Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-E t 1 i O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 2 , 1995 Action Agenda Item # (-E SUBJECT: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT CP-1-95 I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development Activity Node Expansion ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT Z-6-95 I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District Expansion DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Map of Addison Property Extension 2583 Map of Addison Property TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Correspondence from Property Owners and Hillsborough-732-8181 Area Residents Durham -688-7331 8/28/95 Public Hearing Minutes Mebane -227-2031 9/18/95 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed expansion of the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District to include the remaining portion of two parcels currently split by the district. BACKGROUND: On January 17, 1995, the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the I-40/Old NC 86 interchange, and on June 26, 1995, revised the EDD boundary 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. Addison Property Allen and Sally Ann Addison own a 114-acre parcel in the northwest quadrant of the EDD. Approximately 80 acres of the Addison 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 2 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 property to the north is zoned R-3 and is currently undeveloped. It may be developed later as a part of Cornwallis Hills. Although steep slopes will create more development constraints on the west side of Cates Creek than the flatter area found on the east side, non-residential development could occur to the extent that the provisions of the EDD Design Manual allow. Residential development is less desirable and feasible due to the location of the area adjacent to both I-40 and the existing EDD. Access could be provided either by a frontage road along I- 40 or a single crossing of Cates Creek in a more central area of the property, depending on the proposed location of building sites. No access would be permitted through the residential area (Cornwallis Hills) to the north. In addition, residential development to the north would be protected by the 100-foot perimeter buffer. The Planning Staff recommends that the entirety of the parcel be included in the EDD and be designated as Primary Development Area. Moren Property Hugh Moren, Jr. and Carolyn Moren own 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 entirety of his property be designated as Primary I. Four lots on the east side of the existing Stagecoach Run Development were included on the recorded plat for Section 3 of Stagecoach Run Subdivision. Those lots were never developed and were later combined for tax purposes. The Moren property now proposed to be added to the EDD consists of two of those four lots. During the initial EDD public hearing process and prior to creation of the I-40/NC 86 Work Group, the Planning Staff met with residents of Stagecoach Run and discussed issues related to the boundary of the EDD in the vicinity of the subdivision. The district, as initially proposed, was to include two tracts north of Stagecoach Run (Davis property 3 and NationsBank property) . Mr. Charles Davis indicated that he did not wish to be included in the EDD. The draft boundary was revised to exclude the two tracts, lessening the potential impact on Stagecoach Run. Secondary Development area was proposed along the eastern boundary of the EDD to provide a buffer between the more intensive uses allowed in the Primary Area and the existing residential neighborhoods, including Stagecoach Run and the Woods Mobile Home Park. Upon application of the 100-foot perimeter buffer, the developable portion of the additional area will be limited to one acre (.see attached map) . Designation as Secondary Development Area and application of the standards of the EDD Design Manual would restrict activities to small-scale office uses and residential development with a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. Access to the property from the east through Stagecoach Run would be prohibited. Information submitted by a property owner in Stagecoach Run Subdivision included the attached restrictive covenants which limit use of the property in question to single-family residential use until 1997 . The covenants are attached as information only. Private covenants, which are not enforced by Orange County, are not considered in making planning decisions. The Planning Staff recommends that if the remaining Moren property is included in the EDD as Secondary Development Area, that it be designated as Secondary Development Area, and that the existing Secondary Development Area remain as a buffer between the Primary Area and existing or potential residential development to the east. Public Hearing Comments Addison Property Jo Soulier, representing the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, as well as several Commissioners, expressed concern with the designation as primary development area rather than secondary development area and questioned the adequacy of the 100-foot perimeter buffer adjacent to the future development area of Cornwallis Hills. There were also questions concerning annexation of Cornwallis Hills. The existing Cornwallis Hills development is in the process of involuntary annexation. The annexation will become effective June 30, 1996. The owner of the undeveloped portion of Cornwallis Hills adjacent to the proposed EDD expansion has requested voluntary annexation. A public hearing is scheduled before the Hillsborough Town Board on October 9, 1995. Final action on the annexation could occur 4 at that time. The property owner has indicated a preference to sell the entire 114 acres for single use. Designation of the entire property as Primary Development area would provide more flexibility in the site design and create a greater potential for structures and parking areas to be sited where they would have the least impact on adjoining properties. Development of a single project could have less impact on surrounding properties that development of a number of individual uses. The portion of the Addison property on the west side of Cates Creek consists predominately of a hillside with a slope of about 13%. In contrast, the portion of the property on the east side of Cates Creek is relatively flat. Moren Property Two residents of the Stagecoach Run Subdivision spoke in opposition to inclusion of the remainder of the Moren property in the EDD, citing the restrictive covenants which will be in effect until 1997 . Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered the proposed amendment on September 18, 1995. After considerable discussion (minutes attached) , the Planning Board recommended approval of the Including the Addison Property in the EDD as Secondary Development Area, by a 6-5 vote, and recommended that the remaining Moren property not be included in the EDD by a unanimous vote. RECOMONDATION: The Administration recommends as follows: ( 1) That the Economic Development District be expanded to include the Addison property as Secondary Development Area; and (2) That no change be made to the Moren property's current Land Use Plan Designation (20-year Transition Area) ; and (3) That future requests for expansion of the Economic Development District be made consistent with current Land Use Plan Amendment procedures. • e ` • B� I 6 ' V � v C-C> O °' N cn O � ca- �\ U Cn win t N c y �- _ o o O 0 .-0 / - , 1 , ♦ / •M , ,`` • , 1 /i • ••••• �'" is r ••• 1 i `♦ `. i i ; . 1 I / ° 7 00 a ¢ O � a_ o O O_ O C> v Cl— cm Cn I IF :> J / r i � i ♦ a 1 r r 1 r t � a ♦ r / r a f i � a ,`♦ a♦ �` �♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ `� a ♦ `% ` ♦ .� i a `♦ i / / / / r I r r 1 ac r r r r / ♦ FF 4 I f 8 February 27, 1995 Mr. Marvin Collins Director of Planning Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Collins : As discussed, we would like to have the boundary lines of our property extended for maximum inclusion within the EDD. Also, please rezone our entire property as Primary 1 . The enclosed letter from Charles Davis supports approval by the adjacent property owner. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Sincer'ply, Hugh G. Moren, J DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER W Allen Addison—W.D. P.O. Box 727 Walter LTRomarPmfessor 3115 Rippy Lane Division of Gynecologic Specialties Hillsborough, NC 27278 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology November 28 , 1994 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: We appreciate the time and effort which has been directed by the Commissioners of Orange County and other officials toward orderly development designed to ultimately benefit the entire county. No one would prefer to see the rural atmosphere of Orange County left entirely undisturbed more than we would. However, with the Interstate Corridors and the growth of this strategic vicinity, development will come. It must be carefully nurtured so as to afford the county clean industry, acceptable commerce and decent salaries for its citizens. This equates to a worthwhile tax base for the county. With appropriate care -- as that which seems to be being exercised -- this can be accomplished without unacceptable alteration of the environment. Most of our farm, which we have worked hard to develop and had hoped to live on indefinitely, has been included in the economic development district under current consideration. The northwest corner (shown in red) was excluded, we understand, because the lines were drawn to follow natural barriers. - After careful recent personal reconnaissance, we maintain that no significant natural barrier warrants this. We therefore urgently request that this area of our property be included in the I-40/01d NC 86 Economic Development District in order to avoid split use of our property and the creation of a parcel of land without access. Sincerely yours, W. llen Addison, M.D. Sally Ann Addison WP-,:dfd Box 3296•Durham,North Carolina 27710•Telephone(919)684-4272•FA,<(919).681-7483 HARLES W. DAVIS, JR. A. I.A. 10 Architect 718 GRAHAM STREET RALEIGH. N. C. 27605 2 101�- 7r- 11z z1 av- Le`re7z- 1-,e lir In s r �7 C-1 T s � 47> o,e 0119-le•9�y /.vc �o oe— pof e4 " T �� 0 • 77' Ptc�/"P2> + 11 January 31, 1995 s\� Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road EIsborough, 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 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 Iand. Thanks again for your assistance and support in working with our association for resolution of our concerns. Sincerely, - -Tom Horne_ 2611 Winningham Road Chapel Ffill,NC 27516 cc: Members, Old 86 NC Homeowners Association 4 � F-1—FVJ L 12 ' May 14, 1993 D gy 1 7 !��3 MEMORANDUM TO: The Orange County Comissioners FROM: Stagecoach Run Homeowners' Association RE: Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Z-1-93 During a discussion on Tuesday, May 12 with members of the Orange County Planning Dept., the Economic Development Board and members of the Stagecoach Run Homeowners Association,the homeowners proposed the following three amendments to Plan Z-1-93-(see attached map): 1) The finger of land, east of Stagecoach Run development,located south of the proposed Oakdale Drive extension,Tax Map 4 SE, Block A, Sec 3, be zoned for 40,000 square foot residential lots 2) That lots 1,2,3 and 4 on Tax Map 4 SE,Sec 3, Block A, located on Plat Book 27, page 5 be included in the Stagecoach Run development 3) That the area beyond the extreme southwest boundary of the Stagecoach Run development be zoned R-2 with a 100 foot buffer It is our understanding that the proposed Secondary Development Area and Greenways surrounding Stagecoach Run will remain in effect as presented to us on May 12, 1993 if these amendments are enacted. CC. Orange County Planning Dept Economic Development Board t 13 Mr.Steve Riddle, President Stagecoach Run Homeowner's Assoc 814 Pletcher Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Mr.Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Dept. 306P Revere Road Hillsborough,NC 27278 August 21, 1995 Dear Mr. Collins, On May 14, 1993, the Orange County Planning Dept. requested a meeting with the Stagecoach Run Homeowner's Association to explain and discuss the effect the EDD would have on our neighborhood. They were most informative and helpful at that meeting. Among our requests were that Lots 1, 2,3, and 4 on Tax map 4 SE,Sec.3,Block A,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. Enclosed,please find a copy of the memorandum and map that resulted from that meeting. Based on that meeting,those lots described above WERE excluded from the EDD and the 100 foot buffer WAS included in the draft EDD Design Manual without further debate and presented for consideration to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. After discussing the latest land use amendment CP-1-95 with you last week,we were informed that the owners, Hugh and Carolyn Moren had requested that Lot 4.45-SE be included once again in the EDD. This would include most of the property (4 acres in the northwest quadrant of Stagecoach Run)we had requested be removed from the EDD in our meeting with Planning Dept members is 1993. The Stagecoach Run Homeowner's Association is the governing and controlling body of this subdivision as outlined in the Restrictive Covenants,State of North.CaroUna,Orange County,book 279,page 691 and book 280,page 1715. The Moren's do not have the right to exclude any lots from the Stagecoach Run development. The Restrictive Covenants require that each and every lot shall be used solely for residential single family dwellings. The Stagecoach Run Homeowner's Association is strongly opposed to the Orange County Land Use Plan Amendment which includes approximately 4 acres, Lot 4.45.2E, currently part of Stagecoach Run Development,in the EDD. We will defend our posistion to the fullest extent of the law. We beseech the Orange County Planning Board to odude Lot 4.452E from the EDD and include the 100 foot buffer originally proposed and agreed upon at our meeting with the Planning Dept. in May of 1993. Thank you for your consideration sincerely, Stephen K Riddle,president Stagemach Rua Homeowner's Assoc cc Mr.Ted Abernathy r � 14 May 14, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: The Orange County Comissioners FROM: Stagecoach Run Homeowners'Association RE: Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Z-1-93 During a discussion on Tuesday, May 12 with members of the Orange County Planning Dept., the Economic Development Board and members of the Stagecoach Run Homeowners Association,the homeowners proposed the following three amendments to Plan Z-1-93 (see attached map): 1) The finger of land,east of Stagecoach Run development,located south of the proposed Oakdale Drive extension,Tax Map 4 SE, Block A,Sec 3,be zoned for 40,000 square foot residential lots 2) That lots 1,2,3 and 4 on Tax Map 4 SE,Sec 3, Block A, located on Plat Book 27, page 5 be included in the Stagecoach Run development 3) That the area beyond the extreme southwest boundary of the Stagecoach Run development be zoned R-2 with a 100 foot buffer It is our understanding that the proposed Secondary Development Area and reenwa surrounding Stagecoach Run will remain in effect as presented to us on May 12, 1993 if these amendments are enacted. cc: Orange County Planning Dept. Economic Development Board ` OPOSEQ REZO .,� — EVELOP T " 7 ., � •,, �� " �'�,1 ',1 = 0 _ � _ 1, � w _' �• 1 � 1 s \/�� ` 11.1; \ • a,; � � � = s: � w-=\� '�. IL 1 7 lip EDD BUFFER a K Y w EQD . r.e EDV MM•C — IeLO•[ r 1 ,ftc ae `JJ co ENTERf — �,. e< - — 1,< .,�-••,'�—! STET — T.�. EQQ -• .nat.1 �� � O� Ins 1 a 1 K[It • � Y 1 � INCcu9E 4oTS�23,� 3. �/ �//i ZONE QEQ�I1sT R ' 4o aoa �? t R456k 71fv. wl?N roo•BuFF�R WITH too' BUFFL- R SER-12-1995 10:32 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO EROSINzRLAN P.02i09 Dp 1 16 a 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. CO_ ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 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. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. s. 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 96 Economic Development District (CoMrehensive Plan Amendment) b. Z-6-95 I-40/Old 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-40/01d 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 2-1995 10:33 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO EROSIN/PLAN P.03i09 17 a ° 2 a � p 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. SEP-12-1995 10:35 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO EROSIN/PLAN P.04i09 t1 � 3 18 CITIZEN CONWNTS Jo Soulier, President of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, clarified that the annexation of Cornwallis Hills is due 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 HiI15, 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 their lot in 1993 and was told that they were part of Section III and that 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 questions 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 Homeowner's Assoc. This letter is in the agenda on page 17. He asked that lots 1, 21 3, and 4 on Tax map 4 SE, Sec. 3, Block A, 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 revine that will serve as a buffer. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkictis to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning J NJ I � � 4 19 Board for a recommendation go�5be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, l VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. 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 west side of old 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 alDesignsetback Standardsnthatppreventethatg requirements that are a par t of the 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 . In 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 Bills. 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 rhquiroertionnwasCadded� addressing the were buffer known. When t p September 18 , 1995 Planning Board Minutes (draft) 20 AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (8/28/95) a. Amendments - Economic Development Districts ( 1) CP-1-95 I-40/Old NC 86 EDD (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) (2) Z-6-95 I-40/Old NC 86 EDD (Zoning Atlas Amendment) Presentation of these items by Mary Willis. These items are to consider expansion of the I-40/Old NC 86 Economic Development District to include the remaining portion of two parcels currently split by the district. On January 17, 1995, the Board of Commissioners approved a 720-acre EDD in the vicinity of the I-40/Old NC 86 interchange, and on June 26, 1995, revised the EDD boundary 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 between Primary and Secondary Development Areas. Allen and Sally Ann Addison own a 114-acre parcel in the northwest quadrant of the EDD. Approximately 80 acres of the Addison 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 property to the north is zoned R-3 and is currently undeveloped. It may be developed later as a part of Cornwallis Hills. Although steep slopes will create more development constraints on the west side of Cates Creek than the flatter area found on the east side, non-residential development could occur to the extent that the provisions of the EDD Design Manual allow. Residential development is less desirable and feasible due to the location of the area adjacent to both I-40 and the existing EDD. Access could be provided either by a frontage 21 road along I-40 or a single crossing of Cates Creek in a more central area of the property, depending on the proposed location of building sites. No access would be permitted through the residential area (Cornwallis Hills) to the north. In addition, residential development to the north would be protected by the 100-foot perimeter buffer. The Planning Staff recommends that the entirety of the parcel be included in the EDD and be designated as Primary Development Area. Hugh Moren, Jr. and Carolyn Moren own 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 a 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 entirety of his property be designated as Primary I. Four lots on the east side of the existing Stagecoach Run were included on the recorded plat for Section 3 of Stagecoach Run Subdivision. Those lots were never developed and were later combined for tax purposes. The Moren property now proposed to be added to the EDD consists of two of those four lots. During the initial EDD public hearing process and prior to creation of the I-40/NC 86 Work Group, the Planning Staff met with residents of Stagecoach Run and discussed issues related to the boundary of the EDD in the vicinity of the subdivision. The district, as initially proposed, was to include two tracts north of Stagecoach Run (Davis property and Nations Bank property) . Mr. Charles Davis indicated that he did not wish to be included in the EDD. The draft boundary was revised to exclude the two tracts, lessening the potential impact on Stagecoach Run. Secondary Development Area was proposed along the eastern boundary of the EDD to provide a buffer between the more intensive uses allowed in the Primary Area and the existing residential neighborhoods, including Stagecoach Run and the Woods Mobile Home Park. Upon application of the 100-foot perimeter 22 buffer, the developable portion of the additional area will be limited to one acre. Designation as Secondary Development Area and application of the standards of the EDD Design Manual would restrict activities to small-scale office uses and residential development with a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. Access to the property from the east through Stagecoach Run would be prohibited. The Planning Staff recommends that the remaining Moren property not be included in the EDD. At the public hearing, Jo Soulier, representing the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, as well as several Commissioners, expressed concern with the designation as primary development area rather than secondary development area and questioned the adequacy of the 100-foot perimeter buffer adjacent to the future development area of Cornwallis Hills. There were also questions concerning annexation of Cornwallis Hills. The existing Cornwallis Hills development is in the process of involuntary annexation. The annexation will become effective June 30, 1996. The owner of the undeveloped portion of Cornwallis Hills adjacent to the proposed EDD expansion has requested voluntary annexation. A public hearing is scheduled before the Hillsborough Town Board on October 9, 1995. Final action on the annexation could occur at that time. The property owner has indicated a preference to sell the entire 114 acres for single use. Designation of the entire property as Primary Development Area would provide more flexibility in the site design and create a greater potential for structures and parking areas to be sited where they would have the least impact on adjoining properties. Development of a single project could have less impact on surrounding properties than development of a number of individual uses. The portion of the Addison property on the west side of Cates Creek consists predominantly of a hillside with a slope of about 13%. In contrast, the portion of the property on the east side of Cates Creek is relatively flat. Two residents of the Stagecoach Run Subdivision spoke in opposition to inclusion of the remainder of the Moren property in the EDD, citing restrictive covenants which will be in effect 23 until 1997. The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed expansion of the Economic Development District to include the Addison property. Katz asked the zoning of the property located between the Addison property and Cornwallis Hills. Willis responded that the zoning was R-3, allowing 15,000 sq. ft. lots. Cornwallis Hills is zoned R-4. Howie asked what the zoning would be on the voluntary annexation. Willis responded that would be determined by the Town of Hillsborough. Katz asked why secondary was not applied to the Addison property since it would be a step-down between primary and residential. Willis responded that the applicant had requested primary. It was the opinion of the Planning Staff that primary would be appropriate due to the proximity to I-40 and the large size of the tract. Staff recognized, however, that valid arguments exist for primary and secondary. Barrows expressed concern with the number of property owners being affected by the Moren property since it was only one acre. Willis noted that Staff had the same concern, but the request was made by the owner so it was carried to public hearing. Waddell indicated that separate recommendations would be made for the two tracts. Reid commented that the property owner had asked for the entire tract to be included in the EDD. One of the concerns. at that time was the increase in the size of the district. He continued that he felt it did not make sense to split the property. Howie and Jobsis felt that the area being considered for annexation by Hillsborough would probably be a mix of residential and secondary. MOTION: Jobsis moved that the Addison property be incorporated into the EDD but be designated secondary. Seconded by Reid. Waddell stated that he felt it would be reasonable for the tract to be designated primary. He noted the concern of the residents of Cornwallis Hills regarding traffic. Thus, the 24 only access to the area in question would be through the primary designation. He felt it was not practical to access a secondary area through a primary. It would be more realistic to have the same zoning. He expressed concern with the topography noting that there would be residences whose access would be through a primary area. Jobsis noted that there would be the same problems on both sides of the road with access to secondary through a primary area. Walters stated that there is more of I-40 on the Addison tract and she felt there should be a service road to serve the businesses. She felt it should be primary with a service road rather than extension of the road that would cross the creek. Waddell noted that the ridge line would provide some buffering. Reid commented that the consideration of annexation suggests that the area will be developed and his preference would be the stepdown to secondary. Rosemond asked if the steep slopes would prohibit building. Willis responded that the slope is about 13% and is not enough to prohibit building. However, it would more costly to develop this area than the area that is flat. Rosemond continued expressing concern that building on the crest would be more dense. Willis responded noting the design considerations such as sight volume ratio and setbacks. She indicated that developers would probably not be able to build on the crest once those design considerations were applied because of its close proximity to the boundary of the tract. Katz noted that if the secondary designation is applied, there is the potential for office uses and residential including multi-family. He continued that the concerns being voiced indicated to him that this could be the creation of some lower cost residential development land which is badly needed in Orange County. Allison agreed with Katz and felt the buffering would take care of concerns that had been presented. He was in favor of primary designation. Howie expressed concern with a reduction of the 25 buffer. She also had concern with the potential for a huge -primary development adjacent to a residential area with only a 100-foot buffer. While she could understand the reasoning for primary, she felt the best long range plan for the area would be for a secondary designation. Barrows referred to the EDD Design Manual and requirements for impervious surface asking if the site volume ratio would determine the amount of development and open space. Willis responded that there is not a separate impervious surface requirement because the area is not in a protected watershed. The site volume ratio is the deciding factor just as it is in the other districts. Hoecke noted that the strongest argument in favor of the Staff recommendation is the fact that piece-meal development generally tends to lead to much more intensive land use than would occur on a single tract. There could also be more control and guidance on a single tract. Katz felt that the only thing driving the addition of this property to the EDD is that the same owner has land already in the EDD. He could not understand the rush to increase the size of the EDD when the need is not there yet. With those thoughts, he would like for the property to remain as it is currently. Rosemond noted that the use issue is what is at stake, not the owner. Hoecke responded that with the two separate pieces, it reduces the developers perception of flexibility. Rosemond continued that the density of use was the concern. Hoecke noted that he felt it would make it easier for the developer to produce a plan that would be more acceptable for the area. One comprehensive plan with a more balanced design. Using the map, Jobsis asked why a secondary development area had not been recommended next to Cornwallis Hills and why there was a larger buffer between the existing Primary area and Cornwallis Hills on the east side of Cates Creek. Willis responded that there is a larger buffer becasue of the location of Cates Creek. Barrows agreed that she would like to see a larger buffer adjacent to the future expansion of Cornwallis Hills west of Cates Creek. Jobsis continued that if it were to be primary a larger buffer should be required. 26 Reid stated that his view of development in the area would be office - and he felt a step-down should be put in place now. Howie suggested that a primary overlay would be appropriate because of the Special Use Permit process. Jobsis stated that if this area is designated secondary, it is unlikely that adjacent properties could apply for primary designation. Rosemond suggested that an increase in the buffer be added to the motion. It was determined that the motion should be voted on as it was made for secondary and other motions made as necessary. Allison asked if a primary with overlay would close down the potential for further Primary designations. Willis responded that the Primary overlay being referred to is Primary Development Area with additional restrictions. She continued that it was not the intent of Staff to look at a major expansion of the district. Staff felt it was more a "clean-up" item to deal with two specific pieces of property. Walters stated that the EDD had decreased in size from what had originally been proposed. Willis agreed. Katz stated he had heard no compelling argument for EDD expansion in terms of what is trying to be achieved by having a development district. The arguments have all been for the advantage of the land owner and/or developer. Walters noted that there had been a question from Commissioners at the public hearing about why the property was split rather than following property lines. Willis responded that the initial boundary was based on natural features with little emphasis on property lines. Barrows asked for clarification of the motion. The response was secondary EDD with a 100-foot buffer for the Addison property. Jobsis responded to Katz 's comment regarding expansion of the EDD. She noted that the original Economic Development group was trying to get a sizable area for development in the County at a logical place and this area was one of those places. She felt that the creek was probably the reason the district was stopped rather than going 27 to property lines. VOTE: 6 in favor. 5 opposed (Allison & Katz - reasons already stated, Brown - saw no need for expansion of EDD at this time, Hoecke - felt incentives should be provided for developers or it would become less of an Economic Development District, Walters - felt the undeveloped portion should be a buffer area. MOTION: Jobsis moved to accept the Planning Staff recommendation that the Moren property not be included in the EDD. Seconded by Katz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Rosemond made a motion to extend the buffer to match the northern line of the property. Seconded by Katz. Rosemond stated that this motion was made in response to Howie's concern about buffers and to be consistent with what has already been done on the property. Waddell noted that he was concerned about the buffering for Cornwallis Hills properties because there were pre-existing residential properties. Allison felt this would set a bad precedent and buffers would have to be determined for each subdivision when reviewed by the Planning Board. Price expressed concern with the lack of protection all along NC 86. VOTE: 5 in favor (Rosemond, Katz, Brown, Hoecke, Price) . 7 opposed (Barrows, Howie, Allison, Reid, Jobsis, Walters, Waddell) . Motion failed. (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