HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-04-1997 - 8o i
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 4, 1997
Action Agenda
Item
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Economic Development Districts Design Manual
Article 2.2 - Permitted Uses (Existing Residences)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING&INSPECTIONS PUBLIC HEARING Yes_ No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendment Emily Cameron
5/27/97 Public Hearing Minutes Extension 2580
7/2/97 Draft Planning Board Minutes
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: Consideration of a proposed amendment to allow existing residences as a
permitted use in all Economic Development Districts.
BACKGROUND: According to the permitted use table in the Economic Development
Districts(EDD)Design Manual, residential uses are not permitted in the
Primary Development Area, except for the Primary Overlay in the I-
40/Old NC 86 EDD.
The purpose of the Economic Development Districts is to provide
locations for a wide range of non-residential uses, including light
industrial, distribution, office, service and retail. Residential use is
allowed in Secondary Development Areas and the Primary Overlay
(applicable only in the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD), which serve as a buffer
between the EDDs and adjacent residential districts.
Residential use is not included as a permitted use in Primary Development
Areas. The rationale for excluding residential as a permitted use was to
assure that the Primary Development Areas would remain available,
2
avoiding new residential development incompatible with non-residential
development.
When the Economic Development Districts were adopted, existing
residences in the Primary Development Areas became non-conforming.
Non-conforming uses are lawful,but may not be enlarged or modified,
and may not be replaced if destroyed.
The proposed amendment would include existing residences as a
permitted use rather than a non-conforming use in all Economic
Development Districts. The change to the Permitted Use Table will not
result in additional residential development which could be in conflict
with the uses allowed in the EDD, since new residences would continue to
be prohibited. However, it would allow existing residences to be
expanded,modified or replaced,improved, or vacated in the Primary
Development Areas until market forces or other factors result in
conversion to a permitted non-residential use.
The proposed amendment was presented at the May 27 public hearing.No
comments were received from the public,the Planning Board, or the
Board of Commissioners. The item was referred to the Planning Board for
a recommendation to be returned no sooner than August 4, 1997.
On July 2,the Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the proposed
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends closure of the public hearing and
approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
3
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
i
4
vacant for more than 180 days, it could no longer be 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.
5
x k x x �-' x
IF
fn
ca
cc
Cc
a.
Cg
v qy
N :J
y E �
ns U 0 �.
v 'v
x
F b = o a0i o api U X� x x x x x x x x
W N 8 z ,
99 0 o O
a y cc cc 1° cq O v
0 cc
W SZ O x x 5
v X
N � 4
U °c u w a ate,
o ' 3 a I x x x x g
Z v b 6 c Q
c 9 S
I W N a. .5 0, � ° � a o � x x x x 0 x
O
78 V
a>i Cc Ap
Q �$ 8 .SG
y r-
a pj AO x x
°c
`°
o
v U «. 0 u
14 Q
rz a go o co O v C O
b
N ..t N '•' � R ••• :W�
q� N
41 •• cp Cr
Q a. O H
O q> > U a v �� q 71
cc
8 cc
tj
V
Cl. r N G r7 C V •� C
=� 0° N 3 u .5 .� b ; u R o a M
4 v D a y b e� a� Q Rt O
o N o o v o o
cz
a E R ° a 'W °� O °
ca
e i w I °� v a A � .s u .? v � �
41 cc° °' mU t .c
0` 0 3 'x .5 8 5 T a. •a ►-�` c en
A' . . w
R .9 b w o
2 5 5 0 6 ;C7. O. o a v
a � � t� � vE" E� " "' � � UUUCAa
1N3WON3WV
-S/27/3-7 PUBLIC A F4 F,3l; H IAWT'ES
15e1 6
2 June Haas, a resident of this area,indicated that the residents of this neighbo&000d have worked hard to
3 have the Economic Development District established and to have the proper zoning applied. They thought that this
4 change had already occurred. She requested that the Board of Commissioners adopt this change.
S
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiods, seconded by Commission Brown, to refer this item to the
T Ptammng Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 4, 1997.
8 VOTE. UNANIMOUS
9 2) - Allowing Existing Residential Uses
10 • Article 2.2 Permitted Uses
11 The item was presented by Emily Cameron in order to receive citizen
12 comment on a proposed amendment to avow existing residences as a permitted use in all Economic Development
13 Distr ts. According to me permitted use table in the Economic Development Districts(EDO)Design Manual,
14 residential uses are not permitted in the Primary Development Area, except for the Primary Overlay in the 1401013
15 86 EDO. The purpose of the Economic Development Districts is to provide kcations for a wide range of non-
16 residential uses, including light industrial, distribution,office, service and retail. Residential use is allowed in
17 Secondary Development Areas and the Primary Overlay,which serve to buffer the EDO$from adjacent residentiai
18 districts.
19
20 COMMg TS ANDIOR QUESTIONS FitOM TINE 80ASC OF CO ONERS: None.
22 CoWighn fi=g C UUMNS eanu THE PLANNING BOA -* None.
24 CMWAM AN=R QUFV—QN9 FROM C NS-=None.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Caney, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to refer this item to the
27' Planning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August a, 1997.
28 VOTE UNANIMOUS
29
30 3) NC Highway 751 Connector
31 . Article 2.1 Development Areas
32 • Article 3.3.Clrcuta w and Parking
33 This bm was presented by Planner Mary VWhs in order to receive citizen
34 comment on a proposed amendment to ellmirtaM aN references to an extension of NC 751 between U.S.70 and I-
35 85 in the Economic Oevelopmertt Oi:bict Design Manual On Marts 18. 1997.the Bosrd of C.ommieswrim adopted
36 a Resok tion revueft9 deletion of the NC 751 connector between US 70 and 1-46 ft om the Durham-Chapel HUB
37 Carrboro(DCHC)Urban Area Thoreughftwe Plan. The conneeW is r elm orcod in maps and text pertaining to the I-
38 8W.S. Hwy 70 Eoommic Developmwt District(EDO). The proposed amendment eliminates all references to the
39 NC 751 connect in the EDO Design Manual.
MWj M ay .gig auMSMNs EMU THE BOARD OF COMMISSIOblAS:
42
43 Commission Gordon asked far darifi mdw as to whether this also deletes reference to Eno Drive. Mary
44 indigted that it d'id because without the cwneclor Eno Drive is not reievart Deletin9 the rrferenca is not s
45 stadtiment about Eno Drive but rtatMr eddresses the fad that without the oonrtecaar R is not relevant.
46
47 Carxrrissww Gordon felt that ttre Board of Cottvnissioners might choose to melee a more current
48 statwrwnt about Erto Drive somMhne in the now f faun.
- None.
31
52 MUM&=ANDMOU12nMIKEIRIMCIERMI None:
53
54 A., wss rstoo by Chew CWW,seconded by Commissioner Gordon,to refer this dent to the Ph w*V
56 Board to be retwnsd to the Board of Cantattssioners no sooner than August 4, 1997.
66 vOTE: UNANIMOUS
4) Wider b sewer Service(uPdaltr)
r
+ 7/2/97 Planning Board Minutes 7
Board members. One citizen spoke in favor of the proposed
amendment. One citizen spoke in favor of the proposed amendment.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment
to eliminate the perimeter buffer between Economic Development
Districts of different jurisdictions.
If the Planning Board does not recommend approval of the amendment
as proposed,the Planning Staff recommends approval of an alternative
to reduce the perimeter buffer between jurisdictions from 100 feet to 25
feet. This could be followed by a subsequent amendment to reduce the
perimeter buffer between jurisdictions to zero,but require a 25-foot
setback along Old NC 86. In this way,additional building setbacks
would apply not only north of Cates Creek,but also along the entirety
of Old NC 86 within the EDD. This could address entranceway design
issues raised in the previous public hearing.
Allison asked for clarification of the location of the perimeter buffer.
Using a map of the EDD,Willis indicated the area in question,noting
that this applies only along 86. This is the only area in Orange County
where the situation occurs.
Barrows asked what is in the Design Manual to address entranceways.
Willis responded that there is a cross section in the manual that
includes a 100-foot right-of-way cross section for NC 86 that includes
a landscape median,travel lanes,sidewalks and a 10-foot buffer
between sidewalks and development.
Strayhorn felt that it was only fair to try and provide some relief for the
property owners along 86. However,he expressed concern that there
may be some property owners that this would not take care of their
problems and wondered what mechanisms are in place for them. Willis
responded that the Design Manual includes many specific provisions in
regard to designing a project in an EDD. If an applicant meets all of
the requirements,the Planning Staff can approve the project. If the
requirements cannot all be met,then the applicant has the option to
apply to the Board of Commissioners for a Special Use Permit.
Allison asked what the advantage of reducing the buffer to 25 feet
would be. Willis responded that reducing it to 25 feet would allow for
the entire strip along 86 to be addressed by setbacks.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff to
eliminate the 100 foot perimeter buffer. Seconded by Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b) Article 2.2 Permitted Uses(Existing Residences)
Presentation by Mary Willis.
This item is for consideration of a proposed amendment to allow
existing residences as a permitted use in all Economic Development
Districts.
t i
8
According to the permitted use table in the Economic Development
Districts(EDD)Design Manual,residential uses are not permitted in
the Primary Development Area,except for the Primary Overlay in the
I-40/Old NC 86 EDD.
The purpose of the Economic Development Districts is to provide
locations for a wide range of non-residential uses, including light
industrial,distribution,office,service and retail. Residential use is
allowed in Secondary Development Areas and the Primary Overlay
(applicable only in the I-40/Old NC 86 EDD),which serve as a buffer
between the EDDs and adjacent residential districts.
Residential use is not included as a permitted use in Primary
Development Areas. The rationale for excluding residential as a
permitted use was to assure that the Primary Development Areas would
remain available,avoiding new residential development incompatible
with non-residential development.
When the Economic Development Districts were adopted,existing
residences in the Primary Development Areas became non-conforming.
Non-conforming uses are lawful,but may not be enlarged or modified
and may not be replaced if destroyed.
The proposed amendment would include existing residences as a
permitted use rather than a non-conforming use in all Economic
Development Districts. The change to the Permitted Use Table will not
result in additional residential development which could be in conflict
with the uses allowed in the EDD,since new residences would
continue to be prohibited. However,it would allow existing residences
to be expanded,modified or replaced, improved,or vacated in the
Primary Development Areas until market forces or other factors result
in conversion to a permitted non-residential use.
The proposed amendment was presented at the May 27 public hearing.
No comments were received from the public,the Planning Board,or
the Board of Commissioners. The item was referred to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than August 4,4,
1997.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed text
amendment.
MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff.
Seconded by Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
c) Article 2.1 Development Areas(I-85/Hwy 70 EDD)
Article 3.3 Circulation and Parking(NC 751 Connector)
Presentation by Mary Willis.