Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-04-1997 - 9e • 1 ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 4. 1997 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Perimeter Buffer) 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 5/27/97 Public Hearing Minutes Extension 2583 I-40/Old NC 86 Maps Citizen Correspondence TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 10/2/95 Commissioners Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 9/18/95 Planning Board Minutes Durham 688-7331 7/2/97 Planning Board Minutes Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider 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 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 and Oakdale Drive,it is applied on both sides of Old NC 86 w4ere 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 provide is not needed. 2 0 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. Public Hearing Comments The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on May 27, 1997. There were several questions and points of clarification from Board members. One citizen spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on July 2, 1997 and recommended approval. The vote was unanimous. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board of Commissioners close the public hearing and approve the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. If the Board of Commissioners does not recommend approval of the amendment as proposed,the Administration 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. 3 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 I-40/Old NC 86(EDD)contains about 750 acres,and extends from south of 1-40 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 provide is not needed. 4 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. 5 • 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,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 pig jurisdiction of the other local government has been zoned Economic Development District and designated the same (e.g Prim= Development. Secondary Development) as the land located in the Orange Con_ty Economic Development District: and 3 The adjoiningnlanning jurisdiction's Economic Development District Design Manual is the same as Orange Con • - Milo Eli E 1111k !MT-IW A �,� t� • ^' _ :1 i� ��:►lei �� = , S a y.h Sj ze • a i 8 ` January .)I, 1995 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road EUsborough, 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 assigrunent of Primary I to these properties will not be acceptable. The I-40/OId 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 working with our association for resolution of our concerns. Sincerely, Tom Horne 2611 Wumingham Road Chapel EEL NC 27516 cc: Members, Old 86 INC Homeowners Association 9 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 backup 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. .�v �01 ���,� gcx0 10 1. The Board will consider three items at their work session on October 1_2 . 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 0 . 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'r 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 15 differently so that the Primary Overlay area would address this specific =a' issue only. =7 Mary Willis will look at this problem to see if it can be =8 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. 11 I 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 P, 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 recommendation4 . 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 12 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 Hoard 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. • 13 On January 17 , 1995, the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the 1-40/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-40/01d 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 14 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-40/NC 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 70/1-85 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 18 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 • 19 i 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 apposition, 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 A 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 i 20 5/27/97 Public Hearing Minutes 31 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 32 (a)Economic Development District Design Manual 33 1) Perimeter Buller 34 • Article 3.2. Landscape Design 35 This item was presented by Planner Mary Willis in order to, Ive cfti¢en comment on an 36 amendment to elk tatathe IMfoot buffer requirement along the perimeter of an Economic Deve"ment District 37 (EDD)which abuts an EDD adopted by another Planning jurisdiction. Article 3.2 Landscape Design(page 3.2.6)of 38. the EDD Design Manual requires a 1004bot bufW around the perimeter of an EDD in order to separate 39 incompatible uses. The northernmost portion of the Orange County I-4010Id NC 86 EDD on the west side of Old 40 NC 86 between Cates Creek and Oakdale Drive consists of a narrow strip of properties, ranging from 300 fleet to 41 500 feet in depth: On August 28, 1995,a proposal to eliminate the buffer requirement between two adjacent EOM 42 was presented Ibr public hewing. On October 2. 1995.the Board of Commissioners tabled the Item. Thera has 43 been no further Board acdi 9 . The previous discussion on the issue of the perimeter buffer by the Board of 44 Commissioners and the Planning Board indicates concern for creating a desirable entranceway into Hiltsborough. 45 The Design Manual includes other standards that relate more directly to this concern. The perimeter buffer was 46 created for a specfltc purpose not directly related to entrance"issues. 47 48 COMMENTS ANDIOR 0111R*+M FROM THE BOARD OF COMMI AHEM 49 50 Clair Crowther asked if this request would apply to the right hand section as well. Mary Willis replied that it 51 would appy where primary was adjacent to secondary but not where printery wn adjacent to pr1 mart'. She 52 indfgted that Ufa staff for tub Town of Hillsborough is supportive of these changes. If changes are adopted. the 53 Hillsborough Board of Commissioners wtil consider,adopting those same changes so that,the manuals would match. 54 She also wgAainw what the depth of the twf m would be for this area if these changes were adopted. 55 56 COMMENTS ANDMIt Qt STIONS FROM THE PLANNM BOAR&- None. 57 58 COMMENTS AND/OR OLIEST11M FROM Cl1121913- 1 2 June Haas,a resident of this area,indicated that the residents of this neighborhood have wonted 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. 5 6 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commission Brown, to refer this item to the 7 Planning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no soorw-than August 4, 1997. 8 VOTE. UNANIMOUS • 21 b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Economic Development Districts Design Manual a) Article 3.2 Landscape Design Presentation by Mary Willis. This amendment is to consider 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. 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 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 provide 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. 22 , The proposed amendment was presented for public hearing on May 27, 1997. There were several questions and points of clarification from 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.