HomeMy WebLinkAboutNS ORD-1997-022 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment EDD Design Manual Article 2.2-Permitted Uses Existing Residences 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-
40/01d 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
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.
s
k x x x x
CL `a
ca cn
to
v to
120, 104
IL
ca
R
V o u u y� C ° .r O X' x x x x a� x
Fp v u
'dxxxx ec k k x t,
ox ss o
o a >°
lu
x x S
A p u 5 0
rn C ^ 4.
O 3 a t '~ X x x X
0
yj .° a
Vi. j .. Ct• •
ct
w
u 1 Lai.
wa
< <
Cif a 9 u JQ do r
4 E ;= 0 -n o o S g 0. n
a u y a3 C 'C :z: N
W
CA4 .0 Ca z 2. C y. u .9 c u a, a s •"� v
sa V E r x
U t:Y a
� Q � f " 'mm
tz
.n o .ue ryi, aRi a a u '� I
l �p
S: b ►�', O N
A v � A b
cab3p � .5 'o � ,, u u q o • .� 5 h .o
y `° ea8 I w l uaa �., a A w a
E4 U ca
u 6- u
Fc 3 0 3 h $ u o o
cu
u u v u
�'
� boc. z � a Ila a � gE; � � � � UUU. z
1N3WON3W11 OMUdUdd
-S/27/S-1 PWaLI C k E F-J"'; H rA10TIES
161 6
2 dune Haas,a resident of this area,indicated that the residents of this neighborhood 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.
6 s A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiods, seconded by Commission Brown,to refer this item to the
7 Piwning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 4, 1997.
8 vor>=: uwwiMOUs
9 2) - Auowing Existing Residential uses
10 • Article 2.2 Permitted uses
11 The item was prowled by Emily Cameron in order to receive citizen
12 comment on a proposed amendment to allow existing residencas as a penn>dW use in all Economic Development
13 Aistricla. According to the peanitted use table in the Economic Oevelopnment Oistri (EDO)Design Manual,
14 residential uses are not pemtitted in the Primary Development Area.except fior the Primary Overlay in the 1-40101!
15 as EDO. The purpose of the Economic Development OsstncCts is to provide locations tar a wide range of non.
16 residential usm including light industrial,distribution,odiee. service and retail_ Residential use is allowed in
17 Secondary Development Areas and the Primary Overlsy,which serve to buffer the EDO$front adlecer+t residential
18 districts.
20 - None.
• None.
22 =UNA=ANWIR 99
• None.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Caney.seconded by Commissions►Brow 1997, ter this ftm to the
27 Planning Board to be manned to the Board of Comr W$ionea no sooner than August
28 VOTE UNANIMOUS
0
3) NC Highway 751 Connector
Are"
31 • Article 2.1 Development
• Article 3.3.Ckrulation and Patting
33 This Flan was pr'��by t�K�VWb in order to receive citizen
34 comment on s proposed emend', co 00minate#A roforeaaes to an extension of NC 751 between U.S.70 and I-
35 85 in the Economic OevekVment Ojouict Design MWaAL On March 18,1997.the Board at COMMISSWWS adopted
36 a Resdu*m rs0ueftV de"m of the NC 751 connector baWmen US 70 and 146 from the Ourt►wl Chstxt HW
37 Carrboro(Oct Urban gnee Thoroughfxs Plan. 1'ihe conneetor b refs et in maps and!cart pertaining to the I-
38 83/U.S.Hwy 70 Ecxmn c Devebpnhs *Olstrtet(EDO). The proposed amendment eliminab:all referexecee to the
39 NC 751 mwwcllor in ttre EDO Design MMA
40
41
Coenmsdon Gordon asked f or dariAatlon ae to whefha this also deleW reAsrmea eo Eno Drive. Mary
,44 Indic- i thst it did bemuse rviUtlout the corateclor Eno Ori�w b rat reieea�+t Deleting the rrterenoe is not a
45 sbtenrerrt about Eno Onve but rather eddresau the fad Mat wttt+out fhe oonnecW d b not relevant
47 CaTMriss'oner
Gordon tlelt this+!!lee t�aoar+d of CanrnriesioneV,might dwo w to melee a rmerer cwT&t
48 $Mwrw t abaR!'tiro Oriw sometime In the near Andre.
49 Name.
50
62 oggo=ANDICIR 1XIMMITICIM tea`
53 A motion rhos eerde by CnW Caney,secerm d by bona GOrdoe,to Vela tide iU m to am PfwMV
54 ♦,1>i117.
63 Board to be manned So lt"aOWd of Connrthfassaners no sooner then August
0 VOTE UNrtwlUC US
57 a) vftw a Sara service(updae)
ss
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.
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
140/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.
o.Qsr� - /9 2 �o
hearing and approved the request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from Rural Residential (R-1) to
Residential-4 (R-4) per the Planning Board recommendation.
M. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DESIGN MANUAL - NC 751 CONNECTOR
The proposed amendment would eliminate all references to an extension of NC 751
between U.S. 70 and 1-85 in the Economic Development District Design Manual. The County
Commissioners closed the public hearing and approved the proposed amendment per the
Planning Board recommendation.
N. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT_ARTICLE 2.2.4 PLANNING BOARD
TENURE
The proposed amendment would change the month in which Planning Board terms
expire from February to March. The County Commissioners closed the public hearing and
approved the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation.
O. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DESIGN MANUAL - PERMITTED USES (EXISTING RESIDENCES)
The proposed amendment would include existing residences as a permitted use
rather than a non-conforming use in all Economic Development Districts. The Board closed the
public hearing and approved the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
P. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT -ARTICLE 10.3 OFF-STREET
PARKING
This proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would correct a discrepancy
between Article 10.3, Off-street Parking Design Standards, and Article 12.4.1 Required
Landscaping. The Board closed the public hearing and approved the proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment.
Q. RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN
The Board adopted the Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance
Plan for Orange County.
R. EFLAND ESTATES - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the amendment to the
Development Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, North Carolina, Inc. for
the Efland Estates Community Development Block Grant Program.
S. MEMORANDUM RENEWAL WITH NORTH STATE LEGAL SERVICES
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the Memorandum of
Agreement with North State legal Services, Inc. for the provision of legal counseling and
assistance, as required by Title III of the Older Americans Act.
T. RENEWAL OF SHERIFF - UNC SPECIAL EVENTS COVERAGE AGREEMENT
The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign the contract between
Orange County and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for security and the provision
of law enforcement at certain major University events.
VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
9. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA