HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-07-2015 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 7, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 5 -a
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
and Zoning Atlas Amendments to Establish Two New Zoning Overlay Districts
in the Efland Area (No Additional Comments Accepted)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Ordinance Outline Form
(UDO & Zoning 2013 -09)
2. Statement of Consistency
3. Ordinance Amending Comprehensive
Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas
4. Excerpt of Minutes of February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing
5. Planning Board's Statement of
Consistency and March 4, 2015 Draft
Minutes Excerpt
6. Chart of Proposed Standards and
Resident Input/Suggestions
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III, 919 - 245 -2578
Craig Benedict, Director, 919 - 245 -2592
John Roberts, County Attorney, 919 - 245 -2318
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on Planning Director initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified
Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the
Efland area. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and
urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public
water and sewer systems.
As a reminder, the reconvening of this hearing is solely to receive the Planning Board
recommendation and any additional written evidence submitted since the February 24, 2014
Quarterly Public Hearing. This hearing is not intended to solicit additional input from the public.
While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item, comments from
the public shall not be solicited.
BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments were heard at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly
Public Hearing (materials available at: http:// oranpecountync .pov /occierks /140224.pdf and the
minutes excerpt is included as Attachment 4). The Amendment Outline Form in Attachment 1
contains additional information regarding these amendments and the process that has occurred
in reviewing the amendments.
2
Ninety -eight (98) parcels containing approximately 157 acres are located in the proposed Efland
Village Overlay District. Sixty -four (64) parcels containing approximately 275 acres are located
in the proposed Efland Interstate Overlay District. These figures include road and rail rights -of
way.
Attachment 2 contains the required Statement of Consistency indicating the proposed
amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Attachment 3 contains the
proposed amendments with changes shown in colored text. A chart showing each proposed
standard and the input/suggestions of an Efland area resident group is included in Attachment
6. All suggestions made by the resident group have been included in the amendments
contained in Attachment 3.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
contained in Attachment 2 and proposed amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
Planning Board Recommendation: At its March 4, 2015 regular meeting, the Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. The Planning Board's
signed Statement of Consistency and Minutes excerpt are included in Attachment 5.
Procedural Information: In accordance with Sections 2.3.10 and 2.8.8 of the Unified
Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in
writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be
considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also
submitted in writing. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the
BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 in Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board-
1 . Receive the Planning Board's recommendation;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments; and
4. Decide accordingly and /or adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within
Attachment 2, and the Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning
Atlas contained within Attachment 3, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2013 -09
Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map-
From -
To:
❑ Zoning Map: Add Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
From:
To:
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
Appendix F — Land Use and Zoning Matrix: Add tick marks to potentially allow
a "Special Zoning Overlay District" in all of the Transition land use
classifications.
❑ UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
❑UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
Dection(s): Text Amendments to: Sections 2.5.7 and 4.4
Add New Sections: 4.5, 4.6, 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
Renumber Existing Sections: 4.5, 4.6, and 6.6.3
Reference Changes in Existing Sections: 4.5.1, 6.8.12, and 7.13.2.
❑ Other:
e
1. Purpose /Mission
To consider Comprehensive Plan, UDO, and Zoning Atlas amendments to establish
two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland Area. The proposal presented at the
3
1
0
February 2014 quarterly public hearing (QPH) was the staff recommended version of
the text amendment considered by the BOCC at its February 5, 2013 meeting but it
was not adopted. Agenda materials from the February 5, 2013 meeting can be
viewed at: http:// www. oranpecountync .povfocclerksf130205.pdf. The version to be
considered at the April 7, 2015 BOCC meeting contains changes from the version
presented at the February 2014 QPH (see Attachment 3).
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based
upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning
Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. The following information is offered:
The proposed zoning overlay districts are consistent with the recommendations made
in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan
(http: / /oranpecountync.pov /planning /documentsf flandPlanA OPT 0 270 .pdf)
which called for design standards in the "core area" of Efland. The primary purpose
of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and urban style of development
in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water and sewer
systems. The affected area is also designated as a Commercial - Industrial Transition
Activity Node ( CITAN) on the County's Future Land Use Map. It is pertinent to note
that some of the zoning districts allowed in a CITAN land use classification allow
residential uses "by right" (e.g., residential uses, including single family residential,
are allowed in the County's commercial zoning districts).
The proposed overlay districts requirements have been written so that the
requirements will not pertain to existing or new single - family detached residential
uses. New non - single - family residential uses (e.g., duplexes, multi - family) and new
non - residential uses proposed in the overlay districts will be required to conform to
the requirements of the overlay districts. Existing uses are not required to come into
conformance with the new requirements as long as they continue to operate in the
manner in which they are currently operating. The new requirements pertain to new
development or substantially modified existing development.
Because County development regulations pertain primarily to areas that are not
intended to be served by public and water systems, which tends to result in larger lot
sizes and lower density, some of the County's regulations are not suitable for areas
intended to have denser or more intensive development on smaller lots. For
example, some of the land use buffer requirement in Section 6.8 of the UDO would
be infeasible to meet on a parcel of property that is less than 100 feet in width and
has an area measurement typically referred to in square feet rather than in acres.
However, in areas of the county slated for denser development than the outlying rural
areas, smaller sized lots with buildings closer together is to be expected. Therefore,
development regulations must be modified to reflect these physical differences while
continuing to strive for quality development. The proposed overlay districts endeavor
to encourage development while ensuring quality.
Development will still be required to meet the impervious surface limitations
2
5
contained in Section 4.2 of the UDO. Because the impervious surface limitations
stem from State statutes /rules, modifications to the allowable percentages are not
permitted except as allowed in Section 4.2.8.
At the February 2014 QPH, the BOCC directed staff to hold a public information
meeting (PIM) in the community and the public hearing was adjourned to September
8, 2014. Planning staff held a PIM on April 7, 2014 which was attended by
approximately 33 residents. Meeting attendees were encouraged to contact staff if
they wanted to meet one -on -one with staff or in small groups to further discuss the
proposed overlay districts.
A group of community members contacted Planning staff in August 2014 and
Planning staff met with a group of residents eight times from August 2014 through
January 2015. During this time, the public hearing was continued to December 1,
2014 and then again to April 7, 2015. The resident group provided numerous
suggestions for changes to the proposed overlay district standards (see Attachment 5
for a chart depicting the suggestions) and these suggested changes have been
incorporated into the UDO amendments contained in Attachment 3.
The resident group's input and suggestions are primarily geared toward "softening"
language to allow for more flexibility in enforcing the standards (e.g., change "shall"
to "should "). Additionally, some suggestions relate to clarifying the standard while in
other cases the resident group was not in favor of having a standard at all (for
example, prohibiting the use of chain link fencing, regulating the orientation of
buildings on sites, or regulating the location of doorways on a building).
The Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group (IFG), an advisory
board appointed by the BOCC, met on February 2, 2015 to review and discuss the
resident group's suggestions. Approximately 10 Efland area residents also attended
the IFG meeting which allowed the IFG to hear directly from the residents who made
the suggested changes to the standards. After lengthy discussion, the IFG indicated
it is comfortable with and concurs with the changes the resident group suggested.
Planning staff held a second PIM on February 23, 2015. The meeting has originally
been scheduled for February 18, 2015 but inclement weather conditions necessitated
postponement of the meeting. Approximately 15 people attended the meeting and
the question /comment period after staff's presentation was light with no substantive
comments made.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Objective LU -1.1.
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non -
residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation
commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e.
water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding
areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed -use zoning districts where
adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development
Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW -2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the
revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential
uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development
pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are
planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses
on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6.
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing
policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green building
approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also Cultural
Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED -4.1.)
4. New Statutes and Rules
Not applicable
R
11
7
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME /MILESTONES /DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
June 19, 2012 (last year's proposal)
October 15, 2013 (current proposal)
b. Quarterly Public Hearin
February 24, 2014 (current proposal)
The former proposal was heard at the November 19, 2012 joint public hearing.
Meeting Minutes and a summary of the questions /comments made at the
November 2012 public hearing are part of the February 5, 2013 meeting materials
(httD-//www.oranaecountvnc.aov/occierks/1 30205. odf).
c. BOCC Uadates /Checkpoints
February 4, 2014 — approval of legal ad
September 8, 2014 — extended public hearing
December 1, 2014 — extended public hearing
January 12 & 22, 2015 — e -mails sent to BOCC regarding upcoming
Implementation Focus Group & public information meetings
February 4, 2015- Update on Planning Board agenda (BOCC receives link to
materials)
March 4, 2015 — Planning Board recommendation (BOCC receives link to
materials)
Aaril 7. 2015 — BOCC decision
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission /Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
November 6, 2013 — special presentation on NC counties ability to
provide /maintain sidewalks (agenda materials are available
at: http: / /www.oranecountync.ov /planning /documents /P Agenda ov2013-
web. df. minutes are available
at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/planning/doc ments/1 1613PBMinut es.pdf)
February 4, 2015 — update on the status of the proposed overlay districts
March 4, 2015 - recommendation
b. Advisory Boards:
The EMSAP Implementation Focus
Group reviewed and commented on the
proposed overlay districts as part of the
prior process. Staff did not suggest that
the Group be reconvened prior to the
February 2014 QPH since significant
changes to the former work were not
being proposed.
c. Local Government Review:
Not applicable
The EMSAP IFG met on February 2,
2015 to review and discuss the
changes suggested by a group of
Efland area residents. The IFG
concurred with the resident group's
suggestions.
d. Notice Requirements
February 2014 QPH
Notices to affected and adjacent property owners were mailed on February 7,
2014. A total of 110 letters were mailed to affected property owners and 77
postcards were mailed to adjacent property owners.
Legal advertisements were run in The Herald Sun and the News of Orange on
February 12 and 19.
25 notification signs were posted in strategic areas of the affected area on
February 11, 2014. The signs were posted 3 days before the "deadline date" due
to forecasts for snow and ice.
April 7, 2014 PIM
Courtesy postcards were mailed on March 18, 2014 to over 100 affected property
owners and ten signs were posted in the affected area.
February 18, 2015 PIM (inclement weather necessitated the postponement of the
meeting to February 23)
Courtesy postcards were mailed on February 4, 2015 to over 100 affected
property owners and to people who attended the April 7, 2014 PIM. Additionally,
ten signs were posted in the affected area. An e-mail was sent on February 18th
to Efland area residents for whom staff has e-mail addresses and a press release
was written by the Public Affairs office advising the public of the postponement.
e. Outreach:
R
W
® General Public - Because significant changes to the prior materials were not
being proposed, Planning staff did not suggest a separate
public meeting for these amendments in the Amendment
Outline /Process Form that was approved by the BOCC on
October 15, 2013.
An "open house" style public information meeting for the
prior proposal was held on November 14, 2012 at the
Efland- Cheeks Community Center. Ten people and one
BOCC member attended the meeting.
A public information meeting was held on April 7, 2014 at
Efland- Cheeks Elementary Schools. Approximately 33
people attended this meeting.
A group of Efland area residents asked Planning staff to
meet with them to discuss the proposed overlay districts.
From August 2014 through January 2015, staff met with a
group of residents eight times. 8 -10 residents attended all or
most of the meetings and there were several other people
who attended less frequently.
A second public information meeting was held on February
23, 2015 (postponed from original date of February 18 due
to inclement weather conditions). Approximately 15 people
attended this meeting.
® Small Area Because significant changes to the prior materials were not
Plan being proposed, Planning staff did not suggest additional
Workgroup: meetings in the Amendment Outline /Process Form that was
approved by the BOCC on October 15, 2013.
As part of the prior proposal, the EMSAP IFG met on August
29, 2012 to review and comment on the proposed overlay
districts. The group decided that additional meetings were
not necessary as the proposed overlay districts were
consistent with the intent of the adopted EMSAP.
The IFG met on February 2, 2015 to review and discuss
suggestions made by a group of Efland area residents
regarding changes to the proposed standards. The IFG
concurred with the suggested changes.
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
This project required a substantial amount of Planning staff time to complete and was
accomplished by existing staff. The legal advertisements, notification mailings, and
signs were paid using Planning Department funds budgeted for these purposes.
7
10
Adoption of the two new zoning overlay districts is not expected to impact County
funding needs.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Adoption of the amendments will mean that new development (other than detached
single family houses) in the affected area will be subject to the requirements of the
zoning overlay district. In some cases, such as required buffering, this is a lessening of
existing regulations to reflect the smaller sized lots that exist in the affected area. In
other instances, such as shared driveway access requirements, the proposed
regulations are slightly more restrictive than existing regulations.
The regulation requirements are consistent with the recommendations contained in the
adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan and are being proposed in order to encourage
a more urban style of development in the proposed Efland Interstate Overlay District and
a more urban village style of development in the proposed Efland Village Overlay District
while also promoting good planning /development practices and quality development.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
See Attachment 3.
Primary Staff Contact:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III
(919) 245 -2578
pholtz @orangecountync.gov
11
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND /OR
OTHER ADOPTED COUNTY PLANS
Orange County has initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas affecting approximately 432 acres located in the Efland area of
the county. These amendments establish two new zoning overlay districts in the area.
The Board of County Commissioners finds:
• The requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been
deemed complete, and
• Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the North
Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds documentation within the record denoting that
the rezoning is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and /or other
adopted County plans.
The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it.
• Supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non - residential
development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and
community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer,
high -speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected
natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable
densities and creating new mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services
are available.
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a clustered,
walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the
revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential
uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development
pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are
planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on
the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing
policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green building
12
approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also Cultural
Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED -4.1.)
• Further implements the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted June 27, 2006.
The amendments are reasonable and in the public interest because.
• The proposed amendments establish overlay districts that modify existing development
regulations to reflect that this is an area of the county with smaller lots and which is
served, or scheduled to be served, with water and sewer lines. Existing development
regulations, particularly buffer and setback requirements, can make development difficult
to achieve on smaller sized lots.
• The proposed amendments achieve a reasonable balance of attempting to encourage
high quality development while protecting existing land uses and community character.
• The proposed amendments encourage development in an area of the county designated
as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node on the Future Land Use Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed amendments promote public health, safety, and general welfare by
furthering the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including further
implementation of the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (adopted June 27, 2006).
The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this Statement of Consistency and
findings expressed herein.
Earl McKee, Chair Date
13
Ordinance #: ORD- 2015 -006 Attachment 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS
WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan,
Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas, as established in Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.7
of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in order to establish two new
zoning overlay districts and accompanying regulations in an area of the county known as
Efland, and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is necessary
to promote implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the amendments will carry out the intent
and purpose of the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan and is internally consistent with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public
transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting
infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high -speed internet access, streets, and
sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new
mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See
also Economic Development Objectives ED -2.1, ED -2.3, ED -2.10, and Water
and Wastewater Objective WW -2.)
Objective LU -3.7:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a
clustered, walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through
the revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian
friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where
public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote
higher intensity and high density uses on the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve
existing policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green
building approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also
Cultural Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED-
4.1.)
and
14
WHEREAS, the parcels over which a zoning overlay district will be placed are depicted on the
map in the attached pages and are identified as follows:
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844776873
1.15
9844990565
9.58
9844781300
0.65 of 0.99
acre parcel
9844995085
4.18 of 4.64
acre parcel
9844781766
2.17
9844999100
0.77 of 1.93
acre parcel
9844783301
1
9854074868
0.25
9844783725
2.14
9854074909
0.44
9844784391
0.85
9854074954
0.26
9844785743
4.02
9854076999
0.27
9844786242
0.46
9854077979
0.28
9844786326
0.08
9854078927
0.04
9844787303
0.23
9854078931
0.22
9844788137
3.64
9854078939
0.02
9844788631
2.01
9854078949
0.28
9844788940
1.86
9854078996
0.24
9844799385
4.69
9854079976
0.27
9844870924
2.43
9854080094
1.77
9844874973
0.4
9854080850
1.07
9844880661
0.98
9854081212
0.51
9844880970
0.88
9854081353
0.82
9844881230
1.35
9854081693
1.66
9844882391
1.15
9854081916
0.52
9844882528
1.13
9854083138
0.15
9844883012
1.15
9854083232
0.15
9844883596
1.34
9854083321
0.51
9844883951
2.39
9854083835
1.12
9844884079
0.37
9854084052
0.15
9844884284
0.38
9854084057
0.16
9844884355
0.33
9854084115
0.46
9844886648
1.14
9854084152
0.15
9844886973
1.42
9854084252
0.46
9844887024
2.03
9854084353
0.3
9844887342
0.97
9854084605
1.59
9844892385
3.51
9854086528
0.47
9844893637
2.2
9854087250
2.74
9844896163
1.3
9854088807
0.40 of 0.93
acre parcel
15
Efland Village Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844896477
3.48
9854089170
0.44
9844972913
0.59
9854089250
0.52
9844973943
0.24
9854172953
0.34
9844974903
0.24
9854173499
0.99
9844974974
0.36
9854175987
0.82
9844976945
1.37
9854180304
0.98
9844980845
9.3
9854181001
0.94
9844981114
5.8
9854184217
7.25
9844985234
1.83
9854189274
1
9844987242
1.53
9854272951
1.99
9844987792
1.77
9854274935
0.75
9844988083
1.27
9854280393
0.48
9844988391
0.74
9854281107
0.43
9844988652
0.92
9854282236
0.68
9844988811
0.35
9854283244
1.84
Efland
Interstate
Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844763221
0.79
acre
of 5.5
parcel
9844966325
0.04
9844766443
1.82 of 5.02
acre parcel
9844970156
0.53
9844768882
5.64
9844970237
0.46
9844778312
5.7
9844970317
0.66
9844854839
1.29
9844970543
0.33
9844861573
16.78
9844971003
0.74
9844865155
2.72
9844972545
1.6
9844867573
12.67
9844973039
1.36
9844873438
2.67
9844973217
0.49
9844873578
0.09
9844973308
0.55
9844877368
3.64
9844975018
1.21
9844879067
0.71
9844975240
0.39
9844879543
0.68
9844975300
0.4
9844960493
0.44
9844975309
0.48
9844960563
0.59
9844975514
0.94
9844960792
1.56
9844978308
3.58
9844961126
1.63
9854051970
4.58
9844963059
0.89
9854070389
3.04
9844963252
0.38
9854073630
0.52
9844963354
0.56
9854074304
6.1
9844963540
0.57
9854076601
0.51
9844963644
0.48
9854077569
0.51
9844963748
0.57
9854077601
0.51
9844965134
1.12
9854078611
0.51
Efland
Interstate
Overlay District
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
PIN
Approximate
Acreage
9844965259
0.31
9854079412
2.48
9844965336
0.41
9854161576
90.73
9844965437
0.34
9854171451
3.68
9844965621
0.99
9854178549
2.37
9844965735
0.32
9854272077
12.89
9844965832
0.32
9854276296
2.22
9844966039
0.51
9854361253
2.02
9844966320
0.04
9854466706
8.92 of
187.77 acre
parcel
FIT10I
16
WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 and 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed amendments to be reasonably necessary to
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas are hereby amended
as shown on the attached pages.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published
ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by
Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2015.
I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on 7 2015 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of
MGM
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
17
iN
Amendment Package for Two Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts
in the Efland Area
Notes
The pages that follow contain the amendments necessary to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) text, Zoning Atlas, and Comprehensive Plan text to adopt two new zoning
overlay districts in the Efland area.
The following colors /text effects are used:
• Red Text: Proposed additions /changes to existing text, presented at the February 2014
quarterly public hearing.
• Green Text: Changes suggested after the February 2014 quarterly public hearing by a
group of Efland Area residents who worked with Planning staff to revise the proposal.
• Green Strikethre g Text: Former proposed additions /changes to the existing text that
have been suggested for deletion after the February 2014 quarterly public hearing by a
group of Efland Area residents who worked with Planning staff to revise the proposal.
• ')ranae Te), : Changes made in late March 2015 in response to review by the County
Attorney's office or to correct typographical errors found in final proofing.
Many of the proposed changes utilize footnotes to provide a brief explanation as to rationale.
Users are reminded that these excerpts are part of a much larger document (the UDO) that
regulates land use and development in Orange County. The full UDO is available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Ordinances.asp
The adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan is also available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /admin EM SAP.asp
The Comprehensive Plan is available on -line
at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /compre cpupdate.asp
Some text on the following pages has a large "X" through it to denote that these sections are
not part of the amendments under consideration. The text is shown only because in the full
UDO it is on the same page as text proposed for amendment. Text with a large "X" is not
proposed for deletion; proposed deletions are shown in red or green c+rikethre nh text.
As was noted in the legal advertisement for this proposal, existing sections 4.5 and 4.6 will be
renumbered to 4.7 and 4.8, respectively. Additionally, existing Section 6.6.3 will be
renumbered to 6.6.5. Reference updates to Sections 6.8.12 and 7.13.2 are also included in
this packet.
Article 2: Procedures 19
Section 2.5: Site Plan Review
under G.S. 153A- 344.1. Unless terminated at an earlier date, the zoning right all be
valid until "
(B) The e specific development plan for a project which requires the partition of an
Envir=N�11 l Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with Sec ' n 6.16 of this Ordinance
shall e a r oved until the EIS has been made avails for public review, and has
been presented to e Board of County Commissione in accordance with Section 2.23
of this Ordinance.
2.5.6 Guarantee of Improvements
(A) If a guarantee of improvements requir as a condition of site plan approval, the
applicant shall provide Orqpq§ County with a curity bond, escrow agreement, or
irrevocable letter of cr ' by an approved institute
(B) The guarantee II be effective for 12 months and shall ude the cost of the
improvem plus 10 %.
(C) Prio issuance of any site plan approval, the guarantee shall be ap ved by the
ounty Attorney.
If a guarantee is not submitted, the developer must install all required improveme
the satisfaction of the County prior to issuance of the zoning compliance permit.
2.5.7 Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts
(A) Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD), no
construction activity shall begin nor shall any conversion of existing single - family
residence to a non - residential land use, excavation, soil removal, grading or
disturbance of vegetation including trees, land disturbing activity associated with
a non - residential land use, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Sections 2.4 and of this Ordinance.
(B) Efland Interstate Overlay District2
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin
nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use
subject to the requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan
has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance
with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(C) Efland Village Overlay District
(1) Approval Requirements
Staff suggests this reference be removed so that the potential for omissions in future amendments is minimized.
Section 2.5.3 already requires compliance with Article 6 (and other articles).
2 The two additions here are formalities to ensure grading and /or construction does not commence prior to the
issuance of necessary permits.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -12
Article 2: Procedures 20
Section 2.6: Floodplain Development Permit and Certificate Requirements
Within the Efland Village Overlay District, no construction activity shall begin nor
shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of vegetation,
including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected for any use subject to the
requirements of the overlay district until such time as a site plan has been
approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in accordance with this
Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
(D) Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District3
(1) Approval Requirements
Within the Major Transportation Corridor District, no construction activity shall
begin nor shall any excavation, soil removal, filling, grading or disturbance of
vegetation, including trees, be commenced, nor any sign erected until such time
as a site plan has been approved and a permit issued by the Planning Director in
accordance with this Section and Section 2.4 of this Ordinance.
.8 Additional Requirements for Economic Development Districts
(A) Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants shall meet ith
representatives of the Planning and Inspections, and Economic Development
Departments to identify policies, procedures, regulations, and fees applicabl to
development proposals.
(B) y proposed subdivision in an Economic Development District shall f low the approval
pro dures as specified in Section 2.16.
(C) In addi n to the submittal requirements contained /thisSecti , a complete application
shall also dude: (1) Buil ds elevation drawings for each propoand
(2) A minimu of two drawings of sections thrustrating existing and
proposed gr es, as well as the relationshi te features.
2.6.1 Requirements for Special Flood Hazarb,
day District
All projects proposing the development of pONrty located within the Special Flood Hazard Area
Overlay District shall be required, regard! ss of e proposed land use, to submit a site plan
prepared by a registered engineer, Ian cape arch ct, or land surveyor in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2.5.
2.6.2 Plans and Application Re
Application for a flood plain evelopment permit shall be made the Floodplain Administrator on
forms furnished by the P nning Department prior to any develop nt activities proposed to be
located within flood pr a areas.
The following ite s/ information shall be presented to the Floodplain Admi \to, apply for a
floodplain dev opment permit:
(A) A of plan drawn to scale which shall include, but shall not be limiollowing
pecific details of the proposed floodplain development:
(1) The nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area of \
development/disturbance; existing and proposed structures, driveways, u
systems, grading /pavement areas, fill materials, storage areas, drainage
facilities, and other development;
s This subsection is currently (B).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 2 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 21
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
4.3.6 Com
No structure or land shall hereafter be to vented, altered, or developed,
improved, or mainta ay without full compliance with the er Iations
o e SFHA and other applicable regulations.
4.4.1 Intent
(A) The Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) is established to
provide for compatibility of uses between existing single - family residential land uses and
non - residential developments along a designated portion of Highway 70 within Cheeks
Township.
(B) The Highway 70 corridor covered under this overlay district is part of the Efland Mebane
Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27, 2006,
which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including allowing
for additional non - residential development along Highway 70.
(C) The regulations contained in this Ordinance are designed to preserve and enhance the
character of the community while allowing for mixed, but compatible, land uses by
permitting logical expansion of existing non - residential developments throughout the
corridor.
(D) It is the intent of this overlay district to encourage land use patterns that will:
(1) Protect existing single - family residential land uses,
(2) Protect the character of the area,
(3) Enhance property values,
(4) Maintain the economic viability and carrying capacity of the corridor,
(5) Preserve open vistas whenever possible,
(6) Encourage small businesses to locate in appropriate areas, and
(7) Continue to promote and provide for the general welfare of local citizens and
property owners.
(E) Standards are established in Section 6.6.2 to allow for the development of additional non-
residential land uses within the ECOD in order to maintain and enhance the economic
vitality of the area while protecting the less intensive mixture of existing residential land
uses
4.4.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for properties adjacent to Highway 70 within Cheeks Township of
Orange County in accordance with the boundaries shown 4 on the
Orange County Zoning Atlas.
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to ECOD apply to all non - residential land
uses and developments within the Highway 70 Overlay District except for existing non-
residential land uses located within previously established general commercial or Existing
Commercial -5 (EC -5) zoning districts.
4 Rather than populating the UDO with maps that are redundant to the Zoning Atlas (which is where overlay districts
must be shown), staff is suggesting that the boundaries of overlay districts be maintained only on the Zoning Atlas.
Staff also believes this may decrease any future problems if overlay district boundaries were ever changed (e.g.,
someone forgetting or not realizing that both a text amendment to the UDO and a Zoning Atlas amendment are
necessary).
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -12
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 22
Section 4.4: Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
SI
—L
1■
... . =� ..�:
�_
man
F1 P1111.
am
I '
.dr■ -�
[Note to be removed if adopted: Map to be deleted from UDO and boundary to be shown only on Zoning
Atlas]
4.4.3 Non - residential Development
Non - residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following and
shall be in accordance with the standards contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2:
(A) Pre - designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and
(B) Along Highway 70 as depicted on the Orange County Zoning Atlas.
4.4.4 Permitted Uses
Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows:
(A) Non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial area shall adhere to
the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial - 2 (NC -2)
zoning district as contained within Section 5.2 of this Ordinance.
(B) Non - residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to
professional office and similar institutional uses and shall abide by the standards
contained in this Section and Section 6.6.2.
(C) No more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial
areas shall be permitted for non - residential uses.
(1) This figure shall be calculated by the sum of the street frontage of lots used for
non - residential purposes compared to the total street frontage of all lots on both
sides of the roadway outside of the pre- designated commercial areas along the
overlay district corridor.
(2) The 40% limitation includes non - residential uses conducted within new or
converted /rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance.
4.4.5 Lot and Use Requirements for Non - Residential Development
In addition to the Development Standards in Section 6.6.2, the following lot and use requirements
shall apply to all applicable non - residential development within the pre- designated commercial
areas and along the Highway 70 corridor:
(A) Minimum Lot Width
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -13
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 23
Section 4.5: Efland Interstate4F
The minimum lot width for all lots created after December 3, 2007 shall be 130 feet,
unless the lot is served by public sewer and shared ingress /egress in which case the
minimum lot width shall be 75 feet.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) The setbacks and building heights for all structures, regardless of the proposed
land use, shall conform to the setbacks of the underlying zoning district.
(2) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 5-2.2(A) 6.2.2(A)5, in no case shall building height exceed 35 feet.
(3) Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right -
of -way as designated in the Orange County TheFeughfaFe °IaR Comprehensive
Transportation Plan6.
(C) Floor Area Ratio
(1) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses in the pre- designated
commercial area shall be 0.200 with a maximum building square footage total of
20,000 square feet.
(2) The maximum floor area ratio for non - residential uses along the Highway 70
Corridor shall be 0.100 with a maximum building square footage total of 6,000
square feet.
(D) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of non - residential uses unless a
demonstrated need can be shown.
(2) Within the pre- designated commercial area, vinyl- coated chain link fencing shall
be permitted for non - residential uses.
(3) Outside of the pre- designated commercial area but within the boundaries of the
Highway 70 Overlay District, chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted
for non - residential uses.
(E) Qi4cirin Ste Fa a of Materials
(3) This nrnhihitinn rJno n4 innli 1rJo the rono nf�crtai ihoro Oho nrimoni i
4.5.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Interstate Overlay District is established to provide for a more urban style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
s Correct reference is 6.2.2(A)
6 There has been a change in the name the plans the NC Department of Transportation uses. This change is only to
update the name. Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being
developed, it has not yet been adopted.
Suggest deleting this because it also appears in Section 6.6.2(B)
s Existing Section 4.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to become Section 4.7 and existing
Section 4.6(Stoney Creek Basin) has been renumber to become Section 4.8. Because of this renumbering, an
reference is Section 7.13.2 will also be updated.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -14
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 24
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Interstate Overlay District is part of the
Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
June 27, 2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area,
including allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this
overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.3 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) 9
4.5.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located south of the railroad tracks and north of
Interstate 85/40 in the general vicinity of Mount Willing Road in accordance with the
boundaries shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 10
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Interstate Overlay District
apply to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.5.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Interstate Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Minimum Setbacks
(1) The minimum side and rear setback shall be w#4 the width of the required
buffer in 6.6.3(B) or the setback required in Article 3 or Section 6.2.8, whichever
is less, except as provided in (a).12
(a) For parcels subject to the setback and yard requirements in Section
4.7.4, the requirements of said Section shall apply. 13
4.6.1 Intent
(A) The Efland Village Overlay District is established to provide for an urban village style of
development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public water
and sewer systems.
9 This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for the
two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
10 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
" Typographical error corrected in late March 2015.
12 A lessening of setbacks is suggested in order to allow for a more urban style of development (e.g., building closer
together and/or more density).
13 Clearly stating that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) requirements will still apply.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -15
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 25
Section 4.6: Efland Village
(B) The geographic area covered by the Efland Village Overlay District is part of the Efland -
Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 27,
2006, which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including
allowing for additional non - residential and residential development in this overlay district.
(C) Standards are established in Section 6.6.4 in order to maintain and enhance the
economic vitality of the area while protecting existing land uses. Unless otherwise stated,
the standards are in addition to standards contained in this Ordinance, including Sections
6.2 (Lot and Building Standards), 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards) and 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) 13
4.6.2 Applicability
(A) This district is intended for all properties located north of the railroad tracks in a
geographic area commonly referred to as "Efland" in accordance with the boundaries
shown on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. 14
(B) The requirements of this Ordinance pertaining to the Efland Village Overlay District apply
to all residential and non - residential land uses and developments in the designated
district except for detached single - family residential land uses and developments.
4.6.3 Permitted Uses and Dimensional and Ratio Standards
(A) Within the Efland Village Overlay District, uses of land and structures and Dimensional
and Ratio Standards are those permitted in the underlying zoning district or districts. All
other requirements for the use of land and structures contained in this Ordinance shall be
met unless otherwise provided.
(B) Setbacks and Building Height
(1) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the minimum front yard setback
for properties fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be 30 -feet. 15
(2) In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the front yard setback for parcels
located in the overlay district but not fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be in
keeping with the front setback provided by adjacent uses. 16
(3) The minimum side and rear setback shall be the width of the required Land Use
Buffer (Section 6.8.6) or the setback required in Article 3, whichever is less, but
in no case shall be less than 10-feet. 17
13 This Section is currently 6.6.3 but will be renumbered to 6.6.5 as part of this amendment because Standards for
the two proposed new overlay districts will be inserted into the UDO as 6.6.3 and 6.6.4.
14 The geographic area is also the area currently designated as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node
(CITAN) on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff believes it is prudent to
reference only the Zoning Atlas for the boundary in case the boundaries of the CITAN are ever changed. This is
because the boundaries of the zoning overlay district would not necessarily change just because a land use category
boundary change is made; a change to the zoning overlay district boundary will require an amendment to the Zoning
Atlas.
15 This setback is suggested in order to have a more uniform setback along Highway 70 while providing enough of a
setback to accommodate any future widening of the road. (No widening of the road is currently planned, but it is
good planning practice to attempt to ensure for future possibilities).
16 This is suggested in order to have a more uniform building line along a street where there could be more of a
11 patchworl7' of zoning districts that have different front setback requirements.
17 A lessening of setback requirements is suggested in order to allow for a more urban village style — building closer
together and/or more density than is currently permitted.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -16
4.7.
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 26
Section 4.7: Major Transportation Corridor
(4)
Qaf-l.qa� as des 0 gnated on the Grange County Comprehensive Transportation
1
(CJ) Although a nnrtinn of the Cfland Villono GVGFlay rlistrint is yithin the Maier
Transnortation (`orrideF (MT-G) QVGFlay Distrint tha rani 1iramants of the SATG
k4lTTG_. The rani 1iramant8 of Canting 6-.12.12(B)(9) (9# PFGPROSG nom aaI Signs&
20
(6) If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with
Section 6.2.2(A), in no case shall building height exceed 40 feet.21
(C) Yard Encroachments
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of lots, other than those used fnr
used for non - residential uses unless
a demonstrated need can be shown .2
(2) Chale IinL or similar fencing shall not he permitted fnr i ices other than single_
Fences located in the front yard of residential uses,
other than single - family detached dwellings, shall be a maximum of five feet in
height ' i � as maasrart from the normal finishart gFada in the vicinity of the fauna
hSA. 23
(A) It 9 ntent of Orange County to protect and enhance those natural d environmental
features w i nstitute important physical, aesthetic, recrea and economic
assets through the p on of special controls of pub' d private development along
major transportation corridors.
(B) The Board of County Commission nds fact that:
(1) Major transpo . n corridors serve a key functi the orderly development of
Oran unty as major traffic movers, as well as serve trances to Orange
unty from outside the area.
19 Users should note the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is currently being developed; it has not
yet been adopted. The Efland Area resident group has suggested that if /when a Comprehensive Transportation Plan
the includes future right -of -way designation is adopted, this type of requirement can be added to the regulations at
that time. Until such time, the proposed language is premature.
20 The County Attorney's office has advised Planning staff to remove this statement. It was included primarily for
informational purposes to help people who are located within both the MTC overlay district and the Efland Village
overlay district know they did not have to research the requirements of the MTC overlay district since only one part
of the existing requirements (prohibition of off premise commercial signs) apply to the properties located in both
districts.
21 Some of the zoning districts that could be applied in a CITAN allow buildings taller than 40 feet. A building
height limitation of 40 -feet is suggested in order to maintain an urban village character.
22 The fencing regulations [(1) and (2)] are in keeping with the ECOD regulations in order to discourage unaesthetic
fencing in the front yards of properties. The Efland Area Resident Group has suggested that fences should be
allowed in the front yard of duplex and multi - family uses but should be limited to 5 -feet in height.
2s The Efland Area Resident Group has suggested that chain link fencing should be allowed as a fence type, so the
proposed standard is shown as proposed for deletion. The new language in (2) is to achieve the 5 -foot height
restriction mention in footnote 21. The text in orange strikethrough was suggested for deletion by the County
Attorney's office in late March 2015.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -17
Article 4: Overlay Zoning Districts 27
Section 4.7: Major Transportation Corridor
(3) In addition, the ability of different areas of the County to attract and
accommodate different types of development depends on the capacity of the
thoroughfare system and the character and quality of development along major
corridors.
(C) The Major Transportation Corridor district is intended to enhance the attractiveness and
orderly development of land adjacent to major transportation facilities through the
provision of a set of development standards and regulations for application to public and
private development of land adjacent to these corridors. The major transportation
corridors include the interstate system as designated in the adopted Comprehensive
Section Plan.
reference (D) The district establishes development standards (see Section 6.6.36.6.5) and a site plan
update review process for development within the district. (See Section 2.5).
4.7.2 Applicability
(A) The Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) district is established as a district which
overlays other zoning districts established in this Ordinance. The new use of any land or
any new structure within the MTC district shall comply with the use regulations applicable
to the underlying zoning district as well as the requirements of the MTC district. ,
The provisions, requirements and restrictions of this district shall not apply to the use f
land within the district for single family or two - family dwellings or to any building or
structure existing prior to the creation of this district unless it is structurally alter to the
e ent of increasing the floor area by 50% or more or is enlarged to any degr to occupy
a va nt lot.
(C) This dis N t shall be applied along any interstate highway in the Coun designated in the
adopted C prehensive Plan as such and to any proposed interst highway
designated in e adopted Comprehensive Plan as such.
(D) The minimum lengX of the district shall be a continuous dist ce along the thoroughfare
within the County's j (sdiction and outside of the extrater pifbrial planning jurisdictions of
the Towns of Hillsborou , Chapel Hill, and Carrboro the City of Mebane.
(E) The minimum width of the d rict is 1,250 feet fro e edge of the right -of -way
measured along a line which is erpendicular to e edge of the right -of -way on each side
of the roadway, except at intersta interchan s where the District shall extend 2,500
feet from the right -of -way on each s1 of t intersecting road.
4.7.3 Permitted Uses
Within the Major Transportation Corridor TC) Distric Nses of land and structures are those
permitted in the underlying zoning dist Kt or districts. All er requirements for the use of land
and structures contained in this OrdK ance shall be met unle otherwise provided.
4.7.4 Building Setback and Yard �4quirements
Building setback and req i ed yard areas for the overlay district are as \propert
(A) The front yar equirement shall be 100 feet from the edge of tay of an
interstate hway or 50 feet from the edge of an intersecting rterstate
intercha e.
(B) The ar yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the edge of thrt ne or 100 f t from the edge of the right -of -way of an in terstate highway r yar adjacent to the interstate. (C The side yard requirement shall be 50 feet from the side prope00 feet from
edge of the right -of -way of an interstate highway where the side property line is adjacent
to the interstate.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 4 -18
Article 6: Development Standards 28
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(f) Windows on the street frontage side of a building shall be limited t 0%
of the total building fagade.
(g) The principal building shall be oriented facing towards the fro ing street.
(h) Building Access
(i) A functional doorway for public or direct -entry ccess into a
bAa ilding shall be provided from the fronting reet.
er entrances should be provided o corner lot buildings.
ional entrances to a building m be provided.
aterials
rative cornices shall be rovided for buildings with a flat
defined as roofs with pitch less than 3:12.
s shall be provide with a pitched roof, defined as roofs with
areater than .12.
(iii) Pitched r ofs are enerally preferred over flat roofs.
(iv) All rooftop m hanical equipment (i.e. vents, ducts,
communic o ntennas, HVAC units, etc) shall be screened
from vie or de s1 ed and installed in a manner using materials
and c rs compati e with the building architecture.
(v) Hi ly reflective roofin aterials shall be avoided. All proposed
etal roofing should be s nding seam or copper. Galvanized
steel and tin roofs are perm ed.
Q) Re idential manufactured structures ar not permitted for conversion to a
n- residential use.
(H) Additional hitectural Standards for existing single -fa 'y structures being
converted 'into non - residential use:
(1) he exterior fagade of an existing single - family residence p posed for
conversion into non - residential use shall not be altered to acc modate new
non - residential land uses except where modifications are neces ry to address
building or fire code requirements.
(2) Any structures proposed for removal shall either be moved to another cation for
re -use contemporaneously with the construction of the new structure or
deconstructed in such a manner that the resultant materials are suitable \the use by the deconstructing party or others in future building projects. It is intent of t
his Sub - Section that the removed structure be recycled to the e
possible.
6.6.3 Efland Interstate 24
(A) Circulation and Connectivity
(1) All site planning for property east of Mount Willing Road shall take into account
the need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and the
Interstate 85 /U.S. Highway 70 Connector.25
(2) All site planning west of Mount Willing Road shall take into account_2s
24 Existing Section 6.6.3 (Major Transportation Corridor) has been renumbered to 6.6.5. References is existing
Sections 4.5.1 and 6.8.12 will be updated.
25 (1) and (2) are putting concepts from the EMSAP and an adopted access management plan into regulations.
26 Because (a) is suggested for removal, (b) will become the remainder of this sentence.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -31
Article 6: Development Standards 29
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
..
adopted Efland-4118-b-ARG Small Area PIAR, 27
(b) The need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing Road and
Buckhorn Road, as depicted on the Efland - Buckhorn- Mebane Access
Management Plan, adopted November 11, 2011.
(3) In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be permitted no more
than one entrance /exit point unless justified by:
(a) site configuration;
(b) trip generation;
(c) aPA-traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement; or
(d) other factors . 28
(4) Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be required to enter
the public street in order to move from one area to another on the same site.
(5) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines . 29
(6) Driveway a €ntrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the
property line; however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic,
the driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(7) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(8) Shared Driveways /Access
(a) In order to FRaR2g@ aGGG&& minimize the number of driveway curb cuts
on Mount Willing Road, thereby improving traffic flow and safety,
developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing Road,
and located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
driveways /access whenever feasible, as determined during site plan
review.
(i)
ZGnino (`omolionne Dormif Te __e6oAssemeRt agreement sholll be
orooer y Cigi ire 6.6.2.A.2- shevogs on example of the shored_
A1°A°T17 .
assess- Methods to achieve shared driveways /access may
include reciprocal easement agreements among property
owners, reservation of future access easements on property
27 The Efland Area Resident Group also has suggested that this alignment be removed from the adopted Access
Management Plan. (This action is separate from the UDO amendment).
28 (3) and (4) are current requirements for properties in EDDs and is good practice for many types of projects.
However, it should be noted that NCDOT may not approve more than one entrance /exit point - see (9). The text in
orange is to show a reconfiguration of language suggested by the County Attorney's office in late March 2015 in an
effort to make the language more clear. The actual language has not been suggested for change.
29 (5) through (9) are current requirements of ECOD and are suggested as good practices to be implemented in the
Efland Interstate overlay district as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -32
Article 6: Development Standards 30
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
being developed, or other methods determined during site plan
review.
(ii)
tFaffin safaty hazard by the Go Rty and NrnnT The location of
shared driveways shall be determined during site plan review.
Shared driveways do not necessarily need to be located at the
front of lots if rear or side access is proposed and feasible.
(9) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
(10) Pedestrian Circulation 30
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during site plan
review, large projects, defined in (b), &h211 may be F99649d encouraged
to provide an internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and
maintained by the property owner. The system s4a4 may be feed
encouraged to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels and also within
any large parking areas.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is defined as one
located on 5 or more acres or proposing more than 50,000 square feet of
building area. A large parking area is one containing parking for 100 or
more vehicles.
(B) Landscaping and Buffering31
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating non - residential and residential land uses. The required
plantings shall be in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, except in
required sight triangles. Joint use agreements between adjacent property
owners for shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver regarding
the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
so In October 2011, the issue of sidewalks was discussed at a BOCC work session and the decision was made that,
due to NC counties' challenges in funding maintenance of public sidewalks, public sidewalks would not become a
requirement for development in Orange County at this time. However, walkability in large commercial projects is
generally desirable as is the ability of pedestrians to safely traverse large parking areas. Therefore, staff is
suggesting that some projects may be required to provide privately maintained walkways.
31 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -33
Article 6: Development Standards 31
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(4) The provisions of this subsection do not waive the buffer requirements found in
Section 6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor).
(C) Architectural Design Standards
(1) In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards),
the external design of chain
businesses
should consider and complement the existing community character.32
(2) DFiVG_t�v- thrrva9h fo�uviiim °co on 4 en ads A-re A-"& iahle in this .,; 33
(D) Signage
(1) Signage shall conform to requirements within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance
unless in conflict with this subsection, in which case the requirements of this
subsection shall apply.
(2) The sign area of signs may be up to 64 square feet in size . 34
6.6.4 Efland Village
(A) Circulation and Connectivity3s
(1) Shared Driveways /Access for Properties Fronting on U.S. Highway 70
(a) In order to MaRag@ aGG@ minimize the number of driveway curb cuts
on U.S. Highway 70, thereby improving traffic flow and safety,
developments subject to this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway 70, and
located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
driveways /access whenever feasible, as determined during site plan
review.
(i)
ZGnino (`omnli2nne Dormit Te __e6assement agreement sholll be
nrone4y . s Fig ire 6.6.2.A.2- shows on A ample of the shared
A1°A°T17
assess- Methods to achieve shared driveways /access may
include reciprocal easement agreements among property
owners, reservation of future access easements on property
being developed, or other methods determined during site plan
review.
12 This language is suggested in order to ensure that any proposed "chain architecture" will blend better with the
surrounding area.
" The Efland Area Resident Group has suggested that drive - throughs should be allowed in both proposed overlay
districts, in accordance with existing County regulations. Therefore, it is redundant to state that drive - throughs are
allowed in the Efland Interstate overlay district.
14 The Efland Area Resident Group reviewed existing sign regulations and believed they are sufficient for the
Interstate Overlay district except that signs should be allowed to be larger than existing regulations allow (existing
regulations allow signs up to 32 square feet).
" Please see footnoted explanations for the Efland Interstate overlay district as they apply to this section as well.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -34
Article 6: Development Standards 32
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
traffic safety hazard by the County and nlrnnT. The location of
shared driveways shall be determined during site plan review.
Shared driveways do not necessarily need to be located at the
front of lots if rear access is proposed and feasible.
(2) In order to manage access on public streets, sites &h-a4 which include new
construction or additions increasing the square footage of a building by more
than 50% shoulr' be permitted no more than one entrance and exit point unless
justified by:
(a) site configuratiu,
(b) trip generation;
(c) aPA-traffic conditions, including the need for separate service and
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic movement; or
(d) other factors . 36
(8) This StandaFd nnnlioIS tn RG_V.A i in4inn nr that innroA_sA_!._; trhrGc961G
0
(3) Intra -site accessibility s#a4 should be provided. Vehicles s4a4 should not be
required to enter the public street in order to move from one area to another on
the same site.
(a) This standard applies to new construction or
additions that increases the square footage of a building by more than
50% of the existing square footage.
(4) On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than 60 feet from
the point of intersection of the street right -of -way lines.
(5) Driveway €entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at the
property line; however, in instances where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic,
the driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in width.
(6) Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking spaces shall contain
holding lanes for left- turning and right- turning traffic unless the Planning Director
determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be
unsafe and should not be required.
(7) All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT driveway permit and
must be paved to NCDOT standards from the edge of the existing roadway
pavement to the existing right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
(8) Pedestrian Circulation 37
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during site plan
review, large projects, defined in (b), s14a4 may beFega+red encouraged
to provide an internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and
maintained by the property owner. The system stall may be armed
encourage, to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels and also within
any large parking areas.
36 The text in orange is to show a reconfiguration of language suggested by the County Attorney's office in late
March 2015 in an effort to make the language more clear. The intent actual language has not been suggested for
change.
37 In October 2011, the issue of sidewalks was discussed at a BOCC work session and the decision was made that,
due to NC counties' challenges in funding maintenance of public sidewalks, public sidewalks would not become a
requirement for development in Orange County at this time. However, walkability in large commercial projects is
generally desirable as is the ability of pedestrians to safely traverse large parking areas. Therefore, staff is
suggesting that some projects may be required to provide privately maintained walkways.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -35
Article 6: Development Standards 33
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is defined as one
located on 2 or more acres or proposing more than 15,000 square feet of
building area. A large parking area is one containing parking for 50 or
more vehicles.
(B) Outside Storage of Materials Prohibited 38
(1) All outside storage of materials on lots other than those used for single - family
detached residential purposes is prohibited.
(2) This prohibition includes the storage of goods or materials which are not an
integral part of the use of the property and which are not obviously for sale.
(3) This prohibition does not include the storage of materials where the primary use
of the property includes the outside display of goods for sale such as
automobiles, boats, mobile homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for
sale.
(C) Landscaping and Buffering39
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
standards shall apply:
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights -of -ways
comprised of vegetation that complements surrounding plantings and which
includes trees planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(a) Parcels fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall provide buffer plantings in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer along all common
property lines separating uses subject to the requirements of this overlay district
and single family detached residential land uses. The required plantings shall be
in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A outlined within Section
6.8 of this Ordinance.
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip along all property
lines separating non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The landscaped
strip shall be comprised of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent
visual obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, except in
required sight triangles. Joint use agreements between adjacent property
owners for shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver regarding
the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
(4) Although portions of the Efland Village Overlay District are also within the Major
Transportation Corridor Overlay District, the buffer requirements found in Section
6.6.5 (Major Transportation Corridor) do not apply since said section applies only
to properties that abut the interstate.
(D) Parking Lot Design 40
(1) Up to 15% of the required parking spaces may be located in the front yard. The
remainder of the required parking spaces shall be located at the side or rear of
the structure.
" This is a restriction currently found in the ECOD and is suggested for the Efland Village overlay district as well.
s9 These lesser buffer requirements are in keeping with those required in the ECOD and are suggested in order to
provide for a more urban style of development in areas of the county served or to be served by public water and
sewer systems.
40 These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village. An exception being that
ECOD requires parking to be located solely in the side and rear yards. Staff is suggesting that a few parking spaces
be allowed at the front of buildings in the Efland Village overlay district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -36
Article 6: Development Standards 34
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
(a) Existing buildings that change use shall comply with this requirement to
the extent feasible, as determined during the site plan submittal process.
(2) Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non - residential land
uses, in accordance with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance.
(3) Parking areas with spaces in excess of 110% of the minimum parking spaces
required, per Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
(4) Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided in accordance with
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
(E) Signage41
(1) Signage shall conform to all the requirements within Section 6.12 of this
Ordinance unless in conflict with this subsection, in which case the requirements
of this subsection shall apply.42
(2) QRIY mnnUmont ctvlo cinnc that rte not GXG88 J civ foot in hoight aro normi#@d
kNithin tho Gfland Village Overlay District. The height limit of signs is 15 -feet, as
measured from the normal ground elevation below the sign.
(3) The sign area of signs may be up to 64 square feet in size.
(4) Digital signs shall not be permitted except as an incidental addition to a permitted
sign
�y 43
(5) Portable signs and banner signs are allowed only for special events and may be
displayed no sooner than 30 days prior to the event and must be removed within
7 days after conclusion of the event.
(6) New single prole signs are not permitted. Single pole signs existing as of [date
of adoption] shall be considered conforming uses and may be replaced if they
are damaged or destroyed.
(F) Architectural Design Standards44
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural Design Standards), the
following design standards shall apply:
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
41 These are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
42 The Efland Area Resident Group reviewed existing sign regulations and have suggested the language shown in
green text for the Efland Village overlay district.
43 Typographical error corrected on March 5, 2015. The County Attorney's office suggested that the text in orange
strikethrough be deleted in late March 2015.
44 (1) through (3) and (5) and (6) are requirements in the ECOD which are also good practice for the Efland Village.
(4) is suggested in order to articulate that we are encouraging human scale architecture in the Efland Village overlay
district. The existing requirements in Section 6.5 basically implement this point but "human scale" is a more
modern term that will likely be recognizable to people in the development community.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -37
Article 6: Development Standards 35
Section 6.6: Additional Standards for Overlay Districts
The external design of chain businesses should consider and complement the
existing community character.
(4) Human Scale and Fenestration
(a) New b -guildings shall be designed to contribute to a human scale. Large
expanses of blank walls shall be Avoided discouraged and fenestration
(the arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a
building) and /or design features (such as brick coursing changes,
decorative architectural features, patterns of paint, or murals) shall
should be provided in such a way that a building is relatable to humans
and does not overpower the area.
(b) Additions to existing non - residential buildings should be designed to both
complement the existing building and achieve human scale to the extent
feasible.
(c) The functional use of the building should be considered when
determining design features and fenestration.
(6) Mirrored glass is pi:ehibited discouraged and in no case shall comprise more than
50% of the building fagade.
for Transportation Corridor
Landscaping and Buffers
addition to the requirements set forth in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the owing
rRdards shall be met:
(1) inimum of 100 feet of buffer area from the edge of the erstate highway's
righ way, shall be preserved. The purpose of this fer is to protect, preserve
and pro to the visual appeal, character and val of land adjacent to major
transportatio facilities; to provide for the seRpe9tion of spaces; and to promote
the public health, afety and welfare thro minimizing potential nuisances such
as the transmission noise, odor, d , litter and glare of lights.
(2) In areas of dense mature NQs ,, xisting vegetation may be used to fulfill the
buffer requirements. Whe e is no existing vegetation in the buffer area, or
if existing vegetation s not pro �e a sufficient buffer, all proposed plantings
must be shown o e landscape plan fulfill the buffer requirement. The new
plantings shal e predominantly evergree %alon reach a mature size of at
least 30 f New trees shall be located sablish at maturity a
conti us screen in the 100 foot buffer aa adjacent interstate
Landscaping shall be in accordance with an approved landsing plan.
Any areas left in a natural state shall remain undisturbed except
4s The Efland Area Residents Group has suggested that drive - throughs should be allowed in the Village overlay
district, in accordance with existing County regulations.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -38
Article 6: Development Standards 36
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
The Planning Director may grant the extension on requests for planting extensions
ubmitted between May 15 and September 15 of each year, and may grant the
exte ns at other times if there are unfavorable conditions for plantin .
(D) If the initial L as expired and conditions are still deeme uitable for planting, an
applicant may reques additional extension of up days. During periods of
extreme drought, as evidenc the official d ration of Stage 3 or greater mandatory
water conservation requirements, t ing Director, or designee, may authorize
additional 90 -day extensions be the o tension typically allowed. These
extensions may be conti throughout the pen which the extreme drought
conditions remai
(E) The a ' ant shall also acknowledge that no Final Zoning Complia ermit shall be
ed while there is an active (pending) LREC unless a performance guar e (such as
a letter of credit or performance bond) sufficient to cover 110% of the installed
landscaping costs has been posted with the Planning and Inspections Department.
6.8.12 Additional Standards for Economic Development Districts
(A)
Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan
The Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Section 6.8.10.
(B)
Preservation of Existing Features
(1) Natural features such as streams and ponds, hillsides, rock formations, unique
vegetation and natural areas, wildlife habitats, and other similar features must be
incorporated into the overall development concept.
(2) Building sites, parking areas, and other uses shall be situated in such a way as to
protect existing tree stock having a diameter of one -foot or greater when
measured four and a half feet above ground level.
(3) Trees to be saved shall be noted on the landscape and tree preservation plan
and appropriate measures to protect the tree stock from damage during
construction, including no grading within the critical root zone, shall be indicated
in accordance with Section 6.8.4.
(4) Where possible, trees shall be protected in stands or clusters.
(5) The siting of buildings shall take advantage of scenic views and take into
consideration the impact of new structures on views from off -site.
(6) Where ever possible, access to views are to be preserved for adjacent property
owners and passing motorists.
(7) Scenic views and visual elements within the visual corridor shall be identified and
preserved where possible.
(C)
Buffering Neighboring Uses
(1) A minimum buffer of 100 feet in width is to be provided at the boundary of all
Economic Development Districts.
Section
reference
(2) In accordance with Section 6.6.3 6.6.5, a buffer of 100 feet in width is to be
maintained adjacent to the right -of -way of interstate highways.
update
(3) In the Buckhorn EDD, a buffer of 150 feet is required on the portion of the
boundary adjacent to the Clearview Subdivision and adjoining residential area on
the north side of West Ten Road.
(4) In the Hillsborough EDD, a buffer of 100 feet is required along the Old 86
roadway corridor. For properties located within the EDH -1 zoning district, a 50
foot wide buffer is required.
Orange County,
North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -57
Article 6: Development Standards 37
Section 6.8: Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -58
Section (5)
Limited breaks in required interstate highway buffers may be allowed in
reference
accordance with Section 6:6:3(5) 6.6.5(5).
update (6)
Buffers may consist of existing wooded areas. If existing vegetation is not
sufficient for screening, a planted buffer shall be augmented and interspersed,
consisting of 50 -75% evergreen trees reaching a minimum mature height of 30-
feet.
(7)
In lieu of the Land Use Buffers required in Section 6.8.6, buffers between
adjacent land uses, whether internal or external to the project, shall be provided
in accordance with the Land Use Buffer Schedule that follows.
(8)
Trees with a caliper of six inches or greater should be considered for
preservation.
(9)
No grading for building or parking shall encroach upon required buffer.
(10)
Landscape buffer widths may be reduced if the buffer material is adequate to
provide additional screening.
(11)
Decorative walls may be used to augment required landscaping for buffer
reduction.
(12)
Access and utility crossings are to be made as close to perpendicular as possible
to the length of the buffer.
(13)
No land disturbances for buildings, parking, or storage, drainage, etc. are
permitted within a required buffer.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -58
Article 7: Subdivisions 38
Section 7.13: Flexible Developments
r?)----Jo e for the active and low impact recreational ne ounty residents,
inclu 1 ementation of the Master Recr Parks Plan.
(8) To provide greater efficien e siting of services and infrastructure by
reducing road utility runs, an unt of paving for development.
(9) create compact neighborhoods accessible to open spa ities and with
a strong identity.
7.13.2 Applicability
(A)
All Flexible Development subdivision plats shall comply with the requirements and
standards specified herein and in all respects with other applicable codes and ordinances
to the extent that they are not in conflict with these provisions.
Section (B)
Flexible Developments located within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District shall
reference
comply with provisions of Section 4-6 4.846 of this Ordinance.
update (C)
The Village Option for a Flexible Development shall not be located in the Rural Buffer
(RB) zoning district.
(D)
Applicants seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision Final Plat by the Planning
Department are encouraged to work with the Planning Department staff in identifying and
preserving open space areas as part of such developments.
7.T&,3 Open Space Standards
Minimum Required Open Space
(1) Where a developer elects to seek approval of a Flexible Dev opment as
specified herein, at least 33% of the total land area in the F exible Development
must be set aside as protected open space.
(2) uch open space shall meet the standards contain in this Section unless the
de loper chooses to seek approval of a conven i nal subdivision as specified
herein.
(B) Planning for Oper"Space
(1) Open space de n in subdivision pro' cts shall be planned as part of a
comprehensive pro' ct design.
(2) The long -term success ope pace is improved when a layout is chosen with a
perspective of future usefu ss, efficiency, connectivity and compatibility with
both existing developme an ther types of open spaces.
(3) Open space is an im rtant ameni for subdivision residents and an essential
part of the County' character and en i nmental quality.
(4) Open space pl ning must indicate a thou tful understanding of that
importance nd shall be evaluated based on i merits.
(5) A Flexi Development subdivision plan shall alwa provide open space which
pro i ently meets at least one of the three following g Is in open space design:
The Maintenance of Wildlife Corridors and /or Habi
(b) The Preservation of Rural Character; or
(c) The Creation or Protection of Space for Outdoor Recreation.
(6) When relevant, a Flexible Development subdivision plan shall address th
following additional goals in open space design:
46 This reference change is necessary due to renu nbering Sections in order to insert the two proposed overlay
district.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 7 -37
M
Zoning Atlas Amendments
Proposed Zoning Overlay Districts 40
41
2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
.s
O U
N
N
Co
0 O U
N
N � 7
+� c
� co C
o SO
E o
N 'y E
E cu
0 L 0)
L � �
° O
O o
co
0 c
a�
O O
> cu Q a)
o E
cn c cn cu
� 4? ca
O
Q CO .0
cu cu
•� U N �
N Q O
E
CU
7 Q)
L ;
Attachment 4 - Excerpt of QPH
Minutes
APPROVED 4/15/2014
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 24, 2014
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on February 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Officers,
Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board members Maxecine Mitchell,
Johnny Randall, Paul Guthrie, Herman Staats, Tony Blake, and H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck, Lisa Stuckey, Andrea
Rohrbacher and James Lea
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. He reviewed the following items at
the members' places:
- Booklet/Blue Sheets /Cream Sheets /PowerPoint - Item C -1 - Class A Special Use
Permit
- Letter - Item C -3 - Unified Development Ordinance (U DO) Text Amendment
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
LIC CHARGE
Le Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Boa-"ember Buddy Hartley introduced this item.
1. Class A Special Use P>o,we review a C<iindivi ial Permit application
seeking to develop a soublic utility parcels of property, totaling
approximately 52 acres Redmween the railway and Interstate
85/40 in Cheeks Towns
Buddy Hartley: An itg eciit is a quasi - judicial setting, so
approval or denial of such pered on swand evidence from individuals
who are speaking before the we will asivi Is that wish to speak on
this be sworn to before the cle
Those who w_a& speaking to this item were then sworn in.
Michael H ey: Good evening. I am Michael Harvey of the Orange County Planning
Depa nt. I have been duly sworn, and my job here this evening is to present to you a Cl
43
M
Tony Blake said one more point would be to find out if the adjacent owners ha v een
noti to find out if this is a problem for them.
Micftakl Harvey said the adjoining property owners were made awar f the text
amendment. aid no complaints have been received.
Judy Foster safdkhe owns the property next door to the k nel, and she has no
objection to the 25 foot se ck. She said she would agree to is, and she is right next to their
parking lot.
Commissioner Gordon said sftslls not unsy athetic to this; she is just trying to find out
what the options are. She said the quests is a neral question about universal standards
versus specific standards. She said she lov dogs, and this is a wonderful operation that has
not conformed with the regulations, so it a diffi It question.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, sbQonded by Commissioner Pelissier to
1. AccepXublic t's pr osed amendments to the UDO as etailed in this abstract and
attach
2. Refer he Planning Board with a request that a recom dation be returned to
the BOor the April 15, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
3. Adjourhearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accep e
Pla nni commendation and any submitted written comments.
UNANIMOUS
3. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government- initiated
amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas
to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
Perdita Holtz reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
Quarterly Public Hearing
February 24, 2014
Item CA
Background
• Heard at November 2012 quarterly public hearing
• Denied by BOCC in February 2013
• 1 year waiting period required for a new application in cases of denial
• This proposal is the staff - recommended version considered on February 5, 2013
Basic Charge
• Implement recommendations in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan to
establish design and site planning standards for this area of the County served by public
(or quasi - public) water and sewer systems.
45
• Amend plans and regulations as necessary in order to establish two new zoning overlay
districts.
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (chart)
What is a zoning overlay district?
• Regulatory tools that create a special zoning district, placed over the existing base
zones, which identifies special provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the
underlying base zone.
• Purpose is to guide development within the specified area.
• Overlay district regulations can be more restrictive or less restrictive than the regulations
that apply to the underlying base zones.
Zoning Atlas Amendment (map)
Future Land Use Map (Map)
Relationship to Existing Efland- Cheeks Overlay District (map)
UDO Text Amendments
• Amendments to several sections necessary to implement the new zoning overlay
districts
• Intent of the new districts:
- Allow for a more urban style of development in the Efland Interstate Overlay District
- Allow for an urban village style of development in the Efland Village Overlay District
Why Necessary?
• Different development regulations necessary in order to reflect the reality of smaller
sized lots (both existing and anticipated) served by water and sewer.
• Encourage high quality growth in an area of the county proposed for additional growth
while protecting existing development and community character.
• Ensure good planning practices related to site design, transportation, and architecture
are achieved.
General Information
Many of the proposed changes in the amendment packet contain footnotes explaining
the reason /rationale for the proposed change.
Website contains more information
- Questions and Answers
- Synopsis of Proposed New Regulations and /or Differences from Existing Regulations
- (Orange County, Planning Department, "Current Interest Projects ")
Exceptions and Existing Uses
• Single- family detached residences (both existing and new) are not subject to the
requirements of the overlay districts.
• Other existing land uses are not required to come into conformance with the new
regulations so long as the property continues to be used as it is currently being used.
• The requirements of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District are not
being altered.
M
Synopsis of Changes
(Applicable to Both Districts)
• Side and rear setback can be less
- Intent is to allow required buffer and minimum setback to be the same
• Smaller (less wide) buffer between lots
- In keeping with those required in the existing Efland Cheeks Overlay District along
Highway 70
• No more than 1 entrance /exit point, unless justified
• Large projects must provide an internal pedestrian circulation system
• Must provide intra -site accessibility
• Requirements for driveways and shared access
- Shared access only applicable if fronting on Mount Willing Road or Highway 70
Synopsis of Changes
(Efland Interstate Overlay District only)
• Site Planning must take into account need for connecting roadways shown on the
adopted Access Management Plan for the area
• Requires that national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses be altered as
necessary to complement the surrounding area
Synopsis of Changes
(Efland Village Overlay District only)
• Changes in front yard setback requirements
- Minimum of 30 -feet along Highway 70
- If not along Highway 70: front setback in keeping with adjoining uses
• No fences in front yards unless a demonstrated need can be shown
• No chain link or similar fencing
• No outside storage of materials
• Allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard (setback area)
• Encourages shared parking and puts a cap on parking
• Limits signage to monument style signs that do not exceed 6 -feet in height and prohibits
pole signs
• Does not permit modern corporate franchise building design
• Principal building must face fronting street and have a functional doorway
• Requires that buildings be designed to contribute to a "human scale"
• Prohibits drive - throughs and mirrored glass
Public Notification
• Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
— Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
— Mailed notices to affected property owners
— Mailed notices to property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties
— Posted 25 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
Recommendation
• Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendment.
47
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 15, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until April 15, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Perdita Holtz said there is already a similar overlay district along Highway 70. She
reviewed the comprehensive plan graphic and said the zoning districts need to be consistent
with the comprehensive plan. She said the area where the proposed overlay district is located
is a commercial /industrial transition activity node. She said staff is also suggesting a tick mark
be added in the other three transition land use classifications, so that any future overlay districts
that are contemplated will not require a comprehensive plan amendment.
She reviewed the map of the Zoning Atlas Amendment, as well as the Future Land Use
Map and the map of the overlay district mentioned earlier. She said the proposed text
amendments contain amendments to several areas. She said the current development
regulations primarily address development on large size lots.
Referring to the slide "Synopsis of Changes (Efland Village Overlay District only ", she
noted that varied setbacks along an individual street create a more chaotic feel and look. She
said it is good urban design for a village setting to have consistent setbacks.
Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of how all of this came to be proposed.
Perdita Holtz said this is part of the Efland Mebane small area plan, which was a plan
made up of appointed residents in the area. She said this is a community driven plan, and it is
based on recommended standards for achieving good development.
Commissioner McKee noted that the Efland Mebane small area plan was brought
forward in 2004, and the committee ran for two years. He asked if staff has gone back to the
community since 2006.
Perdita Holtz said committee meetings were held when the zoning overlay districts were
last proposed, and public information meetings were held in 2012. She said these meetings
were not held for these changes, as these are substantially similar to what was proposed in
2012.
Commissioner McKee said, since this was denied by the Board in 2013, it would have
been good to go back to the community to get their response before moving forward with
another proposal.
Perdita Holtz said the amendment outline form for this item specifically stated that there
would not be another public outreach meeting and the reason why. She said this was because
this has already undergone public comment in the past, but she understands the concern.
Commissioner Price asked for an explanation of the rationale behind the fencing.
Perdita Holtz said this does not apply to single family houses, but it has to do with the
aesthetics of having chain link or other fencing in the front yard.
Commissioner Price asked why there is an aversion to chain link fences.
Perdita Holtz said the committee expressed concern about this if there was a lot of
commercial development.
Commissioner Price asked if this would apply to a duplex.
Perdita Holtz said you would not be able to have a chain link fence in the front yard.
Commissioner McKee asked about the drive - throughs. He asked if drive - throughs along
highway 70 on any commercial facility would be banned.
Perdita Holtz said that is correct. She said there was a point in the small area plan that
these would not be permitted in the Efland Village, but it would be permitted in the interstate
district. She said the concern was having a string of fast food restaurants cropping up on
Highway 70.
W
Commissioner Price said she believes another concern about the drive - throughs was the
concern of car stacking and all of the associated fumes.
Perdita Holtz said that was a concern in the County, but the concern specific to this plan
was about the proliferation of fast food restaurants on Highway 70.
Commissioner Rich said she remembers this as one of the first things that came before
the Board when she came on, and she didn't have a lot of information. She said her concern at
that time was calling things urban when there are no sidewalks being put in. She said she still
has concerns with calling things urban, when there is no way for people to use their feet to get
there, because there are no sidewalks. She is unsure of why the word urban is used in these
settings.
Perdita Holtz said the growth management systems map adopted in 2003 calls areas
rural designated and urban designated, and this is in one of the urban designated areas.
Commissioner Rich questioned whether this is really urban. She said the County is just
creating an area where people are being allowed to build density.
Perdita Holtz said it depends on your definition of urban, but this is creating areas where
people can not only build density, but can put non- residential uses.
Commissioner Rich said you can't walk there; you have to drive your car there.
Perdita Holtz said it is true that you cannot walk there on a sidewalk.
Commissioner Pelissier said the difficulty is that this is just a small area compared to an
urban area like Chapel Hill or Carrboro. She said, even in Chapel Hill, 15 -501 by -pass is in an
urban area, but there are no sidewalks. She said it is difficult because of the scope of what is
being looked at.
Commissioner Rich said it might just be her getting stuck on the word urban; but when
these overlays are done, there are all these districts of overlays that are supposed to be urban,
but none of them connect.
Perdita Holtz said the small area plan is supportive of having a sidewalk network, but
right now, counties in North Carolina have trouble providing, funding, and maintaining
sidewalks. She questioned whether you hold this up just because sidewalks can't be provided
right now. She asked if development regulation should be kept in place that sometimes requires
a buffer of 100 feet, when lots are only 100 feet wide; or if the County should implement
something that is good for development now, and the sidewalk issue will continue to be worked
on.
Commissioner Rich said she understands that, and if the County will be forward thinking
and work toward sidewalks, then she is fine with this. She just doesn't want to approve an
urban overlay and then that's the end of it.
Perdita Holtz said this is just one aspect of implementing the small area plan, and there
is still more to do. She said keeping sidewalks and bike lanes in mind is part of the plan, and it
is something she thinks Orange County will do when the time is right.
Commissioner McKee referred to the statement on creating non - conforming uses. He
asked how "operating in the manner in which they are currently operating" will be defined. He
said he is aware of multiple parcels of property where new regulations prevent expansion of
existing business. He is concerned that this is what will happen here.
Perdita Holtz said this would create non - conforming uses if someone wanted to expand
their businesses.
Commissioner Price asked if there would be a time limit for a non - conforming business if
there is a change in ownership and a gap in use.
Michael Harvey said there is a time limit of 6 months within any 180 day given period.
Greg Andrews said he lives in the Efland Community and he owns a business in the
proposed overlay district. He said he is also here in part to represent the Efland Ruritan Club.
He proposed a public hearing in the Efland community. He said there are a lot of elderly folks
who cannot come sit at this meeting for 3 or 4 hours to get to this part. He said he would like to
W
see the people who sat on this committee and made these recommendations. He referenced
the discussion about sidewalks and said he does not know how safe walkways would be on
highway 70. He asked that this issue remain open. He said the Efland Ruritans would be
happy to hold this event in Efland.
Doug Efland said he owns property in the Efland village area. He said he has a lot of
questions, and he would like this to continue with some sort of public meeting in Efland. He said
there are a lot of things that are alarming or hard to understand in the proposed text. He
referenced shared right of ways and other parts of the text that he did not understand. He
referenced the section on easement agreements between contiguous parcel owners and asked
what incentive it is for an adjacent property owner to enter an agreement with you if there are no
plans to develop their property. He said there are certainly questions. He questioned the
stipulations on connecting roadways to the east and west side of Mount Willing. He asked that
this discussion be continued.
Ben Lloyd said urban to him is Chapel Hill, Charlotte or New York City. He said Efland is
a sleepy little community where most of the residents have been living there all of their lives. He
said this small area study has been going on for 20 years and notice of this public hearing was
given 15 days ago. He has taken a quick look at this plan, and it would take a lawyer to pick all
this stuff out. He said the people in the Efland community need to have the opportunity to have
some input into this plan. He asked for an open Efland community meeting, followed by a public
hearing for general public input.
He said he has a letter from Joseph Forrest and he asked what to do with that. He read
the letter and asked it to be entered into the record.
Bill Efland said he also agrees with having the hearing in Efland. He asked if the
residents are privy to having the names of the people on the Mebane Efland small area plan
committee. He asked if there were any Efland family members on that committee and he said
he feels that they should have been involved in this process.
Commissioner McKee said there were Efland folks on this committee. He said he would
share the list of names after the meeting.
Lindsey Efland said he has had 40 years of Orange County government saving us from
ourselves. He said when all is said and done this language affects approximately ten parcels of
land. He said there are only a few developable properties. He said it has also been noted that
he community has not been part of the planning process of late. He said this is a significant
change for the future of the community and there is not any understandable language as it
relates to the re- development of buildings. He feels work needs to be done on this and local
input should be involved. He respectfully requests that the public hearing be continued while
planning staff works with land owners to help them, and the planning board, understand the full
implications of what is going on.
Mike Efland questioned how many landowners of involved parcels were on the
committee. He wants to know whose brainchild this is.
Brian Efland said there are a lot of Eflands from Efland, and he is not aware of any who
were on the committee. He feels that stake holders should be involved in these decisions. He
noted the large number of community members present, and he said no one who sees this likes
it. He would like to see continued discussion in the community.
Commissioner McKee said this came before the Board a year ago, and he still does not
like it. He feels this should be sent back to staff with instructions to work with the affected
community to address their concerns. He said this is not a countywide zoning overlay; it affects
a very small number of people in a very big way, and these people need to be involved upfront.
He understands there was a public meeting two years ago, but there have been changes made.
He does not think the public hearing needs to be held over, but this should be sent back to staff
instead.
50
Commissioner Price said she voted against it last time, and her comments are the same.
She questioned whether the public received notice of the meeting last year when this was on
the agenda.
Perdita Holtz said the notice went out for the November 2012 quarterly public hearing,
and the notice contained an update on the information meeting held in November, which was
attended by only ten residents.
Commissioner Price said she would still like to see more discussion with the community.
Commissioner Pelissier said this reflects the comments of the small area plan. She said
that was a big picture, and this is only a small section of the Efland area plan. She is fine with
having community meetings. She said it is important to continue this to avoid waiting another
year. She said things get more difficult the longer this goes on. She suggested continuing the
public hearing with a set date.
Perdita Holtz suggested this be continued to the May Quarterly Public Hearing. She
said a public hearing out in the community has never been done before, and it would require a
quorum of both the Board and the planning board. She said a public meeting can be held with
staff in attendance.
Commissioner Pelissier said she was not trying to imply having a public hearing in the
community, as this will not allow for question and answers with staff, which is what the
community wants. She said this is called a public information session.
Ben Lloyd said people really want a public information session.
Chair Jacobs noted, in fairness to staff, that meetings were held at the Efland Ruritan
and there were repeated attempts to recruit people from Efland. He said there were people
from Efland who served diligently. He said this was the Efland Mebane small area plan. He
said the conversation included plans to get Mebane involved to insure that it would not annex
into Efland. He said if this is not a concern now, it is because Mebane has agreed not to do
this. He said there were signs up, and there were meetings at the Efland Community Center,
the Efland Ruritan Club and Efland Cheeks Elementary school. He feels it is a good idea for the
community to meet with staff to ask questions about this, and then this can come back to the
Board. He said there have been no attempts to exclude anyone.
An unidentified resident asked when the meeting was held at the Ruritan Club. He
asked if the details presented tonight were discussed at that meeting four years ago.
Perdita Holtz said the details were discussed at the open house community meeting held
in November of 2012 from 4 - 6 pm at the Efland Community Center, and 10 people came.
Greg Andrews said if this was turned down last time, he would like to see what changes
have been made since then.
Chair Jacobs said staff does that in the documents, and this is included.
Greg Andrews said it seems that at least two of the Board members recognize that there
is not enough change to make a difference
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to turn
this proposal down and send it back to staff for further review and community input before
bringing it back.
Commissioner Gordon said this cannot be turned down, as this is not voted on at this
meeting. She asked if Commissioner McKee would like to turn it back to the staff.
Commissioner McKee said it was turned back to staff a year ago.
Commissioner Rich said she is fine with the description of the sidewalks because of the
forward thinking that the sidewalk issue is not being dropped. She said she does not
understand why this wouldn't just continue to be a public hearing to get more information.
Commissioner Price said staff and the Commissioners would be able to have dialogue
with the community. She said it would give more time for community input.
Chair Jacobs said this may just be a difference of semantics. He said the motion is to
defer further Board of Commissioner consideration until staff meets with the members of the
51
Efland Community to address their concerns, and then this comes back to the Board. He said
this does not say that this won't come back to the Board, but it directs staff to meet with the
community.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested holding an informational meeting with the public at the
Whitted building to allow Commissioners and staff to attend, in an effort to bridge the gap. He
asked if this could be added to the motion.
Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price agreed to this.
Commissioner Pelissier also suggested an amendment to the motion, stating that this
would come back in May.
Commissioner McKee said he could not accept this, as he is not sure that this allows
adequate time for staff to address community concerns. He said this would set an artificial
deadline.
Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to have a specific time frame.
Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price agreed to September.
Chair Jacobs reviewed the amended motion to have a public information meeting to give
the Efland community members an opportunity to: meet with staff and Commissioners to
express concerns, and for staff to explain the proposals, to come back for the September Public
Hearing.
Michael Talbert said there are two options: 1.To close the existing public hearing or 2.
Continue this public hearing until the September 2014 Public Hearing.
Commissioner McKee said he will add this to the beginning of his motion.
Commissioner Gordon said she is not sure about having a public information meeting
that requires the Commissioners to have a quorum.
Commissioner Price said this is just a public meeting and the Commissioners can
attend, but quorum is not required.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
close the public hearing; hold a staff coordinated public information session; and to bring this
item back to a meeting in September, 2014. (There was discussion of the possibility of no QPH
in September and the public hearing would possibly be during a regular meeting.)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Price suggested there be more than one meeting.
2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
dments - To review government- initiated amendments to th>textof e to esta blis zoning program commonly referred to as Agricultural Serprises
(ASE) outsi the Rural Buffer land use classification.
Perdita Holtz reviewed ollowing PowerPoint slides -
Agricultural Support Enterprises Outsi the ral Buffer Land Use Classification
Quarterly Public Hearing
February 24, 2014
Item C.5
History & Purpose 9JAfnendment \
• A wwork-irogress since 2001
Need for Conditional Zoning construct was one of the "sticking poi
➢ We now have this type of zoning in the UDO
Attachment 5
52
STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY
OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND /OR
OTHER ADOPTED COUNTY PLANS
Orange County has initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas affecting approximately 432 acres located in the Efland area of
the county. These amendments establish two new zoning overlay districts in the area.
The Plannina Board finds:
The requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) have been
deemed complete, and
Pursuant to Sections 1.1.5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A -341 of the North
Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds documentation within the record denoting that
the rezoning is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and /or other
adopted County plans.
The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it:
• Supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
Objective LU -1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non - residential
development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and
community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer,
high -speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected
natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable
densities and creating new mixed -use zoning districts where adequate public services
are available.
Objective LU -37:
Ensure that new development patterns in non - residential nodes encourage a clustered,
walkable development pattern and discourage strip development.
Objective LU -3.8:
Develop a process for implementing small area plan recommendations through the
revision of County policies and regulations.
Objective LU -3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential
uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development
pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are
planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on
the Future Land Use map.
Objective H -3.6:
Work within the Orange County government system to identify and resolve existing
policies which may be at odds with historic preservation goals, green building
approaches, and workforce and affordable housing efforts. (See also Cultural
Resources Objective CR -3 and Economic Development Objective ED -4.1.)
• Further implements the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, adopted June 27, 2006.
53
The amendments are reasonable and in the public interest because:
• The proposed amendments establish overlay districts that modify existing development
regulations to reflect that this is an area of the county with smaller lots and which is
served, or scheduled to be served, with water and sewer lines. Existing development
regulations, particularly buffer and setback requirements, can make development difficult
to achieve on smaller sized lots.
• The proposed amendments achieve a reasonable balance of attempting to encourage
high quality development while protecting existing land uses and community character.
• The proposed amendments encourage development in an area of the county designated
as Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node on the Future Land Use Map of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed amendments promote public health, safety, and general welfare by
furthering the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including further
implementation of the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (adopted June 27, x.910
The Planning Board hereby recommends that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development
Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas amendments.
0i
Pete Hallenbeck, Chair Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
D R A F T EXCERPT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 4, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey (Vice- Chair), Chapel
Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar
Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township
Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township Representative; Lydia
Wegman -At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey,
Current Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II;
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim and Ruth Sukow, Joe Forrest, Doug Efland, Marsha Efland, Lindsay and Knox Efland
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS:
To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government- initiated amendments that would
establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. This item was heard at the
February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing and the Planning Board received an update on the
topic at its February 4, 2015 meeting.
Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator
Perdita Holtz reviewed the item and background.
Paul Guthrie: On page 22 in the middle, second paragraph, what is your definition of "high quality development "?
Perdita Holtz: It was something talked about as part of the small area plan process and wanting to ensure that we
didn't end up with a preponderance of metal or cinderblock buildings and the regulations that pertain to internal
pedestrian systems, etc. that all add up to what we would term "high quality development ".
Pete Hallenbeck: If you look at the proposed amendments, you talk about community character and the Planning
Department will take pictures of buildings to have something to look back on when you are making that somewhat
subjective call. Your point is well taken but there will be enough recorded for someone to look at that and say, "how
did that happen ?"
Craig Benedict: Some of the differences are that we had a lot more mandates about how development should occur
very prescriptive but it did mention high quality development. That is subjective but we are creating a mandate and
that didn't go together so now we are creating something that is feasible.
Pete Hallenbeck: I am happy with the development and the community involvement.
MOTION by Laura Nicholson to approve amendments as presented by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Craig Benedict reviewed the history of this project for the new members.
54
55
D R A F T EXCERPT
55
56 Paul Guthrie: This is a good case study about how we deal with changes in this county. This whole county over the
57 next 50 years will urbanize tremendously so this kind of issue will come up over time and some time when the
58 planning staff catches their breath, they may want to strategize the process so we won't have to reinvent the wheel
59 each time.
60
61 Pete Hallenbeck: A lot of those steps are underway. The UDO is not perfect or light reading but a lot better. There
62 is progress here. What happened in Efland will set a lot of precedence.
Attachment 6 56
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPiVd IllIP tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
1.
4.5.3 (13)(1)
The minimum side and rear setback shall be with width of the
OK as is
required buffer in 6.6.3(8) or the setback required in Article 3
or Section 6.2.8, whichever is less, except as provided in (a).
2.
4.5.3(B)(1)(a)
(Referenced in standard above)
OK as is
For parcels subject to the setback and yard requirements in
Section 4.7.4, the requirements of said Section shall apply.
3.
4.5.3(B)(2)
Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured
Delete this requirement. It can be added in the future
from any future right -of -way as designated on the Orange
if necessary if /when a Comprehensive Transportation
County TheFeughfaFe Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Plan that includes future right -of -way designations is
adopted.
4.
6.6.3(A)(1)
All site planning for property east of Mount Willing Road shall
OK as is
(A) is
take into account the need for a connecting roadway between
"Circulation and
Mount Willing Road and the Interstate 85 /U.S. Highway 70
Connectivity"
Connector.
5.
6.6.3 (A) (2)
All site planning west of Mount Willing Road shall take into
The possible realignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road
account:
under the existing railroad track should be removed
(a) A possible re- alignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road under
from the adopted Access Management Plan and
the existing railroad track to connect to Mount Willing Road, as
proposed standard (a) should be deleted from the
described in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan.
proposed UDO amendment.
(b) The need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing
Road and Buckhorn Road, as depicted on the Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Access Management Plan, adopted November 11,
2011.
6.
6.6.3 (A) (3)
In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be
Rewrite as follows: In order to manage access on public
permitted no more than one entrance /exit point unless
streets, a site shall be permitted no more than one
justified by site configuration, trip generation, and traffic
entrance /exit point unless justified by site
conditions, including the need for separate service and
configuration, trip generation, and traffic conditions,
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic
including the need for separate service and
movement.
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way
rrrs.
traffic movement, or other factors.
Page 1 of 17
January 26, 2015
57
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPiVd IllIP tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
7.
6.6.3 (A) (4)
Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be
OK as is
required to enter the public street in order to move from one
area to another on the same site.
8.
6.6.3 (A) (5)
On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer
OK as is
than 60 feet from the point of intersection of the street right -
of -way lines.
9.
6.6.3 (A)(6)
Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at
Make it clearer that this standard refers to driveways,
the property line; however, in instances where parking lots
not public roads. Rewrite to read: f:�irnve way
serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway entrance /exit may be
gentrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width
increased to 40 feet in width
measured at the property line; however, in instances
where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the
driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in
width
10.
6.6.3 (A)(7)
Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking
OK as is
spaces shall contain holding lanes for left- turning and right -
turning traffic unless the Planning Director determines that due
to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be unsafe
and should not be required.
Page 2 of 17
January 26, 2015
58
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPiVd IllIP tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
11.
6.6.3 (A)(8)
Shared Access
Rewrite as follows:
(a) In order to manage access on Mount Willing Road,
Shared 1 rlvvuvays /Access
developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount
(a) In order to manage aeeess rninirni7e the nurnlber of
Willing Road, and located contiguous to one another shall
driveway curb cuts on Mount Willing Road, thereby
provide shared access.
rnproving traffic flow and safety, developments subject
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing Road, and
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the
located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
separate property owners and have the same recorded in the
drivesvays /access w hs inevs r feasible, as determined
Office of the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the
durl nnna site plan rvviesv.
issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement
(1(I Methods to achieve shared drivesvays /access
agreement shall be sufficient to allow for the development of a
may irnc. ude re iloroc al ease rnv nt agreements
private service road or driveway to channel access from Mount
arnoing loropeiety osvrw irs, reservation of future
Willing Road to each property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an
access easements on property Ibei rya
example of the shared access.
developed, me of her rnethods deterrnined
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount
duielung site plan uwviesv.
Willing Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated
(11) 1 he location of shared dielvesvays shall be
development shall be required to designate stub outs to
deteirunined duieling site plan reviesv. Shared
adjoining properties on the site plan so that shared access can
dielvesvays do not necessarily need to be
be developed if and when the adjacent property is developed
ss
located at the front of lots if rear or side access
in either a manner which subjects it to this Section or if
is lorolorsed and feasible.
individual curb cut for a single - family detached residential land
use is deemed to be a traffic safety hazard by the County and
NCDOT.
12.
6.6.3 (A)(9)
All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT
OK as is
driveway permit and must be paved to NCDOT standards from
the edge of the existing roadway pavement to the existing
right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
Page 3 of 17
January 26, 2015
59
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPiVd IllIP tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
13.
6.6.3 (A)(10)
Pedestrian Circulation
Rewrite as follows:
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during
Pedestrian Circulation
site plan review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning
internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
Director during site plan review, large projects, defined
by the property owner. The system shall provide pedestrian
in (b), s4 a- 4 may be required to provide an internal
walkways to outparcels and also within any large parking areas.
pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is
by the property owner. The system s4a44 may be
defined as one located on 5 or more acres or proposing more
required to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels
than 50,000 square feet of building area. A large parking area is
and also within any large parking areas.
one containing parking for 100 or more vehicles.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project
is defined as one located on 5 or more acres or
proposing more than 50,000 square feet of building
area. A large parking area is one containing parking for
100 or more vehicles.
14.
6.6.3 (B)(1)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
(B) is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
"Landscaping
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer
and Buffering"
along all rights -of -ways comprised of vegetation that
complements surrounding plantings and which includes trees
planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
15.
6.6.3 (13)(2)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
(2)There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer
along all common property lines separating non - residential and
residential land uses. The required plantings shall be in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
Page 4 of 17
January 26, 2015
M
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPilld IllIPill'tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
16.
6.6.3 (13)(3)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
Rewrite as follows: In lieu of the requirements outlined
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following standards
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip
shall apply:
along all property lines separating non - residential uses from
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide
non - residential uses. The landscaped strip shall be comprised
landscaped strip along all property lines separating
of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual
non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The
obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet.
landscaped strip shall be comprised of vegetation that
Joint use agreements between adjacent property owners for
forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual obstruction
shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, exc:alat
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
in required sight triangle °s. Joint use agreements
between adjacent property owners for shared
ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
17.
6.6.3 (13)(4)
The provisions of this subsection do not waive the buffer
OK as is
requirements found in Section 6.6.5 (Major Transportation
Corridor).
18.
6.6.3 (C)(1)
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural
Rewrite as follows:
"Architectural
Design Standards), the national prototype architectural styles
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5
Design
of chain businesses shall be altered as necessary to
(Architectural Design Standards), thetigRal
Standards"
complement the surrounding area.
pFet ,type aFGhi+..G+ Fal styles ef the external design of
chain businesses `hall he alte Fed - y t.,
GemplemeRt the s ...di..., a should consider and
cornpllernentt.le existing cornl "n4.nitychalrrracter.'
1 Planning staff intends to invite the community to submit photos of buildings and /or design features showing what the community members believes are
features that should be considered and encouraged in future development. Staff will keep a compilation of the photos in the Planning office (and likely on the
website) so site designers, architects, and Planning staff can see the types of features /designs the community would like to see in new development.
Page 5 of 17
January 26, 2015
61
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
' fl IPiVd IllIP tOIIY"s't 't OIid „ IIIs'tIIY"IIIO't
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
19.
6.6.3 (C)(2)
Drive - through facilities on non - residential uses are allowable in
Delete this standard. Drive - throughs should be allowed
this area.
in both proposed overlay districts, in accordance with
existing County ordinance. Therefore, it is redundant
to state that drive - throughs are allowed in the overlay
district.
19a.
Add new language for signs in Section 6.6.3:
(D) Signage
(1) Signage shall conform to requirements
within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance unless in
conflict with this subsection, in which case the
requirements of this subsection shall apply.
(2) The sign area of signs may be up to 64
square feet in size.
Page 6 of 17
January 26, 2015
62
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
20.
4.6.3 (13)(1)
In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the minimum
OK as is
front yard setback for properties fronting on U.S. Highway 70
shall be 30 -feet.
21.
4.6.3 (13)(2)
In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the front yard
OK as is
setback for parcels located in the overlay district but not
fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be in keeping with the front
setback provided by adjacent uses.
22.
4.6.3 (13)(3)
The minimum side and rear setback shall be the width of the
OK as is
required Land Use Buffer (Section 6.8.6) or the setback
required in Article 3, whichever is less, but in no case shall be
less than 10 -feet.
23.
4.6.3 (13)(4)
Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured
Delete this requirement. It can be added in the future
from any future right -of -way as designated on the Orange
if necessary if /when a Comprehensive Transportation
County Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Plan that includes future right -of -way designations is
adopted.
24.
4.6.3 (13)(5)
Although a portion of the Efland Village Overlay District is
OK as is
within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay
District, the requirements of Section 4.1xA (11.s!Idln,g Setback
and Yarn Its quire a "ne nts) the 114T4 do not apply. The parcels are
included in the MTC ems} because they fall within the
prescribed distance criteria hi-It a„ RAtfRI1 , aRy ;S+;...,
the MT-G. I I, ie re (I ulrernents of
Section 6.: 12.12(1 t)(9) (off orernise corm "n( I'daI signs l?Irrro I, ill. I! t d)
Q;(tlntlinue to alalal.....y.'
25.
4.6.3 (13)(6)
If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in
OK as is
accordance with Section 6.2.2(A), in no case shall building
height exceed 40 feet.
Z When researching sign requirements, staff discovered the changes shown to the proposed standard are necessary.
Page 7 of 17
January 26, 2015
63
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
26.
4.6.3(C)(1)
No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of lots, other
Fences should be allowed in the front yard of duplex
than those used for single - family detached residential
and multi - family uses but should be limited to 5 -feet in
purposes, unless a demonstrated need can be shown.
height.
Rewrite as follows:
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of
lots used for non - residential uses unless a
demonstrated need can be shown.
(2) Fences located in the front yard of residential uses,
other than single - family detached dwellings, shall
be a maximum of five feet in height, as measured
from the normal finished grade in the vicinity of the
fence base.
27.
4.6.3(C)(2)
Chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted for uses
Delete this proposed standard. Chain link fencing
other than single - family detached residential.
should be allowed.
Page 8 of 17
January 26, 2015
64
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
28.
6.6.4 (A) (1)
Shared Access for Properties Fronting on U.S. Highway 70
Rewrite as follows:
"Circulation and
(a) In order to manage access on U.S. Highway 70,
Shared 12rivesvays /Access for Ililops Ejl s I rrrronting 2D
Connectivity"
developments subject to this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway
I .5; 1 11g away C1,
70, and located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
(a) In order to+aaaAage aeeess rniu ! rnl7e U ie nurnlber of
access.
drvewway curb cuts on U.S. Highway 70, thereby
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
rnproving traffic flow and safety, developments subject
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the
to this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway 70, and
separate property owners and have the same recorded in the
located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
Office of the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the
d rvesways /access awheinnnsys r feasible, as determined
issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement
durl nnna site la[arr rsviesw.
agreement shall be sufficient to allow for the development of a
(1( Methods to achieve shared
private service road or driveway to channel access from 4`yicno nt
drivesways /access may indude redlaroc al
Wllllrey Itc,,,naci 11. . I lic;h way 70 to each property. Figure
easement agreements arncony 1roperty
6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared access.
oswrneirrrs, reservation of future access
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on U.S.
casements on property i developed, or
Highway 70, and not contiguous to other similarly situated
other ins t hods d is rrniinns d during site lalau
development shall be required to designate stub outs to
rrreviiesw.
adjoining properties on the site plan so that shared access can
(11) 1 he location of shared dielvesways shall be
be developed if and when the adjacent property is developed
d teie nined during site plan rsviesw. Shared
in either a manner which subjects it to this Section or if
dielvesways do not necessarily sssairily need to be
individual curb cut for a single - family detached residential land
located at the front of [ots if rear access s ss is
use is deemed to be a traffic safety hazard by the County and
aroloossd and feasible.
NCDOT.
3 Correct cut - and -paste error.
Page 9 of 17
January 26, 2015
65
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
29.
6.6.4 (A) (2)
In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be
Rewrite as follows: In order to manage access on
permitted no more than one entrance and exit point unless
public streets, a site s444 should be permitted no more
justified by site configuration, trip generation, and traffic
than one entrance and exit point unless justified by site
conditions, including the need for separate service and
configuration, trip generation, and traffic conditions,
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic
including the need for separate service and
movement.
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way
traffic movement, or other factors.
(u) 1 his standard alalaliss to nesv c onnstieuctionn me
redevelolorns int of a site t rat iincarrrs asss the
square footage of a IbulIe!ng by rnore t1, min :M%,
of the existing square footage.
30.
6.6.4 (A)(3)
Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be
Rewrite as follows: Intra -site accessibility s444 should
required to enter the public street in order to move from one
be provided. Vehicles sleaP should not be required to
area to another on the same site.
enter the public street in order to move from one area
to another on the same site.
(u) 1 his standard alalaliss to nesv construction or
redevelolorns int of a site t rat iincarrrs asss the
square footage of a IbulIe!ng by rnore t1, min kCPf /ti
of the existing square footage.
31.
6.6.4 (A)(4)
On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer
OK as is
than 60 feet from the point of intersection of the street right -
of -way lines.
32.
6.6.4 (A)(5)
Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at
Make it clearer that this standard refers to driveways,
the property line; however, in instances where parking lots
not public roads. Rewrite to read: I: ieri'vesvay
serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway entrance /exit may be
':;;;entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width
increased to 40 feet in width.
measured at the property line; however, in instances
where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the
driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in
width
Page 10 of 17
January 26, 2015
..
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
33.
6.6.4 (A) (6)
Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking
OK as is
spaces shall contain holding lanes for left- turning and right -
turning traffic unless the Planning Director determines that due
to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be unsafe
and should not be required.
34.
6.6.4 (A)(7)
All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT
OK as is
driveway permit and must be paved to NCDOT standards from
the edge of the existing roadway pavement to the existing
right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
35.
6.6.4 (A) (8)
Pedestrian Circulation
Rewrite as follows:
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during
Pedestrian Circulation
site plan review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning
internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
Director during site plan review, large projects, defined
by the property owner. The system shall provide pedestrian
in (b), s4a4 may be re quire d to provide an internal
walkways to outparcels and also within any large parking areas.
pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is
by the property owner. The system &14a4 urnay be
defined as one located on 2 or more acres or proposing more
required to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels
than 15,000 square feet of building area. A large parking area is
and also within any large parking areas.
one containing parking for 50 or more vehicles.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project
is defined as one located on 2 or more acres or
proposing more than 15,000 square feet of building
area. A large parking area is one containing parking for
50 or more vehicles.
36.
6.6.4 (13)(1)
All outside storage of materials on lots other than those used
OK as is
"Outdoor
for single - family detached residential purposes is prohibited.
Storage of
Materials
Prohibited"
Page 11 of 17
January 26, 2015
67
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
37.
6.6.4 (13)(2)
This prohibition includes the storage of goods or materials
OK as is
which are not an integral part of the use of the property and
which are not obviously for sale.
38.
6.6.4 (13)(3)
This prohibition does not include the storage of materials
OK as is
where the primary use of the property includes the outside
display of goods for sale such as automobiles, boats, mobile
homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for sale.
39.
6.6.4 (C)(1)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
"Landscaping
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
and Buffering"
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer
along all rights -of -ways comprised of vegetation that
complements surrounding plantings and which includes trees
planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(a) Parcels fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall provide buffer
plantings in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards
Type A outlined within
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
40.
6.6.4 (C)(2)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer
along all common property lines separating uses subject to the
requirements of this overlay district and single family detached
residential land uses. The required plantings shall be in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
Page 12 of 17
January 26, 2015
.:
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
41.
6.6.4 (C)(3)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
Rewrite as follows: In lieu of the requirements outlined
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip
standards shall apply:
along all property lines separating non - residential uses from
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide
non - residential uses. The landscaped strip shall be comprised
landscaped strip along all property lines separating
of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual
non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The
obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet.
landscaped strip shall be comprised of vegetation that
Joint use agreements between adjacent property owners for
forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual obstruction
shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, excelot
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
in required sight triangle °s. Joint use agreements
between adjacent property owners for shared
ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
42.
6.6.4 (C)(4)
Although portions of the Efland Village Overlay District are also
OK as is
within the Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District, the
buffer requirements found in Section 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) do not apply since said section applies
only to properties that abut the interstate.
43.
6.6.4 (D)(1)
Up to 15% of the required parking spaces may be located in the
Add language to address existing buildings that change
"Parking Lot
front yard. The remainder of the required parking spaces shall
use as follows:
Design"
be located at the side or rear of the structure.
(1)(a) Existing buildings that change use shall comply
with this requirement to the extent feasible, as
determined during the site plan submittal process.
44.
6.6.4 (D)(2)
Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non-
OK as is
residential land uses, in accordance with Section 6.9 of this
Ordinance.
45.
6.6.4 (D)(3)
Parking areas with spaces in excess of 110% of the minimum
OK as is
parking spaces required, per Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, shall
not be permitted.
Page 13 of 17
January 26, 2015
.•
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
46.
6.6.4 (D)(4)
Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided in
OK as is
accordance with Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
47.
6.6.4 (E)(1)
Signage shall conform to all requirements within Section 6.12
Rewrite as follows: Signage shall conform to alf
" Signage"
of this Ordinance.
requirements within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance
unless iin conflict with this subsection, in whid,I rasa the
requirrrernents of this subsection shall alalaly.
48.
6.6.4 (E)(2)
Only monument style signs that do not exceed six feet in height
Delete this requirement. See #49a below for proposed
are permitted within the Efland Village Overlay District unless
sign requirements
the sign is considered a wall or window sign.
49.
6.6.4 (E)(3)
Pole signs are not permitted.
Rewrite as follows: New single pole signs are not
permitted. Single pole signs existing as of [date of
adoption] shall be considered conforming uses and
may be replaced if they are damaged or destroyed.°
° Planning staff will conduct a photo inventory of all existing pole signs in the Efland Village overlay district area and keep the inventory on file for future
reference.
Page 14 of 17
January 26, 2015
70
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
49a.
Add new language in regards to signs:
(1) The height limit of signs is 15 -feet, as measured
from the normal ground elevation below the sign.
(2) The sign area of signs may be up to 64 square feet
in size.
(3) Digital signs shall not be permitted except as an
incidental addition to a permitted sign such as gas
prices or the current time and /or temperature
being displayed digitally.5
(4) Portable signs and banner signs are allowed only
for special events and may be displayed no sooner
than 30 days prior to the event and must be
removed within 7 days after conclusion of the
event.
5 Typographical error corrected on March 5, 2015.
Page 15 of 17
January 26, 2015
71
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Eflaind Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
50.
6.6.4 (F)(1)
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural
Rewrite to read as follows:
"Architectural
Design Standards), the following design standards shall apply:
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5
Design
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(Architectural Design Standards), the following design
Standards"
(a) Under no circumstances shall modern corporate franchise
standards shall apply:
building design be permitted.
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(b) Franchise or 'chain' businesses desiring to locate in the
The external design of chain businesses should consider
Efland Village
and complement the existing community character . 6
Overlay District shall be required to design the building in
accordance with these guidelines.
(c) For purposes of this Sub - Section, "modern corporate
franchise building design" means a building design that is
trademarked, branded, or easily identified with a particular
chain or corporation and is ubiquitous in nature.
51.
6.6.4 (F)(2)
The principal building shall be oriented facing towards the
Delete this proposed standard.
fronting street.
52.
6.6.4 (F)(3)(a)
A functional doorway for public or direct -entry access into a
Delete this proposed standard.
(Building
building shall be provided from the fronting street.
Access)
53.
6.6.4 (F)(3)(b)
Additional entrances to a building may be provided.
Delete this proposed standard.
6 Planning staff intends to invite the community to submit photos of buildings and /or design features showing what the community members believes are
features that should be considered and encouraged in future development. Staff will keep a compilation of the photos in the Planning office (and likely on the
website) so site designers, architects, and Planning staff can see the types of features /designs the community would like to see in new development.
Page 16 of 17
January 26, 2015
Attachment 6 56
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
1.
4.5.3 (13)(1)
The minimum side and rear setback shall be with width of the
OK as is
required buffer in 6.6.3(B) or the setback required in Article 3
or Section 6.2.8, whichever is less, except as provided in (a).
2.
4.5.3(13)(1)(a)
(Referenced in standard above)
OK as is
For parcels subject to the setback and yard requirements in
Section 4.7.4, the requirements of said Section shall apply.
3.
4.5.3(B)(2)
Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured
Delete this requirement. It can be added in the future
from any future right -of -way as designated on the Orange
if necessary if /when a Comprehensive Transportation
County T,�heFe ghfa,z Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Plan that includes future right -of -way designations is
adopted.
4.
6.6.3(A)(1)
All site planning for property east of Mount Willing Road shall
OK as is
(A) is
take into account the need for a connecting roadway between
"Circulation and
Mount Willing Road and the Interstate 85 /U.S. Highway 70
Connectivity"
Connector.
5.
6.6.3 (A) (2)
All site planning west of Mount Willing Road shall take into
The possible realignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road
account:
under the existing railroad track should be removed
(a) A possible re- alignment of Efland -Cedar Grove Road under
from the adopted Access Management Plan and
the existing railroad track to connect to Mount Willing Road, as
proposed standard (a) should be deleted from the
described in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan.
proposed UDO amendment.
(b) The need for a connecting roadway between Mount Willing
Road and Buckhorn Road, as depicted on the Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Access Management Plan, adopted November 11,
2011.
6.
6.6.3 (A) (3)
In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be
Rewrite as follows: In order to manage access on public
permitted no more than one entrance /exit point unless
streets, a site shall be permitted no more than one
justified by site configuration, trip generation, and traffic
entrance /exit point unless justified by site
conditions, including the need for separate service and
configuration, trip generation, and traffic conditions,
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic
including the need for separate service and
movement.
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way
traffic movement, or other factors.
Page 1 of 17
January 26, 2015
57
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
7.
6.6.3 (A) (4)
Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be
OK as is
required to enter the public street in order to move from one
area to another on the same site.
8.
6.6.3 (A) (5)
On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer
OK as is
than 60 feet from the point of intersection of the street right -
of -way lines.
9.
6.6.3 (A) (6)
Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at
Make it clearer that this standard refers to driveways,
the property line; however, in instances where parking lots
not public roads. Rewrite to read: Driveway
serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway entrance /exit may be
€entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width
increased to 40 feet in width
measured at the property line; however, in instances
where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the
driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in
width
10.
6.6.3 (A) (7)
Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking
OK as is
spaces shall contain holding lanes for left- turning and right -
turning traffic unless the Planning Director determines that due
to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be unsafe
and should not be required.
Page 2of17
January 26, 2015
58
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
11.
6.6.3 (A) (8)
Shared Access
Rewrite as follows:
(a) In order to manage access on Mount Willing Road,
Shared Driveways /Access
developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount
(a) In order to aaaHage aeeess minimize the number of
Willing Road, and located contiguous to one another shall
driveway curb cuts on Mount Willing Road, thereby
provide shared access.
improving traffic flow and safety, developments subject
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
to this Section, fronting on Mount Willing Road, and
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the
located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
separate property owners and have the same recorded in the
driveways /access whenever feasible, as determined
Office of the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the
during site plan review.
issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement
(i) Methods to achieve shared driveways /access
agreement shall be sufficient to allow for the development of a
may include reciprocal easement agreements
private service road or driveway to channel access from Mount
among property owners, reservation of future
Willing Road to each property. Figure 6.6.2.A.3 shows an
access easements on property being
example of the shared access.
developed, or other methods determined
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on Mount
during site plan review.
Willing Road, and not contiguous to other similarly situated
(ii) The location of shared driveways shall be
development shall be required to designate stub outs to
determined during site plan review. Shared
adjoining properties on the site plan so that shared access can
driveways do not necessarily need to be
be developed if and when the adjacent property is developed
located at the front of lots if rear or side access
in either a manner which subjects it to this Section or if
is proposed and feasible.
individual curb cut for a single - family detached residential land
use is deemed to be a traffic safety hazard by the County and
NCDOT.
12.
6.6.3 (A) (9)
All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT
OK as is
driveway permit and must be paved to NCDOT standards from
the edge of the existing roadway pavement to the existing
right -of -way limit on the interior ofthe property.
Page 3of17
January 26, 2015
59
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
13.
6.6.3 (A)(10)
Pedestrian Circulation
Rewrite as follows:
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during
Pedestrian Circulation
site plan review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning
internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
Director during site plan review, large projects, defined
by the property owner. The system shall provide pedestrian
in (b), &ha4 may be required to provide an internal
walkways to outparcels and also within any large parking areas.
pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is
by the property owner. The system s4a4 may be
defined as one located on 5 or more acres or proposing more
required to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels
than 50,000 square feet of building area. A large parking area is
and also within any large parking areas.
one containing parking for 100 or more vehicles.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project
is defined as one located on 5 or more acres or
proposing more than 50,000 square feet of building
area. A large parking area is one containing parking for
100 or more vehicles.
14.
6.6.3 (13)(1)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
(B) is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
"Landscaping
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer
and Buffering"
along all rights -of -ways comprised of vegetation that
complements surrounding plantings and which includes trees
planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
15.
6.6.3 (B)(2)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
(2)There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer
along all common property lines separating non - residential and
residential land uses. The required plantings shall be in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
Page 4 of 17
January 26, 2015
.E
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
16.
6.6.3 (13)(3)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
Rewrite as follows: In lieu of the requirements outlined
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following standards
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip
shall apply:
along all property lines separating non - residential uses from
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide
non - residential uses. The landscaped strip shall be comprised
landscaped strip along all property lines separating
of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual
non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The
obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet.
landscaped strip shall be comprised of vegetation that
Joint use agreements between adjacent property owners for
forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual obstruction
shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, except
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
in required sight triangles. Joint use agreements
between adjacent property owners for shared
ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
17.
6.6.3 (13)(4)
The provisions of this subsection do not waive the buffer
OK as is
requirements found in Section 6.6.5 (Major Transportation
Corridor).
18.
6.6.3 (C)(1)
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural
Rewrite as follows:
"Architectural
Design Standards), the national prototype architectural styles
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5
Design
of chain businesses shall be altered as necessary to
(Architectural Design Standards), the aatieaa4
Standards"
complement the surrounding area.
^Fetet pe aFehiteetuFal styles of the external design of
chain businesses ;hall he altered as y to
eemplemeRt suFFeuRdiRg aFea should consider and
complement the existing community character.'
' Planning staff intends to invite the community to submit photos of buildings and /or design features showing what the community members believes are
features that should be considered and encouraged in future development. Staff will keep a compilation of the photos in the Planning office (and likely on the
website) so site designers, architects, and Planning staff can seethe types of features /designs the community would like to see in new development.
Page 5 of 17
January 26, 2015
61
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Interstate Overlay Distric
Easy
Section
Ref.
Number in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
19.
6.6.3 (C)(2)
Drive - through facilities on non - residential uses are allowable in
Delete this standard. Drive - throughs should be allowed
this area.
in both proposed overlay districts, in accordance with
existing County ordinance. Therefore, it is redundant
to state that drive - throughs are allowed in the overlay
district.
19a.
Add new language for signs in Section 6.6.3:
(D) Signage
(1) Signage shall conform to requirements
within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance unless in
conflict with this subsection, in which case the
requirements of this subsection shall apply.
(2) The sign area of signs may be up to 64
square feet in size.
Page 6 of 17
January 26, 2015
62
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
20.
4.6.3 (13)(1)
In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the minimum
OK as is
front yard setback for properties fronting on U.S. Highway 70
shall be 30 -feet.
21.
4.6.3 (13)(2)
In lieu of the front setback required in Article 3, the front yard
OK as is
setback for parcels located in the overlay district but not
fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall be in keeping with the front
setback provided by adjacent uses.
22.
4.6.3 (13)(3)
The minimum side and rear setback shall be the width of the
OK as is
required Land Use Buffer (Section 6.8.6) or the setback
required in Article 3, whichever is less, but in no case shall be
less than 10 -feet.
23.
4.6.3 (13)(4)
Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured
Delete this requirement. It can be added in the future
from any future right -of -way as designated on the Orange
if necessary if /when a Comprehensive Transportation
County Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Plan that includes future right -of -way designations is
adopted.
24.
4.6.3 (13)(5)
Although a portion of the Efland Village Overlay District is
OK as is
within the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay
District, the requirements of Section 4.5.4 (Building Setback
and Yard Requirements) the "T" 4 do not apply. The parcels are
included in the MTC ef4y because they fall within the
prescribed distance criteria but do not F'" - RdeF aRy existiRg
the ""TG The requirements of
Section 6.12.12(B)(9) (off - premise commercial signs prohibited)
continue to apply.z
25.
4.6.3 (13)(6)
If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in
OK as is
accordance with Section 6.2.2(A), in no case shall building
height exceed 40 feet.
z When researching sign requirements, staff discovered the changes shown to the proposed standard are necessary.
Page 7 of 17
January 26, 2015
63
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
26.
4.6.3(C)(1)
No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of lots, other
Fences should be allowed in the front yard of duplex
than those used for single - family detached residential
and multi - family uses but should be limited to 5 -feet in
purposes, unless a demonstrated need can be shown.
height.
Rewrite as follows:
(1) No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of
lots used for non - residential uses unless a
demonstrated need can be shown.
(2) Fences located in the front yard of residential uses,
other than single - family detached dwellings, shall
be a maximum of five feet in height, as measured
from the normal finished grade in the vicinity of the
fence base.
27.
4.6.3(C)(2)
Chain link or similar fencing shall not be permitted for uses
Delete this proposed standard. Chain link fencing
other than single - family detached residential.
should be allowed.
Page 8 of 17
January 26, 2015
64
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
28.
6.6.4 (A) (1)
Shared Access for Properties Fronting on U.S. Highway 70
Rewrite as follows:
"Circulation and
(a) In order to manage access on U.S. Highway 70,
Shared Driveways /Access for Properties Fronting on
U.S. Highway 70
Connectivity"
developments subject to this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway
70, and located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
(a) In order to Maaage aGGess minimize the number of
access.
driveway curb cuts on U.S. Highway 70, thereby
(i) Owners of contiguous parcels subject to this Section shall
improving traffic flow and safety, developments subject
execute reciprocal easement agreements between the
to this Section, fronting on U.S. Highway 70, and
separate property owners and have the same recorded in the
located contiguous to one another shall provide shared
Office of the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the
driveways /access whenever feasible, as determined
issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement
during site plan review.
agreement shall be sufficient to allow for the development of a
(i) Methods to achieve shared
private service road or driveway to channel access from A4au.Rt
driveways /access may include reciprocal
`Milling Re U.S. Highway 703 to each property. Figure
easement agreements among property
6.6.2.A.3 shows an example of the shared access.
owners, reservation of future access
(ii) Developments subject to this Section, fronting on U.S.
easements on property being developed, or
Highway 70, and not contiguous to other similarly situated
other methods determined during site plan
development shall be required to designate stub outs to
review.
adjoining properties on the site plan so that shared access can
(ii) The location of shared driveways shall be
be developed if and when the adjacent property is developed
determined during site plan review. Shared
in either a manner which subjects it to this Section or if
driveways do not necessarily need to be
individual curb cut for a single - family detached residential land
located at the front of lots if rear access is
use is deemed to be a traffic safety hazard by the County and
proposed and feasible.
NCDOT.
3 Correct cut - and -paste error.
Page 9of17
January 26, 2015
65
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
29.
6.6.4 (A) (2)
In order to manage access on public streets, a site shall be
Rewrite as follows: In order to manage access on
permitted no more than one entrance and exit point unless
public streets, a site &14a4 should be permitted no more
justified by site configuration, trip generation, and traffic
than one entrance and exit point unless justified by site
conditions, including the need for separate service and
configuration, trip generation, and traffic conditions,
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way traffic
including the need for separate service and
movement.
visitor /employee vehicular access, and /or one -way
traffic movement, or other factors.
(i) This standard applies to new construction or
redevelopment of a site that increases the
square footage of a building by more than 50%
of the existing square footage.
30.
6.6.4 (A) (3)
Intra -site accessibility shall be provided. Vehicles shall not be
Rewrite as follows: Intra -site accessibility s14a4 should
required to enter the public street in order to move from one
be provided. Vehicles s4a11 should not be required to
area to another on the same site.
enter the public street in order to move from one area
to another on the same site.
(i) This standard applies to new construction or
redevelopment of a site that increases the
square footage of a building by more than 50%
of the existing square footage.
31.
6.6.4 (A) (4)
On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer
OK as is
than 60 feet from the point of intersection of the street right -
of -way lines.
32.
6.6.4 (A) (5)
Entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width measured at
Make it clearer that this standard refers to driveways,
the property line; however, in instances where parking lots
not public roads. Rewrite to read: Driveway
serve tractor /trailer traffic, the driveway entrance /exit may be
€entrances /exits shall not exceed 36 feet in width
increased to 40 feet in width.
measured at the property line; however, in instances
where parking lots serve tractor /trailer traffic, the
driveway entrance /exit may be increased to 40 feet in
width
Page 10 of 17
January 26, 2015
..
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
33.
6.6.4 (A) (6)
Exits for parking facilities containing more than 36 parking
OK as is
spaces shall contain holding lanes for left- turning and right -
turning traffic unless the Planning Director determines that due
to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be unsafe
and should not be required.
34.
6.6.4 (A) (7)
All driveway entrances must have an approved NCDOT
OK as is
driveway permit and must be paved to NCDOT standards from
the edge of the existing roadway pavement to the existing
right -of -way limit on the interior of the property.
35.
6.6.4 (A) (8)
Pedestrian Circulation
Rewrite as follows:
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Director during
Pedestrian Circulation
site plan review, large projects, defined in (b), shall provide an
(a) Unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning
internal pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
Director during site plan review, large projects, defined
by the property owner. The system shall provide pedestrian
in (b), &4a4 may be required to provide an internal
walkways to outparcels and also within any large parking areas.
pedestrian circulation system, owned and maintained
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project is
by the property owner. The system &4a4 may be
defined as one located on 2 or more acres or proposing more
required to provide pedestrian walkways to outparcels
than 15,000 square feet of building area. A large parking area is
and also within any large parking areas.
one containing parking for 50 or more vehicles.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, a large project
is defined as one located on 2 or more acres or
proposing more than 15,000 square feet of building
area. A large parking area is one containing parking for
50 or more vehicles.
36.
6.6.4 (13)(1)
All outside storage of materials on lots other than those used
OK as is
"Outdoor
for single - family detached residential purposes is prohibited.
Storage of
Materials
Prohibited"
Page 11 of 17
January 26, 2015
67
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
37.
6.6.4 (13)(2)
This prohibition includes the storage of goods or materials
OK as is
which are not an integral part of the use of the property and
which are not obviously for sale.
38.
6.6.4 (13)(3)
This prohibition does not include the storage of materials
OK as is
where the primary use of the property includes the outside
display of goods for sale such as automobiles, boats, mobile
homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for sale.
39.
6.6.4 (C)(1)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
"Landscaping
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
and Buffering"
(1) There shall be a minimum ten feet wide vegetative buffer
along all rights -of -ways comprised of vegetation that
complements surrounding plantings and which includes trees
planted in accordance with Section 6.8 where possible.
(a) Parcels fronting on U.S. Highway 70 shall provide buffer
plantings in accordance with those required for Buffer Yards
Type A outlined within
Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
40.
6.6.4 (C)(2)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
OK as is
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
(2) There shall be a minimum 15 feet wide vegetative buffer
along all common property lines separating uses subject to the
requirements of this overlay district and single family detached
residential land uses. The required plantings shall be in
accordance with those required for Buffer Yards Type A
outlined within Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
Page 12 of 17
January 26, 2015
.:
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
41.
6.6.4 (C)(3)
In lieu of the requirements outlined in Section 6.8 of this
Rewrite as follows: In lieu of the requirements outlined
Ordinance, the following standards shall apply:
in Section 6.8 of this Ordinance, the following
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide landscaped strip
standards shall apply:
along all property lines separating non - residential uses from
(3) There shall be a minimum eight feet wide
non - residential uses. The landscaped strip shall be comprised
landscaped strip along all property lines separating
of vegetation that forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual
non - residential uses from non - residential uses. The
obstruction from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet.
landscaped strip shall be comprised of vegetation that
Joint use agreements between adjacent property owners for
forms a semi - opaque intermittent visual obstruction
shared ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
from the ground to a height of at least 15 feet, except
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
in required sight triangles. Joint use agreements
between adjacent property owners for shared
ingress /egress and /or parking may result in a waiver
regarding the exact location(s) of the required buffers.
42.
6.6.4 (C)(4)
Although portions of the Efland Village Overlay District are also
OK as is
within the Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District, the
buffer requirements found in Section 6.6.5 (Major
Transportation Corridor) do not apply since said section applies
only to properties that abut the interstate.
43.
6.6.4 (D)(1)
Up to 15% of the required parking spaces may be located in the
Add language to address existing buildings that change
"Parking Lot
front yard. The remainder of the required parking spaces shall
use as follows:
Design"
be located at the side or rear of the structure.
(1)(a) Existing buildings that change use shall comply
with this requirement to the extent feasible, as
determined during the site plan submittal process.
44.
6.6.4 (D)(2)
Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non-
OK as is
residential land uses, in accordance with Section 6.9 of this
Ordinance.
45.
6.6.4 (D)(3)
Parking areas with spaces in excess of 110% of the minimum
OK as is
parking spaces required, per Section 6.9 of this Ordinance, shall
not be permitted.
Page 13 of 17
January 26, 2015
.•
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
46.
6.6.4 (D)(4)
Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided in
OK as is
accordance with Section 6.8 of this Ordinance.
47.
6.6.4 (E)(1)
Signage shall conform to all requirements within Section 6.12
Rewrite as follows: Signage shall conform to a44
" Signage"
of this Ordinance.
requirements within Section 6.12 of this Ordinance
unless in conflict with this subsection, in which case the
requirements of this subsection shall apply.
48.
6.6.4 (E)(2)
Only monument style signs that do not exceed six feet in height
Delete this requirement. See #49a below for proposed
are permitted within the Efland Village Overlay District unless
sign requirements
the sign is considered a wall or window sign.
49.
6.6.4 (E)(3)
Pole signs are not permitted.
Rewrite as follows: New single pole signs are not
permitted. Single pole signs existing as of [date of
adoption] shall be considered conforming uses and
may be replaced if they are damaged or destroyed.°
Planning staff will conduct a photo inventory of all existing pole signs in the Efland Village overlay district area and keep the inventory on file for future
reference.
Page 14 of 17
January 26, 2015
70
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
49a.
Add new language in regards to signs:
(1) The height limit of signs is 15 -feet, as measured
from the normal ground elevation below the sign.
(2) The sign area of signs may be up to 64 square feet
in size.
(3) Digital signs shall not be permitted except as an
incidental addition to a permitted sign such as gas
prices or the current time and /or temperature
being displayed digitally.5
(4) Portable signs and banner signs are allowed only
for special events and may be displayed no sooner
than 30 days prior to the event and must be
removed within 7 days after conclusion of the
event.
5 Typographical error corrected on March 5, 2015.
Page 15 of 17
January 26, 2015
71
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
50.
6.6.4 (F)(1)
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5 (Architectural
Rewrite to read as follows:
"Architectural
Design Standards), the following design standards shall apply:
In addition to the requirements in Section 6.5
Design
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(Architectural Design Standards), the following design
Standards"
(a) Under no circumstances shall modern corporate franchise
standards shall apply:
building design be permitted.
(1) Corporate Franchise Architecture
(b) Franchise or 'chain' businesses desiring to locate in the
The external design of chain businesses should consider
Efland Village
and complement the existing community character . 6
Overlay District shall be required to design the building in
accordance with these guidelines.
(c) For purposes of this Sub - Section, "modern corporate
franchise building design" means a building design that is
trademarked, branded, or easily identified with a particular
chain or corporation and is ubiquitous in nature.
51.
6.6.4 (F)(2)
The principal building shall be oriented facing towards the
Delete this proposed standard.
fronting street.
52.
6.6.4 (F)(3) (a)
A functional doorway for public or direct -entry access into a
Delete this proposed standard.
(Building
building shall be provided from the fronting street.
Access)
53.
6.6.4 (F)(3)(b)
Additional entrances to a building may be provided.
Delete this proposed standard.
6 Planning staff intends to invite the community to submit photos of buildings and /or design features showing what the community members believes are
features that should be considered and encouraged in future development. Staff will keep a compilation of the photos in the Planning office (and likely on the
website) so site designers, architects, and Planning staff can seethe types of features /designs the community would like to see in new development.
Page 16 of 17
January 26, 2015
72
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestions for each Proposed Standard is in the Column on the Right
Efland Village Overlay District
Easy
Section Number
Ref.
in UDO
Proposed Standard
Efland Area Resident Group Input /Suggestion
No.
Revisions
54.
6.6.4 (F)(4) (a)
Buildings shall be designed to contribute to a human scale.
Rewrite as follows:
Large expanses of blank walls shall be avoided and fenestration
(a) New bguildings shall be designed to contribute to a
(the arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and
human scale. Large expanses of blank walls shall be
doors in a building) shall be provided in such a way that a
aeided discouraged and fenestration (the
building is relatable to humans and does not overpower the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows
area.
and doors in a building) and /or design features (such as
brick coursing changes, decorative architectural
features, patterns of paint, or murals) s14a4 should be
provided in such a way that a building is relatable to
humans and does not overpower the area.
(b) Additions to existing non - residential buildings
should be designed to both complement the existing
building and achieve human scale to the extent
feasible.
(c) The functional use of the building should be
considered when determining design features and
fenestration.
55.
6.6.4 (F)(5)
Drive - through facilities are prohibited on all non - residential
Delete this standard. Drive - throughs should be allowed
uses.
in both proposed overlay districts, in accordance with
existing County ordinance. Therefore, it is redundant
to state that drive - throughs are allowed in the overlay
district.
56.
6.6.4 (F)(6)
Mirrored glass is prohibited.
Rewrite as follows: Mirrored glass is discouraged and
in no case shall comprise more than 50% of the
building fagade.
Page 17 of 17
January 26, 2015