HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH ORD-1997-004 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Historic Sites Non-Residential Use Mixed Use ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: Febnl=24. 1997
Action Agenda
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Item# C 3c
Article 8.8.24 Special Uses-Historic Sites Non-Residential Use/Mixed Use
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendment Mary Willis
Extension 2583
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough-732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill-967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment which would allow the
Board of Commissioners to re-approve Special Use Permits for non-residential
use of historic sites upon receipt of a report from the Planning Staff that the use
has maintained compliance with the provisions of the Special Use Permit.
BACKGROUND: On April 1, 1985, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow historic
structures outside of activity nodes to be used for non-residential purposes.
The use is allowed with approval of a Class A Special Use Permit in the
Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R1) and Rural Buffer(RB)
zoning districts. A time limit of six years was included to provide for a
periodic review to assure that the integrity of the historic site was maintained.
Continuation of the use beyond six years requires re-approval by the Board of
Commissioners. Re-approval under current regulations requires submittal of
a new application and preparation of public hearing agenda materials, as if it
were a new use.
a .
Special use permits for non-residential use of the following historic sites have
been approved by the Board of Commissioners:
1) Bingham School Inn(Bed and Breakfast)-approved 9/3/85
2) The Old Place(Bed and Breakfast)-approved 10/17/89
3) Green Hill(Bed and Breakfast)-approved 11/4/91
4) Reba and Roses(gift shop/nursery)-approved 2/5/96
There are no known instances of non-compliance or citizen complaints
concerning any of these uses. Bingham School Inn and The Old Place have
expired and are being presented for public hearing on February 24, 1997. Re-
approval of Green Hill, and Reba and Roses will be required prior to the
expiration of the current special use permits. The special use permits for
Green Hill and Reba and Roses will expire 11/4/97 and 2/5/02,respectively.
The proposed amendment would allow the Board of Commissioners to re-
approve special use permits for non-residential use of historic sites at a
regular meeting,upon receiving a compliance report from.Planning Staff. If
compliance has been maintained, then the permit could be re-approved, If
compliance has not been maintained,then the permit would expire at the end
of its 6-year time limit. In that case, the applicant could submit a new
application,as if it were a new use. Likewise,submittal of a aew application
would be required if modification of the original permit was proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's
recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days
of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any
application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by either the
public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either
case,though,the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation
of the Zoning Officer's Recommendation.
Zoning QtTicer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find
in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the
proposed text amendment.
Admialg atinn Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be
referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned
to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 8.8.24 HISTORIC SITES NON-RESIDENTIAL REUSEMEKED USE
(CLASS A SPECIAL USE)
8.8.24.1 Additional Information
In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8.8, the
following shall be supplied as part of the application:
a) The site plan, prepared by a North Carolina registered land surveyor
or engineer,shall also contain the following:
1) Location, width, and type of all internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation
2) Location and dimensions of all on-site signage.
3) Boundaries of the site and distance to nearest residential
structures.
b) Description of the proposed uses(s) of the site and the buildings
thereon,including the following:
1) Amount of area allocated to each use.
2) Number of full and part-time employees.
3) Number of clients and/or occupants expected to use the
facility.
4) Proposed hours of operation for non-residential uses of the
site and within buildings thereon.
c) Building plans for all existing or proposed structures to include floor
plans, elevation, and sections showing restoration or rehabilitation
proposed. Description of how the historical style and character of the
building and/or property is to be enhanced.
d) Landscape Plan,at the same scale as the site plan,showing existing or
proposed trees,shrubs,ground cover and other landscape materials.
e) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment
for the proposed uses.
f) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning
the provision of fire, police and rescue protection to the site and
structures.
g) Evidence that the property is listed on the National Historic Register
or recognized by the State of North Carolina as a place of historic
interest.
h) The proposed development schedule for the site.
8.8.24.2 Standards of Evaluation
The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application
for this use:
a) The site plan meets all requirements specified in sub-sections 8.8 a)
and 8.8.24.1 a).
b) Proposed uses and facilities are complementary and compatible with
the surrounding area, and appropriate in the location proposed given
the character of surrounding development. The proposed use of the
historic site shall be of such a nature as to preserve the historic
character of the site and building. Development of the site as
proposed would have no adverse impact beyond the building except
for appropriate parking facilities.
C) Structural alterations of historic structures shall be of such a nature as
to preserve the historic character of the building(s)and site.
d) Fire, police and rescue services and water supply and wastewater
treatment methods are adequate to serve the proposed used and
facilities.
e) Recreational areas, service areas, parking and screening are adequate
for the proposed use(s).
f) The site is served by direct access to a State-maintained road.
g) Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation is adequate for the
proposed use(s).
h) All applicable requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 have
been satisfied
This Class A Special Use Permit,if approved,shall be valid for six(6)years,
but Ma be renewed or re-gp ved by the Board of Commissioners
rcceiv„ng a regtnrt from the planning Dg,a= nt that the use is. and has been
continuouslxsince it was issued in compliance with provisions of the
Special Use P-ermit. The )range Coup , Pianning Dowment =sent
its reggrt on the compliance of the special use no later than ninety (90)days
before the exniration of the Special Use Pe it.
The Board of Commissioners shall not renew the Special Use Permit if it is
deter•, incd that the amlieant has failed to comply with the conditions of
=royal If the Board of Commissioners does not renew the permit. the
p mit shall become null and void upon the exp;*anon of the time limit.
If the S ^ice a D=it is not renewed or re-approved then ht a applicant
may submft a new application as if it were a new use
i
APPROVED APRIL 1. 1997
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on
Monday, February 24, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Court Room, Hillsborough, North Carolina,for the purpose of
holding a joint public hearing.
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair William Crowther,and Commissioners Stephen
Halkiobs,Alice M. Gordon, Margaret W. Brown and Moses Carey,Jr.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members H. Paul
Hoecke, Nell Andrews, Renee Price,S.A.M. Brooks, Leo Allison, Elizabeth Waiters, Joan Jobsis,and Amie Katz.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Robert Strayhom
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link,Jr., Planners Gene Bell, Mary Willis, Emily Cameron, Eddie
Kirk and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker
Ncnn 8LL DOCUMSIAT3 RZEEnM = IN THESE HOMES ME IN THE
pZRXAN= &QZk= LUZ IN T IE CLERK I S OFFICE... ALL RECORDING
TREES. 9F = N31ETIKO ff=LL $F KS]eT 4B FiY$ .lam- YEARS-,
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM Iff CHAIRMAN
Chair Crowther convened the meeting and requested that those who want to speak to sign up on the speakers
list. He stated that the Chair of the Planning Board, Karen Barrows,would chair Items C1 through C3.
IL PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Crowther dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
Q PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS =Planning Board Shale Kam Barrows.Chaired ft following
t Comprehensive Plan Amendme
(al CP-1-97 Stoney Creek SaWn Small Am Plan
1) Section 3.3- Land Use Plan Categories
2) Section 3.4-Locational Criteria
3) Section 3.9-Hillsborough Township
4) Section 3.10-Eno Township
5) Section 3.12-Chapel Hill Township
6) Appendix F-Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan Map
Gene Bell presented this Item for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed amendments
to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. Those
items in the agenda are numbered as 1a,2.b,3a&4a. He mentioned that a public hearing was held on May 28, 1996 to
present the proposed Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan. The plan emphasized retaining the area's rural character and
protecting landowner's rights and also contained recommendations for implementation. The Board of County
Commissioners adopted the small area plan on August 5, 1996. Following adoption,the 22 member citizen planning group
worked with county staff to develop proposed ordinance amendments for implementation of the plan. The proposed
amendments would:
Incorporate appropriate references to the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan in the Comprehensive Plan (CP-1-97);
• define the Overlay District boundaries on the Zoning Atlas(Z-2-97)
create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District;and
2
• modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision Regulations as applied to the District to provide consistency
between the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Lee Rafalow,a member of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Committee, said that this group's effort could be
used as a model for other Small Area Plans. He complimented Gene Bell on the work that he did with this Committee. He
endorsed the plan in general, but he requested that several areas be reviewed again by the Planning Board along with
several members of the Stoney Creek Committee. He mentioned in particular that there was a concern about the setback
options for the Village Option. Several members felt that the commercial center of the Village Option should be buffered and
set back so as not to be visible from the road. They had come up with recommendations which would encourage that
outcome.
Cheri Rosemond,a resident of the Stoney Creek Basin area,appreciated being notified about this being an agenda
item. She is concerned about the possibility that the Stoney Creek Planning process as well as the regular Flexible
Development Plan process could go forward without notification to the local homeowners. She would very much like to have
homeowners notified when items impacting their neighborhood come before the Planning Board. She also requested
information regarding the 30 acre park that was mentioned as a part of another development She hoped that if a similar
situation existed in the Stoney Creek Basin the residents would be notified and the County would work with the landowners
about how the park would be developed and used.
County Manger John Link indicated that the Master Plan for Recreation and Parks would be revisited by the Board
of Commissioners in the near future. At that time they will be asked to appoint a committee to review the current plan. A
part of that review would certainly be to include the area residents in discussion and planning.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,seconded by Commissioner Gordon,to refer the proposed
amendments(Cl a,2b, 3a, &4a)to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Zoning Atlas Amendments
W Z1-97 teen's Bgdj Had Ej-"Service
This item was presented by Mary Wills for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a rezoning
proposal of the Planning Staff to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. The properties are located on the east side of NC 157
between Wagoner Dairy Road and Blalock Road. The rezoning involves two contiguous parcels: Tax Map No.1.10..10G at
7700 NC 157,containing 2.02 acres and owned by Charlie and Jeroline Mangum; and Tax Map No. 1.10..10G at 7709 NC
157, having 10.97 acres and owned by William H.Carden,Jr.(Carden's Paint and Body Service).
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon,seconded by Commissioner Carey,Jr.,to refer the
proposed Zoning Atlas amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of
Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1997.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(b) 2-2-97 =nay Qwk Basin 9yeft Di�1ai�
This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
Zoning Ordinance TXW Amendments
Stoney Creek Basin$mall Arse Phan
1)
Article 4.2.32-Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District
3
2) Article 6.30 Extra Requirements for the Stoney Creek Basin
Overlay District
This item was heard concurrent with Item C1(a).
(b) _Gaff Courses
1) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table
2) Article 6.16.10 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
Recreational Facilities(Profit(Non-Profit):Golf Club and Golf
Country dub.
3) Article 6.23 Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
4) Article 22 Definitions-Golf Course
5) Article 8.8.7 Special Uses(Golf Courses)
This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on propose
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to include standards for golf courses. On August 20, 1996, the Board c
Commissioners adopted a charge and appointed members to the Golf Course Amendment Review Task Force (Go
CART). The Golf CART began meeting in September 1996 and continued its work through February of 1997. At the end c
December, a draft was distributed to 27 agencies and individuals for review and comment, including the Institute c
Government, state agencies involved with water quality and pesticide regulations, the Recreation and Parks Advisor
Council, the US Golf Association, the National Association of Counties, US Environmental Protection Agency, the Go
Course Superintendents Association of America, the American Society of Golf Course Architects, and the Center fc
Resource Management Twelve responses were received: Written comments were part of the agenda packet
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that the.Permitted Use Table previously allowed Golf Courses as a matter of righ
in more districts than the current table does including commercial districts. She felt that It would make sense to allow golf
courses in some of those districts by Special Use Permit She requested that the Planning Board discuss this further.
Ms.Cameron mentioned that the debate was lengthy on this issue. The end point of the discussion was that the
CART members were attempting to be consistent with the description of the districts. At the same time, In a practical
sense,the acreage is limited for the commercial uses. The possibility of undeveloped existing commercial land existing
which could be used for a golf course development where it would not already be permitted is very unlikely. She assured
Commissioner Gordon that the Planning Board would revisit this issue.
Commissioner Brown requested clarification on Attorney Gledhill's comments regarding pesticides.
Ms.Cameron mentioned that there is a section In the NC General Statutes that preempts local jurisdictions from
adopting regulations which would address,in any way,the applications to use or store pesticides. It is very specific with
regard to the limit it puts on local jurisdictions.The CART Included information in the initial draft regarding pesticide use,
safety,notification,storage areas,etc.,primarily for information. Because of the General Statutes they were required to
delete them from the initial draft of this document
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None.
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS:
Allen Spalt,a member of the CART Committee,thanked Emily Cameron for the excellent staff support that she
provided to the group. He mentioned that this group was not antl-golf and,in fact,the golf interest was well represented.
The goal of this group was to regulate,not prohibit,golf courses. He requested that the Board of Commissioners seek to
repeal the State's preemption provision regarding pesticides. This group had agreed to several provisions which would hav(
further protected against the negative effects of pesticides. He felt that this purging was unfortunate and weakened the
proposed Ordinance. He stated that there is a real need for voluntary compliance with higher standards. Finally,he
mentioned that the Audubon Certification known as"Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System' does not actually place any
restrictions on golf course operations. He requested that the Commissioners maintain oversight control. His comments in
their entirety are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Kent Scut commented that he actually had come prepared to discuss the Audubon International Certification. He
mentioned that he has had several discussions with Ronald Datsun,with Audubon International,who sent him infomiation,
including a video tape. He felt that it was potentially a very good program and requested that the Board of Commissioners