HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-D ` 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:October 2, 1995
Action Agenda
Item#My,_D
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Economic Development District Design Manual(Perimeter Buffer)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes—X No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Amendment Mary Willis Extension 2583
8/28/95 Public Hearing Minutes
9/18/95 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Home 1/31/95 Correspondence Hillsborough 732-8181
Vicinity Map-Old N.C. 86 Area Chapel Hill 967-9251
EDD Design Manual Case Study Site Plan Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to eliminate the requirement of a 100-foot buffer along the
perimeter of an Economic Development District(EDD)which abuts an EDD adopted by
another planning jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND: On January 17, 1995,the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of
the I-40/Old N.C.86 interchange.One issue raised during the initial public hearing process
concerned whether or not a strip of properties along the west side of Old N.C. 86 north of Cates
Creek should be included in the District.The issue was resolved on June 26, 1995,when the
Board of Commissioners included the strip m the EDD and designated that portion of the
District"Primary Development Overlay Area".
The area added to the EDD on June 26 ranges from approximately 350 to 500 feet in depth,and
a 100-foot buffer is required where a property line forms the boundary of the District,including
the Old N.C.86 frontage(see attached vicinity map).The intent of the 100-foot buffer is"to
create transitions between neighborhoods and areas of differing development intensities,and
separate incompatible land uses...".
Mr. Tom Horne,a member of the Old N.C. 86 Homeowners Association,recognized the
potential hardships which might arise from application of the buffer and requested that the
Planning Board explore buffer concessions(see attached 1/31/95 correspondence).Examples of
the application of the buffer standard are as follows:
• The lots located north of Cates Creek and south of the Cornwallis Hills entrance(Lafayette
Drive)are approximately 350 feet in depth. If these lots were to be developed and the
current buffer requirements applied,the property owners must dedicate an additional 20
feet for the widening of Old N.C. 86,reducing the lot depth to 330 feet.The 100-foot
buffer would then be required along both the frontage and rear lot line,reducing the
buildable area to a depth of 130 feet.
• To the north,two tiers of lots are located in the strip between Lafayette Drive and Oakdale
Drive.The lots fronting on Old N.C.86 are approximately 300 feet in depth.If developed,
these lots would be required to provide the 20 feet of additional right-of--way,a 100-foot
2
buffer along Old N.C. 86,and a 25-foot rear yard setback,leaving a buildable area depth
of 155 feet.Behind these lots are two lots,with one having frontage(200 feet)on Oakdale
Drive and a depth of 850 feet. Since that lot abuts residentially zoned property along the
Oakdale Drive frontage and the western side line,the 100-foot perimeter buffer as well as a
25-foot side yard setback would apply,reducing the buildable area width to 75 feet.
The east side of Old N.C. 86 is in the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough,and
the Town has designated the area as an Economic Development District. Identical standards are
administered by the Town,and the 100-foot buffer along Old N.C.86 is not needed,since the
permitted uses in the Orange County EDD would be compatible with those in the Hillsborough
EDD.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.
The proposed amendment would eliminate the perimeter buffer in any portion of an EDD
where the District abuts the EDD of another jurisdiction.Although the amendment would apply
in all EDD's,it would address the specific situation encountered along Old N.C. 86 in the I-
40/01d N.C.86 EDD.The proposed amendment will not affect either the I-85/U.S.70 EDD or
the I-85/Budkhorn Road EDD,since neither Durham or Mebane has approved an EDD adjacent
to those Districts.
Public Hexring.Comments
Comments received at the public hearing from interested citizens 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 proposed amendment.
Several Commissioners and Planning Board members also 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
Design Woes
Strip development,entranceway appearance,traffic impacts along Old N.C. 86,and open space
were all issues considered during the approval of the Economic Development Districts and the
Design Manual.
• The EDD Design Manual identifies how much open space will result through the provision
of buffers and/or the preservation of environmental features such as flood plains,steep
slopes,etc.In the I-40/Old N.C. 86 EDD,approximately 298/a of the land area shown on
the Schematic Plan is open space.This amount does not include additional open space
required to satisfy landscape,building,and site volume ratios. As an example,the rase
study site presented in the Design Manual is located on the west side of Old N.C. 86 just
south of Cates Creek. Approximately 50%of the 1.80-acre site is occupied by flood plain
and a natural area,and only 25%is covered with impervious surface;e.g.,buildings,
parking areas,and sidewalks(see attached case study plan).
• 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 dividing
the two-lane sections.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
3
street. All improvements would be located within a 100-foot right-of-way,and property
owners would be expected to provide an additional 20 feet of right-of-way for the widening
project.
• The EDD Design Manual prohibits manufacturing and wholesale trade in the area north of
Cates Creek,and retail trade is allowed only with approval of a Special Use Permit by the
Board of Commissioners.Hours of operation for establishments within the area are limited
from 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.
• The EDD Design Manual requires all buildings to be set back a distance of 25 feet from
front,side,and rear property lines,and only off-street parking may extend to within 10 feet
of a property line. In the case of the front yard,the 25-foot setback must be provided from
the new right-of-way line. Where buffers are required and/or open space must be preserved,
no building or parking area may extend within those areas.Where off-street parking does
extend to within 10 feet of a property line,a 36-inch high opaque screen consisting of
landscape materials,rolling earth berms,or low screen walls or combinations must be
provided within the 10-foot landscape area.
• The EDD Design Manual encourages parking areas to be located at the side or rear of
buildings to leave the front accessible for pedestrian and transit systems.The 25-1oot hunt
yard setback standard also seeks to encourage building placement closer to these systems.
As noted previously,the intent of the 100-foot buffer is to create transitions between
neighborhoods and areas of differing development intensities,and separate incompatible land
uses.The issues identified to date have focused more on"entranceway"character,particularly
that Old N.C. 86.If the 100-foot buffer is viewed as the means through which to provide an
appropriate entranceway,the buffer is only applicable in that portion of the EDD extending
from Oakdale Drive to Cates Creek The remaining"entranceway"from Cates Creek to 140
and beyond is not addressed. If design standards are desired to provide an attractive and
functional entranceway,they should dealt with through additional design standard
amendments,not through buffer standards.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 18, 1995.After
considerable discussion(see attached minutes),the Planning Board recommended approval of
the proposed amendment by a 7-5 vote.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
4
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE
REFERENCE: Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development District Design Manual
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
BOCC_X Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X High Middle Low
Comment.-
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 28, 1995
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/ISSUES: 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
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 which was added to the EDD on June 26 is located on
the west side of Old NC 86, and ranges from 300 to 500 feet
in depth. The east side of Old NC 86 is in the planning
jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough.
The attached letter from Tom Horne raises the issue of how
the 100' perimeter buffer will affect development of this
relatively narrow strip of the EDD, particularly corner lots
where three sides of the lot would be subject to a 100'
buffer.
The purpose of the perimeter buffer of 100 feet is to protect
adjacent uses from potential impacts of the EDD. On May 15,
1995, the Town of Hillsborough rezoned the area bounded by
Old NC 86, Cates Creek and I-85 to Economic Development
District, and has incorporated the EDD Design Manual into its
zoning ordinance. Old NC 86 in this area forms the perimeter
of the portion of the EDD in Orange County's jurisdiction.
The application of the perimeter buffer in this area does not
serve the purpose of separating potentially incompatible uses
since similar uses would be allowed on the opposite side of
Old NC 86.
5
The Planning Staff recommends that page 3.2.6 of the Economic
Development District Design Manual be amended, as shown
below, to address situations where an Orange County Economic
Development District is adjacent to an EDD of another
planning jurisdiction.
* ' * * To create transitions between neighborhoods and areas
of differing development intensities, and separate
incompatible land uses, a buffer of 100 feet in width is
provided at the boundary of Economic Development Districts,
and between Primary and Secondary Development Areas within
the districts. The 100-foot wide buffer need not be provided
when:
1 . The boundary of an Orange County EDD corresponds with the
planning jurisdiction of another local government; and
2. The land located in the planning jurisdiction of the
other local government has been zoned Economic
Development District and designated the same (e.g.
Primary Development, Secondary Development) as the land
located in the Orange County Economic Development
District; and
3. the adjoining planning jurisdiction's Economic
Development District Design Manual is the same as Orange
County's.
The Planning Staff does not recommend amending the Design
Manual to address constraints imposed on corner lots such as
those located in the EDD adjacent to the entrance to
Cornwallis Hills. Unlike the lots which front only on Old NC
86, these corner lots are also adjacent to property which is
zoned for residential use only, and the perimeter buffer may
serve its intended purpose of providing separation between
potentially incompatible uses. If all of the requirements
of the Design Manual cannot be met, the developer may request
approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of
Commissioners.
Stf'-12-1955 10:37 rRON ORt4NGE CTY k.-`Mtl i z-)S i ONERS TO EROS I N/PLAN P.05/09
V I � � 4 6
Dili
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than October 2, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
O. Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development Districts Design
Manual (Zoning ordinance Text Amendment)
Planner Mary Willis presented to receive public comments
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. The area added
to the EDD on June 26 including properties along the
NC86 north of Cates Creek ranges from 300 to 500 feet in depth, and the
perimeter buffer of 100 feet poses development constraints . The staff
proposes that the Design Manual be modified to state that where the
perimeter of the EDD abuts, not just another jurisdictional boundary,
but one where the EDD provisions have been adopted, that in those cases
the perimeter boundary not apply since there is the same zoning on
either side of the property.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Willis said
that the goal of the buffer is to protect adjacent properties from any
affects of the EDD. He is concerned that this will look like a
commercial strip and wonders if there should be some kind of buffers.
Willis explained that there are still setback and landscaping/screening
requirements that are a part of the Design Standards that prevent that
strip from occurring.
In answer to a question from Bill Waddell, Willis said that the
natural constraints, floodplains, etc. of the creek itself would remain
to whatever width is applicable.
Mary Willis clarified that the 100-foot wide buffer need not be
provided when the land located in the jurisdiction of the other local
government has been zoned Economic Development District and designated
the same (e.g. Primary Development, Secondary Development) as the land
located in the Orange County Economic Development District .
answer to a question from Planning Board member Renee Price, Willis
said that there will be open space. Planning Director Marvin Collins
said that when the Economic Development Design Manual was adopted,
there are schematic plans that designate certain areas as open space
and in addition to that there is a large amount of green space. Based
on calculations, within that whole area, there will be at least 40%
open space.
Mary Willis clarified for Karen Barrows the area this proposed
amendment would apply.
Renee Price noted her concern is the gateway into Hillsborough and
she wonders what this area will look like for those living in
Cornwallis Hills . She is concerned about the elimination of the buffer
even with the Design Standards in place. Mary Willis said that when
the district was first adopted there was no buffer that was
specifically required along NC86 for addressing the concerns that were
known. When this portion was added, the only reason that the buffer
5
7
was shown around this area was because it was the perimeter of the
district in our jurisdiction.
Karen Barrows reminded everyone that the primary I area requires
less landscaping than primary II. The Planning Staff will provide to
the Planning Board members information on setback requirements .
CITIZEN C0bWNTS
Richard Allison, homeowner in Cornwallis Hills, asked about the
area this buffer requirement would cover and Mary Willis clarified that
this amendment only affects those properties on NC86 - not the sides,
back or corner.
In answer to a question from Billy Smith who lives at the corner
of NC86 and Oakdale Drive, Willis said that in terms of buffer
requirements, both sides of NC86 will be treated the same. The station
that is located on the east side is noncomforming because it was built
before Hillsborough adopted the EDD guidelines . Billy Smith feels it
should be the same for both sides.
June Haas showed on the map that there is no buffer from
Hillsborough to I-40. She does not support there being a buffer on one
side and not the other.
Commissioner Wilihoit asked that the Planning Board look at the
adequacy of the buffer between this property and Cornwallis Hills so
that if they are thinking of eliminating one on the roadside, they may
be able to add a little more buffer on the back side and buffer
Cornwallis Hills better.
In answer to a question from Renee Price about the reason for
eliminating the buffer to provide more room for building, Willis said
that the property is narrow and with a 100 foot buffer on both sides it
limited the use of the property. She noted that when the EDD was
approved there was only the Orange County EDD. When there is the same
district from the other jurisdiction and the same design standards
throughout, it makes the purpose of that buffer no longer necessary.
Renee Price said that her concern is the buffer between
:. development and residential areas. Willis said that this area went
_= through a lengthy public hearing to look at what is reasonable and what
those property owners could do with their property and there were
meetings with citizens in Cornwallis Hills. She pointed out that this
area is more restrictive than other areas in the EDD.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than October 2, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
SER-12-1995 10:32 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO EROSIN/PLAN P.02i09 ,
0 1 8
d
D �
p
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 28, 1995
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Orange
County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 28, 1995
at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and
Commissioners William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H.
Halkiotis and Don Willhoit.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT_ : Geoffrey Gledhill
PLANNING BOARD ME� PRESENT: Chair William Waddell and members
Paul Hoecke, Karen Barrows, Elizabeth Walters, Cheryl A. Howie, Renee
A. Price, Arnie Katz, Cherie Rosemond, Margaret Brown and Leo Allison
NOTE: All documents referred to in these minutes are in their entirety
in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office.
A. OPE� NINC REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
— Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING
1 . Amendments Related to Economic Development Districts
a.. CP-1-95 I-40/01d 86 Economic Development District
(Contprehensive Plan Amendment)
b. Z-6-95 Y-40/01d N.C. 86 Economic Development District
(Zoning Atlas Amendment)
These two items were presented together. Planner Mary Willis
explained that the Land Use Planning amendment and the Zoning Atlas
amendment would expand the I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development
District (EDD) . The district was originally approved on January 17,
1995 and the boundary was amended on June 26 to include a strip of
properties along the west side of Old NC 86 north of Cates Creek. At
issue are two properties split by the EDD boundary. One property_ is
also split by the boundary between Primary and Secondary Development
Areas. The total acreage in the Addison property. is 114 acres.
Approximately 8.0 acres of this property on the east side of Cates Creek
was included in the EDD as Primary Development area. The property
owner has requested that the portion of the lot located on the west
side of Cates. Creek also be included in the EDD. The area in question
contains about 34 acres. It is bounded by I-40 to the south and west,
and Cates Creek and the boundary of the existing EDD to the east . The
Planning Staff recommends that the entire parcel be included in the EDD
SER-12-1995 10:33 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO EROSIN/PLAN P.03/09
Z 9
J
and be designated as Primary Development Area. The other parcel in
question is the Moren property. This consists of an 87-acre tract
located in the northernmost portion of the northeast quadrant of the
EDD. Most of the Moren property was included in the EDD except a small
area containing about four acres adjacent to Stagecoach Run
Subdivision. of the area in the EDD, about one-half is designated as
Primary Development Area, and the other half as Secondary Development
Area. The property owner has requested that the remaining acreage be
included in the EDD and that the entire parcel be designated as Primary
I . The Planning Staff recommends that the remaining Moren property be
included in the EDD as Secondary Development Area. It is also
recommended that the existing Secondary Development Area remain as a
buffer between the Primary Area and existing or potential residential
development to the east.
With reference to the Addison property, Commissioner Gordon asked
why some of the property is not secondary, especially next to
Cornwallis Hills . Mary Willis said that the property itself because of
the natural constraints will limit the use of the property to some
extent. In terms of the uses allowed in both the primary and
secondary, the secondary area is much more limited and by designating
it as primary, it does allow more flexibility in terms of uses and
trying to tie into whatever types of activity occurring on the
remainder of the property.
Commissioner Crowther asked if the undeveloped portion of
Cornwallis Hills was annexed with the developed portion. It was
clarified by a citizen living in Cornwallis Hills that no annexation
has occurred .yet.
In answer to a question from Chair Carey, Willis said that on the
Moren property there is not a road that is built in that area but that
there is an easement for access purposes.
Commissioner Willhoit asked for the rationale in adding the
Addison parcel and not the other area adjacent to it on the north.
Willis said that area is zoned R-3 and may be an expansion of
Cornwallis Hills but they have not received a request. The reason for
not zoning the Addison property R-3 and making it a part of the EDD is
primary its proximity to I-40 and that because of the topography, the
uses will be limited. The frontage along the northern boundary could
provide a more central stream crossing to provide access to this area.
The reason for receiving public comments at this time is that this
parcel was not included in the previous public hearing advertisement.
Willis said that in tests of the expansion of the EDD, the staff can
come forward with requests for expansion. With- the addition of these
two parcels, they view this as an effort to fine-tune the specific
locations .of the boundaries. With reference to the area with the
slops, there will be design constraints in terms of providing areas for
the building. and parking.
Willis indicated that these are the only two identified parcel
that want to be added. In terms of the access road into the EDD, it is
their intent for these roads not to go through a residential area.
a1
U � 3 14
a�
a
CITIZEN C0K4ENTS
t o
Jo Soulier, Presidenf the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners
the annexation of Cornwallis Hills is due
Association, clarified that
to happen next April or May. She made comments on the addition of the
remainder of the Addison property to the EDD. Their concern is that
this property is adjacent to 50 acres of future development of
Cornwallis Hills. She said that if it is included, perhaps it could be
left as green space. She is glad that the access is not going to come
through Cornwallis Hills, but it will disturb the creek. Regarding the
proposal that eliminates the 100 foot buffer along jurisdictional
lines . She feels that the wording of this proposal will mean that,
once Cornwallis Hills is annexed, the jurisdictional line will be the
same as their property line and there will be no buffer between the EDD
and their homes . Future jurisdictional lines are moving targets under
this proposal the way it is worded. She suggested that the buffer be
left in place and changed only through a special use permit.
Judy Brown who lives on Stagecoach Run made reference to a map and
section III of Stagecoach Run. She showed her location on lot 7 and
the two lots being proposed for addition to the EDD. They bought ththeir
lot in 1993 and was told that they were part of
they would have a buffer as a residential lot. They have restrictive
covenants which indicates that each and every lot should be used for
residential purposes only. She noted that the two lots comprise such a
small area, she cruestions what purpose they would serve . She is
opposed to the addition of these two lots to the EDD.
Dan Lanigan read a letter from Mr. Stephen K. Riddle, President of
the Stagecoach Run Homeownerts Assoc. This letter in
4 the agenda on
page 17. He asked that lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 o map
Block Ar plat book 27, page 5 remain part of the Stagecoach Run
development and that there be a 100 foot buffer between the boundaries
of the Stagecoach Run development and the EDD. They asked that the
Orange County Planning Board exclude Lot 4 . 45. .2E from the EDD and
include the 100 foot buffer originally proposed and agreed upon at
their meeting with the Planning Dept. in May of 1993 . He personally
asked that this amendment not be approved.
Mr. Huge Moran stated that he and his wife are co-owners of the
land requested for inclusion in the EDD. He was unaware of the
concerns of the neighbors in the Stagecoach development. He noted that
with part of his land in primary and part in secondary, it makes it
very difficult to develop property in two different zonings. He does
have a letter from the adjacent property owners supporting this
amendment. He pointed to the map and said that part of this is a
natural revive that will serve as a buffer.
Mi0_ TION
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Halkioti.s to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning
5
� 11
was shown around this area was because it was the perimeter of the
district in our jurisdiction.
Karen Barrows reminded everyone that the primary I area requires
less landscaping than primary II . The Planning staff will provide to
the Planning Board members information on setback requirements .
CITIZEN CUOMNTS
Richard Allison, homeowner in Cornwallis Hills, asked about the
area this buffer requirement would cover and Mary Willis clarified that
this amendment only affects those properties on NC86 - not the sides,
back or corner.
In answer to a question from Billy Smith who lives at the corner
of NC86 and Oakdale Drive, Willis said that in terms of buffer
requirements., both sides of NC86 will be treated the same. The station
that is located on the east side is noncomforming because it was built
before Hillsborough adopted the EDD guidelines . Billy Smith feels it
should be the same for both sides.
June Haas showed on the map that there is no buffer from
Hillsborough to I-40. She does not support there being a buffer on one
side and not the other.
Commissioner Willhoit asked that the Planning Board look at the
adequacy of the buffer between this property and Cornwallis Hills so
that if they are thinking of eliminating one on the roadside, they may
be able to add a little more buffer on the back side and buffer
Cornwallis Hills better.
In answer to a question from Renee Price about the reason for .
eliminating the buffer to provide more room for building, Willis said
that the property is narrow and with a 100 foot buffer on both sides it
limited the use of the property. She noted that when the EDD was
approved there was only the Orange County EDD. When there is the same
district from the other jurisdiction and the same design standards
throughout, it makes the purpose of that buffer no longer necessary.
Renee Price said that her. concern is the buffer between
development and residential areas. Willis said that this area went
_ through a lengthy public hearing to look at what is reasonable and what
those property owners could do with their property and there were
meetings with citizens in Cornwallis Hills. She pointed out that this
area is more restrictive than other areas in the EDD.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner- Willhoit to refer the proposed amendment to--the-Planning
Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than October 2, 1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
January 31, 1995
Mr. Marvin Collins, Director
Orange County Planning Department
306-F Revere Road
Hillsborough, 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 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 Dills
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 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill,NC 27516
cc: Members, Old 86 NC Homeowners Association
13
IQ
pp -a---'
V _U CD
Z '
v ••
v c �
O O U
t
U C:)�
L L J O
An
^ C
14
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/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.
15
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
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
l
16
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
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
i
17
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
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
18
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
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
J
10
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
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
20 r
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
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
� 21
maintaining nice vistas in Orange County.
b. Amendments - Landscaping & Buffer Requirements
( 1) Article 12 - Landscaping and Buffer
Requirements
(2) Section IV-B-B-Landscape and Buffer
Requirements
Presentation of these items by Mary Willis.
These items are for consideration of proposed
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations regarding the amount of a
financial guarantee for required landscaping.
In most developments where landscaping is
required in addition to preserving existing
trees, the owner/applicant usually proposes to
install the landscaping without hiring a
contractor to do the work. The difference in cost
between an owner-installed job and the services
of a contractor is 250 to 300 percent.
In the event the County had to obtain funds
guaranteed by a bond, letter of credit, or escrow
agreement, the landscape improvements could only
be completed if the amount guaranteed included
labor costs as well as the cost of plant
materials. The proposed amendment to the
landscape regulations makes explicit the intent
of the financial guarantee to cover the cost to
purchase and install required landscaping, that
is, to include labor costs. The amendment also
specifies that the person who o prepares the cost
estimate shall have no direct or indirect
ownership interest in the project.
There were no questions or comments from the
public. The Board of Commissioners referred the
matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation
to be returned no sooner than October 2, 1995.
Provided that the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning
Officer recommends approval of the proposed text
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations.
Allison asked if the owner was the developer,
would he have to get an estimate elsewhere and
Willis responded yes, there must be an unbiased
estimate. Whenever any financial guarantee is
required, it must be specified what is to be