HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-09-2007-6fORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 9, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No.
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 PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendments
2. Map Depicting Proposed Boundaries of
ECOD
3. Q&A Document that was included with
Notification Letter
4. Staff Responses to Comments and
Questions made at the August 27, 2007
Quarterly Public Hearing
5. Draft Planning Board Minutes of 9/5/07
Meeting (excerpt of this item only)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2592
Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Planner,
(919) 245-2611
Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement
Officer, (910) 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 Atlas/Map 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 property owners 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
citizens attended the public hearing regarding this item and three (3) citizens addressed the
BOCC and Planning Board regarding the proposal. Two (2) of the citizens had questions about
how the proposal would specifically affect their property. One (1) of the citizens cited concerns
over existing traffic levels and how the proposal might increase traffic.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the recommendations contained in the adopted
EMSAP. The EMSAP Implementation Focus Group (IFG) was involved in drafting the proposed
changes and IFG members have reviewed the proposed amendments. A 2-page "Q & A"
document that explains some of the details of the proposed ECOD was included with the
property owner notification letters and is included as Attachment 3.
Post August 27, 2007 Public Hearing Amendments and Responses
Staff has prepared responses to comments and questions made by BOCC and Planning Board
members at the Quarterly Public Hearing and has included this document at Attachment 4.
Attachment 1 is the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments with post-Quarterly Public
Hearing text revisions in Section 6.25 shown in strike-through/underline format (see pages 6-12
of the agenda abstract).
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered the proposed text
amendment at its 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). As the Draft Planning Board minutes indicate (Attachment 5), there was a motion on
the floor to consider holding an additional public outreach meeting. This motion failed by a 2-7
vote.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact. Staff time has been accounted for in
the departmental budget.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt the Zoning Text and
Atlas amendments as presented (incorporating the changes that have been proposed since the
Quarterly Public Hearing which are indicated in strike-through/underline text).
FINAL DRAFT RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 4
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
Section 4.2.33 Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD):
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.
h) 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 RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 5
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
Efland -Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District Boundaries
Legend
Egand-Cheeks Highway 70 Corr(dor Oveday District
QPre-designated commercial area
o tooa
®~
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.
FINAL DRAFT RECOl~%IlVIENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 6
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
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 struchues that have a residential
~uearance.
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 Pian Requirements
In addition to the requirements outlined within Article Fourteen (14) Site Pian 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 RECOMIVTENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 7
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underiine format)
(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 ail 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. i~,-r~o-~~J~n~1=
FINAL DRAFT RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 8
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
b - - -
^~~^~,*~^~ ~~^°. Within the pre-desi~~ated co~m~zercial area, vinyl-coated
chain link fencing shall be permitted for non-residential uses. Outside of the
pre-desinnated commercial area but within the boundaries of the I-liahway 70
Over]ay District chain Link or similar fencinn 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, mMinimization of the total number of driveways along the
Highway 70 corridor is desirable through the use of shared driveways or
other access nlananement 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 D1^^,,;,,,,- '~°r°=-*^~o=nt
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 a ~+'' non-residential land uses is a~
proposed next to another non-residential ].and. use anal each. of the
CO1~ttatlatiS non-residential land uses will have ~~~~'', ^^~~*~^~~^"s
~~_~_
direct frontage along Highway 70, 1111*' ' ''' +•
,them the
County shall require shared driveway cuts for all such contiguous
non-residential land uses. In the event that shared driveways
are required, then tThe owners of the continuous parcels Eeu~~~-}~
',^7~ ~•^^~~~~•^ ''~^ shall execute n~;~e~-•s-ef reciprocal easement
FINAL DRAFT RECOI~~IlVIENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 9
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
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 .Kermit. The
easerl~ent agreement called for herein shall be sufficient to
allows for the development of a service road to channel access
from Highway 70 to each property. An example of the shared
access is as follows:
a lol 010
Highway 70
Non-residential developments that are not contiguous to other non-
residential developments at the time the 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-defined commercial
areas of the Highway 70 Corridor are required to develop shared
access points as part of the p~la}g 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. Ali 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. All outside storage of materials on non-
residential lots ~l-~a3-1-13 is prohibited. This ~a-1-1 t~rohibition 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 ~',~" r^* ~,~~^^'~~~'^ prohibition does
not include the storage of materials any-s-itt~atier3 where the primary use of the
FINAL DRAFT RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 10
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
property includes the outside display of goods for sale such as automobiles,
boats, mobile homes, etc., and the materials stored outside are for sale.
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 build~in~ design"
means a building desi~~ that is trademarked, branded, or
easily identified with a particular chain or corporation and
is ubiquitous in nattin•e.
2. Drive-through facilities are prohibited on all non-residential
uses.
3. Mirrored glass sk~a-11 is k~c-strittl-y prohibited.
4. Similar architectural style and orientation s#e~ must be
observed to compliment surrounding structures.
5. Similar building materials sly 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
fi•ontin std reet.
9. Tt,^ ~,.•;,~^;,,~°, A functional doorway for public or direct-
entry access into a building she~tlfl-h~ 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 slae~~l~l sl~al l be provided with a pitched
roof, defined as roofs with a pitch greater than 3:12.
Pitched roofs are generally preferred over flat roofs.
FINAL DRAFT RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 11
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
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.
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.
l3. 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:
1. 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 >~ the deconstructing
party or others in future building projects. 1t is the intent
of this paragraph that the removed structure be recycled
to the extent possible.
ii. Site Design for all construction/renovation:
Non-residential developments are required to
maintain/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 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.
2. In lieu of the requirements outlined in Article 12 regarding
the width of Landscaped Buffers, there shall be a minimum
FINAL DRAFT RECONIlVIBNDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 12
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
fifteen (15) €eet 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 shall be a minimum eight (8) ~€eet meet
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 asemi-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. In addition, only e~e-p~ monument style
signs that do not exceed six (6) feet in height are permitted
~~^'' "° ••^^~~~~•°~' within the Highway 70 Zoning Overlay
District. Pole signs sl~a-l-l-r~e~ 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 all 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.
FINAL DRAFT RECOl~~IIVIENDED FOR ADOPTION Attachment 1 13
(Changes made after Aug. 27 QPH are in strike-through/underline format)
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) Attachment 1 14
2. Non-Residential Development
Aman~iari 1 /4/94. 1(1/19/99• R/21 /(11
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-PW).
* 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-PW).
* BMPs cannot be used to satisfy watershed impervious surface
requirements.
" BMP's as mandated by the stormwater Management Program for Lands within the Neuse River Basin are aiiowea.
(Excerpt of Section 6.23.3) Attachment 1 15
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-dear 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 surface 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.
W
^~
M®
W
..
L
~_
i..
.~'
L
e®
L
~\\
/7
.~
^T
ivv
^i
W
.S
V
_~
~~
W
v
o,~
0
~ N ~"
t3
m ~~
r5
_ a E
A •P
~, g
o
a~L
Z ea
~:~II,~~~VV~~''~! o l7
:.,h~~ idly' .
U
.~
.-.
T
CO
O
'~ CE
O ~
U ~
o ~
r" ~U
T ~-
.3C
m O
= V
'~
Y 4;
~ ~
~ C
L ~
U •~
~ ~
c 'o
co ~
~ W ~
J
~ID
Attachment 2 p. 16
Q&A document that was mailed with property owner Attachment 3 17
Notification letter
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). 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. Additionally, non-residential uses would be capped at no
more than 40% of the Highway 70 corridor outside of the "pre-designated commercial
area."
Q&A document that was mailed with property owner Attachment 3 18
Notification letter
How will property adjacent to non-residential uses be protected?
The requirement of the ECOD endeavor to minimize 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
permitted 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.
Attachment 4 19
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. Why was a 40% limit on non-residential uses
along the corridor chosen? 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 4 20
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 an 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.
Attachment 5 21
1 DRAFT
2 EXCERPT
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
6 REGULAR MEETING
7
8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large;
9 Craufurd Goodwin, Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Hillsborough Representative; Sam Lasris,
10 Cedar Grove Township At Large, Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price, Hillsborough Township At
11 Large (Vice-Chair), Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large
14
15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Gene Bell, Planning Systems Coordinator, Planner III; Tom
16 Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Planner II; Perdita Holtz, Planner II; Karen Markovics,
17 Planner II; Donna Davenport, Administrative Assistant II
18
19 Agenda Item 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
28-----------------------------------------------------------
21
22 Agenda Item 9: EFLAND•CHEEKS HIGHWAY 70 CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
23 Presenter: Perdita Holtz
24
25 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed portions of abstract. (Abstract follows)
26 Purpose: To consider making text and map amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas regarding a
27 proposed new zoning overlay district -Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and to consider
28 amending impervious surface limits prescribed in Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the Upper Eno
29 and Back Creek Protected Watersheds.
30 Background: One of the recommendations of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP) is to allow
31 commercial development in certain areas along the Highway 70 corridor and to allow for conversion of some
32 residential structures to office type uses. A Land Use Element text amendment regarding 10-Year Transition areas
33 was heard at the May 21, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing and was adopted by the BOCC at the August 21, 2007
34 BOCC meeting. This Zoning text and map amendment is the next step towards allowing non-residential uses in
35 specific areas along the Highway 70 corridor. This is a smaller scale economic development opportunity that is being
36 expanded in appropriate areas.
37
38 The typical steps in planning changes are:
39 1. Small Area Plan Adoption (June 2006) with Recommendations
40 2. Land Use Element Text Amendments (adopted August 21, 2007)
41 3. Land Use Element Map Amendments (n/a in this case)
42 4. Zoning Text Amendments (this proposal)
43 5. Zoning Atlas/Map Amendments (this proposal)
44 6. Petitioner Application (processed after Implementing Regulations are adopted)
45
46 The proposed text amendment would add a new Zoning Overlay District to the Zoning Ordinance. The name of the
47 proposed new Zoning Overlay District is the Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). The
48 following Sections would be added to the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.2.33 and Section 6.25 with appropriate sub-
49 sections. Additionally, the Zoning Atlas would be amended to delineate the extent of the ECOD on the County's
50 official zoning maps. There are two (2) specific designations within the proposed ECOD -the general ECOD area
51 and the pre-designated commercial area. A total of 607 acres of land are contained within the ECOD boundaries
Attachment 5 22
52 with 148 acres of the total acreage in the pre-designated commercial area.
53
54 Proposed Zoning text changes include adding sections of intent, application criteria, permitted uses, development
55 standards, access, outside storage limitations, prescribed architectural standards to preserve community and corridor
56 character, landscaping, signage, and parking.
57
58 Amendments are also proposed to Section 6.23.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the permitted Impervious
59 Surface Ratio (ISR) to 40% for non-residential uses in 10-year Transition areas, with structural BMPs if the ISR is
60 greater than 12%, if the parcel is located in the Upper Eno or Back Creek Protected Watershed.
61
62 August 27, 2007 Public Hearing
63
64 Because the proposed amendments affect the Zoning Atlas, notification letters to affected property owners were
65 required by State statutes and by County Ordinance. A total of 456 notification letters were mailed on August 10,
66 2007 to property owners of property in the proposed ECOD and to property owners within 500-feet of the proposed
67 ECOD boundary advising them of the proposal and inviting them to the August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing.
68 Approximately 20 citizens attended the public hearing regarding this item and three (3) citizens addressed the BOCC
69 and Planning Board regarding the proposal. Two (2) of the citizens had questions about how the proposal would
70 specifically affect their property. One (1) of the citizens cited concerns over existing traffic levels and how the
71 proposal might increase traffic.
72
73 The proposed amendments are consistent with the recommendations contained in the adopted EMSAP. The
74 EMSAP Implementation Focus Group (IFG) was involved in drafting the proposed changes and IFG members have
75 reviewed the proposed amendments. A 2-page "Q & A"document that explains some of the details of the proposed
76 ECOD was included with the property owner notification letters and is included as Attachment 3.
77
78 Post August 27, 2007 Public Hearing Amendments and Responses
79
80 Staff has prepared responses to comments and questions made by BOCC and Planning Board members at the
81 Quarterly Public Hearing; this document is included as Attachment 4. Attachment 1 is the proposed Zoning
82 Ordinance text amendments with post-Quarterly Public Hearing text revisions in Section 6.25 shown in strike-
83 through/underline format (see pages 6-12 of the agenda abstract).
84
85 FINANCIAt_ IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact. Staff time has been accounted for in the departmental
86 budget.
87
88 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation for
89 approval to be considered by the BOCC at the October 9, 2007 regular BOCC meeting.
90
91 Brian Crawford: What were Commissioner's Jacobs' comments about fencing?
92
93 Perdita Holtz: That the proposed prohibition regarding chain link fencing seemed overly restrictive to him. Our
94 ordinance at this time does not prohibit chain link fences in other areas of the county. We debated this issue among
95 staff after the Quarterly Public Hearing and we are recommending that vinyl coated chain link fence be allowed in the
96 pre-designated commercial area.
97
98 Sam Lasris: Where would it be allowed?
99
100 Perdita Holtz: It would be allowed in the dotted area on the map. Vinyl coated chain link fence generally comes in
101 black and green.
102
Attachment 5
23
103 Sam Lasris: You are talking about mom and pop businesses?
104
105 Perdita Holtz: In the pre-designated commercial area, you may get more than Mom and Pop businesses.
106
107 Sam Lasris: My question about the floor space is that we need an example of a space. Will there be cluster buildings
108 on those lots? Do we limit the options of the shape of buildings? I can see professionals using that space but the
109 building structure may not permit the larger commercial businesses.
110
111 Perdita Holtz: This was an issue that some members of the task force talked about quite a bit. There is a floor area
112 ratio that is not large but rather is envisioned for a smaller scale commercial or office businesses. We are not
113 envisioning large scale office uses. It is also part of the urban design feature to maintain the character along Hwy 70.
114
115 Sam Lasris: How many miles does the dotted area encompass?
116
117 Perdita Holtz: About one and one half miles.
118
119 Bernadette Pelissier: I am unclear about the floor area ratio; does this mean there is a change in density?
120
121 Perdita Holtz: We are expecting conversions of some of those residential structures. The floor area ratio is a change
122 from what is there now. It will double the allowable floor ratio. Density usually refers to residential development. The
123 floor area ratio is currently .08. It would increase to .20 in the pre-designated commercial area with a maximum
124 building size of 20,000 square feet.
125
126 Bernadette Pelissier: Is there any water and sewer work in that area?
127
128 Perdita Holtz: There is an RFP in process to hire an engineering consultant to work on a master plan for sewer
129 service. Water service through OAWS is currently available throughout this area.
130
131 Craufurd Goodwin: Ben Lloyd spoke angrily about the development. I presume he is one of the three people.
132
133 Perdita Holtz: As I recall, Mr. Lloyd only spoke on the comp plan at the Quarterly Public Hearing. Mr. Lloyd owns
134 land further towards Hillsborough.
135
136 Michelle Kempinski: 1 would like to make a recommendation or motion that there were a lot people that were present
137 at the Public Hearing who did not speak. There was nobody from the community that was on the Task Force.
138
139 Perdita Holtz: Margaret McAdoo lives in the general area and is on the Task Force.
140
141 Michelle Kempinski: I would like to suggest that there be a meeting held in that area that would allow open
142 discussion about the changes that will betaking place.
143
144 Jay Bryan: You are proposing that be done before it is adopted on October 9. If we make a recommendation for
145 approval it would be considered on that date.
146
147 Michelle Kempinski: This task force did have several meetings about this area and there was a high turnout of
148 people in the area that came to these meetings.
149
150 Jay Bryan: Your desire is that be done prior to adoption.
151
Attachment 5 24
152 Perdita Holtz: I went out to the hallway after the public hearing and all most all the people I spoke with were
153 concerned about the tax effects and they asked how will this affect their property. They had specific questions about
154 their property.
155
156 Craufurd Goodwin: What is the answer?
157
158 Perdita Holtz: Property taxes are based on assed values which are based on appraisals. There are a lot of variables.
159
160 Renee Price: My concern is that I noticed the number of people in the audience at the QPH who were concerned
161 about property values and taxes. The plan would increase the property value and if people will be pushed out. If
162 there was rezoning would taxes increase automatically?
163
164 Michelle Kempinski: It was a public hearing and there were a lot of people with an incentive to show up but who did
165 not speak. People might speak if there was different environment with a more casual atmosphere.
166
167 Renee Price: My experience is that people will come to Public Hearing but if they had not been coached they will not
168 speak.
169
170 Perdita Holtz: There were 456 letters sent out and I received 4 or 5 phone calls.
171
172 Renee Price: If it was in a different setting.
173
174 Jay Bryan: There is an interest from the board member to hear the public's comments.
175
176 Judith Wegner: With the high turnout for QPH they might have felt intimidated at that meeting.
177
178 Brian Crawford: Is there some reason or urgency that it needs to be on the October's Board of County
179 Commissioners meeting?
180
181 Perdita Holtz: No. This is just the timeline that was worked out.
182
183 Brian Crawford: The purpose of this meeting is for people to show up at the Planning Board. I would be opposed to
184 going there because we don't do that for anyone else. I do hear that there's a need for a community meeting with
185 more discussion with the planning staff.
186
187 Michelle Kempinski: Maybe part of a task force. It can be open and the information would come back the Planning
188 Board.
189
190 Craufurd Goodwin: I would like to speak against this. We have no evidence that the community wants another
191 meeting. If someone had shown up here then I might feel differently about this. But there's nothing to suggest that
192 they want another meeting.
193
194 Perdita Holtz: I spoke with them in the hallway and I reported to you the concerns I heard about taxes.
195
196 Michelle Kempinski: There was an individual that had a question about the school and traffic near the school. I do
197 think there are questions out there that are not being asked or answered.
198
199 Judith Wegner: Did they close the Public Hearing? You want there to be an informal exchange of information?
200
201 Michelle Kempinski: Is the question whether we can receive information after the hearing is closed?
202
Attachment 5 25
203 Renee Price: Could we decline further recommendation and ask for the Public Hearing be reopened?
204
205 Brian Crawford: We take action as a result of that Public Hearing.
206
207 Craufurd Goodwin: What do we think we will get.
208
209 Renee Price: We need clarification.
210
211 Craufurd Goodwin: Clarification of what?
212
213 Jay Bryan: The motion is on the floor.
214
215 MOTION made by Michelle Kempinski that before we make a recommendation regarding the Hwy 70 corridor overlay
216 district that there is an .opportunity to discuss this ordinance change prior to Board of County Commissioners
217 approval. Renee Price seconded the motion.
218
219 Sam Lasris: We might want to change the wording not just the opportunity to discuss but that we want another
220 meeting.
221
222 Perdita Holtz: If that motion passes, the recommendation for an additional meeting will have to be taken to the Board
223 of County Commissioners for their approval. In addition could you clarify what would be considered appropriate
224 advertising and whether that means sending out 456 more notices.
225
226 Jay Bryan: Let's see if the motion carries.
227 VOTE: 2 Yes; 7 No; Brian Crawford, Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Bernadette Pellisier, Renee Price, Sandra Quinn,
228 Judith Wegner
229
230 MOTION made Judith Wegner: to approve staff recommendations. Brian Crawford seconded the motion.
231 VOTE: (3 opposed; Michelle Kempinski: Renee Price: Sam Lasris)
232
233 Jay Bryan: Judith's question about our ability to receive information from a meeting if the public hearing has been
234 closed would be permissible.
235
236 Renee Price: Usually written comment is allowed.
237 --------------------------
239
240 Agenda Item 11: ADJOURNMENT
241
242 MOTION made by Renee Price: Michelle Kempinski: seconded the motion.
243 VOTE: Unanimous
244
245
246 Jay Bryan, Chair
247
248 Tina L. Owen, Minutes Preparer