Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-03-2007-6bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 3, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. (~ - J~ SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments -Proposed Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Zoning Overlay District and Amendment to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Impervious Surface Ratio Regulations DEPARTMENT: Planning Department PUB<_IC HEARING: (Y/N) NO ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 2. Map Depicting Proposed Boundaries of ECOD 3. Staff Responses to Comments and Questions made at the August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing 4. Public Information Meeting Notification Materials 5. Public Information Meeting Sign-in Sheet 6. Excerpt of 9!5/07 Approved Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7. Excerpt of 10/9/07 Approved BOCC Meeting Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592 Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner, (919) 245-2611 Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer, (919) 245-2607 PURPOSE: To consider making text and map amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas regarding a proposed new zoning overlay district -Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) -- and to consider amending impervious surface limits prescribed in Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Upper Eno and Back Creek Protected Watersheds. BACKGROUND: One of the recommendations of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP) is to allow commercial development in certain areas along the Highway 70 corridor and to allow for conversion of some residential structures to office type uses. A Land Use Element text amendment regarding 10-Year Transition areas was heard at the May 21, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing and was adopted by the BOCC at the August 21, 2007 BOCC meeting. This Zoning text and map amendment is the next step towards allowing non-residential uses in specific areas along the Highway 70 corridor. This is a smaller scale economic development opportunity that is being expanded in appropriate areas. The typical steps in planning changes are: 1. Small Area Plan Adoption (June 2006) with Recommendations 2. Land Use Element Text Amendments (adopted August 21, 2007) 3. Land Use Element Map Amendments (n/a in this case) 4. Zoning Text Amendments (this proposal) 5. Zoning AtIaslMap Amendments (this proposal) 6. Petitioner Application (processed after Implementing Regulations are adopted) The proposed text amendment would add a new Zoning Overlay District to the Zoning Ordinance. The name of the proposed new Zoning Overlay District is the Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). The following Sections would be added to the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.2.33 and Section 6.25 with appropriate sub-sections. Additionally, the Zoning Atlas would be amended to delineate the extent of the ECOD on the County's official zoning maps. There are two (2) specific designations within the proposed ECOD -the general ECOD area and the pre-designated commercial area. A total of 607 acres of land are contained within the ECOD boundaries with 148 acres of the total acreage in the pre-designated commercial area. Proposed Zoning text changes include adding sections of intent, application criteria, permitted uses, development standards, access, outside storage limitations, prescribed architectural standards to preserve community and corridor character, landscaping, signage, and parking. Amendments are also proposed to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) to 40% for non-residential uses in 10-year Transition areas, with structural BMPs if the ISR is greater than 12%, if the parcel is located in the Upper Eno or Back Creek Protected Watershed. August 27, 2007 Public Hearing Because the proposed amendments affect the Zoning Atlas, notification letters to affected property owners were required by State statutes and by County Ordinance. A total of 456 notification letters were mailed on August 10, 2007 to owners of property in the proposed ECOD and to property owners within 500-feet of the proposed ECOD boundary advising them of the proposal and inviting them to the August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. Approximately 20 members of the public attended the public hearing regarding this item and three (3) individuals addressed the BOCC and Planning Board regarding the proposal. Two (2) of the speakers had questions about how the proposal would specifically affect their property. One (1) speaker cited concerns over existing traffic levels and how the proposal might increase traffic. Post August 27, 2007 Public Hearing Amendments and Actions Staff prepared responses to comments and questions made by BOCC and Planning Board members at the Quarterly Public Hearing. These responses and changes to the proposed text were presented at the October 9, 2007 BOCC meeting. The previously presented text changes have been incorporated into the current text in Attachment 1. Attachment 3 consists of Staff responses to Comments and Questions made by the BOCC and Planning Board at the Public Hearing. At the October 9, 2007 BOCC meeting, the BOCC voted to direct Staff to hold a Public Information Meeting to ensure affected property owners would be as informed as possible about the proposed zoning overlay district. (See Attachment 7 for an excerpt of the approved BOCC meeting minutes for October 9, 2007). Planning Staff held an open-house style Public Information meeting on Thursday, November 1, 2007 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center. Notification letters were mailed to the approximately 200 property owners within the ECOD boundaries on October 12, 2007. Flyers were posted at the following locations in the community on October 16, 2007: The Pop Shoppe at the corner of Buckhorn Road and Highway 70, Sam's Food Mart (Citgo) on Highway 70 (across from the Pop Shoppe), the U.S. Post Office in Efland, Efland-Cheeks Park (one outside and one inside), and the Efland Supermarket. Additionally, flyers were dropped off at all known religious facilities in the ECOD and in close proximity to the ECOD boundary on October 16: Hunter's Chapel AME Church, Mt. Moriah Baptist Church, Faith Tabernacle Holiness Church, McCoy's Temple, Gaines Chapel AME Church, and Efland Presbyterian Church. Materials related to this notification effort are included as Attachment 4. A total of 15 individuals and 2 members of the EMSAP Implementation Focus Group attended the Public Information meeting (Attachment 5 is the sign-in sheet for the meeting). Planning staff members spoke to attendees on a one-on-one basis and explained the proposed action to them. The vast majority of attendees were interested in how the proposal would affect their individual property. Planning staff explained that the existing zoning would not be changed by this action and that people could continue to live in their homes and build new homes on residentially zoned lots but that it would be likely that some non-residential uses would locate on up to 40% of the lots along Highway 70. Staff also made a point to tell attendees that in the pre- designated commercial area all of the lots could potentially be changed to non-residential uses. It was explained that non-residential uses would have to be constructed to certain standards, that there were limits on how large a building could be, and that landscaping and buffering would be required. The concerns of most attendees seemed to be assuaged by the knowledge that the proposed zoning action would not force them to sell their homes against their will or change their status to non-conforming. One attendee seemed to be in opposition to any type of change within the corridor due to concerns over "potential impacts on the long-time, poor, black community." No meeting attendees availed themselves of the opportunity to provide written comments. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered the proposed text amendment at their regular meeting on September 5, 2007. The Planning Board voted 6-3 in favor of recommending approval of the text amendment. (Planning Board vote - `Yes': Bryan, Crawford; Goodwin, Pelissier, Quinn, Wegner; `No': Kempinski, Price, Lasris; Absent: Knight, Schmitt). Attachment 6 is an excerpt of the approved Planning Board minutes for September 5, 2007. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact. Staff time has been accounted for in the departmental budget. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the Zoning Text and Atlas amendments as presented. Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 Section 4.2.33 Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD): 4 a) Intent. The Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District 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. The Highway 70 corridor covered under this overlay district is part of the adopted Efland Mebane Small Area Plan which outlines acceptable levels of development within the study area, including allowing for additional non-residential development along Highway 70. These regulations 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. It is the intent of this 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. Standards are hereby established to allow for the development of additional non- residential land uses within the Highway 70 corridor in order to maintain and enhance the economic vitality of the area while protecting the less intensive mixture of existing residential land uses. b) Applicability. This district is intended for properties adjacent to Highway 70 within Cheeks Township of Orange County in accordance with. the boundaries shown on the map below and on the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 5 c) Application Criteria. The requirements of this Section 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 Five (EC-5) zoning districts. d) Location of Non-residential development: Non-residential development within the Highway 70 Corridor shall be limited to the following: 1. Pre-designated commercial area as indicated on the Orange County Zoning Atlas, and 2. Along Highway 70 In accordance with the standards contained within this Ordinance. Efland -Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District Boundaries Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 6 Section 6.25 Extra Requirements for the Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) Section 6.25.1 Permitted Uses Within the ECOD, uses of land and structures shall be permitted as follows: 1. Non-residential development within the pre-designated commercial area shall adhere to the permitted and special uses outlined for the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) zoning district as contained within Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of this Ordinance. 2. Non-residential uses within the Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District, shall be limited to professional office and similar institutional uses (numbers S28 and S29 on the Permitted Use Table found in Section 4.3) and abide by the standards contained herein. 3. No more than forty percent (40%) of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre- designated commercial areas shall be permitted for non-residential uses. 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. The 40% limitation includes non-residential uses conducted within new or converted/rehabilitated structures that have a residential appearance. Section 6.25.2 Approval Requirements Within the ECOD, no construction activity shall begin nor shall any conversion of existing single-family residence to anon-residential land use, excavation, soil removal, grading or disturbance of vegetation including trees, land disturbing activity associated with anon-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 Zoning OfFicer in accordance with Section 21.4 and in Article 14 of this Ordinance. Section 6.25.3 Site Plan Requirements In addition to the requirements outlined within Article Fourteen (14) Site Plan Approval Procedures, the following additional information shall be required for non-residential land uses developing within the ECOD: (a) A development summary including total acres, proposed use(s), total building square footage, required and proposed parking spaces. (b) The dimensions and acreage of each lot or portion thereof to be built upon or otherwise used. (c) The layout of the entire project including the proposed uses of all building and their relation to surrounding properties. Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 7 (d) The location and dimensions of present and proposed streets and highways. (e) The location of points of entry and exit for motor vehicles and internal vehicular circulation pattern. (f) All existing and proposed topography at contour intervals of five (5) feet. (g) Grading, drainage, sedimentation and erosion control activities. (h) The location of existing and proposed plantings and screenings. (i) The location of walls, fences, railings and beams and an indication of their height and construction materials. (j) The location and size of all existing and proposed utilities including water, sewer, gas, and electric lines and structures. (k) Identification and location of all site improvements including buildings, streets, water and sewer lines, storm drainage facilities and any other significant site features. Section 6.25.4 Non-residential Development Standards: The following development standards shall apply to all applicable non-residential development within the pre-designated commercial areas and along the Highway 70 corridor. 1. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum lot width for all lots created after the effective date of the Highway 70 Overlay District shall be one hundred and thirty (130) feet, unless the lot is served by public sewer and shared ingress/egress in which case the minimum lot width shall be seventy-five (75) feet. 2. Setbacks and Building Height. The setbacks and building heights for all structures, regardless of the proposed land use, shall conform to the setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If Building Height Limitation modifications are pursued in accordance with Section 6.2.1, in no case shall building height exceed thirty-five (35) feet. Where applicable, the front yard setback shall be measured from any future right-of--way as designated in the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan. 3. Floor Area Ratio. 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. 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. 4. Yard encroachments: No fences shall be permitted in the front yard of non- residential uses unless a demonstrated need can be shown. Within the pre- designated commercial area, vinyl-coated chain link fencing shall be permitted Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 8 for non-residential uses. 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. 5. Ingress and Egress. The following standards shall regulate ingress and egress points within the corridor: a. For purposes of determining the allowable number of ingress and egress points on any particular lot, all lots recorded at the effective date of this Ordinance shall be granted at least one (1) ingress and egress point per road front unless access can be provided through some internal means. However, minimisation of the total number of driveways along the Highway 70 corridor is desirable through the use of shared driveways or other access management techniques. b. Entrances: On all corner lots, no vehicular openings shall be located closer than sixty (60) feet from the point of intersection of the street right- of-way lines. To manage access on Highway 70, corner lots may be required to provide ingress and/or egress from the adjacent street. Entrances/exits shall not exceed thirty-six (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 forty (40) feet in width. Exits for parking facilities containing more than thirty- six (36) parking spaces shall contain holding lanes for left-turning and right-turning traffic unless the Zoning Officer determines that due to the physical features of a site, holding lanes would be unsafe and in accordance with established traffic mitigation standards, should not be required. c. Multiple curb cut requirements: A lot fronting on Highway 70 shall have a minimum of six hundred (600) feet of road frontage along the street before two (2) curb cuts are allowed unless the project meets one (1) of the following criteria: i. Any mixed-use development where two. (2) curb cuts are approved as part of a Special Use Permit or other approval procedures as prescribed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. ii. In instances where anon-residential land use is proposed next to another non-residential land use and each of the contiguous non- residential land uses will have direct frontage along Highway 70, then the County shall require shared driveway cuts for all such contiguous non-residential land uses. In the event that shared driveway cuts are required, then the owners of the contiguous parcels shall execute reciprocal easement agreements between the separate property owners and have the same recorded in the Office of the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement agreement called for herein shall be sufficient to allow for the development of a service Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 9 road to Ehannel access from Highway 70 to each property. An example of the shared access is as follows: a Iol olo Highway 70 Non-residential developments that are not contiguous to other non- residential developments at the time they are approved shall be required to designate stub outs to adjoining properties on the site plan for the proposed development so that this shared access can be developed if and when the adjacent property is developed for non-residential purposes or in cases where an individual curb cut for a residential land use is deemed to be a traffic safety hazard by the County and NC DOT. iii. Non-residential developments within. the pre-deemed commercial areas of the Highway 70 Corridor are required to develop shared access points as part of the site plan approval process for the project. d. The creation of offset driveways and/or intersections is not permitted, unless no practical alternative exists. e. 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. 6. Outside Storage of Materials. A11 outside storage of materials on non- residential lots is prohibited. 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. 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. Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 10 7. Architectural Standards: i. Buildings: 1. Under no circumstances shall modern corporate franchise building design be permitted. Franchise or `chain' businesses desiring to locate in the Highway 70 Overlay District shall be required to design the building in accordance with these guidelines. For purposes of this paragraph "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. 2. Drive-through facilities are prohibited on all non-residential uses. 3. Mirrored glass is prohibited. 4. Similar architectural style and orientation must be observed to compliment surrounding structures. 5. Similar building materials must be utilized when constructing the new structure including exterior finish. Acceptable materials include: brick, wood, stone, stucco, marble, and other similar materials. 6. Building elevations shall be designed to be architecturally treated to avoid long, blank building facades. 7. Windows on the street frontage side of a building shall be limited to forty percent (40%) of the total building facade. 8. The principle building shall be oriented facing towards the fronting street. 9. A functional doorway for public or direct-entry access into a building shall be provided from the fronting street. Corner entrances should be provided on corner lot buildings. This standard does not preclude the ability to provide additional entrances to a building. 10. Decorative cornices shall be provided for buildings with a flat roof, defined as roofs with a pitch less than 3:12. Alternatively, eaves shall be provided with a pitched roof, defined as roofs with a pitch greater than 3:12. Pitched roofs are generally preferred over flat roofs. 11. All rooftop mechanical equipment (i.e. vents, ducts, communication antennas, HVAC units, etc) shall be screened from view or designed and installed. in a manner using materials and colors compatible with the building architecture. Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 11 12. Highly reflective roofing materials shall be avoided. All proposed metal roofing should be standing seam or copper. Galvanized steel and tin roofs are permitted. 13. Residential manufactured structures are not permitted for conversion to anon-residential use. Additional Architectural Standards for existing single-family structures being converted into non-residential use: The exterior facade of an existing single-family residence proposed for conversion into non-residential use shall not be altered to accommodate new non-residential land uses except where modifications are necessary to address building or fire code requirements. 2. Any structures proposed for removal shall either be moved to another location for re-use contemporaneously with the construction of the new structure or be deconstructed in such a manner that the resultant materials are suitable for re-use by the deconstructing party others in future building projects. It is the intent of this paragraph that the removed structure be recycled to the extent possible. ii. Site Design for all construction/renovation: 1. Non-residential developments are required to maintam/control the first half-inch of stormwater runoff on site, or off-site with a binding agreement. iii. Landscaping and Buffering: In lieu of the requirements outlined in Article 12 regarding the width of Landscaped Buffers, there shall be a minimum ten (10) feet wide vegetative buffer along all rights-of--ways comprised of vegetation that compliments surrounding plantings and which includes trees planted in accordance with Section 12.4.1 where possible. In lieu of the requirements outlined in Article 12 regarding the width of Landscaped Buffers, there shall be a minimum fifteen (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 Article Twelve (12) of the Zoning Ordinance. There Final Draft proposed for Adoption Attachment 1 12 shall be a minimum eight (8) 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 fifteen (15) feet. 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. 3. The entire area surrounding the foundation of the new building shall be landscaped in scale with adjacent structures. iv. Signage 1. Signage for non-residential uses shall conform to all requirements within .Article Nine (9) of the Zoning Ordinance. Zn addition, only monument style signs that do not exceed six (6) feet in height are permitted within the Highway 70 Zoning Overlay District. Pole signs are not permitted. v. Site Design and Layout for all construction renovation: 1. The natural topography of the property shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible to avoid stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties. 2. Any and ail existing natural features (i.e. streams, ponds, hillsides, unique vegetation, mature trees, etc) shall be protected and preserved through the site planning and development process. 3. The siting of buildings shall be done to preserve to the greatest extent possible scenic views/vistas. vi. Parking Lot Design: 1. Required parking shall be located at the side or rear of the structure. 2. Shared parking areas shall be encouraged for contiguous non- residential land uses as defined within Article Ten (10) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Provision of parking areas in excess often percent (10%) of the minimum parking requirements within Article Ten (10) shall not be permitted. 4. Interior landscaping of the parking lots shall be provided as outlined within Article Twelve (12) of the Zoning Ordinance. (Excerpt of Section 6.23.3) 2. Non-Residential Development Amended 1/4/94: 10/19/99: 8/21/01 Attachment 1 13 DISTRICT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE/DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS (NON-RESIDENTIAL) UNIV-CA Same as Residential (See previous Table) UNIV-PW CANE-CA 5-acre minimum lot size, with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999 (Amended 10-19-99); AND 6% impervious surface limit. * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements. U-ENO-CA 2-acre minimum lot size AND 6% impervious surface limit. * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface re uirements. CANE-PW 5-acre minimum lot size with potential of up to five lots as small as two acres for lots of record October 19, 1999 (Amended 10-19-99); AND 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND 12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1.0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in CANE-PV1n. * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements. LITTLE-PW 2-acre minimum lot size AND 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; AND 12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1:0% of the watershed for non-residential use (139 acres in CANE-PV1n. * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface re uirements. * BMP's as mandated by the stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are allowed. (Excerpt of Section 6.23.3) Attachment 1 14 U-ENO-PW 70% BACK-PW ISR in Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (high-density option) with structural BMPs if ISR > 12%; AND 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers outside of Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural BMPs if ISR > 12%; AND 40% ISR for all non-residential uses in 10-year Transition areas as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, with structural BMPs if ISR > 12%~ AND 12% ISR for all other non-residential uses outside of Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surtace requirements); AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND A limit of 1,151 acres of non-residential use throughout U-ENO-PW (5.0%) and 163 acres throughout BACK-PW (1%). HYCO-PW 50% ISR for all fire stations and solid waste collection centers; FLAT-PW AND 12% ISR for all other non-residential uses; AND on-site infiltration of the first inch of stormwater runoff; AND a limit of 1 % of the watershed for non-residential use (37 acres in HYCO-PW, 66 acres in FLAT-PW). * BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements. L-ENO-PW 70% impervious surface, with structural BMPs required when impervious surface exceeds: 24% (w/ curb and gutter); or 36% w/o curb and utter . HAW-PW 24% impervious surface limit. JORDAN-PW *BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface requirements. d .® L O m v .~ i. .~ CO L. Q~ i.. .® L L O V .~ T~ U 0 o~ 0 0 N yk .E fL~~ $qq ~ p'2. n ~' 8~ ~s 4~ ~~ o se z sa ~~ ~• q U ~L ~_ T CB L O ~`_ L U ca o ~ ~U L .C O _ U ~ ~ N ~ N ~ L ~ U -y ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ -o W d m ~D Attachment 2 p. 15 Attachment 3 16 Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Zoning Overlay District (ECOD) Staff Responses to Comments and Questions made by the BOCC and Planning Board at the August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing 1. Comment: Allowing non-residential uses along the entire corridor introduces uncertainty. The effect on residential uses that remain must be considered.. Staff Response: The Highway 70 corridor is located in a 10-Year Transition area which is targeted for, and historically has been comprised of, higher density and intensity of land uses. Indeed, the existing land use pattern along the corridor is one of residential uses intermixed with a variety of commercial uses. Staff and the EMSAP Implementation Focus Group (IFG) recognize that the proposed zoning overlay district will further intermix residential and non-residential uses along the corridor. It has been a desire of the IFG to allow individuals to work within the concept of a free market economic system to choose locations viable for lower- impact non-residential uses while mitigating the effect of those non- residential uses on adjacent and nearby residential uses. Staff and the IFG believe that the standards contained within the proposed ECOD effectively mitigate impacts within an area of the county that is targeted for small-scale economic development. 2. Comment: The restriction on chain link fencing seems overly restrictive. Staff Response: Staff has evaluated this portion of the proposed text and is recommending the following change: - Within the pre-designated commercial area, vinyl-coated chain link fencing would be permitted for non-residential uses. Outside of the pre-designated commercial area but within the ECOD boundary, chain link fencing for non-residential uses would not be allowed. Our professional opinion is that wide-spread use of galvanized steel chain link fencing detracts significantly from the visual aesthetics of an area and could detract from the promotion of economic development investment by low-impact businesses. Chain link fencing should not be permitted outside of the pre-designated commercial area in order to promote and protect the visual character of the corridor. Within the pre-designated commercial area, we are recommending the potential use of'vinyl-coated chain link fencing in an attempt to balance aesthetic aspects with the potential need for cost-effective fencing. Attachment 3 17 3. Comment: Why is there a requirement that the principle doorway to a building be located facing the fronting street when parking must be located to the side and rear of the building? Staff Response: As staff explained at the hearing, this is an urban and site design principle to attempt to keep buildings oriented towards the street on which they front (which is consistent with existing conditions and character) while addressing aesthetic considerations brought about by locating parking at the front of the building (between the road and building). Staff is recommending that the proposed ECOD text be modified slightly to perhaps allow for more flexibility and innovation in site design while staying true to the design principle referenced above. (See numbers 8 and 9 under "Architectural Standards" in the draft ECOD text). 4. Comment: Why is there a prohibition on mirrored glass and why are windows on buildings restricted to 40% of the total building facade? Staff Response: As was explained at the hearing, there is a restriction on mirrored glass because of the use of mirrored glass would not be in keeping with the existing character of the area. While mirrored glass has been used in buildings for energy saving reflectivity, other window structural mechanisms such as window azimuthal orientations and size limitations are now more widely promoted. Limiting windows to no more than 40% of the street frontage building facade is being recommended as a building design feature for a building that will be located in a neighborhood corridor that is not envisioned to promote significant amounts of window shopping by pedestrians. From an urban design perspective, a showroom type of building is not in keeping with the existing feel and character of the area. This type of building may be more appropriate in other geographic areas covered in the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and could be brought forward in the future as additional plan implementation measures are proposed. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~oyntP o! ®~ Administration ~~` ,. ~ ''8 (919) 245-2575 ~z ~' (919) 644-3002 (FAx) ,~ www.co.orange.nc.us ~'°~rh ~nYO~~°° Attachment 4 p. 18 DEPARTMENT 306E Revere Road P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING October 12, 2007 Dear Property Owner, The Orange County Planning Department will hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the proposed new Zoning Overlay District (the Efland-Cheeks Overlay District) along Highway 70. The enclosed materials include responses to Frequently Asked Questions about the proposal and the map on the reverse side of this letter shows the boundary of the proposed Overlay District. The meeting will be held at Efland-Cheeks Park & Community Center (117 Richmond Road, Efland) on Thursday, November 1, 2007. The meeting will be an informal "open-house" style meeting where interested persons can drop by anytime between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m. to view materials about the proposed overlay district and speak to Planning Department staff on a one-on-one basis. A public hearing on the proposed zoning overlay district was held on August 27, 2007. The Orange County Planning Board has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that the overlay district be adopted. The BOCC directed County staff to hold a public information meeting prior to making a decision to ensure that citizens are as aware as possible of the proposed overlay district. The complete text of the proposed District can be viewed on the Planning Department's webpage at: http://www.co.oran~;e.nc.us/plannin index.asp (in the Current Interest Projects section). The proposed text is also available in the Planning Department offices (306-F Revere Road, Hillsborough) during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). If adopted, this proposal would allow the development of additional services and commercial uses along the Highway 70 corridor if they are developed in accordance with the Standards contained in the text of the overlay regulations. It is one of the implementation measures of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan which was adopted by the BOCC on June 27, 2006 after 18 months of work by an appointed Task Force comprised of community members and other interested parties. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner, at (919) 245-2611 or via e-mail at pholtz(a~co.orange.nc.us or Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer at 245-2607 or via e-mail at mharve~~a1,co.oran eg_ncus. Sincerely, Craig N. Benedict, AICP Planning Director Attachment 4 19 Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) The following provides information to frequently asked questions regarding the proposed Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). What is being proposed? A new zoning overlay district is being proposed that would apply to a specific area along Highway 70 between Efland and Mebane (see map for specific boundaries). This proposal does not automatically approve any specific development project in the area. Rather, it creates a zoning opportunity if someone is interested in applying to develop their property in accordance with the regulations. There are two categories within the ECOD - a "pre-designated commercial area" and a general area that is within the boundaries of the ECOD. Within the "pre-designated commercial area," a variety of commercial uses could be possible. Outside of the "pre-designated commercial area" but within the ECOD, non- residential uses would be limited to professional offices and similar low-impact uses. How does a zoning overlay district work? A zoning overlay district is essentially a special set of regulations that supplement the base zoning district regulations in a specific geographic area. The special regulations can be either more permissive or more restrictive than the base zoning district regulations, depending on what intended outcome is being sought. The base zoning district does not change; properties that are currently being used in conformance with their base zoning district can continue to be used as they currently are and do not become "non-conforming uses." The zoning overlay district regulations are applied only when a property owner wishes to apply for a permit to use their property in a way that is allowed by the zoning overlay regulations. What kind of uses will be allowed in the ECOD? In the proposed "pre-designated commercial area,",the uses allowed would be those that are classified as "Neighborhood Commercial" in the County's zoning ordinance. Examples of Neighborhood Commercial uses are low- to medium-impact commercial uses such as banks, beauty shops, dry cleaners, professional offices, and restaurants (although drive-thru restaurants are not included). In the ECOD areas outside of the "pre-designated commercial area," the only non- residential uses allowed would be offices and professional services that attract either few or a moderate number of customers and traffic volumes and that have no adverse impacts beyond the lot boundaries. Examples of uses that could be permitted include real estate, Attachment 4 20 attorney, engineer, and doctor's offices. Additionally, non-residential uses would be capped at no more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the "pre-designated commercial area." How will property adjacent to non-residential uses be protected? The requirement of the ECOD endeavor to minimise or eliminate impacts non-residential uses may have on adjacent properties. For example, non-residential uses will be required to provide vegetated buffers at the perimeter of the lot; along the Highway 70 corridor outside of the pre-designated commercial area, no more than 40% of the corridor will be permitted for non-residential uses; development standards for non-residential uses have been proposed which include: floor area ratio restrictions (floor area ratio is a ratio between the maximum building square footage and the size of the lot), restrictions on fencing and the use of chain link fencing, the number of ingress and egress points perntted with requirements that should eventually decrease the number of access points on Highway 70 through the use of service roads, restrictions on signage and parking, and a variety of architectural design standards for non-residential buildings that seek to enhance the built environment along the corridor. How will my property taxes be affected? The Board of County Commissioners sets the property tax rate each year as part of the County Budget adoption process. The amount a property owner pays for property tax is dependant on the appraised value of a parcel of properly and the improvements (i.e., building(s)) situated on the property. Property appraisals for tax purposes are completed by the Orange County Tax Assessor's office. The Tax Assessor's office has additional information regarding how property is valued on their website: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/assessor/index.asp Attachment 4 21 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~ountP of ®r Administration ~~` + ~ °g 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~_ ~ ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (Fax) ~ Hillsborough, WWW.co.orange.nc.us ~~rrh jai°``~e North Carolina, 27278 October 15, 2007 Dear Efland Area Churches, The Orange County Planning Department is holding a Public Information Meeting regarding the proposed new Zoning Overlay District (the Efland-Cheeks Overlay District) along Highway 70. The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 1, 2007 and we are asking for your assistance in publicizing the meeting by posting the enclosed flyer on your church bulletin board. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner, at (919) 245-2611 or via e-mail at pholtz~u,co.oran eg nc.us or Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer at 245-2607 or via e-mail at mharve~ ,co.oran eg nc.us. Sincerely, Craig N. Benedict, AICP Planning Director Attachment 4 22 (the actual posted flyers were in color and were printed on legal sized (8.5" x 14") paper) __ __ _ _ _ _ ~~~C1~G~ ~C~Un~y' ~.70VC1~`rlf 1'1~C1~` Tr~v~~s Yau to Puk~fic ~~ifarm~t~c~n, e:etrr~ VVnC}: Ctiana-~v~e~ape aria resty~~u~, ~lu~~ryy,c~w~icr~, aiFU.c~~F u~~~; interested ~ersoris. tl~hat_ Puklic: inforrr~tionMeotirig r~:gardingti~~e proposed; ~fla`rtd'~wCl~ee~CS 1~Igl~tiay ?t7.`Corrldoe Zot~ll`l~ C7vo~~lay Ds~'rlc~' .. , " (Ari overiaydistrict could allot+s+-add~fic~nal smaller-scale office and eornrnercial` ;uses in the corridor under special developmer3t standards] 'Effagd Cheeks HighW~y 7Q Corridor Ov~r{ay 4i9tt'icf~~ou~! -`; =, U _ -~ L _~'~'" ~ ; ~ ~ 1~ alt '~ Ir ~ . u ~ @~, n9aj'cex.,Hi~M'ay Ya ~ ',~~a ova~ey Oibact- ~amgesi~uofed'sammerde~eiva` ~ °n" w'k..'~" ... V11hent Thursday, Novomlzer T 2107-: An "apart fatause" style pu; is infor~fi`ation m~etir~g - interested ~eoplesmay drop by;anytirrte be#weeri 4:30 and.~~~iD p.m:-:to view,rr~at~r~ai;~;and talker? F~lanning Department :st~fE= r~rte o#t-ones ~.. ,.: Where Efland-Cheeks Park Commrar~ify Center (1"1'7 Rictmontf~ Road;: Eflaiid}` ; Qiuosttris7 Addifional infarrnation is•:avaitable on tie Plarin~ng flepartiYO~nt's<; web~it~: Eittp:/lwvvvyco cirartgeeic t~sljalanninal~CCi[7ast~ Qr you may Bali Perdit~ Noitz, Specie Projects Planner, or"Michael Harvey, Zoning Enfarcement Qf~cBr; af`(919~245.:~`575:: ~. ^a ~. r, blta J ~ '~'. ~': ~' . r" ~~ ~ ~ .mow ~; k+',~ ~ '~ w? f a ~ }~,:: H ~:. w~1+ . `~ M y.~ • L+ ~ 'C? ,~' it : M ~; :..... ~_ ~' Attachment 5 23 Attachment 6 24 1 EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; 7 Craufurd Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Hillsborough Representative; Sam Lasris, 8 Cedar Grove Township At Large, Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At 9 Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator, Planner III; Tom 14 Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Planner II; Karen Markovics, 15 Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II 16 17 Agenda Item 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 1g----------------------------------------------------------- 19 20 Agenda Item 9: EFLAND-CHEEKS HIGHWAY 70 CORRIDOR OVERLAY. DISTRICT 21 Presenter: Perdita Holtz 22 23 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed portions of abstract. (Abstract follows) 24 Purpose: To consider making text and map amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas regarding a 25 proposed new zoning overlay district -Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and to consider 26 amending impervious surface limits prescribed in Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Upper Eno 27 and Back Creek Protected Watersheds. 28 Background: One of the recommendations of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP) is to allow 29 commercial development in certain areas along the Highway 70 corridor and to allow for conversion of some 30 residential structures to office type uses. A Land Use Element text amendment regarding 10-Year Transition areas 31 was heard at the May 21, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing and was adopted by the BOCC at the August 21, 2007 32 BOCC meeting. This Zoning text and map amendment is the next step towards allowing non-residential uses in 33 specific areas along the Highway 70 condor. This is a smaller scale economic development opportunity that is being 34 expanded inappropriate areas. 35 36 The typical steps in planning changes are: 37 ~ 1. Small Area Plan Adoption (June 2006) with Recommendations 38 2. Land Use Element Text Amendments (adopted August 21, 2007) 39 3. Land Use Element Map Amendments (n/a in this case) 40 4. Zoning Text Amendments (this proposal) 41 5. Zoning Atlas/Map Amendments (this proposal) 42 6. Petitioner Application (processed after Implementing Regulations are adopted) 43 44 The proposed text amendment would add a new Zoning Overlay District to the Zoning Ordinance. The name of the 45 proposed new Zoning Overlay District is the Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). The 46 following Sections would be added to the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.2.33 and Section 6.25 with appropriate sub- 47 sections. Additionally, the Zoning Atlas would be amended to delineate the extent of the ECOD on the County's 48 official zoning maps. There are two (2) specific designations within the proposed ECOD -the general ECOD area 49 and the pre-designated commercial area. A total of 607 acres of land are contained within the ECOD boundaries 50 with 148 acres of the total acreage in the pre-designated commercial area. 51 Attachment 6 25 52 Proposed Zoning text changes include adding sections of intent, application criteria, permitted uses, development 53 standards, access, outside storage limitations, prescribed architectural standards to preserve community and corridor 54 character, landscaping, signage, and parking. 55 56 Amendments are also proposed to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted Impervious 57 Surface Ratio (ISR) to 40% for non-residential uses in 10-year Transition areas, with structural BMPs if the ISR is 58 greater than 12%, if the parcel is located in the Upper Eno or Back Creek Protected Watershed. 59 60 August 27, 2007 Public Hearing 61 62 Because the proposed amendments affect the Zoning Atlas, notification letters to affected property owners were 63 required by State statutes and by County Ordinance. A total of 456 notification letters were mailed on August 10, 64 2007 to property owners of property in the proposed ECOD and to property owners within 500-feet of the proposed 65 ECOD boundary advising them of the proposal and inviting them to the August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. 66 Approximately 20 citizens attended the public hearing regarding this item and three (3) citizens addressed the BOCC 67 and Planning Board regarding the proposal. Two (2) of the citizens had questions about how the proposal would 68 specifically affect their property. One (1) of the citizens cited concerns over existing traffic levels and how the 69 proposal might increase traffic. 70 71 The proposed amendments are consistent with the recommendations contained in the adopted EMSAP. The 72 EMSAP Implementation Focus Group (IFG) was involved in drafting the proposed changes and IFG members have 73 reviewed the proposed amendments. A 2-page "Q & A" document that explains some of the details of the proposed 74 ECOD was included with the property owner notification letters and is included as Attachment 3. 75 76 Post August 27, 2007 Public Hearing Amendments and Responses 77 78 Staff has prepared responses to comments and questions made by BOCC and Planning Board members at the 79 Quarterly Public Hearing; this document is included as Attachment 4. Attachment 1 is the proposed Zoning 80 Ordinance text amendments with post-Quarterly Public Hearing text revisions in Section 6.25 shown in strike- 81 through/underline format (see pages 6-12 of the agenda abstract). 82 83 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact. Staff time has been accounted for in the departmental 84 budget. 85 86 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation for 87 approval to be considered by the BOCC at the October 9, 2007 regular BOCC meeting. 88 89 Brian Crawford: What were Commissioner's Jacobs' comments about fencing? 90 91 Perdita Holtz: That the proposed prohibition regarding chain link fencing seemed overly restrictive to him. Our 92 ordinance at this time does not prohibit chain link fences in other areas of the county. We debated this issue among 93 staff after the Quarterly Public Hearing and we are recommending that vinyl coated chain link fence be allowed in the 94 pre-designated commercial area. 95 96 Sam Lasris: Where would it be allowed? 97 98 Perdita Holtz: It would be allowed in the dotted area on the map. Vinyl coated chain link fence generally comes in 99 black and green. 100 101 Sam Lasris: You are talking about mom and pop businesses? 102 Attachment 6 26 103 Perdita Holtz: In the pre-designated commercial area, you may get more than Mom and Pop businesses. 104 105 Sam Lasris: My question about the floor space is that we need an example of a space. Will there be cluster buildings 106 on those lots? Do we limit the options of the shape of buildings? I can see professionals using that space but the 107 building structure may not permit the larger commercial businesses. 108 109 Perdita Holtz: This was an issue that some members of the task force talked about quite a bit. There is a floor area 110 ratio that is not large but rather is envisioned for a smaller scale commercial or office businesses. We are not 111 envisioning large scale office uses. It is also part of the urban design feature to maintain the character along Hwy 70. 112 113 Sam Lasris: How many miles does the dotted area encompass? 114 115 Perdita Holtz: About one and one half miles. 116 117 Bemadette Pelissier: I am unclear about the floor area ratio; does this mean there is a change in density? 118 119 Perdita Holtz: We are expecting conversions of some of those residential structures. The floor area ratio is a change 120 from what is there now. It will double the allowable floor ratio. Density usually refers to residential development. The 121 floor area ratio is currently .08. It would increase to .20 in the pre-designated commercial area with a maximum 122 building size of 20,000 square feet. 123 124 Bemadette Pelissier: Is there any water and sewer work in that area? 125 126 Perdita Holtz: There is an RFP in process to hire an engineering consultant to work on a master plan for sewer 127 service. Water service through OAWS is currently available throughout this area. 128 129 Craufurd Goodwin: Ben Lloyd spoke angrily about the development. I presume he is one of the three people. 130 131 Perdita Holtz: As I recall, Mr. Lloyd only spoke on the comp plan at the Quarterly Public Hearing. Mr. Lloyd owns 132 land further towards Hillsborough. 133 134 Michelle Kempinski: I would like to make a recommendation or motion that there were a lot people that were present 135 at the Public Hearing who did not speak. There was nobody from the community that was on the Task Force. 136 137 Perdita Holtz: Margaret McAdoo lives in the general area and is on the Task Force. 138 139 Michelle Kempinski: I would like to suggest that there be a meeting held in that area that would allow open 140 discussion about the changes that will betaking place. 141 142 Jay Bryan: You are proposing that be done before it is adopted on October 9. If we make a recommendation for 143 approval it would be considered on that date. 144 145 Michelle Kempinski: This task force did have several meetings about this area and there was a high turnout of 146 people in the area that came to these meetings. 147 148 Jay Bryan: Your desire is that be done prior to adoption. 149 150 Perdita Holtz: I went out to the hallway after the public hearing and all most all the people I spoke with were 151 concerned about the tax effects and they asked how will this affect their property. They had specific questions about 152 their property. 153 Attachment 6 27 154 Craufurd Goodwin: What is the answer? 155 156 Perdita Holtz: Property taxes are based on assed values which are based on appraisals. There are a lot of variables. 157 158 Renee Price: My concern is that I noticed the number of people in the audience at the Quarterly Public Hearing who 159 were concerned about property values and taxes. If the plan were to increase property values and taxes, will people 160 be pushed out? 161 162 Michelle Kempinski: It was a public hearing and there were a lot of people with an incentive to show up but who did 163 not speak. People might speak if there was different environment with a more casual atmosphere. 164 165 Renee Price: My experience is that people will come to a public hearing, but if they had not been coached they will 166 not speak. 167 168 Perdita Holtz: There were 456 letters sent out and I received 4 or 5 phone calls. 169 170 Renee Price: If it was in a different setting. 171 172 Jay Bryan: There is an interest from the board member to hear the public's comments. 173 174 Judith Wegner: With the high turnout for QPH they might have felt intimidated at that meeting. 175 176 Brian Crawford: Is there some reason or urgency that it needs to be on the October's Board of County 177 Commissioners meeting? 178 179 Perdita Holtz: No. This is just the timeline that was worked out. 180 181 Brian Crawford: The purpose of this meeting is for people to show up at the Planning Board. I would be opposed to 182 going there because we don't do that for anyone else. I do hear that there's a need for a community meeting with 183 more discussion with the planning staff. 184 185 Michelle Kempinski: Maybe part of a task force. It can be open and the information would come back the Planning 186 Board. 187 188. Craufurd Goodwin: I would like to speak against this. We have no evidence that the community wants another 189 meeting. If someone had shown up here then I might feel differently about this. But there's nothing to suggest that 190 they want another meeting. 191 192 Perdita Holtz: I spoke with them in the hallway and I reported to you the concerns I heard about taxes. 193 194 Michelle Kempinski: There was an individual that had a question about the school and traffic near the school. I do 195 think there are questions out there that are not being asked or answered. 196 197 Judith Wegner: Did they close the Public Hearing? You want there to be an informal exchange of information? 198 199 Michelle Kempinski: Is the question whether we can receive information after the hearing is closed? 200 201 Renee Price: Could we decline further recommendation and ask for the Public Hearing to be reopened? 202 203 Brian Crawford: We take action as a result of that Public Hearing. 204 Attachment 6 28 205 Craufurd Goodwin: What do we think we will get. 206 207 Renee Price: We need clarification. 208 209 Craufurd Goodwin: Clarification of what? 210 211 Jay Bryan: The motion is on the floor. 212 213 MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski that before we make a recommendation regarding the Hwy 70 corridor overlay 214 district that there is an opportunity to discuss this ordinance change prior to Board of County Commissioners 215 approval. Renee Price seconded the motion. 216 . 217 Sam Lasris: We might want to change the wording not just the opportunity to discuss but that we want another 218 meeting. 219 220 Perdita Holtz: If that motion passes, the recommendation for an additional meeting will have to be taken to the Board 221 of County Commissioners for their approval. In addition could you clarify what would be considered appropriate 222 advertising and whether that means sending out 456 more notices. 223 224 Jay Bryan: Let's see if the motion carries. 225 VOTE: 2 Yes; 7 No; Brian Crawford, Craufurd Goodwin, Sam t_asris, Bernadette Pellisier, Renee Price, Sandra Quinn, 226 Judith Wegner 227 228 MOTION made Judith Wegner: to approve staff recommendations. Brian Crawford seconded the motion. 229 VOTE: (3 opposed; Michelle Kempinski: Renee Price: Sam Lasris) 230 231 Jay Bryan: Judith's question about our ability to receive information from a meeting if the public hearing has been 232 closed would be permissible. 233 234 Renee Price: Usually written comment is allowed. 235 Attachment 7 29 Excerpt of BOCC Approved MINUTES REGULAR MEETING October 9, 2007 f. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments -Proposed Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Zoning Overlay District and Amendment to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Impervious Surface Ratio Regulations The Board considered making text and map amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas regarding a proposed 'new zoning overlay district - Efland-Gheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District and considered amending impervious surface limits prescribed in Section 6.23.3, of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Upper Eno and Back Creek Protected Watersheds. Perdita Holtz summarized this item. The map on attachment 2, page 16 shows the area. This action would allow non-residential uses of aloes-impact, small scale commercial and office nature along certain sections of US 70. In response to some comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing, Planning staff and the Attorney's OfFice made some minor revisions. One substantive change was in regards to the use of chain-link fencing as a permitted fencing material for new non-residential uses. All of the changes are on pages 6-12 of the agenda packet. Lastly, part of the full proposal is to amend the impervious surface ratio restrictions to allow up to a 40% impervious surface for non-residential uses in the ten-year transition area in the Back and Upper Eno Watersheds. At the September Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board made a recommendation for approval of the amendments, and the recommendation for tonight is for the Board to adopt the zoning text and atlas amendments. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Planning Board comments and said that there is merit to having a public information meeting. He is concerned that people in this community do not know that this is happening. He suggested putting up flyers about a public information meeting. Commissioner Gordon agreed. Commissioner Gordon said that some people in the area considered for non-residential are worried about the tax impact of the commercial development. Perdita Holtz said that she was going to suggest something along the lines of an open house because she thinks that some people are intimidated to talk in front of a group. She said that the people most directly affected would be 207 properly owners. Commissioner Gordon suggested notifying the 207 property owners and also putting up flyers for a public information meeting. The Board agreed that there should be a public information meeting; therefore there was no motion for approval of the amendments.