe+u-�v&fla�
Page Aa
C
Ordinance #: ORD- 2013 -006 Attachment 3 40
(Planning Board
Recommended Ordinance)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as established in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.7
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in order to establish two new
zoning overlay districts and accompanying regulations in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary
to promote implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendments will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan and is internally consistent with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new
mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See
also Economic Development Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water
and Wastewater Objective WW -2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through
the revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian
friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where
public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote
higher intensity and high density uses on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve
existing policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green
building approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also
Cultural Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED-
4.1.)
and
41
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district will be placed are depicted on the
map in the attached pages and are identified as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18
acre
of 4.64
parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77
acre
of 1.93
parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40
acre
of 0.93
parcel
42
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
19854283244
1.84
Efland Interstate
verlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79
acre
of 5.5
parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82
acre
of 5.02
parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
Efland Interstate
Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
and
43
WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed amendments to be reasonably necessary to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas are hereby amended
as shown on the attached pages.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
day of
2013.
seconded by
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on 1 2013 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
1841191
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
..
45
Amendment Package for Two Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts
in the Efland Area
Notes
The pages that follow contain the amendments necessary to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text, Zoning Atlas, and Comprehensive Plan text to adopt two new
zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. These amendments are proposed as a result
of, and consistent with, the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (adopted in 2006). The
primary purpose of the zoning overlay districts is to modify existing development
regulations to provide for a more village and urban style of development in an area of
the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer systems.
Proposed additions /changes to existing UDO text that were part of the quarterly public
hearing materials are depicted in red. Proposed additions /changes made as a result of
Planning Board recommendations are depicted in green. Many of the proposed
changes utilize footnotes to provide a brief explanation as to rationale. Users are
reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available on-
line at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
The adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan is also available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /admin EM SAP.asp
The Comprehensive Plan is available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /compre cpupdate.asp
Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that these
sections are not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only
because in the full UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment. Text
with a large "X" is not proposed for deletion; proposed deletions are shown in
red strikethreug4 text.
As was noted in the legal advertisement for this proposal, existing sections 4.5 and 4.6
will be renumbered to 4.7 and 4.8, respectively. Additionally, existing Section 6.6.3 will
be renumbered to 6.6.5. References to the following sections are also included in this
packet: 4.5.1, 6.8.12, and 7.13.2.
Article 2: Procedures 46
Section 2.5: Site Plan Review
under G.S. 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right
valid until i
(B) Thssite specific development plan for a project which requires the p aration of an
EnvirdlNz,,ental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with Sect' 6.16 of this Ordinance
shall not be proved until the EIS has been made availab or public review, and has
been presente the Board of County Commissioner accordance with Section 2.23
of this Ordinance.
2.5.6 Guarantee of Improvements
(A) If a guarantee of i m prove me ntsigreq1ked as a condition of site plan approval, the
applicant shall provide Or e County wit security bond, escrow agreement, or
irrevocable letter of cr by an approved insti n.
(B) The guarantee all be effective for 12 months and sh include the cost of the
improvem s plus 10 %.
(C) Pri o issuance of any site plan approval, the guarantee shall be roved by the
ounty Attorney.
If a guarantee is not submitted, the developer must install all required improvNqPnts to
the satisfaction of the County prior to issuance of the zoning compliance permit.
2.5.7 Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts
(A) Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD), no
construction activity shall begin nor shall any conversion of existing single - family
residence to a non - residential land use, excavation, soil removal, grading or
disturbance of vegetation including trees, land disturbing activity associated with
a non - residential land use, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Sections 2.4 ;;arm 6-6.21 of this Ordinance.
(B) Efland Interstate Overlay District2
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin
nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use
subject to the requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan
has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance
with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(C) Efland Village Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
1 Staff suggests this reference be removed so that the potential for omissions in future amendments is minimized.
Section 2.5.3 already requires compliance with Article 6 (and other articles).
2 The two additions here are formalities to ensure grading and /or construction does not commence prior to the
issuance of necessary permits.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -12
Article 2: Procedures 47
Section 2.6: Floodplain Development Permit and Certificate Requirements
Within the Efland Village Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin nor
shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of vegetation,
including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use subject to the
requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan has been
approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance with this
Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(D) Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District3
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Major Transportation Corridor District, no construction activity shall
begin nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
.8 Additional Requirements for Economic Development Districts
(A) Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants shall meet h
representatives of the Planning and Inspections, and Economic Development
Departments to identify policies, procedures, regulations, and fees applicabl o
development proposals.
(B) proposed subdivision in an Economic Development District shall f ow the approval
pro dures as specified in Section 2.16.
(C) In additi to the submittal requirements contained in this Secti a complete application
shall also i Iude:
(1) Bui\elevation drawings for each proposed st cture; and
(2) A mwo drawings of sections throu the site illustrating existing and
pros, as well as the refationsh' of different site features.
2.6.1 Requirements for Special Flood Hazard NgXOverlay District
All projects proposing the development ox, o p N., located within the Special Flood Hazard Area
Overlay District shall be required, regar ess of roposed land use, to submit a site plan
prepared by a registered engineer, I dscape archite , or land surveyor in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.5.
2.6.2 Plans and Application Regyrt"rements
Application for a floodpl development permit shall be made to PV Floodplain Administrator on
forms furnished by the fanning Department prior to any developmeNkztivities proposed to be
located within flood rone areas.
The followin o ems/ information shall be presented to the Floodplain Administ for to apply for a
floodplain velopment permit:
(A) A plot plan drawn to scale which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the Ilowing
specific details of the proposed floodplain development:
(1) The nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area of \
development/disturbance; existing and proposed structures, driveways, utility
systems, grading /pavement areas, fill materials, storage areas, drainage
facilities, and other development;
s This subsection is currently (B).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 48
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
4.3.6 Compliance
No str e , ex e rted, altered, oimpro way without full compliance with the ter s
er applicable regulations.
4.4.1 Intent
(A) The Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) is established to
provide for compatibility of uses between existing single - family residential land uses and
non - residential developments along a designated portion of Highway 70 within Cheeks
Township.
(B) The Highway 70 corridor covered under this overlay district is part of the Efland Mebane
Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27, 2006,
which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including allowing
for additional non - residential development along Highway 70.
(C) The regulations contained in this Ordinance are designed to preserve and enhance the
character of the community while allowing for mixed, but compatible, land uses by
permitting logical expansion of existing non - residential developments throughout the
corridor.
(D) It is the intent of this overlay district to encourage land use patterns that will:
(1) Protect existing single - family residential land uses,
(2) Protect the character of the area,
(3) Enhance property values,
(4) Maintain the economic viability and carrying capacity of the corridor,
(5) Preserve open vistas whenever possible,
(6) Encourage small businesses to locate in appropriate areas, and
(7) Continue to promote and provide for the general welfare of local citizens and
property owners.
(E) Standards are established in Section 6.6.2 to allow for the development of additional non-
residential land uses within the ECOD in order to maintain and enhance the economic
vitality of the area while protecting the less intensive mixture of existing residential land
uses
4.4.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for properties adjacent to Highway 70 within Cheeks Township of
Orange County in accordance with the boundaries shown eR the map belew aR d 4 on the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to ECOD apply to all non - residential land
uses and developments within the Highway 70 Overlay District except for existing non-
residential land uses located within previously established general commercial or Existing
Commercial -5 (EC -5) zoning districts.
4 Rather than populating the UDO with maps that are redundant to the Zoning Atlas (which is where overlay districts
must be shown), staff is suggesting that the boundaries of overlay districts be maintained only on the Zoning Atlas.
Staff also believes this may decrease any future problems if overlay district boundaries were ever changed (e.g.,
someone forgetting or not realizing that both a text amendment to the UDO and a Zoning Atlas amendment are
necessary).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -12
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 49
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
0L sin
-gas MINI
�IIIIIRIf
E1S��rr�•o,�on�l
ny7see�s�ws ��!III��I �C,�
11111111 l ��= ' –���.�
w# 'I
wi4■,.,I�,:..,:�rlll,
��� - 65 ���
lilt Liar:
`�[l! JI
i �—�I d1,�'�,II
-.,,d �,r..a ■Ilai
I�..... ,off *• �
�•i r� y�y�i ��
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 50
Section 4.5: Efland Interstate4F
The minimum lot width for all lots created after December 3, 2007 shall be 130 feet,
unless the lot is served by public sewer and shared ingress /egress in which case the
minimum lot width shall be 75 feet.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) The setbacks and building heights for all structures, regardless of the proposed
land use, shall conform to the setbacks of the underlying zoning district.
(2) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 5-2.2(A) 6.2.2(A)5, in no case shall building height exceed 35 feet.
(3) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -way as designated in the Orange County Thepeughfar° ol°., Comprehensive
Transportation Plan6.
(C) Floor Area Ratio
(1) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses in the pre- designated
commercial area shall be 0.200 with a maximum building square footage total of
20,000 square feet.
(2) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses along the Highway 70
Corridor shall be 0.100 with a maximum building square footage total of 6,000
square feet.
(D) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of non - residential uses unless a
demonstrated need can be shown.
(2) Within the pre- designated commercial area, vinyl- coated chain link fencing shall
be permitted for non - residential uses.
(3) Outside of the pre- designated commercial area but within the boundaries of the
Highway 70 Overlay District, chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted
for non - residential uses.
(E) Gutside Storage of Materials
(3) This FGhihi +ir.., ,+° °? AG-+ O.,. i"Qacnic--StGpagc° Gf materials-i.Vhere. the -�iFli Se
zrrc -prvj� y=ii =r crc roc -vL-rc v- crrSpTCxy-- iT- -gvvcT vrrva {
a64G rRm°vhrn'�I °c ,�h °9 at , PR °Gbil d- +h + Iiv iste -Fed +e� e-y
6 6 '"'"' °S, et6�r.e�eRa, �� z-aF ar
Gale-. 7
4.5.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Interstate Overlay District is established to provide for a more urban style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
s Correct reference is 6.2.2(A)
6 There has been a change in the name the plans the NC Department of Transportation uses. This change is only to
update the name. Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being
developed, it has not yet been adopted.
7 Suggest deleting this because it also appears in Section 6.6.2(B)
s Existing Section 4.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to become Section 4.7 and existing
Section 4.6(Stoney Creek Basin) has been renumber to become Section 4.8. Because of this renumbering, an
reference is Section 7.13.2 will also be updated.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -14
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 51
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Interstate Overlay District is part of the
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
June 27, 2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area,
including allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this
overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.3 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor)9
4.5.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located south of the railroad tracks and north of
Interstate 85/40 in the general vicinity of Mount Willing Road in accordance with the
boundaries shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 10
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Interstate Overlay District
apply to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.5.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Minimum Setbacks
(1) The minimum side and rear setback shall be with width of the required buffer in
6.6.3(B) or the setback required in Article 3 or Section 6.2.8, whichever is less,
except as provided in (a)."
(a) For parcels subject to the setback and yard requirements in Section
4.7.4, the requirements of said Section shall apply. 12
(2) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -way as designated on the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan.
4.6.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Village Overlay District is established to provide for an urban village style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
9 This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for the
two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
10 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
" A lessening of setbacks is suggested in order to allow for a more urban style of development (e.g., building closer
together and/or more density).
12 Clearly stating that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) requirements will still apply.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -15
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 52
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Village Overlay District is part of the Efland -
Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27,
2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including
allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.4 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) 13
4.6.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located north of the railroad tracks in a
geographic area commonly referred to as "Efland" in accordance with the boundaries
shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 14
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Village Overlay District apply
to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.6.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Village Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the minimum front yard setback
for properties fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be 30 -feet. 15
(2) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the front yard setback for parcels
located in the overlay district but not fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be in
keeping with the front setback provided by adjacent uses. 16
(3) The minimum side and rear setback shall be the width of the required Land Use
Buffer (Section 6.8.6) or the setback required in Article 3, whichever is less, but
in no case shall be less than 10 -feet. 17
" This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for
the two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
14 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
15 This setback is suggested in order to have a more uniform setback along Highway 70 while providing enough of a
setback to accommodate any future widening of the road. (No widening of the road is currently planned, but it is
good planning practice to attempt to ensure for future possibilities).
16 This is suggested in order to have a more uniform building line along a street where there could be more of a
"patchwork" of zoning districts that have different front setback requirements.
17 A lessening of setback requirements is suggested in order to allow for a more urban village style — building closer
together and/or more density than is currently permitted.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -16
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 53
Section 4.7: Major Transportation Corridor
(4) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -war as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation
Plan' .
(5) Although a portion of the Efland Village Overlay District is within the Major
Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, the requirements of the MTC do
not apply. The parcels are included in the MTC only because they fall within the
prescribed distance criteria but do not fall under any existing requirements
pertaining to the MTC. 19
(6) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 6.2.2(A), in no case shall building height exceed 40 feet. 20
(C) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of lots, other than those used for
single - family detached residential purposes, unless a demonstrated need can be
shown . 21
(2) Chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted for uses other than single -
family detached residential.
4.7.1 Intent
(A) It is the intent of Orange County to protect and enhance those natural and environmental
features which constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational, and economic
assets through the provision of special controls of public and private development along
major transportation corridors.
(B) The Board of County Commissioners finds as a fact that:
(1) Major transportation corridors serve a key function in the orderly development of
Orange County as major traffic movers, as well as serve as entrances to Orange
County from outside the area.
(2) These corridors and the character of the development which occurs along them
establish for visitors and residents alike an indicator of the quality of life in the
County, as well as the efficiency and safety of traffic movement through the area.
(3) In addition, the ability of different areas of the County to attract and
accommodate different types of development depends on the capacity of the
thoroughfare system and the character and quality of development along major
corridors.
(C) The Major Transportation Corridor district is intended to enhance the attractiveness and
orderly development of land adjacent to major transportation facilities through the
provision of a set of development standards and regulations for application to public and
private development of land adjacent to these corridors. The major transportation
corridors include the interstate system as designated in the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
"Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being developed; it has not
yet been adopted.
19 This language is suggested so that it's clear that none of the requirements of the MTC apply to the parcels in this
geographic area that are also located within the MTC. The MTC boundary is based on distance from the
interstate /interchanges but none of the parcels in this area fall under the text requirements of the MTC.
20 Some of the zoning districts that could be applied in a CITAN allow buildings taller than 40 feet. A building
height limitation of 40 -feet is suggested in order to maintain an urban village character.
2' The fencing regulations [(1) and (2)] are in keeping with the ECOD regulations in order to discourage unaesthetic
fencing in the front yards of properties.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -17
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 54
Section 4.8: Stoney Creek Basin
(D) The district establishes development standards (see Section 64 64 and a site plan
review process for development within the district. (See Section 2.5).
4.7.2 Applicability
(A) The Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) district is established as a district which
overlays other zoning districts established in this Ordinance. The new use of any land or
any new structure within the MTC district shall comply with the use regulations applicable
to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of the MTC district.
(B) The provisions, requirements and restrictions of this district shall not apply to the use of
land within the district for single family or two - family dwellings or to any building or
structure existing prior to the creation of this district unless it is structurally altered to the
extent of increasing the floor area by 50% or more or is enlarged to any degree to occupy
a vacant lot.
(C) This district shall be applied along any interstate highway in the County designated in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan as such and to any proposed interstate highway
designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan as such.
(D) The minimum length of the district shall be a continuous distance along the thoroughfare
within the County's jurisdiction and outside of the extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of
the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro and the City of Mebane.
(E) The minimum width of the district is 1,250 feet from the edge of the right -of -way
measured along a line which is perpendicular to the edge of the right -of -way on each side
of the roadway, except at interstate interchanges where the District shall extend 2,500
feet from the right -of -way on each side of the intersecting road.
4.7.3 Permitted Uses
Within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District, uses of land and structures are those
permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All other requirements for the use of land
and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be met unless otherwise provided.
4.7.4 Building Setback and Yard Requirements
Building setback and required yard areas for the overlay district are as follows:
(A) The front yard requirement shall be 100 feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an
interstate highway or 50 feet from the edge of an intersecting road at an interstate
interchange.
(B) The rear yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the edge of the rear property line or 100
feet from the edge of the right -of -way of an interstate highway when a rear yard is
adjacent to the interstate.
(C) The side yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the side property line or 100 feet from the
edge of the right -of -way of an interstate highway where the side property line is adjacent
to the interstate.
The purpose of the Stoney
Basin Small Area Plan by:
ng density increases within
aster Stoney Creek
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -18
Article 6: Development Standards 55
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(f) Windows on the street frontage side of a building shall be Iim' d to 40%
of the total building fagade.
(g) The principal building shall be oriented facing towards t fronting street.
(h) Building Access
0) A functional doorway for public or direct- try access into a
building shall be provided from the fro ng street.
(ii) Corner entrances should be provid on corner lot buildings.
iii) Additional entrances to a buildin may be provided.
(i) Rd flines & Materials
(i) Decorative cornices shall /e provided for buildings with a flat
of, defined as roofs wi a pitch less than 3:12.
(ii) Ea s shall be prov' ed with a pitched roof, defined as roofs with
a pit c greater th 3:12.
(iii) Pitched ofs a generally preferred over flat roofs.
(iv) All rooftop echanical equipment (i.e. vents, ducts,
commun' atio antennas, HVAC units, etc) shall be screened
from vi or de ' ned and installed in a manner using materials
and lors
'or i le with the building architecture.
(v) hly reflective roofs materials shall be avoided. All proposed
etal roofing should be tanding seam or copper. Galvanized
steel and tin roofs are pe itted.
Q) R idential manufactured structures re not permitted for conversion to a
on- residential use.
(H) Additional A chitectural Standards for existing single 17ily structures being
converte nto non - residential use:
(1) he exterior fagade of an existing single - family residen proposed for
conversion into non - residential use shall not be altered to ccommodate new
non - residential land uses except where modifications are n essary to address
building or fire code requirements.
(2) Any structures proposed for removal shall either be moved to an er location for
re -use contemporaneously with the construction of the new structu or be
deconstructed in such a manner that the resultant materials are suit\efor -
use by the deconstructing party or others in future building projects. intent of this Sub - Section that the removed structure be recycled to
possible.
6.6.3 Efland Interstate 22
(A) Circulation and Connectivity
(1) All site planning for property east of Mount Willing Road shall take into account
the need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and the
Interstate 85 /U.S. Highway 70 Connector.23
(2) All site planning west of Mount Willing Road shall take into account:
22 Existing Section 6.6.3 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to 6.6.5. References is existing
Sections 4.5.1 and 6.8.12 will be updated.
23 (1) and (2) are putting concepts from the EMSAP and an adopted access management plan into regulations.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -31
Article 6: Development Standards 56
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(a) A possible re- alignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road under the existing
railroad track to connect to Mount Willing Road, as described in the
adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan.
(b) The need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and
Buckhorn Road, as depicted on the Efland - Buckhorn- Mebane Access
Management Plan, adopted November 11, 2011.
(3) In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be permitted no more
than one entrance /exit point unless justified by site configuration, trip generation,
and traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement .24
(4) Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be required to enter
the public street in order to move from one area to another on the same site.
(5) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines . 25
(6) Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the property line;
however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway
entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(7) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(8) Shared Access
(a) In order to manage access on Mount Willing Road, developments
subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing Road, and located
contiguous to one another shall provide shared access.
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the separate
property owners and have the same recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement agreement shall be
sufficient to allow for the development of a private service road
or driveway to channel access from Mount Willing Road to each
property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared
access.
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing
Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated development
shall be required to designate stub outs to adjoining properties
on the site plan so that shared access can be developed if and
when the adjacent property is developed in either a manner
which subjects it to this Section or if individual curb cut for a
single - family detached residential land use is deemed to be a
traffic safety hazard by the County and NCDOT.
(9) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
24 (3) and (4) are current requirements for properties in EDDs and is good practice for many types of projects.
However, it should be noted that NCDOT may not approve more than one entrance /exit point - see (9)
25 (5) through (9) are current requirements of ECOD and are suggested as good practices to be implemented in the
Efland Interstate overlay district as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -32
Article 6: Development Standards 57
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(10) Pedestrian Circulation 26
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during site plan
review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an internal pedestrian
circulation system, owned and maintained by the property owner. The
system shall provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels and also within
any large parking areas.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is defined as one
located on 5 or more acres or proposing more than 50,000 square feet of
building area. A large parking area is one containing parking for 100 or
more vehicles.
(B) Landscaping and Buffering27
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating non - residential and residential land uses. The required
plantings shall be in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet. Joint use
agreements between adjacent property owners for shared ingress /egress and /or
parking may result in a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the required
buffers.
(4) The provisions of this subsection do not waive the buffer requirements found in
Section 6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor).
(C) Architectural Design Standards
(1) In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards),
the national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses shall be altered as
necessary to complement the surrounding area . 28
(2) Drive - through facilities on non - residential uses are allowable in this area.
6.6.4 Efland Village
(A) Circulation and Connectivity29
(1) Shared Access for Properties Fronting on U.S. Highway 70
26 In October 2011, the issue of sidewalks was discussed at a BOCC work session and the decision was made that,
due to NC counties' inability to fund maintenance of public sidewalks, that public sidewalks would not become a
requirement for development in Orange County. However, walkability in large commercial projects is generally
desirable as is the ability of pedestrians to safely traverse large parking areas. Therefore, staff is suggesting that
some projects may be required to provide privately maintained sidewalks.
27 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
28 This language is suggested in order to ensure that any proposed "chain architecture" will blend better with the
surrounding area.
29 Please see footnoted explanations for the Efland Interstate overlay district as they apply to this section as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -33
Article 6: Development Standards 58
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(a) In order to manage access on U.S. Highway 70, developments subject to
this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway 70, and located contiguous to one
another shall provide shared access.
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the separate
property owners and have the same recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a
Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement agreement shall be
sufficient to allow for the development of a private service road
or driveway to channel access from Mount Willing Road to each
property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared
access.
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing
Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated development
shall be required to designate stub outs to adjoining properties
on the site plan so that shared access can be developed if and
when the adjacent property is developed in either a manner
which subjects it to this Section or if individual curb cut for a
single - family detached residential land use is deemed to be a
traffic safety hazard by the County and NCDOT.
(2) In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be permitted no more
than one entrance and exit point unless justified by site configuration, trip
generation, and traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement.
(3) Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be required to enter
the public street in order to move from one area to another on the same site.
(4) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines.
(5) Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the property line;
however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway
entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(6) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(7) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
(8) Pedestrian Circulation 30
(a) In an effort to provide for and promote pedestrian circulation and
connectivity within and between parcels in the Efland Village Overlay
District, all projects shall provide within a pedestrian easement a
pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained by the property
owner, unless deemed unnecessary or impractical by the Planning
Director during site plan review.
(i) Pedestrian walkways and paths shall be a minimum of 4 -feet
so This language was added after the November 19 public hearing and December 5 Planning Board meeting in order
to address comments made at the public hearing about pedestrian circulation /sidewalks and to incorporate the
Planning Board's recommendation that a pedestrian system be provided in the geographic area the Efland Village
Overlay District pertains to. While the Planning Board recognizes the County's limitations on the issue of public
sidewalks, the Planning Board also believes it is important to provide for a pedestrian system in the Efland area.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -34
Article 6: Development Standards 59
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
wide and shall be designed to connect with adjacent parcels in a
coherent manner, regardless of whether a pedestrian walkway or
path exists on the adjacent parcel.
(ii) The surface material of pedestrian walkways and paths shall be
determined as part of the site plan review process. The need for
pavement or other specific surfaces shall be determined on a
project- specific basis.
(B) Outside Storage of Materials Prohibited 31
(1) All outside storage of materials on lots other than those used for single - family
detached residential purposes is prohibited.
(2) This prohibition includes the storage of goods or materials which are not an
integral part of the use of the property and which are not obviously for sale.
(3) This prohibition does not include the storage of materials where the primary use
of the property includes the outside display of goods for sale such as
automobiles, boats, mobile homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for
sale.
(C) Landscaping and Buffering32
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(a) Parcels fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall provide buffer plantings in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating uses subject to the requirements of this overlay district
and single family detached residential land uses. The required plantings shall be
in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within Section
6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet. Joint use
agreements between adjacent property owners for shared ingress /egress and /or
parking may result in a waiver regarding the exact location(s) of the required
buffers.
(4) Although portions of the Efland Village Overlay District are also within the major
Transportation Corridor Overlay District, the buffer requirements found in Section
6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) do not apply since said section applies only
to properties that abut the interstate.
(D) Parking Lot Design 33
31 This is a restriction currently found in the ECOD and is suggested for the Efland Village overlay district as well.
32 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
" These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village. An exception being that
ECOD requires parking to be located solely in the side and rear yards. Staff is suggesting that a few parking spaces
be allowed at the front of buildings in the Efland Village overlay district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -35
Article 6: Development Standards 60
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(1) Up to 15% of the required parking spaces may be located in the front yard. The
remainder of the required parking spaces shall be located at the side or rear of
the structure.
(2) Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non - residential land
uses, in accordance with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance.
(3) Parking areas with spaces in excess of 110% of the minimum parking spaces
required, per Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
(4) Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided in accordance with
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(E) Signage34
(1) Signage shall conform to all requirements within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance.
(2) Only monument style signs that do not exceed six feet in height are permitted
within the Efland Village Overlay District.
(3) Pole signs are not permitted.
(F) Architectural Design Standards35
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards), the
following design standards shall apply:
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(a) Under no circumstances shall modern corporate franchise building
design be permitted.
(b) Franchise or'chain' businesses desiring to locate in the Efland Village
Overlay District shall be required to design the building in accordance
with these guidelines.
(c) For purposes of this Sub - Section, "modern corporate franchise building
design" means a building design that is trademarked, branded, or easily
identified with a particular chain or corporation and is ubiquitous in
nature.
(2) The principal building shall be oriented facing towards the fronting street.
(3) Building Access
(a) A functional doorway for public or direct -entry access into a building shall
be provided from the fronting street.
(b) Additional entrances to a building may be provided.
(4) Human Scale and Fenestration
(a) Buildings shall be designed to contribute to a human scale. Large
expanses of blank walls shall be avoided and fenestration (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a
building) shall be provided in such a way that a building is relatable to
humans and does not overpower the area.
(5) Drive - through facilities are prohibited on all non - residential uses.
(6) Mirrored glass is prohibited.
sect%ov,
34 These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
" (1) through (3) and (5) and (6) are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
(4) is suggested in order to articulate that we are encouraging human scale architecture in the Efland Village overlay
district. The existing requirements in Section 6.5 basically implement this point but "human scale" is a more
modern term that will likely be recognizable to people in the development community.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -36
Article 6: Development Standards 61
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
(Cr--, The Planning Director may grant the extension on requests for planting extens
s fitted between May 15 and September 15 of each year, and may gr e
extensi at other times if there are unfavorable conditions for p ng.
(D) If the initial LRE expired and conditions are still d ed unsuitable for planting, an
applicant may request o dditional extension to 90 days. During periods of
extreme drought, as evidence the offi eclaration of Stage 3 or greater mandatory
water conservation requirements, t nning Director, or designee, may authorize
additional 90 -day extensions and the on tension typically allowed. These
extensions may be co . ed throughout the perio i which the extreme drought
conditions rem ' .
(E) The cant shall also acknowledge that no Final Zoning Complia Permit shall be
ued while there is an active (pending) LREC unless a performance gua ee (such as
a letter of credit or performance bond) sufficient to cover 110% of the installed
landscaping costs has been posted with the Planning and Inspections Department.
6.8.12 Additional Standards for Economic Development Districts
(A) Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan
The Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Section 6.8.10.
(B) Preservation of Existing Features
(1) Natural features such as streams and ponds, hillsides, rock formations, unique
vegetation and natural areas, wildlife habitats, and other similar features must be
incorporated into the overall development concept.
(2) Building sites, parking areas, and other uses shall be situated in such a way as to
protect existing tree stock having a diameter of one -foot or greater when
measured four and a half feet above ground level.
(3) Trees to be saved shall be noted on the landscape and tree preservation plan
and appropriate measures to protect the tree stock from damage during
construction, including no grading within the critical root zone, shall be indicated
in accordance with Section 6.8.4.
(4) Where possible, trees shall be protected in stands or clusters.
(5) The siting of buildings shall take advantage of scenic views and take into
consideration the impact of new structures on views from off -site.
(6) Where ever possible, access to views are to be preserved for adjacent property
owners and passing motorists.
(7) Scenic views and visual elements within the visual corridor shall be identified and
preserved where possible.
(C) Buffering Neighboring Uses
(1) A minimum buffer of 100 feet in width is to be provided at the boundary of all
Economic Development Districts.
(2) In accordance with Section 6 6 2 6.6.5, a buffer of 100 feet in width is to be
maintained adjacent to the right -of -way of interstate highways.
(3) In the Buckhorn EDD, a buffer of 150 feet is required on the portion of the
boundary adjacent to the Clearview Subdivision and adjoining residential area on
the north side of West Ten Road.
(4) In the Hillsborough EDD, a buffer of 100 feet is required along the Old 86
roadway corridor. For properties located within the EDH -1 zoning district, a 50
foot wide buffer is required.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -55
Article 6: Development Standards 62
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
(5) Limited breaks in required interstate highway buffers may be allowed in
accordance with Section 6.6-3(5) 6.6.5(5).
(6) Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas. If existing vegetation is not
sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shall be augmented and interspersed,
consisting of 50 -75% evergreen trees reaching a minimum mature height of 30-
feet.
(7) In lieu of the Land Use Buffers required in Section 6.8.6, buffers between
adjacent land uses, whether internal or external to the project, shall be provided
in accordance with the Land Use Buffer Schedule that follows.
(8) Trees with a caliper of six inches or greater should be considered for
preservation.
(9) No grading for building or parking shall encroach upon required buffer.
(10) Landscape buffer widths may be reduced if the buffer material is adequate to
provide additional screening.
(11) Decorative walls may be used to augment required landscaping for buffer
reduction.
(12) Access and utility crossings are to be made as close to perpendicular as possible
to the length of the buffer.
(13) No land disturbances for buildings, parking, or storage, drainage, etc. are
permitted within a required buffer.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -56
A
WHEN THIS LAND USE IS BEING
DEVELOPED AND...
Residential, all types
TABLE 6.8.12.C: LAND USE BUFFER SCHEDULE &��
B ABUTS THIS EXISTING LAND USE...
NOTE: "ABUTTING LAND USES INCLUDE THOSE ACROSS A
STREET (OTHER
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Residential, all types
"A" PROVIDES
BUFFER WIDTH OF ....
N/A
Finance
20
Government, Information, Recreation, Retail, Services,
Non - Residential Use /Reuse of Historic Buildings
30
Other all other Use Types in Section 5.2.2
50
Interstate Highway (See also Section 6.6.3)
100
Arterial Road
30
Collector Road
20
Railroad
40
Transmission Lines
40
Undeveloped Parcel
20
Finance
Residential, all types
20
Finance
20
Government, Information, Recreation, Retail, Services,
Non - Residential Use /Reuse of Historic Buildings
20
Other all other Use Types in Section 5.2.2
N/A
Interstate Highway See also Section 6.6.3
100
Arterial Road
20
Collector Road
20
Railroad
20
Transmission Lines
20
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -56
Article 7: Subdivisions 63
Section 7.13: Flexible Developments
rovide for the active and low impact recreational needs of idents,
includ-F T�ementation of the Master Recreatio s Plan.
(8) To provide greater efficien i ing of services and infrastructure by
reducing road i ity runs, an unt of paving for development.
9 create compact neighborhoods accessible to open sp enities and with
a strong identity.
7.13.2 Applicability
(A) All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and
standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances
to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions.
(B) Flexible Developments located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall
comply with provisions of Section 44 4.836 of this Ordinance.
(C) The Village Option for a Flexible Development shall not be located in the Rural Buffer
(RB) zoning district.
(D) Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning
Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and
preserving open space areas as part of such developments.
7.13.3-,,Open Space Standards
(AN Minimum Required Open Space
Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Develo ent as
specified herein, at least 33% of the total land area in the Fle i le Development
ust be set aside as protected open space.
(2) Su open space shall meet the standards contained this Section unless the
develo r chooses to seek approval of a conventio I subdivision as specified
herein.
(B) Planning for Open Sp e
(1) Open space design subdivision proj s shall be planned as part of a
comprehensive project sign.
(2) The long -term success of op ace is improved when a layout is chosen with a
perspective of future usefuln s, fficiency, connectivity and compatibility with
both existing developme nd oth types of open spaces.
(3) Open space is an im rtant amenity for bdivision residents and an essential
part of the County' character and environ tal quality.
(4) Open space nning must indicate a thoughtful derstanding of that
importanc , and shall be evaluated based on its me
(5) A Fle i e Development subdivision plan shall always pro ide open space which
pro inently meets at least one of the three following goals in en space design:
a) The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and /or Habitat;
(b) The Preservation of Rural Character; or
(c) The Creation or Protection of Space for Outdoor Recreation.
(6) When relevant, a Flexible Development subdivision plan shall address the
following additional goals in open space design:
36 This reference change is necessary due to renumbering Sections in order to insert the two proposed overlay
district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -37
Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts 64
O
n
4j
v
m
',h
w
Although an additional tick is necessary only in the Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node in order to implement the two new overlay
districts in the Efland area, staff is suggesting that zoning overlay districts potentially be allowed in the other Transition land use
classifications. Other zoning overlay districts are not being contemplated at this time but potentially allowing them in land use classifications
where overlay districts would be appropriate will negate the need for additional amendments in the future.
co
h
A
co
A
N
O
A
x
rn
cri
ZONLYG
DISTRICTS
N
Special
CJ
Land Use Classifications
ra
e+h
IQ
;
zoning
& Overlays
n�tri
C hap eI Hill T ran sition
PermitAd min istrationby Municipalities under the provisions oftheJoint Piano ingAgreemeot
Carrboro Transition
Contact appropriate Municipality for applicable Zoning Standards
10 -Year Transition
+
•
♦
+
t
t
°
20 -Year Transition
•
♦
♦
•
♦
t
Comme rrial T rans ition
Acti ,,city Node
+
+
+
+
+
C omme rc ial -Indus trial
Transition ActivitvNode
Economic Development
Transition A €tivitvNode
Rural H of e r
•
Rural Reside utial
•
+
A =riculturaI Residential
•
•
•
Rural Community Activity
Node
+
t
•
Rural Neighborhood
Activit - Node
+
;
Rural Indus trial ActiritY
Node
+
P ublic I me re s t Are a
•
co
h
A
co
A
N
O
A
x
rn
cri
Resolution # RES- 2013 -007 66
Attachment 4
RESOLUTION CONCERNING
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district will be placed are
depicted on the map in the pages attached to the Ordinance in the agenda packet for the
February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County Commissioners meeting and are identified
as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18 of 4.64
acre parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77 of 1.93
acre parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
L
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40 of 0.93
acre parcel
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
9854283244
1.84
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79 of 5.5
acre parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82 of 5.02
acre parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
and,
Arel
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341
of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the
record denoting that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Efland-
Mebane Small Area Plan and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, or part thereof
including but not limited to, the following:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new
mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See
also Economic Development Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water
and Wastewater Objective WW-2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through
the revision of County policies and regulations.
AR
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian
friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where
public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote
higher intensity and high density uses on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve
existing policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green
building approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also
Cultural Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED-
4.1.)
and,
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be
reasonable and in the public interest as it promotes public health, safety, and general welfare
by adopting the goals and purposes of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed
zoning atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the BOCC
hereby adopts this statement of consistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
day of
.2013.
seconded by
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
, 2013 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2013.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
70
Ordinance #: ORD- 2013 -007 Attachment 5
AN ORDINANCE DENYING AMENDMENT TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as established in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.7
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in order to establish two new
zoning overlay districts and accompanying regulations in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district were proposed to be placed are
depicted on the map in the pages attached to the Ordinance in the agenda packet for the
February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County Commissioners meeting and are identified
as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18 of 4.64
acre parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77 of 1.93
acre parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
71
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40 of 0.93
acre parcel
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
9854283244
1.84
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79 of 5.5
acre parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82 of 5.02
acre parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
and,
72
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.8 of the UDO and to Section 153A-
341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds there is insufficient documentation
within the record supporting the proposed amendments and that the proposed amendments
will not carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part
thereof.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas,
as detailed in the agenda packet for the February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County
Commissioners meeting, are denied.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
day of 12013.
seconded by
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a
meeting held on
, 2013 as relates in any way to the adoption of
the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2013.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
73
74
Resolution # RES- 2013 -008 Attachment 6
RESOLUTION CONCERNING STATEMENT OF
INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
WITH THE ADOPTED
ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning
Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO), in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district were proposed to be
placed are depicted on the map in the pages attached to the Ordinance in the agenda packet
for the February 5, 2013 Orange County Board of County Commissioners meeting and are
identified as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18 of 4.64
acre parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77 of 1.93
acre parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
75
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40 of 0.93
acre parcel
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
9854283244
1.84
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79 of 5.5
acre parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82 of 5.02
acre parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
Efland Interstate Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
and,
Mal
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, 1.1.7, and 2.9.1 (E) of the UDO and to Section
153A -341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that there is not sufficient
documentation denoting that the zoning atlas amendment will carry out the intent and purpose
of the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment is not
reasonable and is not in the public interest as it will not promote public health, safety, and
general welfare,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the proposed zoning
atlas amendment, as described herein, has been deemed to be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is not reasonable, and is
not in the public interest as it will not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and the BOCC hereby adopts this statement of inconsistency signifying same.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
day of 12013.
seconded by
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a
meeting held on
, 2013 as relates in any way to the adoption of
the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
2013.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
77
1 78
Excerpt of Minutes Attachment 7
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 November 19, 2012
8 7:00 P.M.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
12 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central
13 Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice
16 Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger
18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Sahana Ayer
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board
20 David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members
22 Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins,
23 Alan Campbell, Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey and Herman Staats
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina
25
26 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 6:59PM.
27
28 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
29
30 Planning Board Chair Larry Wright said that the agenda items 1-3 will be joint items of the
31 Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Following item 3, the County
32 Commissioners will be discussing educational facilities and ordinance amendments and the
33 Planning Board will not be part of that discussion.
34
35 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
36 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
37
38
39 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
40
41 1 . 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
42 Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated
43 amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas in
44 order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
45
46 Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation.
47 Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
48 Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
49 Quarterly Public Hearing
2 79
1 November 19, 2012
2 Item C.1
3
4 Basic Charge
5 - Implement recommendations in the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan to
6 establish design and site planning standards for this area of the county served by public
7 (or quasi-public) water and sewer systems.
8 - Amend plans and regulations as necessary in order to establish two new zoning overlay
9 districts in the Efland area.
10
11 What is a zoning overlay district?
12 - Regulatory tools that create a special zoning district, placed over the existing base
13 zones, which identifies special provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the
14 underlying base zone.
15 - Purpose is to guide development within the specified area.
16 - Overlay district regulations can be more restrictive or less restrictive than the regulations
17 that apply to the underlying base zones.
18
19 Zoning Atlas Amendment — map
20
21 Future Land Use Map — map
22
23 Relationship to Existing Efland-Cheeks Overlay District — map
24
25 UDO Text Amendments
26 - Amendments to several sections necessary to implement the new zoning overlay
27 districts
28 - Intent of the new districts:
29 0 Allow for a more urban style of development in the Efland Interstate Overlay
30 District
31 0 Allow for an urban village style of development in the Efland Village Overlay
32 District
33
34 Why Necessary?
35 - Different development regulations necessary in order to reflect the reality of smaller
36 sized lots (both existing and anticipated) served by water and sewer.
37 - Encourage high quality growth in an area of the county proposed for additional growth
38 while protecting existing development and community character.
39 - Ensure good planning practices related to site design, transportation, and architecture
40 are achieved.
41
42 General Information
43 - Many of the proposed changes in the amendment packet contain footnotes explaining
44 the reason/rationale for the proposed change.
45 - Website contains more information
46 0 Questions and Answers
47 0 Synopsis of Proposed New Regulations and/or Differences from Existing
48 Regulations
49 0 (Orange County, Planning Department, "Current Interest Projects")
50
51 Exceptions and Existing Uses
3 80
1 - Single-family detached residences (both existing and new) are not subject to the
2 requirements of the overlay districts.
3 - Other existing land uses are not required to come into conformance with the new
4 regulations so long as the property continues to be used as it is currently being used.
5 - The requirements of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District are not
6 being altered.
7
8 Synopsis of Changes
9 (Applicable to Both Districts)
10 - Side and rear setback can be less
11 0 Intent is to allow required buffer and minimum setback to be the same
12 - Smaller (less wide) buffer between lots
13 0 In keeping with those required in the existing Efland Cheeks Overlay District
14 along highway 70
15 - No more than 1 entrance/exit point, unless justified
16 - Must provide intra-site accessibility
17 - Requirements for driveways and shared access
18 0 Shared access only applicable if fronting on Mount Willing Road or Highway 70
19
20 Synopsis of Changes
21 (Efland Interstate Overlay District only)
22 - Site Planning must take into account need for connecting roadways shown on the
23 adopted Access Management Plan for the area
24 - Large projects must provide an internal pedestrian circulation system
25 - Requires that national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses be altered as
26 necessary to complement the surrounding area
27
28 Synopsis of Changes
29 (Efland Village Overlay District only)
30 - Changes in front yard setback requirements
31 0 Minimum of 30-feet along Highway 70
32 0 If not along Highway 70: front setback in keeping with adjoining uses
33 - No fences in front yards unless a demonstrated need can be shown
34 - No chain link or similar fencing
35 - No outside storage of materials
36 - Allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard (setback area)
37 - Encourages shared parking and puts a cap on parking
38 - Limits signage to monument style signs that do not exceed 6-feet in height and prohibits
39 pole signs
40 - Does not permit modern corporate franchise building design
41 - Principal building must face fronting street and have a functional doorway
42 - Requires that buildings be designed to contribute to a "human scale"
43 - Prohibits drive-throughs and mirrored glass
44
45 Public Notification
46 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
47 — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
48 — Mailed notices to affected property owners
— Mailed notices to property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties
2 — Posted 25 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
3 Public Information Meeting
4 - Held on November 14 at the Efland- Cheeks Community Center.
5
6 Advisory Board Involvement
7 - EMSAP Implementation Focus Group met on August 29 to review the proposal.
8 - (Other meetings had taken place in early 2010)
9
10 Recommendation
11 Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
12 Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas.
13 Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
14 the proposed amendment.
15 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
16 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC
17 regular meeting.
18 Adjourn the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the
19 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
20 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the Efland Cheeks Overlay District and the overall effort
21 and who participated. This is on the eastern portion of a larger effort, and some people may not
22 be aware of this.
23 Perdita Holtz said that the overlay district is an effort to allow for the conversion of single -
24 family homes along the highway to low- impact uses such as professional offices or
25 beauty /barber shops. This is the green area. In the pink area, there is pre- designated
26 commercial area, which is at the corner of Frazier Road and US 70 and westward. This allows
27 for a bit more commercial use than what is being contemplated along US 70. The Efland -
28 Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group was involved in this effort.
29 Tony Blake arrived at
30 Perdita Holtz said that the group was made up of community members who were appointed
31 by the Board of County Commissioners. There is also a representative from the Planning
32 Board, Pete Hallenbeck.
33 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Economic Development Director reviewed the
34 architectural design standards in this overlay.
35 Perdita Holtz said that the EDC department was included in the peer review effort.
36 Chair Pelissier asked what it means that businesses "have to be altered to fit in with
37 surrounding areas."
38 Perdita Holtz said that it would be on a case by case basis through the site review process
39 that if a national chain were to come in, that it would have to stay in keeping with the area.
40 Andrea Rohrbacher left at .
'Foal
5
1 Commissioner Gordon made reference to the zoning district and the land use classification
2 matrix. She wants to make sure that the 20 -year transition would not be urbanized for 20 years.
3 Perdita Holtz said that the 20 -year transition area has been in existence since 1981. The
4 land use categories were not changed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2008.
5 Commissioner McKee said that he has some reservations on several aspects of this, such
6 as the prohibition on drive - throughs.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion on sidewalks and he wants to make
8 it clear that this is a place where there could be higher density residential. He does not want to
9 have higher density residential without sidewalks.
10 Pete Hallenbeck said that the focus group was in total agreement that north of the railroad
11 tracks they did not want fast food restaurants. There was agreement that south of the railroad
12 tracks could have some things like that, with some limitations on the architecture. He said that
13 when this comes to the Planning Board, he will address these concerns by the Board of County
14 Commissioners.
15 Johnny Randall made reference to the synopsis of changes and bullet number 5. He read,
16 "allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard." He asked if this means in a
17 designated parking space or parking in the grass of the front yard of an establishment.
18 Perdita Holtz said that it means in the required parking area, which is not grass. It would
19 have to be a parking lot.
20 Public Comment:
21 Rita Needham asked if anything was going to happen north of McGowan Creek.
22 Perdita Holtz said that nothing is being proposed north of McGowan Creek as part of this
23 action. The Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan does contemplate more development in the
24 planning area, which is all the way up to Lebanon Road. At this time, there is nothing
25 happening in this area.
26
27 Commissioner McKee said that his concern is that this action will cause buildings that are
28 currently conforming uses to become non - conforming.
29 Perdita Holtz said that this could potentially happen.
30 There was more public comment.
31 Ben Lloyd said that he lives in Efland on US 70. He said that there was the opening of the
32 Efland- Cheeks Community Center and ten people showed up. He said that the people of Efland
33 do not understand how this proposal will benefit the people of that area. He said that if there
34 was more information and if some of the planners came to the Ruritan Club, people will come
35 out to hear and ask questions. He said that he has some reservations about a lot of this
36 proposal. He does not think it is in the best interest of the people of Efland.
37 Warren Shankle lives in Efland along the interstate. He has 2 1/2 acres there. He said that
38 he has water and sewer and there are no problems with it. He asked why it would benefit to put
39 sewer here when there are no problems right now.
40 Patricia Gattis lives in Efland on Greg Street off of Richmond Road, and her daughter has a
41 shop near the fire station. She asked if this plan would affect that area.
42 Perdita Holtz said that it does not appear that this property is in the overlay area. She is not
43 sure which lot this is. She will look it up.
E:N
r3
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked that after the meeting that Perdita Holtz give Ms. Gattis a
2 definitive answer.
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer
4 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board
5 of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn
6 the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
7 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9 /
10 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review g ernment-
11 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to modify and cl ify existing
12 r ulations and definitions associated with the erection and use of tdoor lighting
13 fac ' ies.
14
15 Michael Harve resented this item and made a PowerPoint present ion.
16 NOVEMBER 19, 201
17 QUARTERLY PUBLIC ARING
18 AGENDA ITEM:C2
19 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT - TDOOR LIGHTING
20 BACKGROUND:
21 During the initial development of DO, sever suggested modifications were received
22 on changes to existing outdoor light reg ations.
23 These suggestions were tabled for futuptNonsideration. Staff believes we have reached
24 a point where these amendments c be inbQrporated into the UDO.
25 This amendment also seeks to Odress concern ver height limitations on athletic field
26 lights. Some believe existing eight limits are too r trictive and create additional light
27 pollution on adjoining prop ies rather than eliminate i
28 WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DO
29 Clarify existing re ations, including:
30 - Modify ection 6.11.1 Purpose and Intent to include language eferencing the
31 Cou y's interest is promoting nighttime visibility and curtailing li t pollution.
32 /the odify Section 6.11.1 (E) to include language identifying the County's ' tent to
33 gulate outdoor lighting in an effort to `restore natural light cycles'.
34 corporate new formatting changes to ensure the regulations are consistent 'th
35 organizational rules of the UDO.
E6K
1109V
Excerpt of Approved Minutes Attachment 8
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBERS, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Chair), At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township
Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill
Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Andrea
Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-
Large Cedar Grove Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Vice- chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large
Bingham Township; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz;
Special Projects Coordinator; Marabeth Carr, DEAPR; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
HANDOUTS GIVEN AT MEETING Planning Board Rules of Procedure; Memo from DEAPR regarding outdoor lighting
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Larry Wright introduced a new member, Herman Staats. He also reminded the Board of the attendance policy.
****************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Agenda Item 7: 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments. — To make a recommendation to the BOCC
on government - initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to
the Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
This item was heard at the November 19, 2013 quarterly public hearing
Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator
Perdita Holtz: I did a presentation at the Quarterly Public Hearing and there were comments and questions about
the material. On pages 18 -20 of your agenda packet the comments are summarized with the staff s response.
There are two comments that the Board should weigh in on how it should be handled. The first is on page 19,
number four about the "tick" mark in the 20 Year Transition and the second issue is about the internal pedestrian
circulation system, comment number five.
Larry Wright: Could you tell us about the Efland community and how they met and how long they have met.
Perdita Holtz: The Efland Mebane Small Area Plan is available online in electronic format. This was adopted in
June 2006 after 2 1/2 years of community meetings. That board was made up of folks who live in the area and a
representative from the Planning Board. After the plan was adopted the BOCC appointed an Implementation Focus
Group which contained a few folks from the original group and a Planning Board liaison. Since then, this group has
met as needed. A lot of the recommendations have been implemented.
E:i+1
Larry Wright: Many of these changes did come from that grass roots level from 2006 through the Focus Group and
is reflected here?
Perdita Holtz: Correct. The changes that are part of this takes the desires of the plan and puts it into a regulatory
language.
Larry Wright: This is a good example of an area that underscores grass roots run involvement within Orange
County where local interest groups meet over time, codify results of their meetings, something comes of it.
Lisa Stuckey: I don't understand the "tick ", whether we should have it or not.
Perdita Holtz: The matrix on page 43, in order to zone something to a classification that is along the upper row, you
have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Some examples of how to read the charts were given).
Craig Benedict: In addition, on recommendations to the plan there was a 10 year transition and a 20 year
transition. A 10 year transition we were to develop in the first 10 years of the plan. That was 1981 through 1991.
The 20 year area would be 1991 to 2001. Our plan was we really don't think we should be that specific and we are
thinking on getting rid of those categories.
Perdita Holtz: We are trying to be proactive in potentially allowing that type of zoning district in these areas.
Alan Campbell: My understanding is that staff is trying to address something that they will have to do in the future.
My reaction is we should do it while we have the opportunity. I would do as staff as proposed.
Tony Blake: Is the concern that the notion that this is more broadly applicable and may not be popular in certain
areas like a rural buffer? Or are they trying to be that cautious.
Perdita Holtz: My read is that a Commissioner is passionate about maintaining the integrity of the Comprehensive
Plan. I would guess she does not see a need for this at this time to go into 20 year transition areas.
Tony Blake: If you were looking at that line saying "transition area" rather than separate 10 and 20 year transition
areas, making it into one then you would essentially have the special zoning overlay in there.
Lisa Stuckey: In the village section, are there drive -thru restaurants now?
Perdita Holtz: No. There are only very limited commercial uses currently in the interstate overlay district.
Larry Wright: I have an allegiance to small business. I have a concern about that with the other existing
businesses in the area.
Perdita Holtz: There is no one banging down our door to put a drive -thru in this area.
Larry Wright: On page 35, Commissioner Jacobs talked about pedestrian systems. Does item 10 address his
comments?
Perdita Holtz: The Pedestrian Circulation System was only proposed for the Efland interstate district. He was
talking about requiring a Pedestrian Circulation System in the Efland Village Overlay District. At this time, the
standard is not written to require that.
Tony Blake: Regarding transit oriented development, it seems to me that in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not well
defined.
2
E:1�
Perdita Holtz: One of the reasons these changes have taken so long to come forward is because we did need to
have some decision from the BOCC on what we were calling "the sidewalk issue ". In October 2011) 1 did take this
issue to the BOCC for a decision but because of county's inabilities to have funding the way cities do to maintain
and construct sidewalks, and because DOT's resistance to not have sidewalks in non - municipal areas. At that
time, the BOCC said we need to move forward thinking there will not be a comprehensive sidewalk program in
public right -of -way.
Larry Wright: This would not be classified as a municipality?
Perdita Holtz: This is an unincorporated area.
Craig Benedict: That was the difficulty with a public pedestrian system. I would be interested in coming up with
language on how, internally to a site plan, can we promote connectivity between adjacent parcels. We could work
on a way to put some language in there.
Johnny Randall: Sidewalks are sometimes an afterthought. I am in complete favor of that.
Larry Wright: I think Pete is as well. Do we need to make a recommendation?
Craig Benedict: What I have heard, staff can put some language in to promote private, internal pedestrian
circulation systems during the site plan process.
Herman Staats: Do you have any examples of how something like that has been done in the past?
Craig Benedict: The same situations have occurred within the subdivisions of Efland.
Herman Staats: Funding?
Craig Benedict: The developer funded it.
Alan Campbell: Paths, not sidewalks.
Johnny Randall: In addition, if you are doing a pathway or connectivity you need to also do it for bicycle and
alternative transportation.
Lisa Stuckey: One point to be made is it is a safety issue, people are going to walk around and if you can't do it
safely in a dense area, you are doing a disservice to the public.
Buddy Hartley: What happened with the Habitat development?
Michael Harvey: Tinnin Woods had a agreement that areas would be left but there was no requirement for
sidewalks to be installed. Tinnin Woods installed POSA trails at the rear of the property. They are not obligated to
put in sidewalks.
Tony Blake: Could there be an obligation to link?
Craig Benedict: If we don't have it clear that we want pedestrian connectivity, we can amend the plan. Once we
get it in there, that will be used as a reference guide for someone else.
Tony Blake: Another concern is the railroad track that runs in the middle of that so there may be safety concerns
there but the opportunity there is to link that area with the new Hillsborough Railroad station.
Larry Wright: I would like to show the BOCC that we do have support to ask staff to put language in about this.
3
E:1l
Motion made by Tony Blake to ask staff to consider transit oriented development and walkability or pedestrian and
bicycle paths. Seconded by Alan Campbell.
Vote: Unanimous
Craig Benedict: Regarding transit, now that the 1/2 cent sales tax has been passed we are working on an east/west
route Mebane /Efland /Hillsborough /Durham and we are going to find out where in Efland would be a good place to
have an express bus place.
Alan Campbell: Do we need a motion that we approve it?
Perdita Holtz: It can come back in January or you can instruct us to come up with language and I can email it to
everyone.
Larry Wright: On page 38, item 5, does that imply that they are permissible on residential uses?
Perdita Holtz: The wording was taken from ECOD to be consistent throughout the UDO.
Larry Wright: Hillsborough has been around since there was a well in the middle of Churton Street and turned into
a very commercial street and they had to make it so the large trucks could not pass through. Highway 70 is of the
same nature. We are having a municipality that is not a municipality coming in so what will happen when you have
commercial districts around 70 and where would be alternative route for these heavy vehicles which leads you to
consider more the pressure of sidewalks.
Buddy Hartley: The heavy truck traffic should not be there unless they have a delivery.
Larry Wright: We have two issues before us; the Efland Village Overlay District and the Efland Interstate Overlay
District with staff proposals to address items four and five.
Perdita Holtz: It would be good for direction on how you want to recommend to the BOCC. There needs to be a
formal motion for four and a motion on the amendments on Attachment 2.
Motion from Lisa Stuckey to retain the "ticks" as recommended by the staff. Seconded by Alan Campbell.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion from Alan Campbell to approve this as presented by staff with the further changes to be developed and
circulated through email for item five. Seconded by Tony Blake.
Vote: Unanimous
Pete Hallenbeck submitted the following comments for the record:
Item 7:
Quarterly Public Hearing comments:
Chain /franchise business building standards
South of the railroad tracks "chain restaurants" are permitted. The Small Area Plan and the Implementation groups in
general realized the value of being able to identify a business from it's signature style of building. They also wanted
to take advantage of the proximity to the interstate and have these businesses in order to generate more jobs and tax
revenue. There was a desire to have an opportunity for citizen input during the permitting process where minor
changes in the building presentation could be proposed. No one had problems with drive throughs. While it is true
that this introduces a small subjective component into the permitting process, it was deemed that this was the lessor
of two evils where the other option was to blanket permit any and all chain restaurants no matter what the style.
Lela]
As I commented during the hearing, there would be no chain restaurants north of the railroad tracks. The rational is
as simple as this: Imagine a McDonalds somewhere in downtown Hillsborough, say by King street or across from the
Weaver Street Market.
I suspect the franchise rules are also not a problem for chain restaurants. I would imagine they would prefer to be
close to the interstate, not up north of the railroad tracks.
During the Small Area Planning and the Implementation phase of these proposed UDO changes, the topic of
sidewalks seemed to always come down to keeping people from walking on the road. There are many people that
walk along US 70 day and night. At night, it is very hard to see many of these people as they don't wear anything
reflective. I suspect that any higher density project would increase this potential for this pedestrian traffic, and that
you would see more people walking on what are now less traveled side streets. The ordinance changes attempt to
deal with this problem, but does not do so as clearly as it does for the Interstate overlay area.
Perhaps the answer is to require sidewalks that will keep people off the streets, but not require sidewalks internal to
the project. This will allow for a slow development of a sidewalk system in the area as development occurs.
In the Interstate overlay, the goal of (10) in section 6.6.3 is to avoid the problems that currently exists with people
walking on US70 on other roads, such as Mt. Willing, as the area grows. The wording assure a review of these
concerns, but also allows for project specific discretion.
Note that as always there is the conflict of wanting sidewalks for safety and aesthetics being in conflict with the desire
for affordable housing. Even the comprehensive plan wrestles with this one.
Citizen Comment on the Changes:
A citizen from Efland commented that most people in Efland would not understand the changes, and that they did not
understand what had been going on. I remember the early community meetings, and 30+ people showed up. Most
were interested in getting sewer into the area. They were told that with sewer comes increased development and
business, which was welcomed by most. They were also told that there would be zoning changes due to the pending
development. Once the sewer project was on track, many citizens stopped showing up at the meetings.
Most residents also wanted to see opportunities for more businesses in the area, and commented that no new
businesses had been allowed for years. The proposed changes allow for more bushiness in the area.
The small area plan and subsequent small area implementation group has been an 8+ year process that was always
open to the public. There have been many opportunities for community feedback. I have personally discussed the
changes with many at the Fire Department. I sympathize with the average citizen reading zoning ordinance text and
trying to understand it, but I feel there has been plenty of opportunity for citizens to ask and receive a 'plain English"
description of what the overall goals are. It should also be noted that only 10 citizens showed up at the meeting to go
over the changes. The opportunity was there.
The citizen made the comment that these changes will not be of much benefit to the community (or words to that
effect) and I disagree. These changes allow for new businesses, small professional businesses, and large scale
development near the interstate. While there may be some style issues, such as monument style signs for a
business instead of pole signs, the overall goals are consistent with the wishes of the community.
All that said, I would be delighted to schedule a meeting with any concerned group and talk to them about these
changes.
******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **