HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-1997 - 9b 1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 5. 1997
Action Agenda
Item
SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING - MAY 27, 1997
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Public Hearing Items Mary Willis - Extension 2593
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To approve the advertisement for the May 27, 1997 quarterly public hearing.
BACKGROUND: The next regular quarterly public hearing is scheduled for May 27, 1997. A
summary of each item proposed for public hearing is provided below. The
proposed legal advertisement, the text of proposed ordinance amendments, and
other background information are attached.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS
1. SUP(A)-4-97 Local Government Employees Credit Union
Request for a Special Use Permit to construct a 4800 square-foot credit
union facility with drive-through window on 2.07 acres at the southwest
corner of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (4.44.B.22,23) The property is
located in the Economic Development District. Development projects in the
Economic Development District (EDD) which do not meet all standards
specified in the EDD Design Manual may be approved by the Board of
Commissioners as a Special Use. The applicant is requesting Special Use
Permit approval because the proposed development project does not meet all
of the standards specified in the EDD Design Manual, including the
requirement for a 100--foot buffer around the perimeter of the Economic
Development District, and the requirement that parking areas be located to
the rear of the building.
2
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-3-97 Ruth Cook Woods
Rezoning of 7.8 acres located at the end of Skogen Lane (4.45..25), which
is located on the west side of New NC 86 about 500 feet south of
Breckenridge Drive (the southernmost entrance to Wildwood Subdivision),
from R-1 to R-4.
2. Z-4-97 T.H. Bradley
Rezoning of 6.2 acres of a 37-acre parcel (3.28.31) from R-1 to EC-5 -
Existing Commercial. The existing business located on the property (T.H.
Bradley Grading and Septic Tank) was in operation at that location prior to
the zoning of Cheeks Township in 1984.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. Economic Developmenf Districts Design Manual
Revisions to various sections of the EDD Design Manual are proposed for
the purpose of:
a) eliminating references to a previously-proposed NC Highway 751
Connector between Highway 70 and I-85;
b) updating text related to water usage and availability;
C) providing consistent terminology between the Permitted Use Table
and other references to land uses which are allowed in the district;
d) eliminating the current requirement that a 100-foot buffer be
provided along the entire perimeter of each Economic Development
District; and
e) allowing existing residences as a permitted use in all zoning
districts.
2. Parking Setbacks
Amendment to make Article 10 (Off-Street Parking Requirements)
consistent with Article 12.4.1 c (Landscape Buffers) by changing the
required side and rear setback for parking from five(5) to ten (10)feet.
3. Private Cemeteries
Amendment of Article 4.1 Establishment of Use Regulations and Article
6.16.18 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses to allow
parcels created for private cemetery use to be smaller than the minimum
lot size required for the zoning district.
4. Planning Board Member Appointments
Amendment of Article 2.2.4 Planning Board Tenure to change the month
in which terms expire from February to March.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached advertisement
for the May 27, 1997 quarterly public hearing.
3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
A public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse,
106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough,North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for
the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following
items:
CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. SUP(A)-2-97 Local Government Employees Credit Union
The property is located on the southwest corner of Old Hillsborough-Chapel Hill Road and
Oakdale Drive, in Hillsborough Township. It contains 2.07 acres and is identified as Lots
22 and 23, Tax Map 44, Block B, in Hillsborough Township. The property is in the
Economic Development District zoning district. The applicants are requesting a Class A
Special Use Permit to construct a 4,837 square-foot credit union facility, including drive-
thru window. Development projects in the Economic Development District (EDD) which
do not meet all standards specified in the EDD Design Manual may be approved by the
Board of Commissioners as a Special Use. The applicant is requesting Special Use Permit
approval because the proposed development project does not meet all of the standards
specified in the EDD Design Manual, including, but not limited to, the requirement for a
100--foot buffer around the perimeter of the Economic Development District, and the
requirement that parking areas be located to the rear of the building.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
1. Z-3-97 Ruth Cook Woods
Revise the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone 7.83 acres owned by Ruth Cook Woods
from R-1 Rural Residential (minimum lot size 40,000 square feet, or .92 acres) to R-4
Residential (minimum lot size 10,000 square feet, or .23 acres). The property is located at
the end of Skogen Lane on the west side of New NC Highway 86 and is known as Lot 25,
Tax Map 45, in Hillsborough Township. The property is designated as Ten-Year Transition
in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Z-4-97 T.H.Bradley
Revise the Orange County Zoning Atlas to rezone 6.2 acres of a 37-acre tract owned by
Thomas H. and Louise Bradley from R-1 Rural Residential to EC5 - Existing Commercial.
The property is located at 5419 US 70 in the Efland Community between Richmond Road
and Frazier Road, and is known as Lot 28, Tax Map 45, in Cheeks Township. The
property is designated as Ten-Year Transition Area in the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. An existing business, T.H. Bradley Grading and Septic Tank Service
4
Inc. was located on the property prior to the zoning of Cheeks Township in 1984, and has
remained in continuous use.
ORANGE COUNTY ZONING_ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
1 Amend ARTICLE 10.3i) OFF-STREET PARKING to change the side and rear setback for
parking areas from five (5) feet to ten (10) feet to be consistent with the 10-foot landscape
buffer required by Article 12 LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS.
2. Amend ARTICLE 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF USE REGULATIONS to allow private
cemeteries as a use permitted by right in any zoning district, and add ARTICLE 6.16.18
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PERMITTED USES to allow lots
created solely for use as a private cemetery to be smaller than the minimum lot size required
by the zoning district.
3. Amend ARTICLE 2.2.4 PLANNING BOARD TENURE to change the month in which
terms expire from February to March.
ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS DESIGN MANUAL
1. Amend ARTICLE 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AREAS and ARTICLE 3.3 CIRCULATION
AND PARKING to eliminate references relating to a NC Highway 751 Connector between
Highway 70 and I-85.
2. Amend ARTICLE 2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (WATER USE LIMITATIONS)
to reference the planned construction of a new Hillsborough Reservoir and to update
descriptions of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
3. Amend ARTICLE 2.3 LAND USE INTENSITY, ARTICLE 3.2 LANDSCAPE DESIGN
and ARTICLE 3.3 CIRCULATION AND PARKING and ARTICLE 2.4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (Noise Standards) to provide consistent terminology
between the Permitted Use Table and other text and tables in the Design Manual which
reference land uses which are allowed in the district.
4. Amend ARTICLE 2.2 PERMITTED USES to allow existing residences as a permitted and
conforming use in all Economic Development Districts.
5. Amend ARTICLE 3.2 LANDSCAPE DESIGN to eliminate the requirement for a 100-foot
perimeter buffer around an Economic Development District (EDD) which abuts an EDD
adopted by another jurisdiction.
The specific text amendments proposed as described in this notice are available for public
inspection at the Orange County Planning Department.
5
All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be
received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence
received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision.
Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at
the hearing.
Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department
located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough,North Carolina.
Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181
(Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031
(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member
who will answer your questions.
Marvin Collins,Planning Director
PUBLISH: News of Oranize Chanel Hill Herald
May 14, 1997 May 15, 1997
May 21, 1997 May 22, 1997
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN g
IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
DATE 3/31/97
PROJECT NAME: State Employees' Credit Union
LOCATION: Corner of Oakdale Road and Old Chapel Hill/Hillsborough Road
DESCRIBE PROPOSED USE: Drive-Up Banking Facility with drive-up
OWNERIDEVELOPER• State Employees' Credit Union
ADDRESS: 1000 wade Avenue PHONE # 919-839-5000
RnlPigt,, NC 77605
AGENT/CONTACT: O'Brien/Atkins - Liz King
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 12037 PHONE # 919-941-9000
RTV, NC ?77nq
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tax Map: 44 Block: B Lot(s): 22/23 Twp: 4
Primary or Secondary Development Area oQMt.o.%t ottrttc.T X_
Total acreage: 2.07 Phases: 1
Adjacent zoning and land uses: EDD
Water Supply: Public( Provider); Community; or Individual
Sewage disposal: Public ( Provider); Community; or Individual
Fire District: rn-nngo ('.n„nyy Fmprgpnry Manag mg entt
B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
x Ten(10 copies site plan (see below for specifications)
X— Site plan application form
X Application fee = $495
x Current Orange County Tax Map with property identified
Legal documents establishing entities responsible for maintenance of common areas/facilities
N/A Three copies Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, if required
Site Analysis
7
B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (CONTINUED)
X Grading and Erosion Control Plan
X Stormwater Management Plan
X Landscape Plan by registered Landscape Architect
_ Lighting Plan showing #, size, placement, appearance, and coverage patterns of all fixtures
Sign Plan showing #, size, placement, and appearance of all signs
N/A Hazardous Materials Management Plan (Material Safety Data Sheet and Tier Two Form)
Solid Waste Management Plan
X Projected water consumption rates with documented data
Approval by utility providers (resolution or agreements)
x Calculations for Site Volume Ratio including Building Volume, Impervious Surface, Floor Area, and
Landscape Volume (see sample calculation sheet following Application Form)
N/A FCC permit, if required for electrical disturbance
N/A Air Quality permit, or notice from EMC that permit not required
X Minimum of two drawings of sections through the entire site showing existing and proposed grades and
the relationship of buildings and site features
Trip generation estimate with Traffic Impact analysis for 800+trips per day
Architectural Submittal Requirements:
X Building Construction Plans
Elevation of each facade of principal structures, and one elevation per accessory structure
Documentation of existing character of the surrounding area and statement of how the proposal
improves on or incorporates surrounding neighborhood qualities
Schedule of exterior materials and finishes
Site Plan specifications:
All site plans must be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect, or land surveyor. See
Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance for exceptions.
X Scale adequate to show required detail
X Boundary of the lot(s) to be developed labeled with bearings and distances
x Name, address, and phone number of applicant and property owner
X Name of project, vicinity map, north arrow, scale, tax map reference number, date of plan preparation
and revision dates
x Adjacent right-of-way widths, road names and numbers
X Site Volume Ratio, Building Volume, Landscape Volume
X Maximum and proposed impervious surface
N/A Streams, ponds, drainage swales, stream corridors (buffers), swamps, floodplain and floodway
boundaries
X Land use buffers, front, side and rear building setbacks
X Existing and proposed contour lines at 5-foot intervals, 2-foot intervals acceptable
x Existing and proposed buildings and structures labeled according to floor area, building height and
function, finished floor elevation
x Vehicular use areas including streets, driveways, parking and loading areas
�7 _ Overhead and underground utilities with accompanying easements including storm drainage facilities
_Y Solid waste collection and recycling facilities
x Free-standing and wall mounted signs as per Sign Plan
• Site Plan Specifications: (continued) 8
X Light fixtures as per Lighting Plan
x _ Berms, retaining walls, tree wells, or rip rap as part of the grading plan
NIA Phase lines and numbers if the development is to be phased
Staging area for storage of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles
Temporary construction trailer/office if proposed
NOTE: Additional information may be required based on the site location and the type of use proposed.
I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.
pplicant's signature Owner's signature
3-,31—?7 Date Date
L��� - 3/3t l��
N
v VT '
s• Ali ;� � J -'--- ----- �_ -c-"_ �h}
x----�-- ----------
Y ,
--
C\j OD I
w
a=
o
PROPERTY OWNER LIST 10
List all property owners within 500 feet of the proposal. Use another sheet if more space is needed.
Tax
Map Block Lot Name Address Zip Code
4.44 B 24 June J. HAAS 2317 Old-CH/Hillsborough Rd.. Hillsborough,NC 27278
4.44 B 25 Juanita S. Sturdivant 2401 Old CH/Hillsborough Rd.. Hillsborough- NC 27278
4.44 �B 26 Margaret W Underwood 6306 Schley Rd., Hillsborough- NC 27278
4.44 _B 20 Clifford C. Isaac 112 Oakdale Dr.. Hillsborough, NC 27278
4.44 �B 19A Emily E. Ray 1.18 Oakdale Drive, Hillsborough,NC 27278
4.44 B Ruth Warren Haynie Box 365, Hillsborough. NC 722 78
4.44 B 19F Elenor Gainey 118 Oakdale Drive. Hillsborough, NC 722 78
4.44 _ B 119 Roy F. Jr- 210 Oakdale Drive, Hillsborough. NC 27278
4.44 B 19D Robert H. Jr. & Bev. Haynie 726 Fletcher Rd., Hilllsborough,NC 27 78
4.44 A 38 J. A. Dean 2219 Old NC 86, Hillsborough, NC 72 278
4.44 _A 19 James H. Jr. Wade P.O. Box 806.Hillsborough, NC 27278
4.44 A 20 Donna L. Freeland P.O. Box 726. Hillsborough NC 27278
4.44 _ A 17 William H. Jennings 109 Oakdale Rd., Hillsborough-NC 27278
4.44 _ A 16 CA Etal & Lynne Laws 1300 Faucette Mill Rd,Hillsborough,NC 27278
4.44 _A 155 Lawrence Gordon 201 Oakdale Rd.. Hillsborough, NC 27278
4.45 1 Orange County Board of Ed 200 East King Street Hillsborough. NC 722 78
4.45 2C Bobby Moore Jr. (COC Prop.) 3011 Lebanon Rd., Hillsborough. NC 27278
4.44 36 Roger Stephens P.Q. Box 397, Hillsborough_ NC 72� 78
4.44 2_E Hugh & Carolyn Moren 1202 Hollandia Park Circle, Hartsville. SC 29550
4.44 -2- Charles W. Davis 718 Graham Street Raleigh- NC 72 605
4.40 A 233 NCDOT P.O. Box 1351, Raleigh, NC 72 602
4.40 �$_ 23A NCDOT P.O. Box 13 51, Raleigh-NC 762 02
• 11
I �
!'fjifff :� lfttli!1�=.!-°°ilij;ffiff
1fiS.S.r'C�SS
J.
`Ifi1Qf� T: -�'A• X11 � J+ 7
_ a I
1..A. 1 ice..' �/ t�{`1'+�.. L %r' 1 i •t,1
11, ,�!{ �� •\a Y� +`�• Y
i' X ,� n r �> � T •}'j X11 i fl !i�t
yyy I
•I 1 1
it
o
10 � I'_ I
I' I �f i' I ' ,u �m �3y 01R7'S tliRy ; s
+ ID Iil �— Jg. a�fp
d•a gn
� yXrr.
r r• ,, 3E
W1 INI
8=e E=1OYeeS''V curt Union 0'r+♦ 1` va Ta` "2BdenAtkins
F :/ Ir�•\..:,.!�. ..o...•.w.r.rn.y.p�,•rrVM.NV a..r.
j 1'•r�t mar...rad.-a-1e.a.w..orr.DIM
bo I
I r �illsa�t� Forth C2rolias : •-•.• � °s''� 4...,�..:..'-�;;� ...•,,� r
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 12
Date : _ �- ��- q7
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of
Orange County as hereinafter requested .
1 . The pr party is located an the WeSi side of S .R . #
45� Street/Road) between S .R . # 52 1710 and
S .R . # . It is known as Lot s) ZS , Block — of
Orange County Tax Map 4-5--)),a 6L,ri:ink Township . It has a frontage
of 'y SCt ' feet and a depth of 6,5e' and contains
square feet or 7.5:-% acres .
2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned
from ,L- 1 to -51
3 .- The -foLL-owing information has been _ attached - .in_ support of the
application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required on a L L
eppLicer.ions) .
•e. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one (1) inch
squats one—hundred (100) fast nor sore than one (1) inch squats
twenti-- 1209 feet --showing- .tt:a Lend which is proposed to be
rezoned.
'b. A legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned.
•c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the
following:
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which
would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation of such error in the Zoning Attss and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment WILL correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in 'the County generally, Which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety and general welters.
'(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment Will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plen or pert
thereof.
0(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agencies)
assuring services provision cspabiLity to the development.
d. A List of sLL individuals, firms or corporations owning property
adjoining or within five hundred 1500) feet of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of
(Data)
I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate
to the best of /my knowledge ..
A p p L i c a n t I a : / -���<-►.�_�!/s�o�
Address :
Z,;,� s I
Phone : 9/;i- Zia.
13
TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
FROM: Ruth Cook Woods, Owner
DATE: March 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Rezoning Request for Tax Map 4.45..25
NARRATIVE
I am requesting that the zoning of the 7.83 acre tract referenced above be
changed from its current zoning of R-1 to the proposed R-4 zoning.
Access will be provided by the extension of Skogen Lane (an existing 60 foot
public road) through Lots#1 and #2 as shown on a plat recorded in plat book 38,
page 72 at the Orange County Registry.
Bordering the above-mentioned parcel, there are two developments (1) Ruth
Woods recorded in plat book 38, page 72 and (2) Wildwood Section One
recorded in plat book 37, page 17; both are zoned R-4.
Enclosed you will find a letter from the Town of Hillsborough stating that water
and sewer services are available to the 7.83 acre parcel.
fit
EI.
I a�
j
Y
YaT
yV
aagaa8 ,; at3 /
•
Ark
1 p
Sal) A ��: 1 e M
3� "i
WT
w
4 a � � �G - 'IVA
o� U
mo
t7 Z Z
A 11'• � �m 1✓5�,1
to QQ t7
M O
orn � CZ O 1 I r 1'q r it
o V :AL
Vill R Cl�le•
r
46 S8
87 9
15_ 54 5
I 3e
'I DR 1 6.56
1.19 AC, _ \ , � AC
As mo
Pt�gp��y\ 3a 4l04AC.
aSEE MO?/5t� / (.AOR°A
AC.
•9969CZ\ � �O• ��
SEE MAP
30.77 AC. 45L
W ILDWOOD
SEC PHI 112
f 143 k.10
48
a /
� a
W /
to / •3261 i _PtRs
Oopm
301 AC.
I SEE MAP
— — 2 s •Og�c 45J
AC. SEC I
wILDWOOD
s 25
EE JE I —7.75 AC.
3 I dae ` J
'••� SEE 45K 74,/ I
ICIRCIrER RUTH W(XMS / i, t
I I / 34.737AC.
sce MAP 45 C
I
I (STAGECOACH RUN, SEC. 1) I 24 /
\ I
I
..ion / 27
H RUN ' 7900.
023— _FLETCH€R FGAO I
14.62AC/��'
4.87 AG ; 618
44
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT C �a� 16
Date : 3-5-97 O
TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of
Orange County as hereinafter requested .
1 . The property is located on the North side of S .R . # U S 70
t Street/Road) between S .R . # 1310
S .R . # 1399 It is known as Lotts) om and o f
-31 _,
Orange County B lock n
�Tax Map 28 - Cheeks Township . It has a frontage
of 700 feat and a depth of 1560 feet , and contains
1613026 square feet or 37.03 acres .
2. It is desired and requested that the fore Ding property be rezoned
from Resid n ia1 to
-'L
.3 .- The .foLL.owing information has been _ attached . _in__ support of the
eppLication for changing the Zoning Attes t* - required on all
applications) .
`a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not Less than one (1) inch
equals one—hundred (100) fast nor wars then one (i) inch equals
twenty- 1201 feet--showVn'g"--ths land -which is proposed to be
rezoned.
"b. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned.
'c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the
fo L Lowi ng:
(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which
would bs'eorrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed
explanation of such error in the Zoning At Les and detailed
reasons how the proposed amendment wiLL correct the error.
(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or
in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment
reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health,
safety and goneraL welfare.
•(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out
the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part
thereof.
*(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the
applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment
including, but not Limited to, documentation from service
agencies (e.g. fire, poLics, rescue and utilities agencies)
•souring services provision capabiLlty to the development.
d. A List of aLL individuals, firms or corporation• owning property
adjoining or within five hundred (300) feet of the property
sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of
(Date)
I certify that eLL information furnished in this eppLication is accurate
to the best of my knowledge .
AppLicent (s) : T. H. Bradley
Address : 5419 U S 70
Mebane. N_ c'_ 27in7
Phone : 919-563-1812
1
� � \
. � $
¥ \
� # r
tn
C14
A < a
\ � � m > ■
� \ � m ■ «
71 m
Ij
0
# �
¥
� Q ¥ U
vI %hA ¥ «
k A \ u
�
¥
`\ %
\ $ % WA\
'
U
° S to m o
o
@ k to
S � � � ■
W \ L-A
\ \ k % Ul
¥
$ Q o
m
A
«
% $ � %
�
*10 �
e $ ° t »
C: C ° I
3 ¥ to a w i
/ % � k .
» o & u ® .
tA
a % V.A ° .
g S-A
18
T.H. BRADLEY
5419 U S 70
MEBANE, N.C. 4
563-1812
Gentlemen:
Upon reviewing zoning maps it becomes clear that the
Zoning Ordinance is in error concerning the tract of land
known as 3.28. . 31 .
At this physical location the operation of a grading
and septic tank business has been in operation since 1961 .
Please note aerial photo, dated 1974, that shows residence
and business areas.
Enclosed is documentation that concludes this business
was in operation prior to September 1984.
Thank you,
T.H. Bradley
19
------ --------- -
SIR
CT o
�, p,.Cm
W LEBANON RD. 1306 W.LEBANON RD.
YORK
13M
IROWN FOX M
WL
MIL lass
Mo)"st
CLue
RD.I CLUB
oil I
VASjfj WIL
1400
7b
-'swee U.
F Em no. no. w
S L
sEDWAN R°.N11
x.r. 1301 1 WStR "1M.III it
Co
R 85 CHAPEL N
—wLrsr \"mm
TENS
RD. 1144
M 1145
THOMAS a LOUISE BRADLEY
d.b.a. T.H. BRADLEY GRADING AND SEPTIC TANK,, INC.
Z-4-97 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Scale 1 4,000 W
�i •■■��/i�� .q■ • �.■:: per:i:: •r.::::::::::•i:
........... ...... C6 E)
•........1.\...1■.1•/11.1.1.1■../11:1.11 -•I_!.......:.1::'.•:...
.. .. .x•.111/1 4.2 9AC
•
..1\
/ ••11....•••.1 \\..:•:•:/11:::�11:'��.....:.\.
� 11.:,x•.::/1I1. ■./..\'..\1
:JMu'.4-M, :::::��;�:� ::..o ff :' •°•�?p:: "
l � \ i�o., 0.411■::::'.404\.:::::::.:\\
• :::::::::"•••��:::"::::::::./ �/111/•\:•11•"•�.:. ••/ /'•
::\..\.r///•/.■�\ •• III••/r...:::: ....'......
..\.1/:::..\\ ••.•./::::.....•\•::' 1\•:..111\4 1%'• •/ .. l
\\//O 11.//1 \..•.\••\■ •\/111♦.._ i\�� r
...o\.u.q.:i i::\ •.44.0 ::i... :�
�...\.....//. ': ..4•./14 • ''....':::::i��! I ♦
'44.4.•. :•�•4t.::'•• \• \\q4••
!0•x••4:• • � •
•44i
•
1
• ♦ LOUISE BRADLEY
BRADLEY • ' ♦ ' SEPTIC
Z-4-97 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
400
21
Z-4-97 Cheeks Township
Atlas Amendment Proposal of Orange County Planning Department
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
within 500 feet
Page One of Two
Tax Man Number Property Owners and Addresses
3.12..15C William Eugene u Joyce F. Scott
5526 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.12..18A Tommy M. el Susan R. Scott
3.28..29 5509 US 70
3.28..28A Mebane, NC 27302
3.28.30 Lessie Ray Miller
3.28..30A 5505 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28..32 Eula M. Shanklin
3.28..33 Thomas Shanklin
5223 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28.34 Clyde D. Hunley
5217 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28..35 William David Riley
3.30..8 933 S. Sth Street
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28.36 Jack E. 8t Sandra F. Metcalf
3.28..36H 200 Metcalf Drive
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28..36A Robert Miller
5207 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.28..36C Wil Com Truck Lines
3.28..37 403 Orange High School Road
Hillsborough, NC 2 72 78
3.28..36E Gabe Laws Miller
3.28..36G 226 Metcalf Drive
Mebane, NC 27302
22
Page Two of Two
Tax Man Number PropeeM Owners and Addresses
3.28..38 John A. Miller
5225 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..1 James R. Combs, Sr.
611 N. Charles Street
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..2 Etta G. Tuck
5502 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..3 Randy a Diane T. Graham
2475 Lynch Store Road
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..4 Lillie Mae Thompson
5410 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30.4A Dora F.Willis
c/o Jimmy Thompson
2161 Mebane Oaks Drive
Mebane, NC 27312
3.30..5 Blanch Faulkner
5320 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..6 Samuel Richard at Machelle L. James
6516 Penecost Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
3.30..7 John ex Deborah Santucci
5321 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..12 Evelyn Sechrist
5404 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.30..13 Thomas W. at Diane R. Throneburg
5400 US 70
Mebane, NC 27302
3.31.A.1 Jerry D. at Alease R. Coble
2122 Pear Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
3.31.A.2 Troy W. az Doris H. Lloyd
PO Box 86
E6and, NC 27243
23
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
Economic Development Districts Design Manual
REFERENCE: Article 2.1 -Development Areas
Article 3.3 - Circulation and Parking
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
X BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997
PURPOSE:
To eliminate references to an extension of NC 751 between U.S. 70 and I-85 in the U.S.
70/1-85 Economic Development District.
IMPACTS AND ISSUES:
On March 18, 1997,the Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution requesting
deletion of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and I-85 from the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The Resolution states that the Board
will not support the extension of NC 751 until concerns regarding adverse environmental
impacts on the New Hope Creek Corridor are addressed to the Board's satisfaction. The
proposed amendment eliminates all references to the NC 751 connector.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 2.1 - Development Areas
1-851U.S.Highway 70 District
The I-85/U.S. Highway 70 Economic Development District extends almost
two miles along either side of 1-85 and is located in the Lower Eno River
Watershed........
Access to all sites is generally available from U.S. Highway 70, but steep
slopes adjacent to some portions of the roadway may make access more
24
difficult. However, with the realignment of Mount Herman Church Road as
part of the I-85 widening project and he proposed *e f E D '
48m Durham CeuWty, c�rccrrax
accessibility will be gfeatly improved. Potential
transit access points are also possible, with locations designated north of the
Southern Railroad and on the realigned Mount Herman Church Road near
the I-85 interchange. Standards and design criteria for thoroughfare and
transit systems are provided in section 3.3, Circulation& Parking..............
Insofar as recreational corridors are concerned, links between Duke Forest
and the State Park have been designated along N.C. Highway 751 and
proposed o eve, in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer
extending along 1-85, along Old N.C. Highway 10 from N.C. 751 to Mount
Herman Church Road, and along Mount Herman Church Road and Pleasant
Green Road to the State Park access on the Eno River. These routes are not
only reflective of the studies mentioned above but incorporate
recommendations of the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange
Counties.
Article 3.3 - Circulation and Parking
I-851U.S.Highway 70 District (page 3.3.12)
In the I-85/U.S. Highway 70 area, U.S. Highway 70 has been classified as
an arterial road, and Old N.C. Highway' 10, Mount Herman Church Road,
Pleasant Green Road, and N.C. Highway 751 as collector roads. Specific
deficiency analysis data is not available in the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan other than to note that U.S.
Highway 70 will be over capacity by the year 2000.
As noted in section 2.1, Development Areas, Mount Herman Church Road
is being realigned as part of the I-85 widening. A 24-foot pavement in a
60-foot right-of-way is proposed. However, Mount Herman Church Road
has been recommended as a bicycle route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for
Durham and Orange Counties. The addition of four feet to each side,
resulting in a 32-foot pavement, will assure that bike lanes are provided as
part of the improvements.
The same condition exists with Old N.C. Highway 10 and Pleasant Green
Road. Both roads have 20-foot pavements in 60-foot rights-of-way, and
both roads are part of the bicycle system recommended in the Regional
Bicycle Plan. The preferred cross-section for these roads is a 24-foot
roadway with a four-foot bike lane on each side.
As part of the I-85 widening project, improvements will be made to U.S.
Highway 70 at the interchange; e.g., expansion to a four-lane divided
25
facility, including two 12-foot travel lanes in either direction. Given the
deficiency noted for U.S. Highway 70 by the year 2000 and the pfopesed
Ene Drive e tensie--, the preferred cross-section for that road is an
extension of the four-lane divided facility.
areas aeFth-aed--east-Af Dw- The weste teFmifW&-of the fouf lane
DC-11C toe_ 1,000 feet
West of+he Duff .., !'..upA , li...eT�Pl-•c-FiI,T-Ther-oughf4 DPlaairi'ic
fead is Plamed for- eK*fisien to Gemeet with U.S. Highway 70
immedimely arar-essf+em i ighway 7-5-1.
Bike lanes 1 as paftef the Eno Drive pr-ejeet; ., fouf feet
lanes on the edge o tae-eutsid -yehiele`-Ww4- irr-additieff,
7
Righw" 751 is another- ther-oughfaFe designated in the Regional Bieyele
70, "bike laftes are to be eiEteaded te 6OFmer-t with these proposed
N.C. mi..l,w 7757
26
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING DELETION OF THE NC 751 '
CONNECTOR FROM THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
URBAN AREA THOROUGHFARE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan depicts the
northward extension of NC 751 to connect US 70 with I-85; and
WHEREAS, the State-Municipal Thoroughfare Plan mutually adopted by the City of Durham
on November 18, 1991, and by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on January
10, 1992, for the Durham Thoroughfare Planning Area as required by North Carolina
General Statute 136-66.2 likewise depicts the northward extension of NC 751 to connect
US 70 with 1-85; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to construct an extension of NC 751 to connect US 70 and I-85, as
well as an I-85 interchange, was discussed by NCDOT in early 1995 in conjunction with
the discussions concerning the closure of I-85 exit 172; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 1995, the New Hope Creek Advisory Committee discussed the
proposed I-85 interchange and connector road at NC 751 and identified as concerns the
possible impacts on:
1) The NC 751 Scenic Road;
2) The Duke Forest research lands west of NC 751;
3) The New Hope Creek Corridor and tributaries including Mud
Creek and Sandy Creek; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 1995, the Orange County Board of Commissioners in
correspondence to Mr. H. Franklin Vick,North Carolina Department of
Transportation, indicated that the Board would not support the extension of NC 751 and
related projects until concerns regarding adverse environmental impacts on the New Hope
Creek Corridor and the surrounding area were addressed to the Board's satisfaction; and
WHEREAS, the Board continues to share the concerns articulated by the New Hope Creek
Advisory Committee and others concerning adverse impacts to the environment if the
NC 751 connector were to be constructed; and
WHEREAS, the Board is responsible for developing both general and specific plans to
promote the orderly growth and development of the area within Orange County; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Board, when overseeing the implementation of
these plans and the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, to do so with foresight,
thoughtfulness and sensitivity to the long-term quality of life of all of the citizens of
Orange County;
27
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests the removal of the NC 751 connector
between US 70 and I-85 from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan that• was adopted on October 2, 1991 by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Transportation Advisory Committee.
2. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests the removal of the NC 751 connector
between US 70 and I-85 from the State-Municipal Thoroughfare Plan mutually adopted by
the City of Durham on November 18, 1991 and by the North Carolina Board of
Transportation on January 10, 1992.
3. The Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that the NC 751 connector between
US 70 and I-85 be eliminated from consideration for any new or updated thoroughfare plans
for the City of Durham or Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
4. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will forward a copy of this resolution to the
Honorable James Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina, the Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, the members of the Orange Legislative Delegation,
the Mayor of the City of Durham, and the Chair of the Transportation Advisory Committee
for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization.
This, the 18th day of March, 1997.
William L. Crowther, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
r
�8
fdd.
Z �_ o > •. v�
fir/ tit. � '�• � .';,�.�'�•y �''�`'
cr • .
'coops ORL.
:• •(s�`. • ' III i�, •I ` M M
fir/ D � �. ij•.j• " � +'fly cn
id g
G cs
P` Y
N � w
IrO
/jU
29
. Y "..,,,,,�`� � •, � } y ���• fir
Aa
y r "'' •r 4
cts
,ii � +i+ •S�4 L;, ,r�
NN. W
� .� "• s� f p .a1 � 61 � e•o is CL
th
CA
rX d
0• s ca
r. 'fa � d d C•
� gw
30
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Economic Development Districts Design Manual
REFERENCE: Article 2.4 -Environmental Factors
(Water Supply and Sewage Disposal)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_ Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High_X_Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997
PURPOSE:
To update information related to water supply and sewage disposal in the I-40/Old NC 86
Economic Development District(EDD).
IMPACTS AND ISSUES:
Article 2.4 of the EDD Design Manual (Environmental Factors) includes sections on
water supply an sewage disposal for each District. Text pertaining to the I-40/Old NC 86
District has not been amended since it was originally adopted. The text includes
descriptions of planned water and sewer extensions, including scheduled completion
dates. The completion dates referenced in the Design Manual have passed. The proposed
amendment updates the status of these improvements, and also incorporates references to
the new Hillsborough Reservoir.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 2.4 - Environmental Factors
I-40/Old N.C. Highway 86 District (page 2.4.24)
The I-40/Old N.C. Highway 86 Economic Development District has one
service provider - the Town of Hillsborough. Both water supply and
sewage disposal services are provided by the Town.
Water Supply. The Town of Hillsborough -is- has extendgextended a
12-inch water main along Old N.C. Highway 86 to Lafayette Drive.
�interseet-vAthea-e*isting 4v-inch water-lime-in-Oakdale -SEheduled
31
€ef-sefnpletion 4-the-Summer- e€4494; sService to the I-40/Old N.C.
Highway 86 Economic Development District can be provided by
extension of the 12-inch water line.
Extending the 12-inch water main along Old N.C. Highway 86 to the I-
40/Old N.C. 86 interchange, the approximate center of the District, would
cost approximately $150.000.. This cost includes &,4" 3 (Q
linear feet of 12-inch ductile iron water line at$2-5-14Q per linear foot plus
contingencies and engineering costs (25%). Longer term, the Town of
Hillsborough's Water Distribution System Plan calls for the extension of
the 12-inch water main from the interchange due east to N.C. Highway 86.
The Plan also calls for construction of a 500,000 gallon elevated water
storage tank on the western border of the District.
Sewage Disposal. The Town of Hillsborough is extending an 18-inch
gravity sewer line along Cates Creek to near the north side of dw-vieiaity
of-1-85. 1*-addition to-a-42 ifishstubetA aleftt Cates-Creek, a-A 12-inch
gravity sewer line is b ' Wh&jb=n extended up a tributary of Cates Creek
to serve the Wildwood Subdivision. Re-hed ed €ems by-late
4494—, s-Service to the District can be provided by ° of extending a
12-inch gravity sewer line from the terminus of the 18" line on the north
side of I-85, under 1-85 and stube along Cates Creek to its intersection
with Old N.C. Highway 86.
Extending the 12-inch gravity sewer main along Cates Creek, the northern
boundary of the District, to its intersection with Old N.C. Highway 86
would cost approximately $584,344 $670.000. This cost includes 8,500
linear feet of 12-inch ductile iron gravity sewer line at W-Sj 5 per linear
foot plus contingencies and engineering costs(25%).
SYSTEM CAPACITIES-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY(MGD)
Utility Provider Total Raw Total Treatment Average Daily Peak Demand
Water Supply Capacity Demand
Town of
Hillsborough
Water Supply (1) 3.0 MGD 1.5 MGD 2.0 MGD
Sewage Disposal N/A 3.0 MGD 1.2 MGD 2.0 MGD
City of Durham
Water Supply 42.0 MGD 52.0 MGD 22.0 MGD 30.0 MGD
Sewage Disposal N/A 40.0 MGD 18.0 MGD 36.0 MGD
City of Mebane
Water Supply (2) 2.0 MGD 1.0 MGD 1.5 MGD
Sewage Disposal N/A 2.5 MGD 1.0 MGD 1.5 MGD
32
SYSTEM CAPACITIES-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY(MGD)
Utility Provider Total Raw Total Treatment Average Daily Peak Demand
Water Supply Capacity Demand
Orange-Alamance
Water Corporation
Water Supply (3) 1.0 MGD 0.8 MGD 1.0 MGD
Sewage Disposal N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange Water and
Sewer Authority
Water Supply 13.5 MGD 12.5 MGD 7.0 MGD 8.4 MGD
Sewage Disposal N/A 8.0 MGD 7.0 MGD 8.4 MGD
(1) Raw water yield when flow in Eno River exceeds 6.5 MGD is limited only
by treatment plant capacity. When Eno flow is less than 6.5 MGD, maximum
raw water supply is 1.51 MGD. However, up to 4.0 MGD is available from
Durham and OWASA in such periods. Phase I of a new reservoir to be
constructed on the west fork of the upper Eno River will yield an addition 1.8
MGD.
Notes (2) Mebane and Graham share water plan and reservoir with Graham utilizing
two-thirds of capacity. Assumes that Graham will use identical share of raw
water supply.
(3) Raw water yield when flow in Eno River exceeds 6.5 MGD is limited only
by treatment plant capacity. When Eno flow is less than 6.5 MGD, maximum
raw water supply is .82 MGD. However, up to 1.0 MGD is available from
Mebane and Graham in such periods.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
33
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
Economic Development District Design Manual
REFERENCE: Article 2.3 Land Use Intensity
Article 3.3 Circulation and Parking
Article 3.2 Landscape Design
Article 2.4 Environmental Factors (Noise)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_Staff Planning Board
_BOCC Public
X Other: Town of Hillsborough
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997
PURPOSE:
The proposed amendment replaces land use categories referenced in various text and
tables in the Design Manual to match those found in the Permitted Use Table. With these
changes,the standards which apply to various land uses will be more apparent to Staff as
well as to applicants.
IMPACTS AND ISSUES:
The Permitted Use Table in the EDD Design Manual categorizes permitted land uses
according to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC)prepared by the Federal
Office of Budget and Management. Using the SIC allows staff to more clearly determine
the land use category into which a specific proposed use would fall to determine whether
or not that use should be allowed
The following SIC categories which are used in the EDD Design Manual:
Residential
Agricultural, Forestry and Fishing
Construction
Manufacturing,Assembly and Processing
Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Services
Government
There is also a category for"Other Uses"which includes Historic Buildings for Non-
Residential Use", a use unique to Orange County.
34
The Design Manual includes various tables and text which specify standards (such as site
volume ratios) which are applicable to various land uses. However, the terminology used
to identify the land uses differs in some cases from the categories specified in the
Permitted Use Table, and it can be difficult to determine the category into which a
proposed use falls for the purpose of determining the applicable standard. An example of
this inconsistency can be found in determining the site volume ratio for a bank. The
Table of Minimum Site Volume Ratios provides one ratio for"office/institutional use".
and another for"service/retail use". In considering applicability to a use such as a bank,
the question arises as to whether the use is considered to be an"office"or a"service".
The Permitted Use Table, based on the SIC is of little help, since there is a separate
category for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. When questions on this issue have
arisen, Staff has interpreted a use to be an office if most of the traffic is generated by
employees, and a service if the traffic is generated predominately by customers.
The Planning Staff for the Town of Hillsborough has also expressed concern with the use
categories,having encountered similar problems in reviewing development plans in its
EDD.
The amendment includes revisions to the following tables:
Minimum Required Site Volume Ratios (page 2.3.10)
Off-Street Parking Requirements for Selected Land Uses (page 3.3.7)
Schedule of Land Use Buffers (page 3.2.8)
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (page 2.4.3)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 35
Article 2.3 - Land Use Intensity
Minimum Required Site Volume Ratios (page 2.3.10)
MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE VOLUME RATIOS*
Required SVR
Land Use Primary,Primary I,
and Secondary Areas Primary II Areas
Residential 2.0 3.0
0 34
Seiee{letail
4-8 2.0
age 4-.0 2:0
3-0 44
Ind4u;4*41 1 4-0 10
Agriculture,Foregiy and Fishing Imo. 2,Q
Construction 1.0 24
Manufacturing,Assembly and Processing 1..0 2.Q
Transportation.Communication and Utilities 3-Q 4-
Wholesale Trade 3.0 4.0
Retail Trade j0 2--Q
Finance.Insurance and Real Estate i0 2,Q
Services 1.0 2.0
Government 2,Q 3JQ
Other 2+Q 2.4
NOTE:Industrial use is considered to be any use which involves the assembly,production or manufacture of
goods or materials.The intensity of impacts of industrial use depends on the nature of the specific activity. For
example,electronics assembly would be considered an industrial use,but would have little potential for pollution,
high water use or other impacts which are often perceived as being associated with industrial activity.
With the exception of residential uses, the site volume ratios were selected after an
intensive study of the design features and land use intensity ratios of eighteen
selected sites in the Research Triangle and Piedmont Triad regions. The study
kwelved at least thfee skes from eaeh of the land use , t-Ihe ratios
established above are representative of the average SVR for each category.
Article 3.3 - Circulation and Parking 36
Off-Street Parking Requirements for Selected Land Uses (page 3.3.7)
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED LAND USES
(Refer to Article 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for detailed requirements for each use)
Minimum Space Requirements
Use or Activity Basic Per Dwelling or Per SgFt of Per Per Seat
Standard Lodging Unit Floor Area Employee
Residential
Single-Family 1
Duplex 1
Multi-Family 2
Services
Hotels/Motels 1
Bank 1/200
Medical Offices 1/300
Theaters 1/2
Laundry/Dry Cleaning 1/300
Barber/Beauty Shops 1/200
Offices/Personal Services 1/300
43-* 4/
Goner-a!Restaamws 138 444
Retail
Retail Store or Center 1/200
Automobile Sales 1/400
Service Station 1/bay+ 1
Drive-in Restaurants
General Restaurants _/50+ I/A
Distribution
4
Light4adust-ia1
4
Pe sh F-aa4ity 4-
Wholesale Trade 1
Transportation, 1
Communication and Utilities
Storage and Warehousin¢ 1
Manufacturing, Assembly and 1
Processing
Article 3.2 - Landscape Design 37
Schedule of Land Use Buffers (page 3.Z8)
The proposed Table is below. The existing Table follows.
SCHEDULE OF LAND USE BUFFERS
A B
When this land use "A"provides a buffer Abuts this existing land use.....
is being developed width of...... next to"B"
and ....
Residential (min. lot size/max. density)
N/A 40,000 SF+ (1.09 dulac)
30 20,000- 39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
30 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
Residential 40 10,000- 14,000 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
75 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
40,000 SF+ 75 Accessory Uses
(1.09 dulac) 75 Non-Residential Use/Reuse of Historic Sites
100 Interstate Highway
75 Arterial Road
30 Collector Road
50 Railroad
50 Transmission Line
100 Other
Residential (min. lot size/max. density)
30 40,000 SF+ (1.09 dulac)
N/A 20,000- 39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
30 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
30 10,000- 14,000 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
50 Finance,Insurance and Real Estate
Residential 50 Accessory Uses
50 Non-Residential Use/Reuse of Historic Sites
20,000- 39,999 SF 100 Interstate Highway
(2.18- 1.09 dulac) 75 Arterial Road
30 Collector Road
50 Railroad
50 Transmission Lines
100 Other
Residential (min. lot size/max. density)
30 40,000 SF+ (1.09 dulac)
30 20,000- 39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
N/A 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
30 10,000- 14,000 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
50 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Residential 50 Accessory Uses
50 Non-Residential Use/Reuse of Historic Sites
15,000- 19,999 SF 100 Interstate Highway
(2.90-2.18 dulac) 75 Arterial Road
30 Collector Road
50 Railroad
50 Transmission Lines
100 Other
38
SCHEDULE OF LAND USE BUFFERS
A B
When this land use "A"provides a buffer Abuts this existing land use.....
is being developed width of...... next to"B"
and ....
Residential (min. lot size/max.density)
40 40,000 SF+ (1.09 dulac)
30 20,000- 39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
30 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
N/A 10,000- 14,999 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
Residential 50 Finance,Insurance and Real Estate
50 Accessory Uses
10,000- 14,999 SF 50 Non-Residential Use/Reuse of Historic Sites
(4.36-2.90 dulac) 100 Interstate Highway
75 Arterial Road
30 Collector Road
50 Railroad
50 Transmission Lines
100 Other
Residential(density)
Financial,Insurance 75 40,000 SF or more
and Real Estate 50 20,000- 39,999 SF
40 15,000- 19,999 SF
Accessory Uses 30 10,000- 14,999 SF
100 Interstate Highway
Non-residential 30 Railroad
Use/Reuse of 30 Transmission Lines
Historic Sites N/A Other
Residential (min. lot size/max. density)
100 40,000 SF+ (1.09 dulac)
Government 100 20,000-39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
75 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
Retail Trade 50 10,000- 14,999 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
100 Interstate Highway
Services 30 Railroad
30 Transmission Lines
N/A Other
Agricultural, Residential (min. lot size/max. density)
Forestry,Fishing 75 40,000 SF+(1.09 dulac)
75 20,000-39,999 SF(2.18- 1.09 dulac)
Transportation, 50 15,000- 19,999 SF(2.90-2.18 dulac)
Communication 40 10,000- 14,999 SF (4.36-2.90 dulac)
and Utilities 100 Interstate Highway
N/A Other
Manufacturing, 100 Residential
Assembly and 100 Interstate Highway
Processing N/A Other
Article 2.4 - Environmental Factors 39
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (page 2.4.3)
MAXIMUM PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS
Receiving Land Use Noise Level Limits [dB(A)J
Category for Generating Land Use Category
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Residential development of all 45 50
types
Light ia"s W; ineluding
dist-r-ibutien and war-ehousing 6-5 60
Manufacturing. Assembly an d �Q
Processing
Gemmer-eial, ifieluding effieei IL 54 -50
All Other 555 �4
Exceptions:
1. Impact noises or sounds that occur intermittently rather than continuously are permissible up
to a level of 10 dB(A) in excess of the figures listed above provided the source from which they
are generated does not operate more than one minute in any one hour. This exception shall not
apply from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. when the adjacent lot is used or zoned for residential purposes.
2. Noise levels resulting from construction or other temporary activities which occur between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., are exempt from the standards listed in the table.
Schedule of Land Use Buffers 40
- 1 .
A I -A- provides e t B
When this lend use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing
being developed and_.. next to "B- land use._.
Residential (Lot Sizes) Residential (Lot Sizes)
40,000 SgFt or more Not applicable 40,000 SgFt or more
30 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
30 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
40 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
75 feet Office
20,000 - 39,999 SgFt 30 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
Not applicable 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
30 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
30 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
50 feet Office
15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 30 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
30 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
Not applicable 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
30 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
50 feet Offi ce
10,000 - 144-999 SgFt 40 feet 400000 SgFt or more
30 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
30 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
Not applicable 10,000 - 1 4,999 SgFt
40 feet Offi cc
20,000 SgFt or more 100 feet Retail/Service
100 feet Distribution/Wholesale
100 feet Light Industrial
Ecorcm c DeveAparrrent Distracts Deso Ma%W Pyre J..?B
Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued) 41
h
1
A I -A' provides a t B
When this lend use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing
being developed end... next to 'B' lend use—
Residential (Lot Sizes) 75 feet Retail/Service
15,000 - 19,999 SgFt 75 feet Distribution/Wholesale
75 feet Light Industrial
100000 - 14,999 SgFt 50 feet Retail/Service
50 feet Distribution/Wholesale.
50 feet Light Industrial
Residential - All Types Streets & Highways
100 feet I nterstate
75 feet Arterial
30 feet Collector
50 feet Rail roads
50 feet Transmission Lines
Office Residential (Lot Sizes)
75 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
50 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
40 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
30 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
Not applicable Office
Not applicable Retail/Service
Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale
Not applicable Light Industrial
Streets & Hi g hva ys
100 feet I nterstate
Not applicable Arterial
Not applicable Collector
30 feet Railroads
30 feet Transmission Li nes
Ecovaw*Devekc mnMs#k s Desfqn Ma%W Por a 3.2.9
42
Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued)
-a- -9n^j.i ML
A i -A- provides a t B
When this lend use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing
being developed end... next to 'B' lend use...
Retail/Service Residential (Lot Sizes)
100 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
100 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
75 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
50 feet 10,000 - 1 4,999 SgFt
Not applicable Office
Not applicable Retail/Service
Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale
Not applicable Light Industrial
Streets & Highways
100 feet I me rstate
Not applicable Arterial
Not applicable Collector
30 feet Railroads
30 feet Transmission Lines
Distribution/Wholesale Residential (Lot Sizes)
75 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
75 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
50 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
40 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
Not applicable Office
Not applicable Retail/Service
Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale
Not applicable Light Industrial
Streets & Highways
100 feet Interstate
Not applicable Arterial
Not applicable Collector
Not applicable Railroads
Not applicable Transmission Lines
Ecorrc�DeveAwmntMr trots Des(gn Manuel Pape 3.Z. 10
Schedule of Land Use Buffers (Continued) 43
R MP '
A provides rovides a B
(
When this land use is buffer width of... Abuts this existing
being developed and... next to "B' land use...
Light Industrial Residential (Lot Sizes)
100 feet 40,000 SgFt or more
100 feet 20,000 - 39,999 SgFt
i
100 feet 15,000 - 19,999 SgFt
100 feet 10,000 - 14,999 SgFt
Not applicable Office
Not applicable Retail/Service
Not applicable Distribution/Wholesale
Not applicable Light Industrial
Streets & Highways
100 feet I nterstate
Not applicable Arterial
Not applicable Collector
Not applicable Railroads
Not applicable Transmission Lines
Footnotes:
1. "Adjacent" and "abutting"land uses include those across a street from a proposed
development other than an interstate highway.
Ecaromr Developrmnt d ist'rrc is Design Mwx W Page 3.2.11
Article 2.4- Environmental Factors 44
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (page 2.4.3)
MAXIMUM PERMITTED SOUND LEVELS
Receiving Land Use Noise Level Limits [dB(A))
Category for Generating Land Use Category
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Residential development of all 45 50
types
distFibutien and war-eh �5 69
€wilities
Manufacturing, Assembly an d 65 60
Processing
, -50
All Other � 54
Exceptions:
1. Impact noises or sounds that occur intermittently rather than continuously are permissible up
to a level of 10 dB(A) in excess of the figures listed above provided the source from which they
are generated does not operate more than one minute in any one hour. This exception shall not
apply from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. when the adjacent lot is used or zoned for residential purposes.
2. Noise levels resulting from construction or other temporary activities which occur between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., are exempt from the standards listed in the table.
45
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance
Economic Development Districts Design Manual
REFERENCE: Article 3.2 -Landscape Design
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_Staff Planning Board
BOCC X Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997
PURPOSE:
To consider elimination of the 100-foot buffer requirement along the perimeter of an
Economic Development District(EDD)which abuts an EDD adopted by another
planning jurisdiction.
IMPACTS AND ISSUES:
Creation of I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District
On January 17, 1995,the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the
vicinity of the I-40/Old NC 86 interchange,
One issue raised during the initial public hearing concerned whether or not a strip of
properties on the west wide of Old NC 86 north of Cates Creek should be included in the
District. That issue was resolved on June 26, 1995,when the Board of Commissioners
included the strip in the EDD and designated it as Primary Development Overlay Area.
The area which was added to the EDD on June 26 is located on the west side of Old NC
86, and ranges from 300 to 500 feet in depth. On May 15, 1995, the Town of
Hillsborough rezoned the area bounded by Old NC 86, Cates Creek and I-85 to EDD, and
incorporated the EDD Design Manual into its zoning ordinance. Thus, between Cates
Creek and Oakdale Drive, Old NC 86 separates the Hillsborough EDD from the Orange
County EDD, forming a portion of the perimeter of the districts of both jurisdictions.
46
The attached letter from Tom Horne raised the issue of how development of the newly-
added parcels would be affected by application of the 100-foot buffer required around the
perimeter of an EDD.
Purpose of Buffer
The purpose of the perimeter buffer is to minimize impacts on adjacent uses. Application
of the perimeter buffer where two Economic Development Districts abut does not serve
the purpose of separating incompatible uses, since similar uses would be allowed in both
districts. The buffer is of particular concern when applied to the west side of Old NC 86
due to the shallow depth of the lots.
Design Issues Related to I-40/01d NC 86 EDD
Concerns regarding strip development, entranceway appearance, open space and traffic
along Old NC 86 were considered during the approval process for the Economic
Development Districts and the Design Manual.
The EDD Design Manual identifies how much open space will result through the
provision of buffers and/or the preservation of environmental features such as
floodplains, steep slopes, etc. In the I-40/Old N.C. 86 EDD, approximately 29%of the
land area shown on the Schematic Plan is open space. This amount does not include
additional open space required to satisfy landscape, building, and site volume ratios. As
an example,the case study site presented in the Design Manual is located on the west side
of Old N.C. 86 just south of Cates Creek. Approximately 50%of the 1.80-acre site is
occupied by flood plain and a natural area, and only 25%is covered with impervious
surface; e.g., buildings,parking areas,and sidewalks.
The EDD Design Manual identifies the ultimate cross-section for the widening of Old
N.C. 86. A four-lane thoroughfare is to be provided with a 25-foot landscaped median..
Breaks in the median will only be permitted where designated connector streets serving
the EDD intersect with Old N.C. 86. In addition to the thoroughfare improvements,the
outside lane on each side is to be widened from 12 to 16 feet to provide a bike lane, and a
six-foot sidewalk is to be provided on each side of the street. All improvements would be
located within a 100-foot right-of-way, and property owners would be expected to
provide an additional 20 feet of right-of-way for the widening project.
The EDD Design Manual prohibits manufacturing and wholesale trade in the area north
of Cates Creek, and retail trade is allowed only with approval of a Special Use Permit by
the Board of Commissioners. Hours of operation for establishments within the area are
limited from 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.
The EDD Design Manual requires all buildings to be set back a distance of 25 feet from
front, side, and rear property lines, and only off-street parking may extend to within 10
feet of a property line. In the case of the front yard, the 25-foot setback must be provided
47
from the new right-of-way line. Where buffers are required and/or open space must be
preserved,no building or parking area may extend within those areas. Where off-street
parking does extend to within 10 feet of a property line, a 36-inch high opaque screen
consisting of landscape materials, rolling earth berms, or low screen walls or
combinations must be provided within the 10-foot landscape area.
The EDD Design Manual encourages parking areas at the side or rear of buildings. to
leave the front accessible for pedestrian and transit systems. The 25-foot front yard
setback standard also seeks to encourage building placement closer to these systems.
As noted previously,the intent of the 100-foot buffer is to create transitions between
neighborhoods and areas of differing development intensities, and separate incompatible
land uses. The issues identified to date have focused more on"entranceway" character,
particularly that Old N.C. 86. If the 100-foot buffer is viewed as the means through
which to provide an appropriate entranceway,the buffer is only applicable in that portion
of the EDD extending from Oakdale Drive to Cates Creek. The remaining "entranceway"
from Cates Creek to 1-40 and beyond is not addressed. If design standards are desired to
provide an attractive and functional entranceway,they would be better addressed by
specific design standards rather than by the perimeter buffer requirement.
August 28, 1995 Public Hearing
On August 28, 1995, a proposal to eliminate the buffer requirement between two
adjacent EDDs was presented for public hearing. Comments received at the public
hearing included the following:
• A Cornwallis Hills property owner requested clarification of which portion of the
EDD perimeter would be affected by the proposed amendment.
• Property owners along the west side of Old N.C. 86 supported the amendment.
• Several Commissioners and Planning Board members indicated concern about the
possibility of strip development along Old N.C. 86 and the effect of eliminating the
100-foot buffer on open space. Commissioner Willhoit suggested the possibility of
increasing the buffer width adjacent to Cornwallis Hills if the buffer along Old N.C.
86 was eliminated.
On September 18, 1995, the Planning Board recommended approval by a 7-5 vote. On
October 2, 1995, the Board of Commissioners tabled the item. There has been no further
Board action.
The issue of the perimeter buffer was raised again by affected property owners during the
recent development of a proposed site plan f or the Local Government Employees
Credit Union. (A Special Use Permit request for the Credit Union is also included on
5/27/97 public hearing agenda). A letter received from property owners in the EDD is
48
attached. The Planning Staff proposes that the amendment be reconsidered through the
public hearing process.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 3.2 Landscape Design
Buffering Neighboring Uses (page 3.2.6)
Well-designed landscape treatments lessen adverse visual impacts between different types
of land uses,reduce noise levels, increase privacy levels and mitigate effects from fumes,
glare and vibration.
To create transitions between neighboring areas of differing development intensities, and
separate incompatible land uses, a buffer of 100 feet in width(except where otherwise
specified) is to be provided at the boundary of the Economic Development District, as
well as between primary and secondary Development Areas within the Districts. The
100-foot wide buffer need not be provided when:
1 The boundary of the Orange County EDD corresponds with the planning
jurisdiction of another local government: and
2. The land located in the planning jurisdiction of the other local government has
been zoned Economic Development District and designated the same
Primw3 Development, Second=Developmeno as the land located in the Orange
Comty Economic Development District; an d
3 The 4joiningplanning jurisdiction's Economic Development District Design
Manual is the same as Orange o mtv's.
49
January 31, 1995
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
FMsborough, NC 27278
Dear Marvin:
As discussed within our conversation earlier this weep I would like to request a review by
the Planning Board of the proposed buffers for the property beginning on Oakdale Drive
and moving South to I-40 on OId NC 86. It is obvious from the decisions made by the
County Commissioners that the original recommendation for assignment of Primary I to
these properties will not be acceptable.
The I-40/Old NC 86 Homeowners Association is working diligently to develop a
compromise utilization of our land that would reflect a conscientious effort to meet the
Planning Board and Commissioners' objectives.However, we would like for your group
to consider a reduction of the buffers, since the original Primary I zone has been deferred.
It is especially important that buffer restrictions for corner lots be explored, since buffers
are required on the front, back, and side. This reduces useable land tremendously.without
any compensation. An example would be my property which adjoins the Cornwallis Hills
Subdivision on the South side of the main entrance to the subdivision. It is imperative that
buffer concessions be explored by the Planning Board as a reflection of their joint
commitment to reach a compromise zoning for our land.
Thanks again for your assistance and support in worldng with our association for
resolution of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Tom Horne
2611 Wumingham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
cc: Members, Old 86 NC Homeowners Association
io gccc
' 11
50
1, The Board will consider three items at their work session on October 12 .
These three items are listed below:
"s 1 . health insurance dependent subsidy
4 2 . health insurance waiver option
5 3 . Interlocal agreement with the Trust
6
7 D. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
8 DISTRICT DESIGN MANUAL
9 Planner Mary Willis summarized the information in the agenda.
10 This amendment would eliminate the requirement of a 100-foot buffer along
11 the perimeter of an Economic Development District (EDD) which abuts an EDD
12 adopted by another planning jurisdiction. The Planning Board considered
13 the proposed amendment on September 18, 1995. After considerable
14 discussion, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed
15 amendment by a 7-5 vote and the Administration recommends approval .
16 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Ms . Willis
17 clarified that the Primary Development Overlay is a separate area that has
18 been applied only to the area north of Cates Creek which has provisions in
19 addition to those which already apply to a primary area. This amendment is
20 for. all Economic Development Districts which have the same intensity --
21 Primary or Secondary -- adjacent to an adjoining jurisdiction.
22 Commissioner Gordon asked, since there is already a category
23 called "Primary Development Overlay Area" and this is part of the area that
24 is generating these questions, why can't they restrict this amendment to a
Primary Development Overlay area so it does not apply to all EDDs . She
feels that the problem is with what may happen if another jurisdiction did
2(/ . something different in the future.
28 Mary Willis said that one of the issues that make this more
29 complex is the location in this area. The real issue is the jurisdictional
30 boundary which is what this amendment addresses .
31 Commissioner Gordon asked if it would be possible to restrict
32 this change to the Primary Development Overlay area which would limit the
33 proliferation of this amendment. Mary Willis said that the reason the
34 Primary Development Overlay area was put on the map was the fact that the
35 property was narrow and the uses would be limited. The rationale for
36 creating the Primary Overlay was to address that issue and those specific i
37 concerns because of the configuration and shape of that area and the impact
38 of what could be done with it. She noted that even if there were not the
39 same kinds of conditions that are present with this strip, they would still
40 be recommending that _this issue not require the double buffer in an area
41 where the boundary of the district is really invisible because it is
42 jurisdictional only. To look at it in terms of Primary Overlay area does
43 not directly address the issue they are attempting to address .
44 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the problem be formulated
45 differently so that the Primary Overlay area would address this specific
46 issue only.
47 Mary Willis will look at this problem to see if it can be
48 accomplished in a different way. However, the proposed amendment was
developed so it would cover the same issue if it arises in the future,
specifically with regard to the two buffers adjoining each other.
� x+
12
51
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon to refer this back to the
2 Planning Staff to see if this amendment can be limited to the Primary
3 Overlay area and, determine if there are any separate regulations that co*
4 be implemented to prevent the strip development along the entire area.
5 THERE WAS NOT A SECOND TO THIS MOTION
6 Geoffrey Gledhill said that the Primary District Overlay does not
7 exist across the road so if Commissioner Gordon' s suggestion is taken
8 literally, this will not solve the problem.
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner
10 Crowther to continue the discussion of this item to a subsequent meeting.
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13
14 E . I-40/NC86 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXPANSION
15 Planner Mary Willis presented the information as stated in the
16 agenda.
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
18 Commissioner Gordon to deny the request to expand the Economic Development
19 District to include the Addison property as Secondary Development Area.
20 VOTE: AYES, 4; NOS, 1 (Commissioner Crowther)
21 A motion .was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by
22 Commissioner Willhoit, that no change be made to the Moren property's
23 current Land Use Plan Designation (20-year Transition Area) and that future
24 requests for expansion of the Economic Development District be made
25 consistent with current Land Use Plan Amendment procedures .
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27 0.
28 F. HP-1-95 ALEXANDER HOGAN PLANTATION SITE NATIONAL REGISTER
29 NOMINATION
30 Don Belk, Planner II for Special Projects, presented for Board
31 consideration the nomination of the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site to the
32 National Register of Historic Places and asked for authorization for him to
33 make comments to the State Historic Preservation Office about this
34 nomination.
35 The Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the
36 nomination on September 12 . The Commission found that the Alexander Hogan
37 Plantation Site does not meet the criteria for listing in the National
38 Register of historic places. The Commission' s recommendation will be
39 forwarded to the State's Historic Preservation Office as well as the Board
40 of County Commissioners comments and recommendations .
41 Commissioner Crowther asked if there was a date that Duke Power
42 installed their power lines across this property. Mr. Belk did not have
43 this information.
44 Judson Edeburn, Resource Manager of Duke Forest, made reference
45 to a letter that was distributed. In addition to that statement, he said
46 that the Hogan Plantation qualified for listing in the National Register of
47 Historic Places under the stipulations of criteria "D" of the National
48 Register Bulletin. This states that properties may be eligible for
49 National Register if they have yielded or are likely to yield information
50 important to create history. For the property and the information it
52
February 28, 1997
Dear Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
We, the homeowners along Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough Road, would like to
again thank you for your assistance in having our homes included in the EDD. We
realize that this was a long and tedious process for you just as it was for us. We do
appreciate your patience with the long hours of discussion with us and the residents of
Cornwallis Hills.
With recent discussions with the Orange County Planning Department, we have
found that a part of the proposed changes to the buffer zones surrounding our
properties were tabled for a later vote and, to date, this has not been brought back up
for discussion or vote. We respectfully request that the buffer along the front of our
properties (facing Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough) be removed since this line abuts
another EDD. There was also discussion of reducing the buffer along the Oakdale side
because it borders an existing roadway as well as discussion of reducing the other
buffers to less than 100 feet as they now stand.
The homeowners had assumed that the issue of buffers had been resolved and
that the adjustments had been made. We now find that this is not the case. Therefore,
we would appreciate your addressing these issues at your earliest convenience.
Once again, we thank you for your time and efforts.
r
�, 1I
C
QCR�
w
L
s-
m
lio
WE
r
/�.�♦� ill#i fill ����
z WO
54
p
. U �
00 +'
C!3
CU v CD
Z '
O
CA
v o -t
o
OD t avi ayi 3 i
Qv7 � \\ `�� ■ ` i i
J
1 . Y
v
55
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
Economic Development Districts Design Manual
REFERENCE: Article 2.2 - Permitted Uses (Existing Residences)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board
BOCC X Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1997
PURPOSE:
To allow existing residences as a Permitted Use in all Economic Development Districts.
IMPACTS AND ISSUES:
According to the permitted use table contained in the Economic Development Districts
(EDD) Design Manual, residential uses are not permitted in the Primary Development
Area, with the exception of the Primary Overlay at the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD. When the
Economic Development Districts were adopted, existing residences in the Primary
Development Areas became non-conforming,that is, uses that were lawful,but are now
prohibited under current zoning regulations.
Such non-conforming uses are controlled by Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance which
states, "Uses of land which do not conform to the requirements of this ordinance or
amendments to it may not be enlarged or expanded; neither shall the use be intensified,
nor altered, except in conformance with this ordinance." Because the Primary
Development Areas were established for a wider range of more intensive non-residential
uses, new residential development is prohibited. However, the proposed amendment
would allow existing residents of the Primary Development Areas who choose to
continue to live there some latitude in terms of compliance with the ordinance.
For example, under Article 11.9, additions to a residence and accessory uses such as a
storage shed would not be allowed. If a residence in the Primary EDD is damaged or
destroyed, it cannot be replaced without a changing the use of the property to a use
permitted in the district. Furthermore, if a current resident/owner chose to move out of
the EDD, and the residence were vacant for more than 180 days, it could no longer be
56 ,
used as a residence. Consequently, a home being sold must be reoccupied within six
months of being vacated.
To remedy the hardships created by the ordinance as described above,the following
amendment is proposed to the EDD Manual Permitted Use Table. The effect of the
amendment would be to make existing residences a permitted use.New residences would
be prohibited.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 2.2 - Permitted Uses
Permitted Use Table (page 2.2.4)
Attached.
57
c k k k k m k
o Q H
XI a k k m k k
k k k k co k
b [ ca XI k k k k m k k k k
pp
A 0
N O G b 05 0
Q
q
5
g U o o g
o
3 �
O o w •�
a+ y ~
e
X) k k k k
o a v� v
v co ....:. a a. v
CA
� I �
u
Z
W Ej ~ ~
eo cep
° .G a m ° i. V O rn ty Q
o y `d (`� `d o Sid e 4
co 0
a 3 A .5 41 p v@ oai
Ilz
w
co
N
O �3 •a33� •� � Qj N N c� L� .�qq Q � � 0 °
z 04 ccti�
1N3WdN3W`d
58
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(DRAFT]
REFERENCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
Article 10.3 Off-Street Parking Design Standards
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1997
Purpose of Amendment: To correct a discrepancy in the Zoning Ordinance between Article 10,
Off-Street Parking and Loading, and Article 12,Landscaping and Buffer Requirements.
Impacts/Issues: Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the design standards for oil-street
parking and loading. The setback required between new parking areas and side and rear property
lines is five(5)feet. Article 12.4.1 c requires a ten-foot landscape area between new parking and all
property lines for nonresidential and multi-family residential development. The proposed
amendment will correct the conflicting requirements by increasing the setback in Article 10 to ten
feet.
Existing and proposed ordinance text:(Proposed text is underlined)
Article 10.3 Off-Street Parking Design Standards
All required off-street parking shall meet the following requirements:
i) New parking areas shall observe a 10-foot setback from all road right-of-way and a
—5 feet Seth from all side and rear property lines. Such setbacks shall be
landscaped in
accordance with Article 12.4 of this ordinance.
Ordinance Review Committee: 4/22/97
Planning Board:
BOCC:
59
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: Article 4.1 -Establishment of Use Regulations
Article 6.16.18 - Additional Requirements for Certain
Permitted Uses(Private Cemeteries)
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board
_BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High_X_Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27. 1997
PURPOSE:
To allow lots for private cemeteries to be smaller than the minimum lot size otherwise
required for the zoning district.
IMPACTS/ISSUES:
Commercial cemeteries are allowed in some zoning districts and require approval of a
Special Use Permit in most of those districts. Private cemeteries are not subject to any
special state or local regulations.
Requests or inquiries to the Planning Department regarding the creation of new private
cemeteries are rare. However, existing cemeteries, often many years old, are sometimes
located on property to be subdivided. Currently, a new lot which contains a cemetery
must meet the minimum lot size of the zoning district,which could be as large as two or
five acres. The cemetery itself is generally subject to an easement held by the original
property owner, or other person or entity with a legal or family interest in the cemetery.
The proposed amendment would allow the option for a cemetery to be owned by those
with an interest in it, without requiring that it be contained within a lot which meets
minimum lot size requirements. A Notice of Development Restriction would be recorded
stating that the lot could not be used for any other purpose.
60
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 4.1 -Establishment of Use Regulation (Uses Permitted by Right)
Except as otherwise provided herein, regulations governing the use of land
and structures are hereby established as shown in the Schedule of Permitted
Uses. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited.
Within all districts there are certain uses that are permitted as a matter of
right. These uses are:
13. Private Cemeteries (See Article 6.16.18)
Article 6.16.18 Additional Requirements for Certain Permitted Uses
(NEW) (Private Cemeteries)
A parcel created for use as a private cemetery is not subject to the
minimum lot size of the zoning district within which it is located
provided that a Notice of Restricted Development Potential
indicating that the properly may not be used for any other p=ose
is recorded with the Final Plat
61
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: Article 2.2.4 Planning Board Tenure
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board
BOCC Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High_X_Middle Low
Comment:
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 27, 1997
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT:
To change the month in which Planning Board terms expire from February to March.
IMPACTSASSUES:
On April 6, 1992, the Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution for the Appointment and
Orientation Process for Boards and Commissions. Eleven procedures were included in the
Resolution, including the following:
4. Appointments will be made quarterly. The expiration of terms for members
presently serving on boards and commissions will be adjusted to the nearest
quarter ending date....
Article 2.2.4 currently states that Planning Board terms expire in February. The proposed
amendment changes the month of expiration to March, to correspond to the nearest quarterly
ending date.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Article 2.2.4 Planning Board Tenure
a. The tenure of office shall be three(3)years. Members are eligible for reappointment for a
second full term, subject to the exclusion provided in 2.2.4c. After two consecutive terms a
member shall be ineligible for reappointment for one year after the expiration of the previous
terms.
62
b. Appointments shall be made so that one-third of the terms expire in Febfuaff March of each
calendar year.
C. Appointments made to fill vacancies shall be for the unexpired term and shall not be counted
as a term in determining eligibility for reappointment.
d. Attendance at the regular meetings of the Board shall be considered a prerequisite for
maintenance of membership on the Planning Board. The Board of County Commissioners
may declare a vacancy on the Planning Board because of a member's non-attendance.
e. Absence due to sickness, death of an immediate family member or similar reason shall be
considered approved absences and shall not affect the member's status. In the event of long
illness or other cause for prolonged absence,the member shall be replaced.