HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-27-1997 - C2a(1) 043
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 27, 1997
Action Agenda
Item#C" 2 a (1)
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Economic Development Districts Design Manual
Article 3.2 - Landscape Design
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 an amendment to eliminate the 100-foot
buffer requirement along the perimeter of an Economic Development
District(EDD)which abuts an EDD adopted by another planning
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND: Article 3.2 Landscape Design(page 3.2.6)of the EDD Design Manual
requires a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter of an EDD in order to
separate incompatible uses.
The northernmost portion of the Orange County I-40/Old NC 86 EDD on
the west side of Old NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive
consists of a narrow strip of properties,ranging from 300 feet to 500 feet in
depth.
The area bounded by the east side of Old NC 86,Cates Creek and I-85 is in
the jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough and is also zoned Economic
Development District. Since Old NC 86 forms a perimeter boundary for
both the Orange County and the Hillsborough EDDs between Cates Creek
041
and Oakdale Drive, it is applied on both sides of Old NC 86 where the two
districts abut. However,the uses which would be allowed adjacent to Old
NC 86 in both districts are similar and not incompatible,thus the protection
which the perimeter buffer is intended to provided is not needed.
Property owners in the narrow strip of the Orange County EDD requested
that the application of the perimeter buffer in that area be reconsidered due
to the extent of development constraints it creates.
On August 28, 1995, a proposal to eliminate the buffer requirement
between two adjacent EDDs was presented for public hearing. On
October 2, 1995, the Board of Commissioners tabled the item. There has
been no further Board action.
The previous discussion on the issue of the perimeter buffer by the Board of
Commissioners and the Planning Board indicates concern for creating a
desirable entranceway into Hillsborough. The Design Manual includes
other standards that relate more directly to this concern. The perimeter
buffer was created for a specific purpose not directly related to
entranceway issues.
The issue of the perimeter buffer was raised again by affected property
owners during the recent development of a proposed site plan for the
State Employees Credit Union. The Planning Staff recommends that it be
reconsidered in the context of its purpose for separating incompatible uses
rather than in the context of entranceway design.
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.
Toning Officer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find
in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the
proposed text amendment.
Administration 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 August 4, 1997.
045
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:
Perimeter Buffer
Article 3.2 Landscape Design(page 3.2.6)of the EDD Design Manual requires a100-foot buffer
around the perimeter of an EDD in order to separate incompatible uses.
The I40/Old NC 86(EDD)contains about 750 acres,and extends from south of I-40 to the
southern boundary of Hillsborough's jurisdiction.
The northernmost portion of the district consists of a narrow strip of properties, ranging from 300
to 500 feet in width,on the west side of Old NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive. It is
zoned Primary I Overlay,which places additional limits on permitted uses in order to minimize
impacts to adjacent residential areas.
The area bounded by the east side of Old NC 86, Cates Creek and I-85 is in the jurisdiction of the
Town of Hillsborough and is also zoned Economic Development District. Since Old NC 86 forms
a perimeter boundary for both the Orange County and the Hillsborough EDDs, it is applied on
both sides of Old NC 86 where the two districts abut. However,the uses which would be allowed
adjacent to Old NC 86 in both districts are similar and not incompatible,thus the protection which
the perimeter buffer is intended to provided is not needed.
046
Property owners in the narrow strip of the Orange County EDD requested that the application of
the perimeter buffer in that area be reconsidered due to the extent of development constraints it
creates.
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 for the State Employees Credit Union.
Entranceway Issues
Previous discussion on the issue of the perimeter buffer by the Board of Commissioners and the
Planning Board indicates concern for creating a desirable entranceway into Hillsborough. The
Design Manual includes other standards that relate more directly to this concern.
• 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.
• Buildings must be located at least 25 feet from side and rear property lines, and 25 feet from
the new right-of-way line. Parking may extend to within 10 feet of a property line,provided
that a 36-inch high opaque screen consisting of landscape materials, rolling earth berms, or
low screen walls or combinations is provided within the 10-foot landscape area.
047
• Parking areas are encouraged at the side or rear of buildings to leave the front accessible for
pedestrian and transit systems. The 25-foot front setback also seeks to encourage building
placement closer to these systems.
The perimeter buffer was created for a specific purpose not directly related to entranceway
issues. The Planning Staff recommends that it be reconsidered in the context of its purpose for
separating incompatible uses rather than in the context of entranceway design.
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=vided when:
I The boundary of the Orange CoUM EDD corresponds with the planning jurisdiction_of
another local_ government* and
The land located in the planning jurisdiction of the other local_ government has been
zoned Economic DevelopMol District aW designated the sa=(e.g. Prim=
Development Second=Developmen)as the land located in the Orange Co un_ty
Economic Development District:and
3 The 4oi ing pl=ing jurisdiction's Economic Development District_Design Manual is
the same as Orange Coun_tv's.
C48
r a •
• r a
- ! }
t! y
A
All
,rAV �►
, . r
omwo
,lari-- � � �t r.��`. all
.,._ =IPPPdPIO �.
as-
i
/111fi%V So
00-0
a �
;v
�
r
051
January 31, 1995
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
MIlsborough, NC 27278
Dear Marvin:
As discussed within our conversation earlier this week, 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 Old 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 utikzation 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 HMIs
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 working with our association for
resolution of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Tom Home
2611 Winningham Road
Chapel EEL NC 27516
cc: Members, Old 86 NC Homeowners Association
052
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.
aa.�
(off ; qh P�CCC
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
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
16 issue only.
=7 Mary Willis will look at this problem to see if it can be
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.
054
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 S8COND 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
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 Couniy 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
i
September 18 , 1995 Planning Board Minutes (draft)
(3) Article 6.29.3 EDD Design Manual
(Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is to consider a proposed amendment to
eliminate the requirement for a 100-foot buffer
along the perimeter of an Economic Development
District (EDD) which abuts an EDD adopted by
another planning jurisdiction.
On January 17, 1995, the Board of Commissioners
approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the
I-40/01d NC 86 interchange.
One issue which was raised during the initial
public hearing process concerned whether or not a
strip of properties along the west side of Old NC
86 north of Cates Creek should be included in the
EDD. 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 added to the EDD on June 26 ranges from
300 to 500 feet in depth, and the perimeter
buffer of 100 feet poses development constraints.
The east side of Old NC 86 is in the planning
jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough and has
also been designated as an Economic Development
District. Since identical regulations are
administered by the Town of Hillsborough, the
buffer along NC 86 is not needed to minimize
impact on adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment would eliminate the
perimeter buffer in any portion of an EDD
District where the district abuts the EDD of
another jurisdiction. The amendment would apply
in all Economic Development Districts and would
address the specific situation encountered on Old
NC 86 in the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD.
One resident of Cornwallis Hills and two property
owners within the affected portion of the I-40/NC
86 EDD spoke at the public hearing. The EDD
property owners supported the proposed amendment.
The Cornwallis Hills homeowner requested
clarification on which portion of the EDD
perimeter that would be affected by the proposed
amendment.
i
056
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 which was raised during the initial
public hearing process concerned whether or not a
strip of properties along the west side of Old NC
86 north of Cates Creek should be included in the
EDD. 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 added to the EDD on June 26 ranges from
300 to 500 feet in depth, and the perimeter
buffer of 100 feet poses development constraints.
The east side of Old NC 86 is in the planning
jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough and has
also been designated as an Economic Development
District. Since identical regulations are
administered by the Town of Hillsborough, the
buffer along NC 86 is not needed to minimize
impact on adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment would eliminate the
perimeter buffer in any portion of an EDD
District where the district abuts the EDD of
another jurisdiction. The amendment would apply
in all Economic Development Districts and would
address the specific situation encountered on Old
NC 86 in the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD.
One resident of Cornwallis Hills and two property
owners within the affected portion of the I-40/NC
86 EDD spoke at the public hearing. The EDD
property owners supported the proposed amendment.
The Cornwallis Hills homeowner requested
clarification on which portion of the EDD
perimeter that would be affected by the proposed
amendment.
Commissioner and Planning Board comments
indicated concern with possibilities of strip
development along NC 86 and the effect of
eliminating the 100, perimeter buffer.
Freestanding retail use is prohibited in the
portion of the EDD south of I-40, and is allowed
only with the approval of a Special Use Permit by
the Board of Commissioners in the Primary I
. Development Area on the north side of I-40.
The portion of the EDD on the west side of NC 86
north of Cates Creek is subject to the Primary
Qt�~
Development Area Overlay, which prohibits
manufacturing and wholesale trade, and allows
retail trade only with approval of a Special Use
Permit by the Board of Commissioners. Hours of
operation within the Primary Development Area
Overlay have been limited to the hours between
6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
In the absence of the 100 ' perimeter buffer, the
minimum building setback within the EDD from NC
86 north of Cates Creek would be 25 feet from the
edge of the right-of-way. A 10-foot setback for
vehicular areas is required. Additional landscape
cover would be required, depending on the type of
use, size of building and amount of access and
parking area, if necessary to meet the site
volume ratio.
Currently, the 100 ' perimeter setback applies
around both the Orange County and the
Hillsborough EDDs, including the common border
between the two districts. The proposed amendment
would render the jurisdictional boundary
invisible for the purpose of applying the
perimeter buffer. The Hillsborough Planning
Director has indicated support for the proposed
amendment, and if adopted by Orange County, will
recommend its adoption by the Town of
Hillsborough as well.
Commissioner Willhoit raised the possibility of
increasing the buffer width adjacent to
Cornwallis Hills if the buffer along NC 86 is
eliminated. During the initial process of
developing the I-401NC 86 EDD, the possibility of
providing a larger buffer on the narrow strip
along NC 86 was considered. However, the western
boundary of the EDD between Oakdale Drive and
Cornwallis Hills coincides with the western
boundary of a single parcel which is 200 feet in
width. Application of a 200-foot buffer would
eliminate any development of the lot.
Planning Board comments included concern with the
possibility of strip development along NC 86.
Strip development was a concern during the
initial development of the EDD. General
provisions found in the design manual such as
those related to restrictions on freestanding
retail, signage, access design are designed to
minimize impacts of development. Additional or
different provisions relating to the creation of
a gateway to Hillsborough would need to be
addressed through a separate public hearing for
i
058
that purpose.
Willis continued that there is a proposed cross
section for Old NC 86 when it is widened to four
lanes. It will include 100 foot right-of-way and
a 25 foot landscape median, a four foot bike lane
and a 6 foot sidewalk.
There is a 25 foot setback and 10 foot landscape
buffer required.
The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the
proposed amendment.
Barrows noted that this amendment could apply to
the other EDDs. Willis responded that this same
provision could apply if there was an agreement
with another jurisdiction where standards had
been adopted and the districts abutted against
each other.
Waddell called attention to the green space along
Cates Creek noting that buffer would remain
because of the creek.
Price asked Willis if she had stated that the 100
foot buffer on the west side of NC 86 would
disappear. Willis responded, indicating on the
map the area that the 100-foot perimeter buffer
around the district would not apply where it
abuts the economic development district of
another jurisdiction. Price continued asking for
clarification of the 200-foot buffer around the
other side of the parcels suggested by
Commissioner Willhoit and Willis, comment that
that discussion could be opened up again. Willis
responded that any discussion can be opened up
again through a separate public hearing. Willis
referred again to the boundary of the EDD between
Oakdale Drive and Cornwallis Hills which
coincides with the western boundary of a single
parcel which is 200 feet in width. Application of
a 200-foot buffer would eliminate any use of the
lot. Price asked if the lot was already built on
and Willis responded that she did not know if
there was a structure on it. She continued that
it is in the economic development district. It
was determined that it is a vacant lot.
Price asked if the lots were to remain individual
lots or were they to be combined for economic
development. Willis responded that the County
could not force that to happen. If the individual
owners wanted to put their individual lots
L
together and there was a buyer, it could be
done. Price continued asking if it was not the
plan for the County to buy it all up for one
district. Willis responded that all the Economic
Development District is is the zoning that
enables the property owners to develop it for
non-residential use. Willis continued that the
County is not going to buy the property.
Reid asked about the ruling that prevents the
powers that be from rendering a lot unbuildable.
Waddell responded that it would be presented to
the Board of Adjustment and if it was entirely in
the buffer, the Board would be compelled to grant
a variance. Willis also noted that there are
other lots that are small enough that they will
require a variance or reduction from the Board of
Adjustment and Commissioners. She continued that
knowing that the lot in question would require a
variance, Staff could not justify a 200-foot
buffer.
Katz asked for clarification if Hillsborough made
some amendment in their EDD that was different
from the County. Willis responded that the
Planning Director of Hillsborough is waiting for
action from this Board so that they can modify
their amendment accordingly. She continued that
there are no guarantees that something would not
be adopted by one jurisdiction different from
another. However, throughout this entire process,
the intent that has been expressed by
Hillsborough is to use the same ordinance. She
noted that any changes for Hillsborough would
receive courtesy review by Orange County.
Waddell noted that determination could also be
made when an applicant begins the application
process for a building permit. Willis noted that
when a request for a building permit is made, it
is reviewed by Planning Staff as well as the
permits coordinator.
Katz noted that it seemed very cumbersome to have
an ordinance depending on a similar ordinance
from another jurisdiction.
Price expressed concern with the precedent being
set by Orange County. The county should determine
whether the street scene should be landscaped or
built out and the Town of Hillsborough should be
meeting and complementing the County standards.
She indicated the Board should be concerned about
residents in Cornwallis Hills. From a Planner's
a
060
viewpoint, she felt the area that was almost
unbuildable because of the buffer should remain
green space. She felt that Cornwallis Hills was
being made undesirable by decreasing the buffer.
If it can't remain green, to decrease the buffer
on the street is wrong. She felt the Planning
Board should look at what Orange County wants and
how do we set a precedent for the Town.
Howie expressed concern with the entrance into
Hillsborough and asked about the proposed
traffic medians. Willis responded that the
Design Manual recommendations are for traffic
medians all through the EDD. Howie continued
expressing concern that NC 86 is no longer on the
TIP Plan for NCDOT. Howie asked if the 25-foot
building setback is from the proposed right-of-
way or from the existing right-of-way. Willis
responded that if developed, the additional
right-of-way would be dedicated and the setbacks
measured from the dedicated right-of-way. Another
concern of Howie's involved protection of the
large trees. Willis responded that there is a
built-in incentive to save large trees because of
the large contribution they make to the site
volume ratio requirements.
Willis stated that the issue of gateway to
Hillsborough is an issue that should be reviewed
separately. If the Planning Board decides that is
an issue it would like to pursue, a proposal
could be prepared to present to the Board of
Commissioners for public hearing presentation.
In the context of this item that was taken to
public hearing, it was solely for the purpose of
looking at the perimeter buffer adjacent to
another EDD.
Howie what would be affected in the other EDDs.
Willis responded that nothing would be affected
in the other EDDs at this time since no other
neighboring jurisdictions have adopted these
standards. It does not affect any other area and
it is highly unlikely that it will ever affect
the Highway 70/I-85 EDD.
Barrows expressed concern about administration
and the elimination of buffers and that the
neighboring jurisdictions would not maintain the
same standards.
Brown referred to the annexation of Cornwallis
Hills asking why the two properties, Addison
and Moren were not annexed. Howie responded that
c
csl
she had asked Hillsborough that question. The
answer was that those properties do not have
utilities and the Town of Hillsborough is
unwilling to expend the funds to provide
utilities. Brown continued that she was opposed
to the rezoning of these properties to EDD and
she felt that Cornwallis Hills had not been
considered. She was not in favor of anything that
would not further buffer Cornwallis Hills. She
felt that the County could generate a plan to
maintain the area as residential and prevent a
"commercial strip nightmare" .
Walters reminded the Board that all of the area
cannot be mandated as green space or be declared
unbuildable without compensation. The law
carries that provision. The Board must be very
careful in such instances.
Jobsis stated that her understanding of the
design standards indicate that the development
will be quality development, not haphazard and it
does not make sense to have a 100-foot buffer
between two primary development areas.
Price indicated she had not received a complete
answer to a previous question. She asked if any
schematics, isometric or straight on, had been
done of what NC 86 would look like from the
street to Cornwallis Hills when it is developed.
Willis responded that there is a cross section in
the design manual to address that. Price asked if
it indicated what would show in the backyard.
Willis responded that it shows a cross section of
the road itself, it does not go into specific
properties. Price continued asking if any
drawings are to be done to indicate how much of
the residential area will be seen from the street
once the road is widened, median put in and
buildings completed. Willis responded that such
drawings have not been done. She continued that
what has been done with the design manual is to
set up the basic design standards that are to be
met when each development comes in. The
considerations that will be taken into account
include how the development fits in with the
surrounding area. Those are design issues that
come into play carrying out the design manual for
each individual use. Waddell noted that it would
be somewhat speculative, very difficult for Staff
to provide such drawings until some specific
plans are presented to them.
Price indicated she understood; however, when
1
cis
working in Planning Departments, early on you
have renderings to get an idea what a proposal
would look like. She noted that she had a
lot of concerns about how much land is going to
show. With the two areas being added to the
EDD, she indicated she was under the impression
that the County- was buying land in the EDD and
consolidating parcels. She continued wondering
what it would look like and referred to comments
from other Board members about retaining the
residential flavor of the area. If we allow
piece-meal commercial development between two
residential areas, how is it going to pan out.
Hoecke stated that he felt the Board was in
danger of losing track of what they were dealing
with. We are dealing with an economic
development district with a special concept
designed to draw business to it so it wouldn't
create strips and random development in the rest
of the County. We are discussing it somewhat in
the manner of "what are we going to do with this
subdivision?" He continued regarding the
concerns being expressed about the types of
buildings noting that standards have been set and
will be applied throughout the district. He
indicated he was in favor of elimination of the
buffer as recommended by the Planning Staff.
MOTION: Allison moved approval as recommended by the
Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid.
VOTE: 7 in favor (Howie, Allison, Reid, Hoecke,
Walters, Jobsis, Waddell) .
5 opposed (Barrows - felt the discussion
explained her opposition, Rosemond - uneasy how
it might be applied to other zones and wanted
buffer, Katz - not comfortable with it along
highways as opposed to other areas, Brown - does
not protect Cornwallis Hills, Price - felt it was
short-sighted, concerned with establishing and/or
maintaining nice vistas in Orange County.
b. Amendments - Landscaping & Buffer Requirements
(1) Article 12 - Landscaping and Buffer
Requirements
(2) Section IV-B-8-Landscape and Buffer
Requirements
Presentation of these items by Mary Willis.
These items are for consideration of proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and