Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-24-1986
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD • AGENDA Joint Public Hearing Monday, November 24, 1986 7:30 p.m. Superior Courtroom New County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina A. BOARD COMMENTS B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 . Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z-9-86 Orange County (Designation of Rural Buffer Area) 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments a. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule (4.2. 1 - Rural Buffer) b. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule (Renumber 4.2. 1 to 4.2.4) c. Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Rural Buffer) d. Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening (This item was advertised, but the Planning Board Chair and the Planning Director recommend withdrawal for further study) e. Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (6. 16. 12 - Telephone Exchanges, et. al.) 3. Subdivision Regulations Amendments a. Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards b. Section IV-B-8 Landscaping and Buffer Requirements (This item was advertised, but the Planning Board Chair and the Planning Director recommend withdrawal for further study) D. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE ORANGE COUNTTPLANNING BOARD WILL MEET IN SPECIAL SESSION IN THE DISTRICT COURTROOM FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS TO PREPARE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL. 2 . APPROVED DECEMBER 1 1986 1 JOINT QUARTERLY MEETING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for the purpose of holding a joint hearing on November 24, 1986, 7:30 Superior Courtroom quarterly, Ora ng Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough p ,NorthCarolinae BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Jr. , and Ben Lloyd. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Sharlene Pilkey, Betty Margison, Mike Lewis, Chris Best, Steve Yuhasz, Carl Walters, Prince Taylor, and David Shanklin. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Greg Szymik and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Lloyd announced that Commissioner Walker would not be in attendance because of family illness. Chair Willhoit called the meeting to order and introduced the Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs who conducted the meeting. Jacobs announced that item 2d Article 12 Landscaping and Screening and item 3b which pertains to Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Ordinance for Landscaping and Buffer Requirements would not be heard tonight. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z-9-86 Oran a County (Designation of Rural Buffer Area) Director of Planning Marvin Collins made the presentation. He explained that this amendment is to the Zoning Atlas which is a map showing the various zoning districts in the County. The change deals with the Rural Buffer which surrounds the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He reiterated the events leading to this oint October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissionersn adopted Oa Joint Planning Area Plan with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He pointed to the map and noted all the designations that were adopted, including the areas that were designated most suitable for agricultural use, rural residential for very low density, urban development or higher densities, commercial-office development and also the resource protection areas. As a part of that plan adoption, a minimum lot size standard was designated for the Rural Buffer section surrounding Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He pointed out these areas on the map noting the minimum lot size of two (2) acres. He stated that because of the standards contained in the Subdivision regulations, the minimum lot size of two acres could be enforced as of the date of the adoption of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. Any new subdivisions which have been received by the Planni2 ng Department since October 13, 1986 for either preliminary or sketch plan approval have been required to comply with the two acre minimum lot size standard. He explained that in order to provide continuity between the Land Use Plan and the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Atlas and Zoning Ordinance, the public hearing on establishing the Rural Buffer district, the dimensional requirements that apply within that district and the designation of that area on the Zoning Atlas was set for tonight. Collins made reference to the map indicating the boundaries of the proposed Rural Buffer district. He noted that it comprises approximately 38, 000 acres and involves approximately 4300 parcels. There are currently two zoning designations in this area which are Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R1) . If this proposal is approved by the Board of Commissioners, those two designations would be changed to Rural Buffer (RB) . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule 4.2 . 1 - Rural Buff-r Collins explained that Article 4 establishes a list of all the zoning districts included in the Zoning Ordinance and also designated in the Zoning Atlas. Article 4 also indicates the intent of the various zoning districts, when the district will be applied and the criteria used for such application. The intent of the Rural Buffer district is to provide locations for Rural Residential development and agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and/or developed portions of Orange County. Development within the Rural Buffer District is at very low densities (the minimum lot size per dwelling unit being two (2) acres) . Development within that area would also rely on individual wells and ground absorption systems for domestic water supply and sewage disposal, respectively. In terms of the application criteria, the district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: (1) Designated by the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. (2) Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10-20 years. Collins noted that in order to accommodate this district, renumbering would be necessary within Article 4 to provide consistency in zoning district arrangement. b. Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Renumber 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 Collins pointed out that the establishment of a new zoning district classification would require a renumbering of the current Articles 4.2 .1, 4.3 . 3, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. No changes are proposed to the text of these articles. No changes are being recommended in the uses in the AR or Rl districts. All the uses that are currently districts would continue to be permitted in these two districts. permitted in the proposed Rural Buffer Q. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements/Rural Buffer Collins indicated this item is to receive public comment on 3 a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, etc. for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) . Collins indicated that the information regarding lot sizes in the agenda packet was based on 80,000 square foot lots and should be disregarded. He said updated information was distributed based on a two acre lot size before the meeting. Collins said data was collected from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that approximately 50% of the parcels within the proposed Rural Buffer have lot sizes of less than 2 acres. This indicates that 50% of all parcels within the area would become nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size standard of two acres were adopted. These parcels constitute only five percent ( ) the total acreage. Other dimensional requirements that would ( °)apply include lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, building height and standards which apply to Planned Developments. The minimum lot width proposed in the RB district would be 200 feet. The proposed front yard setback would be 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks would require a 30-foot setback. The proposed maximum building height is 25 feet. For Planned Developments, the minimum gross land area required would be 4 acres. A maximum floor area ratio of . 04 is proposed and the minimum required open space (all areas not covered by buildings) would be 86% of the site. The required livability space ratio would be 80%. The minimum required recreational space ratio on a lot-by-lot development would be equivalent to .014. He explained that for any type of multi-family development or non- residential development, the same minimum lot size would apply. The dimensional requirements for non residential use are identical to those for residential development in this Rural Buffer area. Collins emphasized that any existing one acre lot that existed prior to the time of the adoption of this Ordinance could be built upon provided the owner of that lot did not own other lots with continuous frontage. If a person owns more than three lots, the continuous frontage rule would apply. There are provisions that would allow three lots with 80% of the lot area and 80% of the lot width required in the Rural Buffer district. If any structure within this proposed Rural Buffer became nonconforming as a result of the application and was destroyed up to 75%, of the floor area, it could be reconstructed and would not need to meet the minimum lot size or minimum width standards. It would have to comply with front, side and rear yard setback requirements as well as the building height requirements. 3, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS A. Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards To clarify the application of lot standards within the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, it is recommended that the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1 read as follows: "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Collins noted for the record the receipt of several letters. Those writing in support of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mr. William Mead, Mr. Dale Hammond, and R. R. McGregor Converse. Those writing in opposition of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mazie Cradle, Surtronics, Inc. , and Mrs. Edna C. Harville. 4 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF CLARIFICATION Several members of the audience asked questions of clarification. These were answered by Marvin Collins. In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins explained that the 6% impervious ratio has no real relationship to the Rural Buffer. It would apply indirectly for Planned Developments through application of the open space ratio. It does not apply to individual lots. Collins explained that if there is a planned development in the Rural Buffer whereby cluster units are proposed, the two- acre minimum would still apply in terms of overall density. Collins explained that any plan that has not received preliminary plan approval or sketch plan approval in the case of phased developments where at least one phase has received preliminary plan approval, will be required to meet the two-acre minimum lot size if within the AR and R1 district. Several in the audience expressed the fact that they knew nothing about any of the informational meetings or public hearings that were held or the issues being discussed. Marvin Collins explained that what is being presented for public comment is a proposed zoning district designation. It has not existed before and the dimensional requirements that are being proposed have not existed before. The two acre minimum lot size standard was approved as a part of the Joint Planning Area Plan. Marvin Collins explained that the extension of water and sewer will be controlled by the two acre minimum lot size requirement in that such extensions are cost prohibitive for such large lots. COMMENTS +UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS In answer to a question from Commissioner Lloyd, Collins stated that the extension of water and sewer into the Rural Buffer will be prevented from reaching that area. If water and sewer were allowed in the RB, there would be a great deal of pressure to develop and the very low density area that would be achieved by this change would be lost. Collins explained that if a person owned three acres and wanted to subdivide, that each lot would need to have 1.6 acres or 80% of the two acre minimum lot size requirement. It would have to meet the 200 foot width requirement - 80% of which would be 160 feet. Chair Don Willhoit made reference to the number of lots that would be made nonconforming and asked if it was absolutely required that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to be consistent with the Land use Plan in that regard or could it be just a part of the Land Use Plan and applied prospectively to subdivisions. Collins indicated it could be done but there would forever be a contradiction in the standards contained in the two ordinances and the Land Use Plan. 5 Commissioner Marshall asked if it would be possible to have the old standards apply to the 5% nonconforming areas and the new standards apply to the remaining 95%. Collins suggested an alternative would be to leave those properties that were developed with a one acre standard in an R1 district where the lot sizes are 40, 000 square feet. It would not address every single lot in that area but it would greatly reduce the number of lots affected by the two acre lot minimum standard considerably. Collins indicated in answer to a question from David Shanklin the advantages of a two acre minimum lot size. Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz asked what particular advantages will be accrued to the County to create a large number of nonconforming lots. Collins indicated the real advantage is that the intent of the Rural Buffer would be carried out by applying the standards as uniformly as possible throughout that area. Anytime a change is made where zoning is being applied there will be lots placed in a nonconforming status. In answer to a question from commissioner Carey, Collins indicated that the number of nonconforming lots where a contiguous lot is owned by the same person is unknown. In answer to a question about notice of public hearings, Barry Jacobs explained the procedure that is followed. Note: The Public Hearing was opened at this point for the purpose of receiving public comments or additional questions. 1. REGINA NOBBLITT spoke in opposition of the proposal. She owns two acres of land and objects to the fact that she cannot give one acre to her son to build a home. 2 . DELOIS TURNER expressed her difficulty in getting a building permit. 3 . JOHN SHERRON spoke in opposition of the proposal indicating he would do on his acre whatever he wanted. 4 . JOHN CATE spoke in opposition of the proposal. 5. LOIS BURNETTE spoke in opposition of the proposal and the fact that the County Commissioners are requiring the taxpaying citizens to build on two acres of land. 6. TOM HEFFNER spoke in opposition of the proposal. He expressed a concern that the requirement of two acre minimum lot size will increase lot prices by at least 10% while the current market value of the raw undeveloped land will decrease. He suggested that a one acre minimum be approved for those who want only a one acre lot. He noted that usually due to soil perk problems most developments have lots between 1 acre and 2 acres. He stated that the extension of water and sewer should be encouraged because of the health problems associated with septic tanks. In answer to a question from Planning Board member Peter Kramer, Heffner stated that the developer will receive a return on investment but that from an economic standpoint, a developer will pay more for land that they can develop at a ratio of one lot per acre than for a piece of land they would develop at a ratio of one dwelling per two acres. I 6 7. HAZEL M. COTTON asked about a situation in which she deeded to her son an acre of land but because of a problem with the right-of-way cannot get a building permit to move her sons trailer onto the one acre of land. Barry Jacobs explained that without knowing the entire situation, he could not address the problem. He informed her of the appeal procedures through the Board of Adjustment. 8. BOB HOGAN expressed opposition to the proposal. He indicated that the proposal was not in the interest of the majority of people. He expressed a concern that the watershed continue to be protected. 9. DICK HAVENS, Real Estate Broker, spoke in opposition. He mentioned concern for the land that had been handed down through generations. He questioned the legality of attaching such a regulation to land owned by individuals. 10. JOHN HODGES-COPPLE, Habitat for Humanity, expressed opposition to the proposal and expressed a concern for affordable housing. He agreed with keeping Chapel Hill and Carrboro away from Hillsborough. He feels there must be another solution for what the Board is trying to do. 11. CHARLOTTE THOMANN spoke in support of the two acre minimum lot size. She agreed that the undeveloped land should be kept to the minimum growth but that any pre-existing properties should be exempted from the two acre minimum. Development is encroaching upon Orange County and she feels the people who live in the County should be protected. The two acre minimum would also help protect Duke Forest which hopefully will remain undeveloped to provide green space in the County. 12 . J. BARRY WESTON, Civil Engineer specializing in land planning, emphasized that the minimum two acre lot size will significantly increase the price of lots. There are problems with water and sewer within those areas already. The proposal will be unfair to those existing property owners both large and small. It will be unfair to prospective buyers because it will raise the cost of those lots. 13 . WILLIAM HUTCHINS, Falls of the New Hope, indicated that the vast majority of landowners in that area desire the two acre minimum lot size. He stated that six wells are already polluted making it difficult to have one acre lots. 14. PETE THORN, Homebuilders Association, spoke in opposition of the two acre minimum because it prohibits affordable housing. If water and sewer is not extended into the Rural Buffer most of the land will remain undeveloped because of the inability of the soil for septic tanks. He stated that unless the Rural Buffer is going to be set aside as a bedroom community, the two acre lot size does not make sense. 15. FORREST D. LOY owns one and one half acres and voiced opposition to the proposal. 16. LULA M. COTTON asked that the County Commissioners think about what an acre of land costs. She asked that they let one acre stand. 17. JOSEPH FEARRINGTON spoke in opposition to the proposal. He wants the proposal changed to one acre lots. 18. GROVER WEBB of the Orange Grove Community strongly opposed the two acre proposal. 7 19. CECIL GRIFFITH stated he lived in the area for 23 years. He questioned the logic for requiring a two acre lot size. He noted that septic tank inspections have limited the amount of territory for a site. If a person has only one acre of land, e shouldabe permitted to build upon that site. He asked why it was necessary to change the setback requirements because of the two acre minimum lot size. He spoke of the tax rate and questioned why the County did not allow more density to increase the tax base so taxes would be lower. He see no logic in the proposal. He questioned who on the Board voted for the two acre minimum lot size and was informed that it was a unanimous vote. Peter Kramer stated for the record that the vote of the Planning Board on the two acre minimum lot size was a five to five vote. He noted that increased density increases the need for services which will not decrease the tax rate. 20. HENRY WHITFIELD spoke in opposition of the proposal. He reemphasized that two acre lots will prohibit water and sewer extensions. He stated that there are health problems that need to be corrected and there needs to be enough density to pay for the needed services and utilities which cannot be done with two acre lots. The cost of building would be greatly increased and the cost of property would increase. He noted that one acre lots should be permitted and if the developer wants to run sewer and water lines permit that developer to have one half acre lots. He indicated that growth is coming and the County needs to prepare for it. 21. STEPHEN QUINT of the Falls of New Hope area stated that he had no idea that this proposal would be so restrictive. He feels that the Falls of New Hope Association will change their position on this proposal once they are informed of the ramifications. Because of the side setbacks he will not be able to expand his home. He criticized changing the regulations and making them retroactive to the existing lots and houses. He stated it seems that the people are here for the convenience of planning instead of planning being here for the convenience of people. He expressed concern for those people who want to give a portion of their land to relatives for a home. He questioned why the setbacks had to be changed. He indicated that while he is concerned with development he is also concerned about the increase in hardship as a result of lower density. 22. LIZ PETERS stated that what the Planning Board is doing is defeating the purpose. She expressed concern for maintaining the character of her neighborhood. She lives on one acre and feels it wrong that people who own two acres cannot develop both of those acres. 23 . HELENE IVEY, Realtor in Chapel Hill, expressed concern for the poor people in the County. She feels that penalizing people -- for the County to come in and set a minimum lot size -- is not right. She noted that she just had 90 acres tested and not one acre perked. The extension of water and sewer is essential because there is a lot of land in the County that will not perk. The price of land will be out of reach for most of the minorities in the County. 24. DAVID PARRISH, indicated he has four acres and three children. He asked if his three children could live on the other three acres he owns. Two of his children will not be able to purchase land in Orange County. He is looking out for his children but the Commissioners are not looking NNW AmMEM out for him. 25. ROBERT MCMILLAN, Minister, asked if he will be able to subdivide a two acre lot and Chair Willhoit indicated he would not be allowed to do so. McMillan stated that it seems that ordinances and town rules and regulations are taking the place of people. He recommended that this proposal be reconsidered because those who want the two 'acres are those who are rich or live in the town and want to run all over country people. It is making it impossible for black people to own or develop land if you go to the two acre minimum. 26. BOB HARTMAN, Contractor, stated that it seems that most of the people in the audience are opposed to the proposal and asked what the procedure will be following the public hearing. Don Willhoit explained that at the end of the public hearing the proposal will be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. They will meet on December 15 and the 5recommendation will be received by the Board of Commissioners on January . 27. GREG MCALLISTER, agreed with what Mr. Hefner and Mr. Whitfield said. He approves of the one acre lot size and emphasized that water and sewer extensions should be encouraged to go into those areas. 28. MARK O'NEILL noted he and four sisters own 160 acres in the Rural Buffer zone. He had a contract with a developer to purchase this property. However, with the proposed changes, the developer is no longer interested and the contract fell through. He stated that it does adversely affect the land values. The development costs are going to increase thus making it more difficult for the average homebuyer to own a home. The lack of housing is affecting economic development in the county because of the lack of a workforce. The future County will be adversely affected as well as the wellbeiOng range the County. 29. RAY LEIGHENDORFF, spoke in favor of the two acre minimum. He stated that the County would be better served with two acre lots. 30. ALOIS CALLEMYN, Surveyor, spoke on behalf of his clients. The two acre versus one acre has an impact on future development. Most developers want to do something that works. Generally, if you come in with 100 acres, you get 70 lots. The two acre minimum lot size would reduce the number of lots to 40. The developers will leapfrog the Rural Buffer. There will be development but it will be further out in the County. This proposal would add an increased burden to the land. He asked if there was any hope that this proposal will be turned down and when will the effective date be known. Chair Willhoit stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive public input and that all comments will be taken under advisement in making a decision. Commissioner Lloyd asked if this two acre minimum lot size was in effect at this time and if so what procedure must be followed to revert back to the one acre minimum lot size. Collins indicated that if anyone wants to amend the existing two acre standard, the Land Use Plan would need to be amended. This procedure can be initiated by the citizens of Orange County or by the Board of Commissioners. 31. RANDY DANZINGER, Calavander Neighborhood Association, indicated that the main purpose of initially supporting the two acre mini 9 was to maintain the rural character of the area. He noted that sthe interest of those homeowners in the Calavander area was in not seeing high density housing in the rural area. Another concern was that water and sewer not be extended out into the rural area because high density would follow. He suggested that one way to address these concerns would be to keep the one acre minimum lot size but to cluster developments so that open space would be provided and dedicate this open space to protect it from ever being developed. This would satisfy those Concerns expressed by those in attendance and those needs for affordable housing. This density would make it economically feasible to run sewer and water and provide other necessary services. 32. LARRY REID spoke in opposition to the proposal. 33 . ANN JOYNER, Cedar Grove Township, spoke on behalf of Dolly Hunter. She expressed concern that this regulation will cause developers to leapfrog and come out into the rural agricultural section of the County. 34. BOBBY GRIFFITH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He indicated he will have to pay double for the amount of land he will need in order to build a house. 35. MERRILL FISHER spoke in opposition of the proposal. 36. ROY STRAND stated that sewer should be extended as far as possible and the property to the west and north developed. 37. HENRY WELLS stated that water and sewer should be extended through the entire County wherever feasible. 38. CHARLES HIGH spoke in opposition to the two acre minimum lot size. He asked about the setbacks and Marvin Collins reiterated the dimensions. 39. DIANE RIGSBEE indicated she had been since June trying to get her plan approved by the Planning Staff. She has paid out $600 for a survey and would like to be able to move her trailer to her land. She felt it the responsibility of the Planning Staff to inform her of any changes that may affect her request. 40. WADE PARRISH spoke in opposition of everything proposed. 41. J. C. MCLAMB, resident of New Hope, stated it was not the place of any body of government to tell people what they can do with their land. 42. JOSEPHINE BYRD spoke regarding some land that was sold to pay the taxes. 43. HENRY WHITFIELD questioned why this proposal had to be returned to the Planning Board and why a decision could not be made tonight. Chair Willhoit explained the procedure in accordance with the Ordinance. Whitfield asked if a petition would be in order to request that the two acre lot requirement be dropped and asked that Collins draw up the petition for those in attendance to sign. e• ARTICLE 6 - A• •lication of Dimensional Re. irements 6. 16. 12 Tele•hone Exchan•es et. al. Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed I/ Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a minimum lot size 10 requirement for telephone exchange facilities subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water thand sewer offices stations in all zoning districts. OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough reached an agreement to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. OWASA has indicated a site of 10,000 square feet is sufficient for the station. Also Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire pump vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone in ou offices) and have indicated that 5,000 square p e (without o v their needs. quart feet is sufficient to serve Collins acknowledged receipt of a letter from OWASA in which they express their support for this amendment. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer all of the public hearing items presented to the Planning Board for a recommendation and continue the public hearing until January 5, 1986 for receipt of the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on Monday, December 1, 1986 at 7:30 in the Board of Commissioners Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Don Willhait, Chair ORANGE COUNTY. Y PLAN 'G DE.PARTATENT LLSBOROUGII NORTH CAROLINA _, l 27278 • ,4, .cei ~ , 1 NOTICE OP PUBLIC BEARING ON.PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ATLAS. ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS POR ORANGE COUP v N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes, of North . . Carolina, Chapter 153A. Section. 323 and 343, Article 20-Sections 20.5 and 20.6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of - the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange- County Courthouse (New) , 106 East. Margaret Lane. Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 24. 1986, at 7:30 pm for the purpose of giving all interested . citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance and . Subdivision Regulations. ORANG4 COUNTY ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas under - consideration is as follows: Z-9-86 ORANGE COUNTY (DESIGNATION OF RURAL BUFFER AREA) The area in question is located adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and is bounded generally . by Interstate 40. ' Clyde Road. Eubanks Road, Rogers Road and Homestead Road to the south; Cornwallis Road, Murphey School Road, Brockweli Road, the University Railroad, N.C. 86, Davis Road and Tree Farm Road to the north; the Durham; County line to the east; and Dodsons Crossroads, Carl Durham Road and Ferguson Road to the west. It contains approximately 35.000 acres and also includes the- area. known as the "Southern Triangle" bounded by the Durham and Chatham County lines. and the Town of Chapel Hill extraterritorial ` jurisdiction line. The present zoning of the area is Agricultural Residential (AR) and Residential-/ CR_1l ,. Portions of the area situated in University Lake Watershed are also located in overlay zoning districts, Protected Watershed District II (PW-TI) and Water Duality Critical Area (UQCA) . The purpose of the amendment is to conform the Orange County Zoning Atlas with the Rural Buffer Land Use Plan designation adopted October 13. 1986 as part of Joint Planning activities with the Towns of .Chapel Hill and Carrboro. ,Or1 NQ ORDINANCE mum='NTS. - _ t, - - 02 - The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under ' • consideration are as follows: - 1. Amend Article 4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED} USE TABLE - . AND SCHEDULE by designating a new zoning district classification. Rural Buffer (RB) , as Article 4.2.1. This amendment would establish the Rural Buffer district in areas designated as such in the Joint Planning Area Plan adopted October 13, 1986 . The amendment would also set forth a list of permitted uses. including uses permitted by right and uses permitted upon the issuance .of .a special use permit. 2. Amend Article .4 ESTABLISHMENT OF PEPI4ITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE by renumbering Articles 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 • to Articles 4.2.2 to 4.2.5 to provide consistency in the . arrangement of zoning district categories in the . Zoning Ordinance. '• 3. Amend Article 5 ESTABLISHMENT. OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS by conforming dimensional requirements for residential and non-residential uses in the proposed Rural 'Buffer (RB) zoning district to the. adopted Orange County Land Use Plan. . This amendment would conform the Zoning Ordinance to the established minimum - lot size per dwelling unit or use two (2) acres in the Rural Buffer . • district. 0 4. 'Amend Article 12 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS by requiring the. same screening and buffer requirements - , in the Zoning' Ordinance as currently required in Section ' IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations.. : This amendment would provide consistency 'between the two ordinances rather than having different. standards ' in each_ set of regulations. 5. Amend Article 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS by adding a new subsection d) . to Article 6.16.12 Telephone rxchanga. SEithout business D,ffi_ces1_ . subscriber loop huts, pressure reautatpr ' ,stations, water. an sanitary sewer pumping stations, In all zoning districts. This amendment would require a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet . for such uses or the minimum • ' required by the zoning district in which located, whichever is less. , . O1 AME pout= SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS . The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1. Amend Section IV-B-1 LOT STANDARDS by deleting the first paragraph and adding a new paragraph to read as follows: ■11■11=1 . r The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever isr , applicable. In those areas of Orange County which areUu I not zoned, the minimum lot size shall be determined by the waste disposal and water supply system. 2. Amend Section IV-B-8 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS by excluding minor subdivisions from the provisions of this section, deleting standards which require the planting of trees in side and rear yard setbacks, open space and recreation areas, and clarifying provisions pertaining to the application of buffer standards and maintenance of newly installed vegetation. , . All interested citizens are invited' to attend this bearing and be heard. Public comment must be received' during the public • hearing. Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide • competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. - Following the close of the public hearings only evidence presented at - • public hearing will be • examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision. . Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange County Planning Department. Copies of the proposed full amendments are available in the Planning Department for public review. The Planning Department is located in the New Courthouse, 206 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. NLOzo.e.;,4, 00-101/44)6-2) Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: November 12, 1986 November 19 , 1986 . . ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0 J ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24. 1986 Item#_ SUBJECT: Z-9-86 ORANGE COUNTY (DESIGNATION OF RURAL BUFFER AREA) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Y Yes No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; CONTACT: Marvin Collins Certificate of Mailing. TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227--2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on the of approximately proposed rezoning pproximately 35.000 acres from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential classification. proposed Rural new zoning district lBuffer (RB) NEED: On October 13. 1986, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted. As part of the Plan, a Rural Buffer land use designation was approved with a minimum lot size requirement of two (2) acres per dwelling unit. The area in question is located adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and is bounded generally by Interstate 40, Clyde Road. Eubanks Road, Rogers Road and Homestead Road on the south; Cornwallis Road, Murphey School Road. Brockwell Road. the University Railroad, N.C. 86. Davis Road and Tree Farm Road to the north; the Durham County line to the east; and Dodsons Crossroads, Carl Durham Road and Ferguson Road to the west. The area also includes the portion of Orange County known as the "Southern Triangle" bounded by the Durham and Chatham County lines. and the Town of Chapel Hill extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. The present zoning of the area is Agricultural-Residential (AR) and Rural Residential (R-1) . Portions of the area situated in University Lake watershed are also located in overlay zoning districts, Protected Watershed District 11 (PW-II) and Water Quality Critical ' Area (WQCA) . C IMPACT: Approval of the proposed rezoning would conform the Orange County Zoning Atlas with the Rural Buffer designation adopted October 13. 1986 as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The' Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas. •■■=1 #: 4,„. .., , ,.... .1 \ 4 - ,>41" i V‘aa ./ k n• -....-, ,` 129 - f 7. � /' k ..041litit - ' t'''*: ' IMI6*.,00 a, aN. y ., , s� 1. I. _ . ,_ T•{^� ,'a "a. Kiwi. .. As ,' - n r f� r v Er .• _ . a „_..........\......" ' 1 . ....iii,44..........:.",.,..,' -11/ . #'.. . ,. ... .._,-.,• iiiii.r"Il'IrAirTirs, '41*- Ir., - ''.:.1.,r'-. ' -:::::.-::".0 ,. i. 1.:"..-:'-' A s Ili\ . . '•••:',.: . i'll A - ' .......t a ' 'Atti-4{ r r I ..... ,. , e• .... -. ir r... t„.-.: -...,...,,-7/..•;1'I . .., ' i1/41121. \ ,.. + '. IllgiWillifir .. ..,/, 4 n M • •. � R �— s•, . 4....... y/p-�Z �• •....,...„. • a I • � _ ,�,� r-, 1°'-'' . �P' - - C►.f App E. Hit �� Iii,p"lir--zi .•'••.'4'—'•-•.- "-c-*- ' .4 . fa i' : MI6' ; -In wiz,. .. ... illp.::.;.4.!..--- ;It.. yy.. 1(4... id,,,42"... ,LN-..--- '- ellk., '''' . v'ill ---4. -el- ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''4 , i tam.' i `:1 r .;4y.7 ;`: .mit 11:Ta, • I..0 44.-'444,4.40"' : .. de'''. ,Silk '• ••• 1St .- , . r "mot i r y fi T 4 -• . r——• .•' • —-•-• PM-POSED RURAL Fir BR( •g i - , . .--i 7,,, a x , so r r+w r 47._:i.i is ',. ,J i " At . :�y° �. / y }' S 8 q t"F ... h, to _ * ' '',•.-- ;'''W.4;'' 4 /...,1"...: H I4 lillf /-'7 =ii - , l.-ir '0 44I, , _ ., .fir _ 1 `,t 4. . e„, ---...,"f 4'''.'at - 101LP ; r Itt:41011111:14‘‘,4,' .t. \ ` 1 4°_ . 1 / ' ,•>f-it I fa. i *4/4 If ,,,,,,. 9, ) . • 1 ~ r jq .y` l■ II • .11 `rte,,.f+';:r' ‘ J 4► j t4 s Yl°°4®. _yr ' (l t. • SCALE ' - - i.- 000 4n I(1 f f1m Of ■1■••—. ORANGE comtirrY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 08 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CA.ROLINA. 27278 viol e ...411•1■:0•. CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA I. Mavin Collins. Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 9, 1986. I mailed. by first class mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public, Hearing to be held on -9-86 Orange .ul p - i. a r-1 f - r 4re, to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6 .3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time. place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change . WITNESS my hand. this the 21th day of November, 198i . 0,66111"2:) 11 MARVIN COLLINS ZONING OFFICER • NommlIMM ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS L , 09 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24, 1986 Item# SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 4.2.1 - RURAL BUFFER) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X_Yes No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Text CONTACT: Marvin Collins Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish a new zoning district classification. Rural Buffer (RB) , as Article 4.2.1. NEED: On October 13, 1986, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted. As part of the Plan, a Rural Buffer land use designation was approved with a minimum lot size requirement of two (2) acres per dwelling unit. Specific provisions do not exist in the Zoning ordinance which define the Rural Buffer district, provide criteria for district application and identify permitted uses. IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment would conform the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with the Rural Buffer designation adopted October 13, 1986 as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. 10 • egveubbu ultuI NANcE `AM 1 e 'r , ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance . REFERENCE: Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table ( ` 11 (New Article 4.2.1 - Rural Buffer) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff_ .Planning Board X BOCCPublic Other: - STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_X_,High .Middle Low Comment: . EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24, 1986 - ************************************* PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance by renumbering Articles 4.2.1 " • through 4.2.4 to Articles 4.2.2 through 4.2.5, respectively, and adding a new Article 4.2.1 Rural Buffer (RB) This amendment would establish the Rural Buffer district within the Zoning Ordinance, including a definition of the district, criteria for application of..the district, and a list of uses permitted by right and by issuance of-a Special Use Permit. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5, 1986, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required. lot size per dwelling unit of. two (2) acres. This action was reaffirmed on October 13, 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the text of the Joint' Planning Area Use Plan. The County Attorney has indicated that the two-acre standard can be enforced in the case of any subdivision which has not received preliminary plat approval and in the case of a planned development. (See attached letter.) Nevertheless, specific provisions do not exist in the Zoning Ordinance which define the Rural Buffer district, provide criteria for district application, and identify permitted uses. Consultation with the County Attorney indicates a need to provide such provisions in a manner consistent with similar requirements for other zoning districts. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None V ' PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS: The proposed wording for the V V new Article 4.2.1 Rural Buffer (RB) District is as follows: _ • 4.2.]. Ba f s,t r ict 12 Bas-al. S CL._ a) Intent The purpose of the Rural Buffer (RB) District is to provide locations for rural residential developments and agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve t buffer or separate more intensively planned developed portions of Orange County. Development within the Rural offer (RB) • District is at very law (the minimum lot size per dwelling unit is two (2) acres) and relies on individual wells and ground absorption systems for domestic water -. supply and sewage disposals respectively bl Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: . i. Designated by the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. 2. Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains • are not likely within 10-20 years. . The proposed renumbering within Article 4 to provide consistency in - zoning district arrangement would be as follows: Existing New New District 1tir a iat].onl$ 4.2.1 4.2.2 AR 4.2.2 4.2.3 R-1 4.2.3 4.2.4 .R-2. R-3, R-4 4.2.4 4.2.5 R-5, R--8. 'R-13 No changes are proposed to the text of these articles. The proposed list of permitted uses is identical to those permitted in the (See Agricultural ultural Residential (AR) District. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table.) ***, **********************************• . ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW: , PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: - - BOCC REVIEW: - COLEMAN. BERNHOLZ. DICKERSON. . . . BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE _ 7- ATTORNEYS AT LAW • . L c 13 • . no CHURTON STREET „ HILLSBOROUGH.N.C. 27278 . . 919-732-2196 - • - -- 919-942 1003 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE • • SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILDING October 3, 1986 _ 137 E.FRA.%ELM STREET • CHAPEL HILL.N.C.27514 . . • 1119-929.7131 - ' , ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR. ' . - • STEVEN A.HERNHOLZ . DONALD R.DICHEILSON . . - - ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL . _ - DOUGLA.S HARGRAvE Mr. Marvin Collins . . MARTIN J.BERNHOLZ ..1____.__ - • . _ RICHARD 4, SNIDER.JR. 1-0.1., ec'car G.NICHOLAS HERMAN . Orange County Planning Department . HARUN J. SHANORAVI - _ .106 East Margaret Lane . or c..,....1 BoNNERD.sAwyzR. Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 - . . . Re: Amendment to Orange County 's Comprehensive • • Plan - Adopted Joint Planning. Area" Land Use . Plan • • . _Dear Marvin: . - We recently spoke about the relationship between the recently adopted amendments to Orange County's . - Comprehensive Plan in the Joint Planning Area and the 0 existing Orange County Subdivision Regulations and . 0.0. Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the concern was, to • ' what degree does the Comprehensive Plan control, define . or limit specific development requests. - • For the most part I. will be unable to answer this. question except on a case by case basis. That is the application of the recently amended Land Use Plan to • specific developments will depend on the zoning and subdivision ordinance provisions affected by the O proposed development. For example, we recently discussed and resolved this question in the context of . - recreation and open space area requirements- The designation in the Land Use Plan of resource protection, water quality critical and perthaps .other ._ public/private open space areas provide Orange County with the basis for requiring dedication of any such . areas within a proposed development or alternatively - , payment in lieu of dedications. Even though this seems fairly straightforward, individual cases will present questions. I understand from Gene Bell that questions have already come up concerning the meaning of certain provisions of the "Recreation Sites w section of the Subdivision Regulations. Perhaps the question which might arise most frequently .is the application of the portion of the . _ .. - . . . . . . . - • • . . , . . - • - . . - a. 161- • • Mr. Marvin Collins . " Page Two October 3, 1986 . . • . . . . . , . . _ Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan which requires a minimum of 2 acres per' unit in the rural buffer area. First of all, lots of record and nonconforming lots are . . • specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and • . . . . should be treated accordingly. Aw proposed - •• • development which has, not received either preliminary . plan apprOVal, in the case of a subdivision- request, or _ . . • • has not been granted a special use permit, in the case .. . . of a planned development, must, I think, meet the 2 . . acre. minimum lot size requirement. . . .•-• - : , ,,.., ... . - . -, - . - - . . . . . . . Section Ill-B-1 of the subdivision regulations . . • .. . . , - . requires the planning department to review a . . . _ . . • :-,. .,- . subdivision sketch design plan for "compatibility with • • . - : the comprehensive plan for the County." Section IV, 7 ... .:": entitled "REQUIRED• MINIMUM DESIGN ST,AIWAlkDS," recites. • • . the policy of subdivision regulations, that is, "the avoidance of congestion and overcrowding and the • . . creation of conditions . essential to public health, safety and the general welfare," and then goes on to state that these goals are to be -accomplished through . . . the application of design standards "providing for the . . • . . . . • • • . distribution of population and. traffic, safe and .• . coordinated street systems, approved water supply and sewage disposal systems, useable lots and conformance Ef2r94111-91tOlare Count . . . .ado.ted b the Board of , . . Commissioners.. . (Emphasis ad.ed.) Subsection B-1 of - . -------- • - Section Iv, requires lots served by on site sewage .. . . . . disposal and water systems to be at least. 40,000 square , . . , feet and lots served by public or community water and • . . sewer to comply with the appropriate zoning ordinance. . ' These requirements are Minimum, lot size requirements. . . . The idea that the lot size requirements are minimums is . . • . . . - further underscored by the. need to meet watershed . . ._ • . . • protection standards regardless of the lot size . . . . . . . , . necessary to accomplish those standards. . • , „ - . . . . . . . . . The Zoning Ordinance permits the development . . planned development districts. Section 7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance provides, in- the first paragraphr - that . . • • . . . . . planned development districts may be established where "suitability of [land] for the development proposed : • . shall be determined primarily by reference to the , .. comprehensive plan." The PD analysis may also give . . . . . "due consideration to the existing and perspective . . character of surrounding development." Furthermore, . . . . the . last paragraph of Section 7.1 states that PD • . • ' districts "are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning spdothel130. 1---9---2/1ereulations to an . . - equivalent or higher degree than where such regulation • . ' ' are intended to control unscheduled development on • _ . • . . . • . . • . . - . . . • . . ' ' • - - . . . • _ : . • • . . . ,... . • - (., _ -15 . . . • - . Mr. Marvin Collins Page Three October 3, 1986 individual lots. . . ." This theme is continued in Section 7.4 which states that "PD districts shall be appropriately located. ..with respect to the pattern and timing of existing or proposed development in the, . comprehensive plan. . . ." ' - •-* - There is another reason for hinking that the - * comprehensive Plan dictates lot- size where it. . specifically requires •a particular lot size. Orange • County's Comprehensive Plan is intricately . connected/related to its Zoning Ordinance and ' Subdivision Regulations. As you know, under North - - . Carolina law, local governments must have a - comprehensive plan and zoning regulations" must be win S accordance with a comprehensive plan." N.C. Gen. Stat. • • Section 153A-341. However, our courts have held that . the comprehensive plan requirement does not kequire an • • • extensive written plan, such as a master plan based upon a comprehensive study. ., The ordinance itself . . may show that the zoning is -comprehensive in nature- " • Allred 22,......qyit (,f Raleigh, 7 N.C. App., 602, 173 S.E.2d • 533 (1970) rev'd on other grounds, 277 N.C. 530, 17a - S.E.2d 432 (1971) . The comprehensive plan requirement is said to be one which aids in preventing the local government from exercising its zoning power arbitrari/ ' 1r or capriciously. yWillis v . Onion Count , N.C. - - App. _, 335 S„E.2d 76 (1985) . 1-14r, —4e37-er"-----as you know, Orange County very closely links Its comprehensive plan to its zoning activities. All - 'requests for a change in -zoning must be measured first against the permissibility of the kequested change in accordance with the County's Comprehensive. Plan.. If the requested land use does not comport with the Comprehensive Plan, that plan must be changed before . the zoning request can be granted and in most cases even considered. This policy and procedure of Orange- , County varies remarkably from the practice of most other local governments, Most other local, governmerkts. - amend their comprehensive plans de facto.. That is . changes in zoning regulations affect.ively. amend therir- . comprehensive plans and no separate action• is ordinarily taken on the comprehensive plan.. Orange 5 County follows the policy and practice it does as an additional protection against arbitrariness and as a statement to the people of the County that the - - _ Mr. Marvin Collins Page Pour October 34 ' 1386 Comprehensive Plan provides strength arcd. structure to . the County's land use regulations. Very truly yours, �f.{ .hill. =" fre GEG/ls9 . . cc: Ken Thompson Don Willhoit • • - 1 • r III 1j VS _ r -.-'41.;‘,.!...4.',...,... . 11 l 1 t • / :y.. :••4.• us. urt LI a I 44 { CA 10 44.3 SA • 444 446 G. ~ 41 c. 1 _ .a - Zi 441 '11 1 *i 49 , .. = : y ,-.- ; - l � 1 `1 1 I � 1= 1 1 1- ICM J I "II ! ' ' 11 44 41 CS e - . Ca {S 44 IaICI I0I P . 1 I i .�I � t I 1 ■ We ro . - • _ OS ar _ _ • kis . 311g MI - r I y # �6 +eo . .. } ! G 4 rt 4 ❑n -4 ° • d Wm *• - 't7" .y m+ 4 4 v ' nee —+ O.e Al tar tl e4 .w a r C - 4i 0. M ai th.�tt9�t 4' } 7 3i3 3, °� v7 • i 03 GS Q tJ q w y raj{{+w A ea t6 .w s • tea C 7 C. 4. 6` V G. •mod• 1...... ti Y W V 4 W0, M V - - • tI'i i" 43) • cs P.M 91 t.« �re'••r+ ;•..:-r+..z•7-+.77, ,...:2!till. - �•?!:r Asst �l: Viz!rte.#1 331 v � � z _,,., • - .• � .� 2:;JGCl3 •t i�taC:tw _ • :ions Viet* ° =c'a: 3 %It* • v' .tetrad .3y.3es 1 . 'f ..•- •o• .. .0. ' I = - .• _ _ -: t... • -srr?. •-r � iCl�I�SR!l w *gy #p Ir3� 3 S• S 3aUnda►exa ' R' 13t 32;22:2A0/' a &aL3 CCL.:IC'�+'=1 t+'+e41 r `•S!:..M:W.=,.""-i.:x1:31 Y+.3.C),12 1"3t- - • • • 4-U • - . 4 _ . . _ . . _ - . - . - . -.., - . . . • • • . - - • • , ' ' • - - (.. •,. -I.9 : . .., . . . . .... . _ . , . .. 1,Ala RI.I 112T 22 IRA/351 281,4313t r.cy'..X"-X CL"3: a r-=-3/.Car=ra 12f 13 fAS•.=r • • • al Airport, Oeneral. .- ' I / I I I I 1 I :1 • Aviation. a...Li:arta. i i , • * -t • r r ' s.r.o..t. Al J . 1 , - a • •''' I i- — • l' I I. 1.,' I t•';`1 ..,..., t . 82 botanical Gardens 1 1 / . . : 0 a Abosettess 0 0 r id • *I *I a o f 0? *.I ‘ *I I . . . I . : I i- i . .. . --- : .p3. suuxi.ingsr Poruble I 31 SI 3 3 1 81 31 SI al a a I _ a= 3t . . a ; I I- i I , t - : , : :. . 1 . • . . ..- t:-...1P4 Duo Passenger -; " ' 1 ij I. ::•• I 1 .. -2 : I .6 ,St. ' . il . ,,..*; ' • Saciet bit' ! . *; gel • • el el el • +set 0 tee eew : a i. 0 e"so. a- i* - . '::....-,..'-`.,•... . ‘ .• 83 8tus Termistals . .. i I 1 I " ' I 1 1 I I- . -•••4 - ; '1, i• -6 — P ''■'-•- ' & Garages - ' - - I '•' ' I - ... it. . , - ... 0.-1.:0t ...• e.• . . . . . . . ' • . •" 1 1 . : •. • —' — Pa Cemetery I SI 81 8 3'. I _ •- .... . i■ I i ia . . . 87 Courft I .4 • 4.1.- sy - - •I •l 0.1 ..? pi • avi 0! 444 to- . 1 / • I i f - i . . . - P1 er=reurd,t7 Caster ; al at Si 8 3- 81 81- 31 Sr • : • 11*" .., - An alt1114805 Vieth I I ' ' 1 - I it 1 _ I. ' : . ; t..• " _ . . - . . _ • Products . ! AI ' # , .. . .. 1 1 ' -. t.▪ ;., : . 1-'. . -- .. • - IS ri.0 COverseetal • ; i . . • I i • _.it ... 1.1 *" ''' r " . Protective Servicee 1 : ' i 1 .. , -. • . , . I . . • • I i • a- . ,:. - i.• _ : , (Police 6 giro , , • th-stiossI Rescue ' / ' . • ' I r '•i :-- :-. •... - -• . 1 . 1 : i • • $ :.• - I' - _ -- : • Squads, toolunteter . . - Plre Oepar=ents 1 *i ** • • • -• **I ** ' I *-qPi• ' 4; '. 14 7- 4144 41, , , . ..10 •IV stb, 'by so . 1 I . b - 1 m 1 • _ . • 811, rand rills (2 Acres : — Or wore) * AI At : • „ ; A A - ; ! , . . . • • ,1- - • P1.2 Land rillr: s i633 : .• , than 2 Acres1 31 3 . , . : . _ 1 : ' ; 1• _. ._ P.13 Xi41.ftstry lastallations. r -. . . ' - . -. . .: . (:Utica:al Guard : ---- • .0 Reserve Artery) 0 . . : ; . . . . _ Pig Parks, Publac 1 . . 4 ... ' Si btr-Protit - • 0 0 ... • • ii. br• d big% •- dd dd. 4 - 9. 0 ... , _ ...,_ sim..e , ..........., - P1.5 Parting As 3riaciplat I - - . I - Doe. Surface Or * I . . • - - - . . , • 0 Strut-a:re I.., elablells.20mMlesimaimistrnmemo.1.........., P16 Public Utility I ✓ - . . . , Staticoa 4 Sun- . - - _ - . i I - ; Stations, Switching • t . .Stations, rel.ephone - ' . I , -• - - - • . . . bschartgeso Water Sewer Tr ea then: - ' !. _ Pianos X A A: A b A A A. -A A A - A A ' Ae A --..— 1 Aa au a2 .,,v3 1 a4 cts las 1 aL31 Lo.,:=2..4:;=3s c.c..:-;EC-Si coil;SI:.t.I -T.2.-.121 4-13 - - . . ., L.••• 3 . . - ... . - _ ... _ _ . . . • � L 20 • A31314 33134135 Mx 3131 CL'1 `ICZ C:Z' :*=-.3lOn rt.:, :1-L3•r3.As. 3/3'k3' r il 32. CO3 Minas . • - - 3 3 31 n 3_ 1 3' 3 3 31:n fo *w'a k3 . 31 al 3. a at 31 3. 3: 3: 1, •- . xi3 .wear Lands ; ; . ' _ a . •. , Midits 1..•, t u • #+-t ...•}. A Sl as P . . . } o + 1 .I _ t • 1 r • 21 SC.�taa3.3s Danes, I. - - -21A Non-Profit A I. • - • . . ',mended 'Educational _ °. +' • - 7I1/55 Cooperative . _ - 22 2.a::sz3 ;en • Lines - 3i 3 3 31 31' 3' 3 1 3+. 3: 3.- 3 g 3: 3- -- 3, 3: 3, 3: 3 • • - CO3.3.tgrrs & - 1 1 I. -. e _ :nae:r=•ers *1 - • L4 r?v!+S'Stt..il . i _ .:-.wfist 3u£tairea irii t • s as ,w» 0 r 4 e • :5 :tataa i 3tali.:ar7 • '. . - - 3wte 3p0.�g . 1 - - i • 3tzetoas 1 • 0 s, •• * + 0 r o r t • iAAi a1[221 a3144i 33 $As 313 C.C.: C2 ti°'..3 4L`* =--a Ca 3r,.. L 33 r 3� ,?+z 3-14 - - e • 0 , 8 C =2 Mil ; 1M �' M - s. p: Agricultural • Service Mite . • 33 Mimi Eospt La1s 3 1►etitrr4gasiaas IIIIIIIIIIIIBIIIIIUM : 34 Ass 1p Peell3tF .eat®� �ao mill . .. ._... SS Are lY read l 0 � am II • _ . . IIIIIUhIIUBIIIii, 80 .Beaks'a Pl la1- Iaetltatl n1 ST Beauty. & Sorbets Shops inumn uzi s - Si Gabs or tea; o i 11" Cl gbb . . . • to sl® . . ss Drive Is Theatre* i sininammaiminini 310 Perm Equipment dm . ' Sales UIIIIIIIIIRR$IIUII. om, 311 Feeds Send. Storag_ a proms Se LIS 111/111111111111111 ' SI3 P4M11303141:1!*) °S innumeninumommin - . . � .► SE4reoaCwpaAS (CAs immumminsounismai .i: . .. Prsolr•s Sales 615 Health Service*: Maier 10.400 Sq. torminu S B 1 Over Health i Srrrieesa � �'. Cuter 10.000 Sq. p - S13 rcial 'Nader MN ._. t ►®series 111111111111111111111111111111 , : � :II . . . cz=::E.NIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIMIIIIIUM . . S2o SeamelslSidiaBi!IIII$II$Dfl ,IUI . . Stables II ssene, is mammuismiummilininmni Alt , R2J&3 E4 21 ,pp a -3 011E1 11 12 13 AS D PFO A$ENOEn 3-t8w36 _ • • R • • • . 2• • Aa1 R1'R2:'31 94155=,a'.11,31 LC1;VC21 CC3 t=;;Ec_5I ars 2".-11 XI"rx!:•3 C ASi=If 3l•a• ' • tt • Cleaning' Services' 1 i - 3 Libraries I 1 1 1 i 3 • e l ♦i _a I ' I +i': i i s I •, • ,• + terminals 0.�.•n_ls 1 • 1' 1 1 ! • ... t 524 Mr Vehicle Maintenance i 1 a ►i. 2 . • 1 :. . t + , ', , .� -, a • = : i • s A Repair ( shoo) +►< •! # a t • I .-1 1 ' . a , SZ$ ;Rotor 7eh=+;.Lae$alar� / _ • 1. - - - t - e i i s Z. • Rental. (New I Geed) ' I • . F• a . . '• • r • , • 1 f Motor tt ASA a Services - .,- 1 1 1 t• 1 � ( +., +.1 s 1 - • u.• t f ° •_ ; F .s o Stations - Put i Y i a 1 al 1 s *; a i 1 t T • 327 :ai�#btrlt . . = I t L • .. .. Offices $ Personal. . I I ' ,1 !. ; . ; ¢ ; •i _ • '' " ' a : e a 1 1 i e m g ; ,• i1 Services. =sac Att;a ! .11 '. 11• 11 ' i 1 1' : t e .,• . ` : .: Teo Customers Or =Is as. i . 1 i 1 1 1 • . 1 j .- s, - - + 1 i Z _ r On >:►erttiaiaKS Other Than E. ' ' / : • 1 * s o • Sspl oyess a Genoese* tow' 1 i t i s 1 1 I. s - : - ' Traffic *10 a* Same 9:o ' ' 1, 1 1 1 s ' ? _ * s " Adverse Mo ecOi�Sayortd • i i i° i ' 1 i, r • : f 1, : a i : : I`. TA* Saacs Cr ied ay 1 ; t 1 1 t • I I 1 1 ,. 12 - : • . 1 t - • ! s 1 I : I *1 •1 *•4 •; BP :i i ; • � Sni1g •z .t 1 i 1 _ i / 1 • . .. • 1 4 a Y • A �' g = i• r y, • IF, ' •• . e- 1 , 1 f t .. 1 G f • • 329 Crfices a Persrni ►i. : 1 . F0. 1 i e i ± • s a Z s . I` a • Services sat i l l i I 1 1 t ! I >. . : , ! 1 ;• _ Generate ?tedium • : • I : e 1 * F Trafdic VOlones • t 1• e - • }_ ,n "" ° a - • :st?eLe i i t 1 •1 . •i ... • t P ` AC Bout arse ; 1 i - r • - 330 Offices a Personal ; j 1 I i _t i. 1 ± ' 1 .". a 1; ^ : Q, * _ . .. Servieaa 'Mat I " t I •i ' 1 • i :.•generate $ ft Traffic ; i ; 1 , '. } i ,. :. _. l' ' T o e - Volume.* S Sams 1 1 i J l adverse ��"Lepanto , : i . 1 1 : ► " 'a e r = y _ SeYond Z•'1•a waning j - :. / 1 1 1 1 t • r 1 0.. ,+ - ei • 0i3criCt Boundary 1 • ' : • ' • '. $31 Petroleum Products: . ; 1 ; ' • 1 1 • - a+ - r i - i to • . Sto 2 e 3 '.ristr bution 1 : : ■ - 5.32 astai 3 ?3-call i • , - - Deliver•1 Ser'v'ices i ! * I 1, i j j i 1 t • c S33 Printing S t..ittto+sraphv. 1 • � . . . A Z 1 Rl1 a 2 1 a31.94 1 R5.1 SS 1213:LC1.1NL•2;C C 3•OC4• E r ::2:+31 AS:mi.mu. - ' 4-3.8 „ _ • • ;.. �: a, • • • • - • ARIRt R2I23"R4 RSI RS R131LCICt ,'ICQicC4 tt ,.SIoxr2Z1I2122tt71'ns ' , $34 3ac t.seatiana Facilities tlQa -9coitl ` U 8 8 • R. 8 a al a at al DI 8 at S 3M 9` $ 17CCea1� . . - . • ll _( Petit/ n profit) s � -. .Cote CSub sad • IC°r$ b - at *I r .0 . PI .I • �t ► F e r sz . #� Repair S e►- I' I ' ..- 1 i -$tee't_Onia & Aca74ance ' ', I -� 1 1' ' $39 Research Facility 1 1 I. : r i $39 Re;rtavr ti ca E S40 zarrsan_s: Crivo In t r • $43< Restaus nta: General ! 1 -t - ! i i s� s� '� p • . . 342 Ratan Trade. Sales, - .I _ E i.., ` - s j f i 8 Renta3, Ot COBver!>:enCB r ! - cooda, �serclsandiss 4 1 l _ f , .' s ie:ant liners No 1 ; I : i diverserapacrs 1- 1 i i o` t #' s z -#` I�ediat ace t ' tt Occsrpiact By The Sri ` I 1 +i • ' m ; - i I Operations Are • j 5 _ Designed To Attract _ l• I / I j - _ °e i I . + - s R 0 ® • i game Pew Cusraaora j ► = ' € e ri ti . Or Clients On Prease9 , _ r : i • Other Than Map-Layers • 1 1 I j- _. i t - OR The Principle Else. . „ . : s r a_ Rt tae vo•Lrtae Trai'tie I [ i e # s a c - G Generation (I•-200 Trips 1 e = _ ® t f /Oay) . i a 1' == r • s' • : a j. f : - 1 • CI All opera _ @ 6 ° e 8ar3re.Ly sdiGh3u A r _ �I 1 . -; $ Unstated 3u3xcting. • "# e ® a s $ s 1 I t 6 t . i fi : - t °.1 :nth No Outside 5barage r t It r i p I , r 1 r t Mil _ Rl. R21 a3 L R41 RS+3S r Rt 3; ! 3 i se•:t'^�-siez i ® 1 ` _ .$lt fie raj' I • • • • • 4-17 - • AZI 3.t!Z!33;341%3 r i 31.3;C.=:14=1<=11.1•70;•s=•••51 CM"..,°4".71'"Z= 2.v3►AS 3 3" ° o S4f3 Retail. adws 9 ` i �' : e a ! i - 1 ; _ .. - - a - i . a r �sw..�4mad.t.er.a. .. t :++ .4 ! 1' ! . i 1. : - s • b ® *- - A a (22-0-40a ' 'l, t • ' • <: _ I. ' • D tatneta. ♦ f :- .: i • . : a. • .. ° ' :• .. tIL T Zak C s'e�tar... : -.'r •• i ; 1 $ . • ° . a Ater n"err° 'e • - 2 .; • . . • 'e - ♦ f- ! • • — Ito Saar t • • ." • . ; ; S 1 ' :* . 02C tF 3mye • •. i i • • i ' • -- " "• ♦ . - ,A) S1Oea-:?a!# 0� . .: • *. y - -s , • • sr,CreITTS =a14,. • , . - • . . : - - _ ' . .1c.►e+rs at :3a • • • , • _ - �.:,�: � vj4. : . • - '. i ♦ . • i ` . 1Mail-ding a gm 3=m e • ° ° ,ft alai:Lay 3: . dY ; ae— ' • - - - • auxidattg - . . . • . ®e s r s A#1.131.=1331 AM 95e 38:?. "i,• NC2!C.° •Cw.1.. -a"tom= ,•e a.As;et-.►.ti—re". • . . 4-La . • - • • 5 • • ia7T .T• - 491 911 R21?31:�9+�t3121:�,LCf..:t+ SC4TGCS lCZ rt '�'•Z,t ;• 03 �t® Goods S ► ' CAsss _ • . . .. ♦ • - - • mss. �. ®- ' '" !M '�x� L' eRO,C`, • : - - •- of-- :4--�- Y _ '--. fl�sL#s e. . . ' , tic - 4* a '- 349 3 wi�eft - _.... c o Storage, cC ms cow o s. aaoe ; _ :mid* iii ' - 004 i O. 0. !• •i0. O. - $ Waste Waste , r t • A. r 333 iltelrsale 3atgs ` - M •i Of ♦e io Or r ?intended . $54 Historic 5 tructure#, Al . I. a 4-1-BS NonRe i s' ` S denti ai/ ' r E e Mixed Use i r = e _ + I i t . /mended d S55 selSb3,y and i c_ � z - .acka_,'g �Gerrtj0>3s • • '1 • a s it f r 3-18-86 Zncl _ Mail Order E g i t ` OILS @s, But Excluding '- _ - ; s • $ - $ q . -Premises Fctaz1 3 Outlets t. i - - rz • - _• • - , . - 26 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24, 1986 Item# SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLES 4.2.1 TO 4 .2.4) ************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X Yes No ************: ************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment. NEED: A proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would, if approved, establish a new zoning district classification - Rural Buffer (RB) . The new district classification would be added as a new Article 4.2 .1, requiring the renumbering of the current Article 4.2.1 (Agricultural Residential) as well as Articles 4.2.2 through 4.2.4 . The renumbering of the affected Articles could be accomplished as follows: Existing New New District Article j Articj.e, j Abbreviations 4.2.1 4.2.2 AR 4.2.2 4.2 .3 R-1 4.2.3 4.2.4 R-2,R-3.R-4 4.2 .4 4.2.5 R-5,R-8,R-13 No changes are proposed to the text of these articles. IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendments would provide consistency in zoning district arrangement within the Zoning Ordinance, RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval 28 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 29 Meeting Date: November 24r 1986 Item# SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 5 - ESTABLISHMENT OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS/RURAL BUFFER) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X_Yes No *******************************************************************'******** ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Text CONTACT: Marvin Collins Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height. etc for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB) . NEED: On October 13, 1986, the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted. As part of the Plan. a Rural Buffer land use designation was approved with a minimum lot size requirement of two (2) acres per dwelling unit. Specific provisions do not . exist in the Zoning Ordinance which identify dimensional requirements for lot area, lot width. setbacks, etc. IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment would conform the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with the Rural Buffer designation adopted October 13 , 1986 as part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Data collected from the Orange County Land Records Office indicates that approximately 48% of the parcels within the proposed Rural Buffer area have lot sizes of less than 80 ,000 square feet or approximately two acres. This indicates that 48% of all parcels within the area would become nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size standard of two acres were adopted. These lots, however, represent only five percent (5%) of the total acreage. Lots made nonconforming through adoption of the provisiosns would be subject to the requirements of Article 11 - Nonconformities (See attachment) . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. ‘mirm.rommommom rituevbzu © W I NANCE -•i' • • ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance - _ 31 REFERENCE: Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements for Rural Buffer (RB) District (Schedule 5.1.1 -- Residential Development) (Schedule 5.1.2 - Non-Residential Development) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT:• ;Staff_ planning Board _3OCC,Public- Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: ,1(jigh_Middle`„r ow Comment: . - - • EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: November 24, 1986 - *********************************************** • PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 5 of the Zoning . Ordinance to add dimensional requirements , to Article 5.1.1, Schedule for. Residential Development, and Article 5.1.2. Schedule for Non-Residential Development, for the proposed new Rural Buffer CRS) District, IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5, 1986, the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required lot area per dwelling unit of two (2) acres. This action was reaffirmed on October 13. 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the text 'of - the Joint Planning Area Plan. . The County. Attorney has indicated that the two-acre standard can be enforced. Nevertheless, specific provisions do not exist in the Zoning Ordinance which identify dimensional requirements for lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc. Consultation with the County Attorney indicates a need to provide such. • requirements in a manner consistent with other zoning district provisions. . To provide some indication of the impact of the proposed amendments, particularly the two-acre minimum lot size requirement, data was collected on the number of parcels above and below 80.000 square feet in area. (80,000 Square feet is approximately two acres.)- The data collected . from the Orange . County Land Records System . - indicated that 48% of the parcels identified had lot areas of less than • 80,000 square feet, - (See - - attached data sheets.) In other . words, approximately 48% of all lots in the proposed Rural Buffer district would be nonconforming. under the two-acre standard. These lots, ' however, represent only five percent (5%) of the - • total acreage. 32 All lots made nonconforming through adoption of • the dimensional requirements for the Rural Buffer (RB) District would be subject to the • provisions of Article 11 - Nonconformities. Specifically. the provisions of Article 11.7r Nonconforming Lots. and Article 11.10r • Nonconforming Structures. Other Than Signsr would apply. These provisions are attached for reference. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: None . - PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Proposed additions to Article 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 are attached. Dimensional requirements for AR and R-1 zoning districts • have also been shown for comparison. All • properties within the proposed Rural Buffer (RB) district are currently zoned AR or R-1 except for a few parcels designated in a nonresidential category. New parcels created for nonresidential use would have to comply with the • two-acre minim= lot size requirement for nonresidential development. (See Schedule 5.1.2.) **************************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: • PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: • NEMEM . . 1 . - =RZ• . P ='cc,8-.• .„? P.. 0 ••--..4° •••-^•••.? .......m - - e4 I env's ' co)411 f , . =....,c 0 0 a ....0 -0 0 .....t...1 LA.• •...••i='-' • • • • • • - w • •.•.0 CZ' • C.I.,••4 . 44 LLA 0... Zo•G• •160...... =.■1••• . ....)04 000 liw•I tri 'min tn >z. =....c=• ca I co co CO I r.r... r.. I e.r.4r. . ezi-44.4.1 -11 Lt.!ijii 4.4 CC 1..04 ........4.. • - ...„)In . - 'CC - .,:i . . • se 1,„..... ,tet4 . U "Ce CS■ LA-11 =0- ■.o v:i ix> •••••?...1* ..,1* ...1,4 ...1 =S .so** 4000003 4 COCO co I C000 CO . . . 4C, 4C • ., • ..,.. ...=......, • '• • • • • - .* • • - t„,_ Cl) r=et, - - - 1.2...1 . - ' - . e=•.) co, . . = = SS SZS 4 ... „ . --‹ C=. ?cci*k ' a a a woo oo coco co . - - ., . = :id env= I -,../. --./ •1/41. i true) IA I witn tri . ' _ . 1-1-11 .=8-4 a a a co a czo a „_,,j CD . . 4. • . . • • • . . CD . . , . - .""'"••••=• i ,- . • _ - 4C, 0.4 .....= . . "qt= =''''. l' CO CO CO 404p4 r4 4 ele4e4 44...... -s tre .•-• ••••••• ■•-", Csir.4 el _Nei el . = .ft S S S S , . LL-J r..0 - . . = -3 • . . „ . I .......1 e nic tz• Lu = J.§ 14-4 c..4 C-4 100 0 L 00 0 • . . , st4f.tv .. •. 0 VI Of T. et v. 0 Id 4125 .41 ..1* •'-'' 00 0 00 0 . . uji =,-ag:‘• . 1••••• h.. 1*-. Cacts.c=s 00000 • * CZ . ""--, •+. 11.., CO •••t • .4. . . - 1........... . * • . ". = es.4..... • ' 1 - "4C Lt.3 ch= ,--•co . V....:C=t caza in in in 44 irtiel ..44 ulul 4 v,,e•s44 el-el e4 "... eve! --.. et el-.... - = ••••••• .4C= Z Z • Z ' - = ' Lta LL,, CM = S 55 tic . . • ' - k . . _ U) ,40. M a . 1.1..1>"- .="i'•.< • 1 1 111 II 1 [ . , CZ = 5 9 t* 44■ ' . . " C711. 44C.. - : k ." - . .. 1.= . _ C: =..0 ........1 ILIJS=!1=1:■ 0 I I. I I I I '. I I I ......1 .. i.0 C■it = f.4 - - Lt..11 - - . . = ' . , . CI" a-- 0 .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ' mc--I,-.--• ("1 . . 4..... BP . 5 . • . - - , . ' . . , ,ae,e,.., 0 0 0 0 m■00 0 0CD 0 0*- CSI ("•4 CNI ■00 0 -00 0 t - 55 5 Sio 2......:1,„„, „tr. ...... .0. ,...... 1.•00 0 -00 0 . - . _ ...."''''',, • 0 0 0 0 A .0 0 0 A a • . - - ;LS L.1 r.4. Itz!, p. p.. e•••• •••00 0 000 0 . . ' =C4 OC c000 CO 00 -..inr.t ...1• ....1•••••.1-4`.4 •• ...c ca • . . . 4 . • " , . . , . . = o. 4. D. 1:1 .4.. • . au CI Pm, 0 iii Z..,c.,0 1-- + . 6 ••• , . • s- * • , 6.-.7. . . I...?e.* t- 7 e',* „.........r.li 0.,. •em.er ,........ c,4 . 1.•1 gt• (34 a• _.noz_0., (3/22,, 000dt, 0000 04100 - at:so 006 06.4 060 06,6, t ....,4.0.Cr -.)O.O.O. ....6 4./4.11. ...•0...A. .....•O. (4. .....0.4. ...I,0.CA. O. O. .... . ACC ....... CC nr, CC wzr it" 40t> 44,-), •••••-- CC _ - C-•• • ' I , • - . . •,I 40 0 •• 0. • , 101U1SIG ONINOZ 14 ' . . • . , . - - 1 .. - .. • x g o �* N N N CV N . '4 c.,r, • I..._ dwo , • _ • CI- 4 _ . V..1 * W1 Q o .b 4.0 .. -i -' .t • • ... Lt:.2• e� t ec s S _ C.! Ca co co co co •, , , .• • , ••C=1 - Ca 4. 00 C5 0 . = - -°C • Gam' . • = 'CO CO N N N ea ,I 3',,...- • ..ate - . fJ •.y•• 1-.. •car to>ia 1 I 1 .t t t n - _• + > xx" Lt:.>R s a x 1 C•4 1 0 1 0^ e = cc.,a U. . O C0 W . W es' NN ranic�.tN , q• •• +jam • - • . SC a • ��ua I CV 1 N 1 ,��y La • ... •p 7�• C C3 i C3 ! C7 1 - - C (r cm.•-- i " • . . ' ' I ily. Syx_ 00 0 a 0 0 _ , LL., -- C� 4 sn u► col �6 x N ..•.," = - _ {; • • Z�g u. 0 0 0 _ S 0 t� .-.0 u...1 -Q O C .. - C o. 4 'w .. .a • _ ••:c - - • . . - .• a. • 5. s� . . d. 0 '- ,°" '" o 0 Q p O Q 0 O a p a, '6 0 Q Q 0 Cy 5 Ca p 0 5 it 1 3 Pp. ` a4. 0a �a •a. *+a.. ra Qa. �a ...a. ...a. ra. ra_ ...w -* emu. Ana. u . C.y re"? G'- LC7 eC' r "f C.y C.> C. to-4 6•-i i q4 C C G1G t -0 . t "0 • . i Cif IOLUISIQ• ONINOZ • w _ - REVISED DATA on - : ...TPA RURAL BUFFER . ; NuMBEP, OF TOTAL - - AREA PARCELS ACRES CHAPEL. HILL (1-2S) - - 1,921- 17,138 -. 1 :3.Ei73 848 _ 16.893.35 . 1.837 -. 3.672 . , - - - - 3'32 - . 878..15 - 1 .0 '- 1.838 - ' 2 a3 -- - 32 .38 e 1.0 2"#2 - _ 1i. -_ - LOTS ** - : ' ° 4L11 - _ - • • ■ - e NUMBER OF _ TOTAL, - AREA 0 • ` - PARCELS . - ACRES _ ., CHAPEL HILL (108 - ) 1,887 10,847 - >R 3.873 - - SIS - _ . '. 8,760.07- . :1 .837 - 3.632 • 278 - _ 872.33- - _ . 1 .O - 1 .83E • 217 2`86..72-- - <i 1 .0 :. . 16'3, 248.71 • LOTS 393 - - - • j . 4, _ . 36, • NUMBER' OF,. TOTAL • , AVERAGE • E PARCELS ACRES ACRES 8I r:GHAf1 532 . 555S_32 a" . - . 13.3' . >- 3.673 .. 2'3O .' . . 6,0SCI.3E3 • . .25..21 1 .637 . - 3.672 . 83 - .295 - - • 3.416 1 .0 — 1 .835 - 124 . '7 167.55 = , -_i*SS - [_ 1 .0 .6'3 . - _ _ 60.53 ' . 055 . LOTS * ' 21 ' _ _ o �..�_ • . - • 0 JERALL - - -•NUMBER OF. • TOTAL. :- ACRES PARCELS AREA . . CHAPEL HILL 8 BINGHAM : -' '3,023 ,...3't,511 .15 'I B..66• s-» 3.673 .' 1,'407. - 32='7S.8" •_ 23.13 • . . 1 .837 -- 3.672. - • . 703 1,63.'4. 3'4 - 2..61 1 .0 - 1 .836 - ' 581 .. 62.7S .1 026 . . <_. 1..0 • - ' `!70 .. Au2CQ.se Ct a 68• . . LOTS ;* - ' : : 855 - . .._._�...� . r.®�. .. _ --- TOTAL NON—CONFORMING . • • - 71,S19 : .• *87: OF THE PARCELS. IPENT-XFIEII ARE NON—CpNFOR11IN1 • * — -TOTALS. AND AUERAGES FOR THE SUBREGION - DO NOT I NCLUOE ACERAGE I N LOTS. . , . , •LOTS *41' — PARCELS WHICH DO- NOT MEET 1 .636. ACRE riINIFtLU1 AND . ' ' ' HAUE NO ACERAGE IDENTIFIED WITH .THEFT. 37 11.7 Non-Conforming Lots ' 11.7.1 t7se Of Single ton-Conforming Lots For One-S- ,fly Detached Dwell A one-fPurtly detached dweil4rtg and...tt�ar eso stye -- s may be erectedd, occupied and used oax a separate no:.... ,on.. - • `. lot of record, not in contra:' nt ge: with her"lo the sames, ownership in, accord with Q ipps ... iaag in the districts. " _- .y • _ • =,. . s Combination Of Conti, as NorR ormi t. Lots Continuo= e• .. .;w. - phi• • And With C.cnt' � Ear�e nta.ors -* a .Combinations Reeraired, where Noy► formi - ' +Created at - • -. :- Enactment or Amendment of this Ordinance - - Where two or more nod o g its s3r3gla owner:skips. • -....',.'• ar3 Continuous frontage exist, they s be considered. a. .sing :' zoning lot and a• aiming fiance Permit. authorizing tha,,r use r only be for the the loyt� area lot width_r/e� �azre _ • -•-`-•i4 _t4•-,",+J acre met for the drs.rict in 1'ihiob lots are located, - �: .= except as provided in b) , below. ' _ - _ '__. ., .. . ) Wale Ao�►1%cable Where � Lents or Less are �: Involved •• Where land in single ownership at the tirne of message of this ' . : ordinance and in continuous frontage -is -c+; suffi,cje t 'eau% anc • area to provide at least 80% of the width. and area refired foil . three lots or less, it may"be used and/oz- c .vidd 'to p "ea de--ne more than three lots, each with at least • . of 'the widthh end area required in- the district ct in which they are io atad•. _ - . . ' c) Enles for other Combinations of Lots _ -. ' - -nta greater sion than in b) * if divided., s. i¢ . -_ . ;or= to all applicable district reg r except-that, i the division one remaining lot may have mot. less than cos or •• " width and area generally required. yard require nent_% sh apply to al3. of"the newly created lots:, - d) Ccmbination Not 'Reauired Where Mon-'C nfor' .t Created by Pub g or court order Where the *non- conforming lots were cr eata by. :),:z.bzie taking ng action or as a result of a court orders combination. of the lo • . .shall not he required.. _ - , 1 11.10 l.on-Conformin• Structures, Other Than Signs, - S A structure which is non-conforming, due to noncompliance with one _• or more requirements in the Table of,- Dimensional RequiremerLts of this ordinance and which is used for a use permitted in the district in which located, such structure may remain, provided; - a) That any structural change to the building shall not increase the de- . . . gree of non-conformity. Structural changes which decrease or do not affect the degree of non-conformity shall be permitted. _ b) A non-conforming commercial or industrial structure destroyed to the extent of 60% or more of,'its 'floor area may only be _-- - reconstructed in accordance with the regulations_.of the district - .. in which located including Chose regulating - _ per_ o' minimum. lot area per .use•• , _ . . ° minimum lot width • - • . - - - o required front setback . _ _ - • - • .required side an r. . - _ _ _ • ° ` 0-maximum building height; .. ._ __ • ; • provided, however, a non-conforming commercial or industrial- - - - - .--- . •structure located on a non-conforming lot shall mat be required_ : - to.campiy with either, or both din requirements- regulating - • ° aiinimunr•'lot area peg use : . ;_ _ _ - -- --- _ - _ - minimum lot width, - * - - - - _ best. shall comply -with th' •dimensional requirements regulating . . • .. o required' front setback : - 4- - - - _ v required side and rear setback - . : _ - a _ - • - % - - . - - 0 maximum building height. - . . - - c) A eon-conforming - res i.dential structure destroyedt to the extent of 75% more of, its floor area may. only be reconstructed .ir. accordance with th • 'regulations of the district in which located, including those re-gulatir3 . o minimum lot area per dwelling unit _- _ _ -' 0 minimum lot width - - - - m_ 0. required front setback' . - •__- - - _ . - o.required side and 'rear setback • -, _ -o maximum building height; - - - provided, however, a non-conforming residential structure; .locate on a non-conforming lot shall not be required to comply with either or botl' dimensional requirements regulating.- ' ` o minimum lot area per dwelling unit • - . ' ° minimum lot .width, - but shall comply with the dimensional, requf remerts regulating _ _ o required front setback - - . • 0 required side and rear setback - • ° maximum building height , . - - • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 39 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24, 1986 Item# SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (ARTICLE 6.16.12 - TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, ETC.) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: _X_Yes No ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Text CONTACT: Marvin Collins Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establishment a minimum lot size rqeuirement of telephone exchange facilities (without offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations, water and sewer pump stations in all zoning districts. NEED: On October 31. 1986 . the OWASA Board of Directors approved the development of a water sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 40.000 square feet in areas • east of Old N.C. 86 And two acres west of the thoroughfare. OWASA has indicated a site of 10 .000 sqaure feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road to install a telephone exchange (without offices) . Representatives of the company have indicated that 5,000 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. IMPACT: Article 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits 4 telephone exchanges and similar facilities as a matter of right in all zoning districts. Such uses, however. must comply with the provisions of Article 6.16 .12 which contains standards for building size and design, landscaping and screening. The proposed amendment would add a new subsection d) which would establish a minimum required for area of 10.000 square feet or the lot area required by the zoning district in which the use is located, whichever is less. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. rnJ VOEILJ VrwtivAm..xi L'lP7ZWuvinmu • ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance - " 41 • . REFERENCE: - . Article 6.16.12 : Application of • Dimensional Requirements • . (Telephone exchanges► subscriber loop huts. pressure regulator stations. water and sanitary sewer pumping stations in all zoning districts) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: .JC_..Staff_Planning Board BOCC, ublic Other: OWASA/Mebane Home Telephone request STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_..x,_High_ Middle__Low - Comment: - - - EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24. 1986 ***********************************************. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Article 6.16.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit utility companies to locate telephone exchanges (without business offices) , subscriber loop huts, . , pressure regulator stations, and water and sanitary sewer -pumping stations in all zoning districts on lots of 10,000 square feet or the minimum required lot area of the district in which the facility is located, whichever is less. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On October 31. 1986, the OWASA Board of - Directors approved the development . of a water • sale and transfer agreement between OWASA and . the Town of Hillsborough and authorized immediate action to develop the capability to " pump water to the Hillsborough system. Of- . critical importance is the -acquisition of a. suitable parcel of land in the Calvander area for a pump station. (See attached OWASA letter of 11--3-86.) . The Orange County Zoning Ordinance requires a _ minimum of 40,000 square feet of land east of N.C. 86 And two acres west of N.C. 86 CPA Land Use Plan standard) . OWASA has Indicated a . site of 10.000 square feet is sufficient for the pump station. Mebane Home Telephone wishes to acquire property in the vicinity of Mebane Oaks Road in Cheeks Township to install a telephone exchange (without business office) . Representatives of the company have indicated that 5 .00.0 square feet is sufficient to serve their needs. OWASA has requested that Orange County waive its lot area standards to permit the installation of the pump station. This cannot be done, and two ernia-‘4.ve variance can be sought from the Board of Adjustment. Second, the Zoning Ordinance can be amended to recognize the specific needs of utility companies. Both companies can apply to the Board of Adjustment, but there will be no long-term solution to the problem. Article 4.1 permits telephone exchanges (without business offices) , subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations. and water and sanitary sewer pumping stations as a matter of - - right within all, zoning districts. Such uses. however, must comply with the design standardS contained in Article 6.16.12 golperning building • size. building design. and landscaping and • screening. The proposed amendment would add a new subsection d) to Article 6.16.12 to establish a minimum required lot area of 10.000 • square feet or the lot area required by the • zoning district in which the use is located, whichever is less. - • EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Attached PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Attached ***************************************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: S . • BOCC REVIEW: • ■••••••■■ EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: • - 6.16 .12 - - • . . - . . - 4 • . -• seas—e s�s2, stth=•5... 43 . • b er a LR huts - 3tI:e f.s a re r a sou la t o t..—a tat1 Q • i . - . - • ii . a - • 1 - I • . I .t • • The following restrictions shall. be applied to' the above f -_ • uses in all zoning districts: • _ ' a) The design of structures shall conform as elosely - as •. - possbie to the character of the area -i . which- It. • 3.4..i .. , located.. . •. - . - - - _ b) Bliildinga or structures , shall ,conforc. to the minimum- . building setback distances for the applicable zoaing . district and shall not exceed 200 square-te:et in area. . . - .. ,•., c) All 'buildings and structures • shall be . landscaped. ' and ' . screened according to the standards -that follow: - - - 1 . Buildings and structures which resemble -residential accessory structures must be landscaped aud maintained : • in the character of a residential. area. _ 7 - _ 2. Any outside storage areas must be fenced with a. mXn,imuss . .. 5 foot fence and the area screened from - adjacent • property according to the standards in this section._ : 3. Lighting in and around these facilities - shall be- constructed and shielded so as not. to shine -directly on i • • adjoining property used for or zoned for residential l . 'purposes. Electrical and telephone - ,service -.to the - structure • shall be placed. underground. .Types of } • • - - • lighting to be considered shall _include but not . be- .. , limited to, indoor lights . when visible through windows •_ . outdoor lighting, automobile - headlights • and slgg.f 5 .• Devic'es to shield lighting shades,include , ades, 'fences, - , shrubs, trees and natural conditions. - - • • - _ - - - - 4. Parking areas and driveways • used _in; connection' with facilities constructed pursuant to this *eotion 5.16=.12 - • shall either be surfaced or -shall be looete. and _ • intained in a conditions so that dust- and -dirt -will • - not settle' on adjoining properties as a. result of their - .-' use. Driveway entrances. shall be located in a manner that will create a few • additional ' traffic hazards. as E • • . - possible . - S - - 5• Buildings , structures , equipment- -or material shali..be , • screened by either a durable masonry wall ,' or a - fence, . - . or by • natural planting,' designed to be compatible :with the character of adjoining properties, in order to - materially screen the uses within the subject property • from the view of adjacent properties. Walls and fences ' . shall be at least 5 feet in height , but need -not be greater than 7 feet in height , measured from• the ground - ' along the common lot line of adjoinig. properties. Walls- - 44 . • and fences shall be constructed and maintained In a safe ' • and sound condition. - Where natural •planting, is used as screening * a ' strip of land at . least 10 feet in -width shall be reserved for this purpose. This planting strip- shall be composed. of arxarrangemeot. of -shrubs and trees. ' The shrubs shall be evergreen and shall be arrangedr in 2 - roils as minimum and planted, at an Initial height of at - • least . • 3 feet, with distance between shrubs being not • more than '5, , feet. The. shurb.a. shall be or such • variety _ ' . . that an average height of at • •least f feet could • be , • •expected as normal growth within no Mora than 2 yearn •' `• from the time of planting . -Trees, which may be eight . ' ' -:•• evergreen or deciduous,. shall, augment; the arrangement of : ';.7::..,-. .shrubs so . that ' there : will , be ' 'a. scre.efling effect - or • •_ • •• Opacity to materially screen the use within • the ssvbJect . . ' property from. the view of adjacent properties. _ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • - _ _ . a - •Add to Article 6: 16'. 12, subsection d) as follows: - _ - • . d) The minimum required lot area for such uses-Shall he 10,000 square. feet _ ' or the minimum required by the zoning district in `which the use.3s- located, _• whichever is less. _••• • • • , - ARTICLE 4 . ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTEDUSZ TABLZ • 45 AND SCHEDULE 4. 1 Establishment of Use Regulations Except as Otherwise provided herein, regulations governing the use of land and structures are hereby established as shown in the Schedule of Permitted Uses. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited. : *within all districts there are certain uses that are permitted as a matter of right. The uses are : . - 1, Above ground and buried utility hues for locaj distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable • .rtelevision service, accessory and apartment eipparatus . . • •*Amended such as poles , guy wires , transformers and switching 1-19-62 boxes. -• 2. Bona fide farms. • - • 3, Buildings and other temporary structures used in connection with the construction. of a permanent - building. 4. Neighborhood utility facilities located within. a public right of way with the permission of the .owner of the right of way (State , City or Town) . 1 - S. Off street parking as a required accessory use to - a permitted use. 6 . Public and private streets and roads. 6 . Public • ,rights of way. 7. Water and sanitary sewer 13-nese -gas and - fuel distribution lines. *8. . Telephone exchanges (without budiness offices) , - - 'Subscriber loop huts, pressure regulator stations , water and sanitary sewer pumping stations. (See *A:vended • Section 6 . 16 . 12. 10-4-82 Uses requiring special permits must meet certain conditions • specified in this ordinance. Only after the existence of these specified conditions has been determined by the Board • of Adjustment , or the Board of Commissioners , as- appropriate, will a special permit be issued; otherwise such uses are prohiLited uses. • 4-1 406 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 . (919) 968-4421 . . November 3,, 1986 . . . . . HAND DELIVERED . . ... . _ - . .. Dr. Donald Willhoit Chairman . . . .. Orange County Board of Cormissionexs ... _ • r 4=': 101 E. Orange Street . . . .•• P.O. Box 429 . . - Hillsborough, NC 27278 - Dear D . Willhoit: , . . . . On October 31, 1986 the Board of Directors of Orange Water and Sewer Authority (MASA) approved the development of a water, sale and transfer , agreement between C1WASA and the Town of Hillsborough and also authorized • me to take Immediate action necessary to develop the capability to pump water to the Town's system. OMSA staff is proceeding expeditiously to ccaplete those tasks necessary to begin the transfer of finished, water to - the Town. Enclosed is a'staff report describing the improvements which • are necessary for this 'purpose and the Board of Director's resolution concerning this matter. ., ' Of critical importance is the acquisition of a suitable parcel of land for the prep station. Pump station construction and start—up cannot proceed until a suitable site is obtained. ONMSA staff has contacted several individuals which own land in the general area in which the punp station would need to be located. That area is shown on the enclosed project location map. Although 'those property owners are concerned about the Tose). • of Hillsborough's emergency water supply needs, they either do not want to sell at all or do not want to sell CfilASA the amount of and which is • needed to wet applicable minimum lot size provisions of the Orange county Zcanim. prdinance. . - . • A site of 10,000 square feet or mote would be sufficient for this project. However, it is MS 's understanding that the Zoning Ordinance provides that land located on the east side of Old NC 86 canna be subdivided in parcels less than 40,000 square feet in size and land on the west side of Old ht 86, which is in the University Lake watershed, cannot . be subdivided in parcels less than 80,000 square feet in sizer without either rezoning by the Board of Commissioners or approval of a variance by the Board of Adjustment. - - . . - An Equal Opportunity Employer - ,- -- -, ,_--„-...,---,- ..-,----...3.-..v_-_.,------.--rvy,,,,--x--.s.--,...nwp- . -- --- - ,-..-,--;,,- - --_,.....„ ...,.... • 47 DT. Donald Willhoit November 3, 1986 Page Tice In light of the Town's emergency water suppay needs, Orange County is hereby requested to take whatever action is necessary to iumediately grant OCASA a variance from the minimum lot size provisions of the Orange County • Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance would be solely for the purpose of acquiring the land parcel needed for completion of the pectxmed • water pumping station which would provide emergency assistaaace for the Town of Hillsborough. A water pumping station is a permitted use in the - general project site. OWASA staff will notify the County when an agreement has been reached with a landowner for 'thepcm-clmmeof a suitable• ' pump station site. • Thank you very much for your assistance in this effort. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this request. Very y yours, • Everett Billingsley Executive Director wp Enclosures • cc: Edward N. Mann, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors • Kenneth Thompson, County Manager, Orange County • • Marvin Collins, Planning Director, Orange County 44r • James Porto, Mayor, Town of CarrbOro James Wallace, Mayor, Town of Chapel Hill . • _ • • • • • • J O _. 1 •.. .fir U:�i; : _ .....?.::::::::::::::„.)::::::::::::45:,„...:.:::.....- c4::::::::::::::::::.....-_:%:::::1l . , ;:::; g.. r 0,/VHW - i 0. • :,: . - r {•:: 1��o X 1:'1 .r .. ,- . r�y�s • vi.•��s. . 1/ ,p.. �l1. .'b 1 4:- : ea * . N. ..'. : J ' .. �+, J. ommj dy* ,w+ i ti: amummi . 1"4". , • V':'!'*:g5-SiKV*SieZa:d:*E*il;*r ,SX..., ....f e<te Z -7•54`,--.,-;;;;,,i•:;114,11,04,7,.-;;;-,,,X.:----" ---4...„.„.:-.5.4.11:0.:.-, „,;.:::--„,,,i,...-:,. • 1 •tit �' ,� �1ti '�' t y • 1 -tip •�,•ia N''' °®� ��.}w�i' .? Is`;':-// y:7: �:�*rte::{0::::::! '' Y:l sz: .S pw 4._ r-:::* 1,trckS-*S• '%::::::•• .m••:14 t _ ■ • \ I ,- - i„.. 4 ,I. ....„,,,, ..,. sa.,..)-#-- /al., ,........, . .. • % , „pp .• a j - T i Y !( f • _— ' _ fyi �r• �JJ aa._1� a }' t04 tatZ• a'�• H, • Il • 1i.. C.d 1 tfS b 4 t t ,.t.;,0 L.., +'"may ' ,_" .11C11 4 $ t. -. 0;3p ..1.,,, '\ - pp r ^ter/ r-'a+ Qr' • ale ' ...,.. U t . - 7 i . ... - t=r- •" ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date; November 24. 1986 Item# SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (SECTION IV-B-1 LOT STANDARDS) *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: ,,..X Yes ,__..No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Text CONTACT: Marvin Collins Amendment TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendment. NEED: On October 13 . 1986. the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. including a minimum required lot size per dwelling unit of two . (2) acres. References within the Subdivision Regulations indicate that new subdivision plats submitted for approval must comply with the two-acre standard contained in the Land Use Plan. While such references exist, a direct statement to that effect is needed. Furthermore. Orange County's Subdivision Regulations are enforced in the Town of Hillsborough, and specific language is needed to indicate that lot areas for subdivisions within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet the standards set forth in the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. IMPACT: The proposed ordinance amendment recommends the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1: "The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable." Approval of the amendment would clarify the _ application of lot size standards as contained in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the propsoed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. ..■0.1.•■■■■21 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TTY ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations • 51 REFERENCE: Section IV--B-1 Lot Standards , ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X_Staff_Planning Board BOCC__public Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION:_x_High_Middle Low Comment: • EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 24, 1986 ' - *********************************************** PURPOSE. OF AMENDMENT: To revise Section IV-B-1 of the Subdivision Regulations to clarify the application of minimum lot area standards. IMPACTS/ISSUES: On August 5. 1986. the Board of Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, including a minimum lot required lot area per dwelling unit of two (2) acres. This action was reaffirmed on October - 13 r 1986 when the Commissioners adopted the text of the Joint Planning Area Plan. .. The County Attorney . has Indicated that the two-acre standard can . be enforced, . (See attached letter of 10-3-86.) Several references, including Section III-B-I and Section IV of the Subdivision Regulations. and Articles 7.1 and 7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance/ indicate that subdivisions and planned' - developments, respectively, must comply with the "comprehensive plan" . While such references indicate- that compliance with the two-acre standard is required, 'a direct statement to that effect - is needed. Furthermore. Orange County's Subdivision • Regulations are " enforced in the Town of Hillsborough. and specific language is necessary to indicate that lot " areas for 'subdivisions within the Hillsborough planning jurisdiction must meet ' the . standards set forth .in the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance. _ EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The existing provisions of Section IV-B-1 are as follows: IV-B-1. LOT STiNDARD-S, . • The minimum lot size shall ' be determined by, the waste disposal and water supply system, and shall comply with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance where applicable. a) Lots served by on-site sewage 5r4 disposal and water systems shall be at least 40.000 square feet b) Lots served by public or community water and sewer shall comply with the appropriate Zoning Ordinance c) Lots served by public or community water and sewer that are not governed by a Zoning Ordinance shall be at least 15.000 square feet. . PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendment to Section IV-B-1 revises the first . paragraph to read as follows: IV-B-1. yM STANDARD$ The minimum lot size shall be as required by the Orange County Land Use . Plan. Orange County Zoning Ordinance. or the Hillsborough ' Zoning Ordinance. whichever is applicable. In those. areas of Orange County which are, not zoned, the ,minimum lot size shall be determined by the -waste disposal and water supply system . • . , ****************, ************************************ ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: • - • BOCC REVIEW: • • t- R. R, MCGREGOR CONVERSE 117 WOLF'S TRAIL November 20, 1986 Orange Co. Commissioners a 1-7-r7 -..-7-ziTr,1-1---til planning Board 106 East Margret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Officials: I am writing to express my support of the rural buffer concept and those amendments specifying a two acre lot size affecting those areas on the outskirts of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, N.C. I believe this concept and mening,,le amendments pertaining to it have the popular support of the residents living in these areas, and would greatly assist in preserving the present character and quality of life in these neighborhoods. Idditionally it is the best approach enviromentally and aesthetically. Therefore, I support the rural buffer concept and its lot sizeimendments(two acre) Thank-„you for your attention to this matter. • - .SURTRONICS INC. " . . 4001 BERYL ROAD • P.O. BOX 33459 RALEIGH, N.C. 27606 919-834-8027 11-1i-86 November 17, 1986 Orange County Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Sir: Orange County has done a beautiful job of maintaining their towns by preventing rapid growth around the edges. High density growth well away from the towns would insure this contin- uance. An example of this is the retirement community built out away from Chapel Hill. With all conditions being equal in your new proposal, growth will concen- trate at the edge of the towns, defeating what you are trying to do. We stand opposed and are sorry to see the reversal of the policy that has been so successful. Sincerely, Terry P. Smith 7 . William H. Wade Larry W. Windlek , TPS/sls , •;..,. . r-• ,.. 1„-,-,,r7...".77,•-•:-. 7.:-.) .7)zi.,,,zilz,., yntfl50-11,/ .1--/ ? Iti T .. .4.,-,. _.7.4,02.,.1 . 72.--- . , ._..e.6.-e,tc,12.. . . 4 itfi , (2., 6:2041- +" _. _.�,, .- t �,. 6.. _ G . .i. . -2-, ci,e) (-7-26 t-r-•- 24,1' a--.. .— - •- ‘...ab-te-rt --- - --------- -- --.,,- >,,-6/-&-riz-iir- ,„,-,24.-7,4 _,-&-ii.z.52--, -:4-i— i . 7.2,,,( .. IIIII --- &_.-efi f e;g i,1,,,8, . ,,,,74,1„;/ _1,0-7-7-1,2_, Niv...._,,Za-___ ly-LL., . . . #),-.1.4--0.1•1 _. iiir '.-e- 41/e772 der r/eif, : IV/ /ValY/27 4 9/072,5 14 ee-tre?" f yr fi/ ,, 4)--1 1, , G-, 7 Fr3,7::;1;;. ` ' e Ie/ pf6 mod, pew /11.7: ad/77.1 , /P0; /l rv///e 4 e>'e fly. ,ef. /4t 01) z� -- 7) re a-Y-47/ 2 e. d /c. kc ii q Or, /1/91/` 2' / ' p ,r J �G�U7J z5' X77! ,""/.#11 ?j�1 �'0775!care'"" ,z7/9 X77 t7':�1E' �� Gd U.7�1�77 q / � ���' �i�-:r13!e� 'wd -ac7e /ot J'/,ze) . ,Ipe e ✓/V ,Z Abe, ,az) r, ; , lO Q. 077 / e, �C/ .6d a, ck/,S t°,a( /7,7' ,�9/ !'�?'7�!7 p,�7p�' /--__.. , G t� ae -/ /ham.- 4, 10' g' 7177 P't92' ,fee z .,P7J?71)77 v97? r4`4.7-e/'1j72 e.-, ,/ Z--e /mot/. ed /'�Y,�.,.5'TJ'�',, ' , fir ,�'� / �'- �,�' ,71 JDWZXe14/ i �. Y7or " a- //l7aU 'e %r - / la_it fob)'/i/l 40/e7a5 x-720 / / 4777 0 7-6 / 7/77/ 7!1.7 'v , ,rriA aed pyeVYt /12.ropfzLy e2.-A1 de k'edeie-64 /6 de-6/2-0.1; 1; i 7-;4eSe., dler.e_179,7e7itLs hi/e. efededi ozzlikeyve ctoAtia7e97/.I• alrec-ti& -% -- 2 e�-e. 1, . e. �.� �.. �ef/4z /ter - �f ,� � � `� /2/ea-ie. '612757Ier ,v ,�/ze, j / i a'-' , cz/ /j�s 4 ems- 42 - a f z %- p eeeJ 7 "7) MY, aty, rlca.-77 o U, 7/24. SIA.,,,, 77,/f , („4-,67.L. 0, .'/ rviY/) d2e/eye/ 77c' . -, AzJeA,770,/ /9 ,..?Lf‘ree / 15 (f/ ) it/‘--//QL/ November 24, 1986 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Courthouse Hillborough, North Carolina Gentlemen/Mesdames: I know my neighbors from Falls of the Hew Hope will be attending this evening' s public hearing to consider amendments to the Orange County Zoning. Unfortunately, I will be out of town this evening but write to advise I wish the minimum lot sire to be a 2-acre minimum for lots in the rural buffer. Respectfully purs, xe,a_ William P. ade Cascade Drive Falls of the New Hope ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 24. . 1986 • Action Agenda Item 4 . SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT - CHAPEL HILL *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC. HEARING: Yes_X_No ATTACHMENTS: Revised Joint CONTACT: Marvin Collins Planning Agreement. TELEPHONE. NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251- • Durham 688-7331 • Mebane 227-2031- *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider approval of proposed revisions to the . Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the, Town of Chapel Hill. - NEED: In 1984, Orange County and Chapel Hill entered into a Joint Planning Agreement. Under the terms of the present agreement, .the County and Town . have been cooperatively developing a Land Use • Plan for the Joint Planning . Area and jointly approving development requests within 10 and 20-Year Transition Areas outside the . Town's . • planning jurisdiction. • The Agreement has worked well overall, but there have been awkward situations and administrative • problems , in implementation. Over the past six months, discussion has occurred about possible revisions to address the difficulties. On October 131 a draft revision of the Joint Planning Agreement was presented at a joint meeting of the Board of County ' Commissioners and the Town Council. A public hearing on the revised Agreement was held November 18, 1986. . IMPACT: The revised Agreement proposes a new distribution • of responsibility between the County and Chapel Hill. • I. Chapel Hill ' is to prepare a Zoning Map for the Transition Area using its zoning district classifications and recommend its adoption, to Orange County. Classifications will be assigned in accordance with the land use • _ designations shown on the adopted. Joint Planning Area Land Use , Plan. ' (Under the existing agreement. Orange County's zoning district designations apply.) • 2. Upon amendment of the County's Zoning' Map . * 0 (including Zoning Atlas) to incorporate the Zoning Map and Town Land Development * Ordinances, the Towns will be responsible for the processing of applications, permits issuance and conducting necessary inspections within the Transition Areas. . (Under , the existing agreement, Orange County. and Chapel Hill jointly approve development applications. Orange County is _ also responsible for permits issuance and conducting inspections. ) 3. Orange County will continue to administer its Zoning Ordinance and Atlas, and ' Subdivision Regulations , within the Rural ' Buffer. The County will . also , process • applications, issue permits And conduct inspections within the Rural Buffer. • (No change is proposed from the existing agreement.) 4. Orange County will review and comment on development applications within the. Transition Areas. Each Town will review and comment on applications within the Rural . Buffer depending upon the portion of the Rural Buffer which applies. ' (Under the existing agreement, Orange County and Chapel Hill jointly approve projects in • the Transition Area. Chapel Hill reviews and comments on projects - in the Rural Buffer.) , 5. Any amendments to the Joint Planning Area . Land Use Plan and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (including Atlas) applicable to the Joint Planning Area require County' approval but will be referred to the Towns for review and comment before a final decision. (Under the. existing agreement, joint approval „ is required for Zoning Atlas changes in the Transition Area. Orange County may amend its • Zoning Ordinance without comment from the Towns . 6 . Amendments to either Town's Land Development Ordinance will be referred to the • County for adoption. - (Not applicable under the' existing agreement. ) Included with the agenda abstract are recently received comments and an alternate agreement draft which the Town of Carrboro staff has submitted. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen will consider the alternate draft and the County proposed agreement on November 18. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed revisions with one change — revise the first sentence of Section 1.2 C to read as follows: C. - Rural Buffer. The area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such and designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential, Agricultural and Water Quality Critical Area, including adjacent areas designated Public/Private Open Space and Resource Conservation and Extractive/Disposal • Use • (American Stone Quarry) . The proposed change will clarify the Agreement by. indicating all Land Use Plan designations which - • fall within the Rural Buffer . The Planning Board Chair is to propose administrative provisions for consideration by the Board of Commissioners. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT • DRAFT September 16,. 1986 September 19, 1986 September 22. 1986 October 8, 1986 • * • November 13. 1986 • • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day - of • r 198 by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina. and THE - TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, a municipal corporation duly created and - existing under the laws of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: - - In consideration of the public benefits expected - to flow from the cooperative efforts of the parties in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning - • '. within their respective areas of public concern, the .parties to this Agreement hereby mutually agree as follows: - ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS/ EFFECTIVE DATE Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange . County-Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, as defined. herein. Section 1.2 Definitions . A. Joint Planning Area. The area lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill but within the joint planning boundary designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map, as it now exists and as it may be amended from time - to time. B. Chapel. Tall. ,:Joint. Development Area ,(CH3DA) . The area ' ' lying generally east of a division of the Joint Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this Agreement, labeled Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. . C. Rural Buffer.. The area designated on the Joint • Planning Area Land Use Map as such and designated in the Joint- Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential. This area is further defined as being. a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size • of two (2) - acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low-density residential uses and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services) . D. Transition. The area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined - as being in transition from rural to urban or already urban 'in density. Urban services (public utilities and other Town services) are now provided to this area or are projected- to be provided to this area. . Section 1.3 Effective Date and Duration A. This Agreement shall become effective on the effective - date of an Orange County ordinance adopting this Agreement after it has been approved by Chapel Hill and an ordinance that amends Orange County's . Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) ' and Subdivision ' Regulations as prescribed in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. Any previously adopted Agreements shall become . null and void upon this date. B. This Agreement shall remain in' effect until terminated - ' by mutual agreement or by withdrawal, of Orange County or Chapel Hill. A party may not withdraw until it holds a public hearing on the proposed . withdrawal followed by written notice to the other party within thirty (30) days of the public bearing. The withdrawal shall be, effective one (1) year following receipt by - the other .party of the written notice. . ' ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION, ADMINISTRATION .AND AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS Section 2.1 Standards Within the Transition Area -- • A. Chapel Hill shall prepare a. Zoning Map for the Transition area and shall recommend its adoption by Orange County - which, upon approval and adoption as prescribed- in Subsection B of this Section, shall become part of, the Orange County Zoning' Ordinance. The Zoning Map shall be prepared using zoning districts which correspond to the text of the Chapel Hill Land _ Development Ordinance and which correspond with the density designations and plan classifications as prescribed, in the - adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for the CHJDA. . _ B. Upon completion of the Zoning Map referred to in Section 2.1 A above, Orange County shall amend its Zoning Atlas in accordance with said Nap. Orange County shall also adopt by reference the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and make its - provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition area located within the CHJDA. Section 2.2 Standard's Within the Rural. Buffer Within the Rural Buffer, the Orange County Zoning. Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations that are in effect on the effective date of this Agreement shall remain in effect unless amended in accordance with Section 2.6 of this Agreement. Section 2 ,3 Permit Administration Within The Transition Area and Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.5 and 2. 6, the Town of Chapel Hill shall perform all functions related to ' aominiscration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.1 B. - - Subject to the remainder of this Section, Chapel Hill shall f administer the referenced ordinances just as if the land were located within the Town's planning .jurisdiction. Administration shall include but not be .limited to the following: 1. Receipt and processing of applications; • 2. Issuance of any required permits and certificates; , • 3. Review and approval of required site/construction plans; 4. Conducting necessary site/building inspections; 5. Enforcement of all standards; 6. Any other acts or things necessary to administer the Ordinances; and shall be carried out in manner so as to insure that a developer complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and the terms and conditions of any permit issued by Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill may also charge fees for processing of applications, conducting ' site/construction plan reviews and carrying out • site/building inspections in accordance with fee schedules applicable within it's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. B. Whenever Chapel Hill receives An applicatio n fsm 'a glevelopment permit relating to land within the Yransit1on area PL • within its extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, kt, shall forward copiep Di the application to grAngg County for review, The Town shall establish timetables to insure that grange County has, an opportunity to make recommendations regarding such •• applications within the framework of the County's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the extent possible, the timetables of the County and Town shall provide for simultaneous review to expedite application processing; provided, however, the Town may not vote to issue or deny a permit until it has received the recommendations of Orange County or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Orange County has received the application, whichever comes first. ' Section 2.4 Permit Administration in the Rural Buffer A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2.6 and the remaining provisions of this Section, Orange County shall perform all functions related to the administration of the ordinances referenced in Section 2.2 in the same manner as if the land were located outside the Joint Planning Area. • B. Whenever Orange County receives an application for a development permit relating to land located within the CHJDA Rural Buffer, it shall forward copies pf the application la Chapel pill for review. The. County shall establish timetaWes .insure that Chapel Bill has an opportunity ta mpke recommendations Keoarding such applications within the framework _ of the Town's regularly scheduled meeting dates. To the Axtent possibleL the timetables slf the Town and County shall provide for•simultaneous review to expedite application processing: provided, however, . Orange County may not vote to issue or deny a • permit until it has received the recommendations of Chapel Hill or until the expiration of forty-five (45) days after Chapel Hill has received the application, whichever occurs first. Section 2.5 Enforcement Remedies A. Permit revocation, if necessary and authorized by ordinance. shall be handled by the individual or board authorized • to issue the original permit. • • . , . . , . B. Within those portions of the Joint Planning Area where the ordinances specified in Section 2.1 B are administered by Chapel Hill, enforcement efforts through the use of civil penalties, criminal penalties or injunctive - relief shall be . initiated by the Town. The Town shall have, the duty to defend at its own expense and shall indemnify and hold harmless' to the extent it can legally do so. Orange County, its Board of Commissioners, its advisory ,boardS, its staff and all members of • its boards and staffs, in their official - and individual capacities. from any and all claims. actions, proceedings. expenses. damages or liabilities, including attorneys fees and • ' . ' court costs, ' resulting from the ' Town administration of the ordinances specified in Section 2.1 B. , . . . . C. _Orange County shall notify the Town and the Town . shall notify Orange County as soon' as practicable thereafter, of . any such, claim, action or proceeding. . • • _ _ . Section 2.6 Text and Map Amendments • • : " - - , •- - -, A. Any proposed amendments to thd Joint Planning Area Land Plan and Orange County Zoning Ordinance - tincluding Atlas) applicable to the Joint Planning Area shall require County approval. All such proposed , amendments' shall ;be referred to Chapel Hill for review and recommendation. Such review and recommendation on proposed amendments shall occur before Orange County makes' a final decision. . B. Whenever Chapel Bill amends the its Land . Development Ordinance, it shall refer such amendments to Orange County with a request that the County make corresponding changes as expeditiously as reasonably possible so that the Town. may ' continue to enforce within the CHJDA of the Transition area the same standards that it enforces 'within its- own planning • jurisdiction. _ . • . . , • Proposed amendments to the text of this Agreement _ shall not become effective until approved by Chapel Hill and an . Orange County ordinance adopting the amendment is -adopted by Orange County. . • . THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of . 198 . , . , . Mayor, Town of Chair . Orange County Chapel Hill . Board of Commissioners ATTEST: . .ATTEST: - _ ' t . Town Clerk • Clerk o Board of Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . _ ■mmi....mmelm. MIL Orange Water and Sewer Authority OWASA 406 Jones Ferry Road P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510- (919) 968-4421 • November 24, 1986 HAND-DELrVERED mt. Kenneth Thompson Cbunty Manager Orange County ECEIV 101 E. Orange Street Hillsborough, hr 27278 . Dear Mr. ThoMpson: • • Orange Water and Sewer Authority (MAW staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to Article 6.16.12 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, The following comments and reconmendations concerning that proposal are offered for consideration by. the Orange County Board of Counissioners. The present ordinance provisions restrict the construction of water and • wastewater utility facilities which may be immediately needed to protect the public health, safety and welfare. In fact, the requirement that such • public utility sites comply with the minimum lot size requirements •applicable to the zone in which the facility is constructed has delayed the process of acquiring a suitable site necessary for the construction of a booster pumping station required to transfer water to the Town of Hillsborough, • The proposed amendment will..allow more timely and economical, development of these important public facilities. Therefore, orfASA supports the - proposal to revise the zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of water and wastewater pumping stations on parcels of land 10,000 square feet or more. . Consideration should be given to allowing these facilities on 5,000 square feet or more. %1S , also requests that the ordinance be revised to change: (1) the current maximun building area limitation for such pumping stations from 200 square feet to 400 square feet; (2) the • applicable lot width to 75 feet; and (3) the applicable front setback to 30 feet. • Orange County's consideration of the above comments and recortmendations is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact Patrick Davis if you have any questions concerning this matter. ly yours, Oe Everett Billingsley - • Executive Director 00 0 wp Enclosures • cc:, Edward N. Mann, Jr., Chairman, Board of Directors / • Marvin Collins, Planning Director, Orange County I/ • An Equal Opportunity Employer AGENDA_ iS MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager . SUBJECT: Implementation of Land Use Plan - Comprehensive Rezoning DATE: , November 24, 1986 The attached Planning Staff Report discusses a comprehensive rezoning in relation: to the Land Use la : 1 and 2 --. would call public hearings on zoning matters. On August 25, in response to a petition, the Council considered calling a public hearing regarding the establishment of a new, low density residential zoning district. The Council did not call a public hearing but instead referred the item to the Manager and requested a comprehensive review of the Town's zoning districts in relation to the recently adopted Land Use Plan. The attached report discusses present and recommended zoning as its relates to the Land use Plan and outlines several options. Resolution 1 calls a public hearing in February to consider the creation of a new low density residential zoning district. Resolution 2 calls a public hearing in April to consider a comprehensive rezoning to bring the Zoning Atlas into greater conformity with the Land Use Plan. • • - Planning Staff •Report :.. . : : Y}... ..�. ` Comprehensive Rezoning: Implementation-of the Lard Use Plan' Prepared: November A 1$ 198E { 18, �t Bac kg Ound - • On July 14, 1986, the Council- adopted a Land Use Plan for Chapel , ;� ,,, .\ Hill. The Land .Use, Plan is a .comprehensive. general plan for '_,t =, development of the : Town. it should. guide °�"" decisions 5 _ growth management � .�;: - ` • in` :Chapel Hill::; over the next -decades. ..Sec gez,itlie,:;', ... ,� zOnaAC.j�;7RtaF?.. -i,s'-'".�, ' r,7.ICtG'....: atTS�.`�::t�3e a",� r',•: rj . .,,;p tool-: to - the.the-, .Land 'U • it.: . _- 'x.'�'�,�;.,y.,r�ret�iew :of:-.the: cuxxent. � .:m . ..: se;�4P].ari;;:w���.< ...� x :a',.,w:,.o ._z zoning ap is appro r to :a :.., �� P. la t 'Ikhis�pC►3.n �It ( ',.,± "�T. :Au'��� '"^.`1• .7"' /- .the'- .r'+ i - k�,, :rA�r•, Counc],l-•consadered �a•` �. - ..3 ,, �{ti'�`�;�'orest�Forest-"Homeowners . -`loetit�a.+�n front •,' � = ,,4 ..Association ,requesting-...,a: new., zanin ' - ` : for the „Lake Forest -:area::':.: A copy p 9 :ctachery .�; ,-} _ • <._,����,,,.. :::. Pyof- that etition is-.attached. -1,,... ;;,.°_,:The:;;;:Lake• Forest Homeowners Association is re uesti,n ;-,,i _ tion:because the restrictive . covenants ':ori originally ! -: on the ,;e401. ;,,neighborhood expire in.December :198 ` y , ;tan th. :='`;° ;a_ : _.=The 1�- 7.; : Lake Forest:' ... ones .R�-1 ' : ;.. ,� .,.., 1,-`district has:'a minimum lot size of 17,000 `suare feet. in*4..r:'-, . ... , gross land area ',for 'a single family q _. , ......,•. •-,!.•,;;, :Association is requesting a new district for the-ne gheborhood..: ' a'.`minimum lot. s 25,000 q feet •,i.n g orhoci ' ` ',: ::�: :�;� with:; ize�.cf ' scare �fe :: The: Lake.:Forest:::area is : identified on the. Land gross Plan 'area,.:°`` '":;: density residential. with `a density of 0-4 units as :1Qw T•..:..;:x , _ ... _ per acre _ •.. This proposed - :, ;:- : ,; :{. p o used dstr' s P ict.::would be •t :t • district and more restrictive than• the . '�y�"��' permit development = . - -, 1 74 units pment at a of ••.�R 1' _>;.��; .:�:-.°:;: ::�.;:. aPPraxiu�atel.y -� :.:�. ::_: per acre..:, The R-1 'zoning district with the require-:: -=�:';._.-.- ";``-- = ment' 'of '17,000 square feet of gross land area-- allows development• at approximately 2,5 6:units is P -::._•. - . �. per acre, � - �$� - -- . Chapel Hill does..:have many neighborhood's which. have an •'.avert a lot size greater than the. 17,000 square feet minimum lot size 'of .. the R-1 ' district. Other neighborhoods, may find themselves in 'a': `..; .:' situation similar to' Lake.Forest although all areas without extensive research and :;analysis of =deed are- - ^ -- strictions and covenants' in- developed low .:density neighborhoods ' ," ',- -throe hout ` the community. 4n' August. 25;•-• rather than considerin ,,, ;'t :t:: • .. .. • just the Lake Forest situation, the Council, requested a campre- • ,.� ,�=--°�s hensive review of the Town's zoning districts in relation to the . :;..::.,_ adopted Land Use 'Plan. - : • • -2- D'1SCtl $i on - , • This discussion of both issues raised by the Lake Forest petition and of issues - related- to the zoning map vis a vis the Land Use Plan is organized around the following issues: -`_--' 1): .. Residential zoning '. . • 2) Residential Nonconformities :3)5 Non-Residential . Zoning -. ' '1Fi,.p t.�•=.r+t'.h'f.k.a: . �„ _.t . 'e i .,•.�_. e ra s":. ' 4) Non,Residential,_Nonconformitis . c'a+. •rr ✓ ,�._j•` :. _{ _V�,.` _. :' -,; - ,•<: ;` .i • .: '5) Options f or Consideration. , .,> .> - ::• ,' ; , F_ ° ' ' � , ay • �.: .�jr �Zi s+:- .x ' .�. a�:- ti. :..� ' _ ",r__ `:�:<.:...� 7 •�ii.:.-,. '`r.'f:'?�' tt _ i h':• Wte..* .i k ? - t r .X ,r 4FU:::i;7 - t #°,'i _ ':*.g,-:3FS. -( _ kwY.� '”- - :�•5 ti: _i'•.i'::i1 ,,'' �L. �. y. ;., � d ,,...,11) +-Th eLan ` e� �' Current ni ental : ., T 'f' . S?, ' • ! _ ', � '=te '� - Y',-.1 I tir v'; F..r�.t�<5tlrl�ii.-F c-.ry..�cy, � L. . : ner '� .�Yo-:s't • .��,G�, �� - �h;•, =ytr1•.� ::a ,.�.,, , �_,;F�"� t�� z;.��gs,Cha pel :Hi.11_.cur rntly� fa- '.sevn:: (7� r esidential `�crin =tsistr z its; �l r z ± :-• .,.44,-,a.-4r.;,::T •ae; .-�• ,:; Y _ as5 :'�rvs8.. i:4.:'-•r :J.._f,. n : :_.41 �.;tY: .., : hese: r :i.:_:: .: • . 1 _ Fe. 4 . ter.,:,.. M•, . f-_ -k. ^moo.'::: - - ' •- - ,tr:*:*:,2":. _Cuxr 1. ., Minimum ci - �• Si z �r--_: :Ma ,.. Z o X nin District ( . — ;: ` -:_���: . sin-le famil � two-famil - _ ' ' �`' • .. -•oral Transition (RT) 100,000 sq.ft. 150,000 sq.ft. 1?niait :,f{, •e 'en ,�a - - -, • # 1 sq.ft. . 29,040- s . ,. _.5,,,,-.r., Residential-2: ,(R-2) l 00 f 21 ' t' •u-�a' :: _ .. : - - '- .Residential-3• (R-3) `� : 0:a sq. t. ;.780�: sq:ft` '� 4 'd.ti:la ' ' . : : ',,,-VY... :. ( ) :: :.:5,500 sq.ft. . 1 ;12;446 s . . -' Residential.,4 -'.(R--4) :,� 'g 500 q-ft. 1 .:.7 d:u:/a. ' : Residential-5 :(R-5) • •.,5500 $q.ft. � � $,712 sq.ft,. ,1.0 d,u.Ja.'� . - - Residential-6..:(R-6j .. +'�.: : 5, q, t. ' 8,250 sq.ft:� 15•�d:u./a.� •.. :500 s .ft. 8;250 s ft: 1l d = : .. ... Minimum lot sine n- gross '.land area: Duplex lots 'created - -• prior to January' .13, 1986 -must have a :minimum lot'--size of 1.5 times the minimum lot * size 'for a% single ' family house. The minimum lot size for a multi-family dwelling is two (2). • times "the minimum lot size established for single family.-:-- **' Maximum density established per acre of gross land area: :':_-••- - '.-, Note: There:.is ,no land.•.in Chapel:Hill currently zoned _'--: • , -3- f; � . --;!::__::',::,-.•• ...: i. These : districts Were established •.May . 11, 1981 when • the .A Development Ordinance was adopted although the maximum density, sometimes known as "density caps", was set and revised later,. .The pre-1981 residential zoning districts included: ' pre-1981 1.•. -:,' ' Minimum Lot Size ., - Zoriin• Districts' sin.le Tamil • • - 2+ Tamil • . . ?`. R-FP 10 .acres 1 ' acres per family, ::. ' Agricultural `:' 20',000 sq.ft. ' net area 30,000 sq.ft. (duplex). ::: R-20 -,; :;.•: •:.::,;:•.. _;_ I , 20,000;:sq.ft. , net area', .' :'.30,000. sq.ft•._(duplex): :':'°. ... .; R-15 ''-' --;«.,. =:: ': 15. '000' :sq:ft. net area 22,500 s .ft. du lex _ ;_ - i`i. x= .:'.; ft'. ne R-10 :�..�� �=; �.�, _ 000 s net area ) ':1 �j ♦y :;.= fy `'�''..i•.;,+_:`•'• t tii.t":`.'-�.,' �0) q. _ S,VO�' Sq.lt._\��fyy����i��._ ��} - .R"'- .:.':'[.. -iT.�'JCKL'+Nti:J'.. :1+LL!:_..�Sl:��. - _ _ 44 • - ':A. - ,R--1QA. ,n-"',;,.;.r,.: I...r t' .'10,'000'. s ,ft. -net:'area.'•` 15 000. ,f ,. R-7..:;:',.:c.<`,,- .e.:}.. -,7 •200:s .ft. net":area, "' .1., �� ':• ��:�;� :�,'y_�.. �� � ,:#. ��'��� .r_ Q n e a. _ _?;2 0 d • s,q..f t':./f ama l�} - _ �.'. - .1,,,:v{,.i r�,�Al� �iy:.-�-�., Y:,ar:i, ..yy, +i r . '' e.'� .. R-6;.:.Y ;,_':6;`000:.s .:ft-«"`'net`area l0 000 �s 'ft. du`` -.R-S, ,.,.,Y��- Y;�; ,'��:: i0= 000=:.s :.ft. . net:_area: :5 000 / `° ' R 6,000'�sq.ft: . net- area .:°4,000“:s ft.� faniil °; 7, ,000 sq.ft.'-net area :':8 000 sq::ft. (duplex) ' . - = R--3 :•,,.:._: ,,,,i!;::•:...-.,..,- .. ::.. ,. -. ... . ,�6,-000: s .ft. net -area •:3 '000 s ' >' q , q ft./family. {{11 _ �' - rw 4 y M'r e ,.;.. The current residential'°zoning districts:.were established*tin :.1981 :- :=+j ' : ..-in.'. an .:.attempt '.to reduce and simplify,?:the._-previous residential. - ..' }` r• districts. :,..In= • addition, ::.in '19 8 7 .-'the'•. conce t. '.of - " • . .. P gross`:. and : 1 : ti i' '-. : area" :'was` introduced:'.-:.. the. .ordinance now: allows the ..:property.• '~:.: _ , . : _ owner. .to':,increase the net land area by . as much _ as 10' percent; - based_ on: the. amount :of:'undeveloped land .and.: street: right-of-way :• ;_- surrounding :the..-lot. and the•.:Land Use Intensity.-Rating defined an .:;:::''_ !' .. ArtiGle '.5 of the`' ordinance. Gross 'land area was introduced `air _an -. :;_: incentive .to facilitate the dedication': of.:right-off way'._.and.open space. .. _ Becai se the current ordinance uses '• a -gross land : area figure . rather than a net land •area figure, the land area requirements•' - are difficult to compare. - However, 'in general, .the previous ' zoning ordinance had , a minimum lot size. : ranging from 5,.000 to : 20,000 square'• feet. of net land are with a. 10 acre minimum:.,lot size :in the rural areas, and the current •ordinance has a range. _ . • from:-:,,5,500 to 17,.000 •- square '-:feet : of -gross land area with a m ' - minimu '=lot' size• in:the'fural district of '2.3 .acres: ' . - .;.. ; } - Lake Forest Petition: The Councilhas been asked to consider the addition of a new residential zoning district_ We believe that there should be a zoning district with -a minimum lot size between. _ - the current 17,000 and 100,000 'square .feet. The Lake Forest- - Homeowner's Association .suggests the creation of a minimum lot size of approximately 25,000 square feet gross _land area.. • ' The LakeForest Homeowners Association is requesting :considera- . Lion of this proposed, low density residential district because the restrictive covenants originally placed on their properties expire in December-, 1987. The current H2-1 zoning district in the Lake Forest neighborhood would allow some properties to be. subdivided and additional home sites created. The Homeowners -4-. • 1 __ i. .: ::.: , !,.. ::,,-::::.. : .,...: , - ,: .. ..-,,: :,., ._ f,.„,, ,, ',, . . Association ;would like a _new• . zoning district- to : `see attach sections of the Lake Forest Subdivis on affect all. .'}: attached map? ®. • Restrictive covenants for neighborhoods often impose greater than those resulting from the Tawas zoning districts. Not all the sections of 'Lake Forest have '.restrictive covenants hot expire 'soon; Some of . the sections of. the - subdivision _- restrictive covenants which allow for a. n nts -that �' _ Association has investigated the renewal: have.. . The -go new. deed : ;: restrictions, �' however,' .,'-the_ Contend that possibility of imposing zaew. deed�;:':,�:. -,- . . owners would have. to• agree. o: the impasitonaof n f the. r _- ,:. - . The prvperty� . ,'.:;. .----. .:47.4.'",:,-:_- , ': �' They that there, would. be.'140 era w..re tr .�'.;: �tZ4ns n.. _� �r,,�_ ::�::--:,� ;:,•�,��;.�-:.r of :the- restgicti �v - - P nt� �r�reemex�t:��foi� :.T: .� 5, =l�;�mw e+ �:Y'.�� .rya: =-; 4:?- -,x ans• ,e4`'„tr�r �,:•, _1:%":4 -":-.4': F% ;t++, sit-+�'�.� x� .. � ��M, .c�,:�f�7"� ,�4.:.�e.%;, ,«,t�i'`r•YXi i`^a;��as-'�?'r'?,��'44��,',s - ..;�:,;��;:�5..��� �t.. *144.::� ,y�' •.?�_ 3, �5- � y _ '�);. 4a�f;���; e�P „:',764- ,,. ':..s..t! :!`;t:,s.>.:�>�;�i::;���:r�--,�'•c1t•.�..r,•r�' S.G� +���`;tia-':',�'S"..,",�'� y a Lt� •'.mot cn P:. :h ' j r, �.eves':• .: ;.,. ri.•.,:... . :�£�- !';n r 1p c:. rMt r • : ` �,-' ,e'stablls m r "�., i` :i_''%T:.":Nt IHCC 4'e 'u'.`* 1'+s .= y ��., .. :., • ;zoriail , di :w � en�t' 4fa, riew ` c t Y� .� :=' ::::z g:•:: strict Auld .:hel r . . :.€, o r restae%c and ;�� ,�; �� �':�, ,�,n.s:�h�:therefti ... •;','z�_an appro help: � "existing : -� .i:ghbor�iooc�s�r�.and� _. e n �' x., ,:.: _ nezghboriio - ' � . P e,:��act3;on. � � •' . :. r ' _,,,,_ ,7,, . e.0 ads ,:Which have; an avera :t ' size': g;eat ;:does•.,hth 'a . 00:' ge of size': Brea :r'c"tharl:•.the 7w� i Wi quare "feet minimum' lot `s1ZC of the R-1 district;=- ��,: :; , � .....' . '':proposed low density district ,with.:a density of •a tely •"" ' :” � ifi.�{�.r % ':i ..4r:!Y er a :-.,:-„- :::�:_-..:: , ,.. .7<... ..'units P acre would comply -with::the low densit� desz in ation + -_ �:ah�.„ - - "©rl:t=the tend'.Use. 'P3ari. h :.-. .. x`` ':Pe�:'''acre ...., fro ns�ty' ranging° m.,`a�;-� -°' .units" :t.- _.P._r~r.. Other 'Re Area L s .. - '' ..`� of.':.a '.'reside• $= ake .Fore$t �i�T.- .. ;'j>;. :��t :.. .,' area where ,zoning one' example. . , ,.. . ,. priate ;'to ':preserve ., . g adjustments �:might be .,a c;...:;:..'.: : : a*isting ,neighborhoods.'' A ' description Frof*' . ',` - _, .: .,.., •others follows.-.;This 'list' may • t:.::: considered d not include every 1 c �-- .or reaom?nen ed list: rezoning.'. . x'Y `1 :acation to be s. .,.' yr_ Lake v 1'1.a! �" . . ake~ Forest Neighborhood: .. .. , . :trt`-`+.' _ .. •_tom - Lake ' Farest : Ho : <a,.. meowners Association has requested that:.' the __ 4€ :,•';,: <••:. ' Council establish a new, low density residential district -? minimum' lot size of 25,000 square feet. ct' with a :r district Residential--Low Density We Propane calling this ''. -: . for the take Forest neighborhood be rezoned from y be a accordance with the.. low density,designation indicated ppragriate '.'; .-'_.. Use Plan. : dii°.a '� 'in .. i; '�::�C� all the Land �, N o AO 1 r y �h: t h Forest 4 r eS t �$• ::c Hills:: .. r - � --5f:. The h : 4 North _ - h' Fares. The N rthtior t Hills neighborhood F rest is shaverentl • -•..,. ., a ; older to one acre in size. saniHil one3 R-2a The ' Lots whose areas are within the near future: which would Sanitary should sd be available some of these lots. The older sections of North Forest Hs of could be rezoned from R-2 to - R--LD in accord with -Forest Hi11s ': ,Plan. - the Land• tine - . South Side of Town; ■ On the Land Use Plan Onst of di (attached) particular areas to the south and Hwy. 15-501 are designated as Rural Residential with a 65d s density, of 1 unit' per;.2 acres.. We believe that those areas south . of Town, within the Town's zoning. jurisdiction, designated• on the Land Use Plan as Rural Residential' should be rezoned. from R-1. to • Rural ' Transition (RT) which requires a minimum lot =. size of • 100,0.00 square' feet ',gross .land area (approximately 2;•3 .acres) ® - Culbeth R at Smith S r " oad Level Road: . , • On ,the:' south •side of Cuibreth, :Road„ near' the Smith, Level 'Road.- ' • intersection •there 'is a small area' zoned,' •Residential4' '(imaximu�` : - - density.~.,'.of 10 ''units .,per..:acre) . • This .urea ..is designated:. as •.low:,.'.,..::... ,,,.;.:-:.'.:,:...:,:,•,...,,.. ..density residential ..;•(0-4:• unit_s per_,sorer,. Uzi-_.the..:t acid-='r'CTSe';�Plan. :: ,5 4.; 'zonin on°' the„The,,.yR g. -'south• ad-. .4 ;. _ ,; :�;. � side� ;of•: Culbreth '.RO w �_ '..:>t-�: _ _ Ti-�Leve3;�r,.;,Road �sh ,'near k�Smith:,"�:-,:�;: . ve.1 ould . be:'-changed•-.'to •_R 2'': . maxi t '_: .-r<.....;:•. 'A ie-)_.: to: reflect::',the'�::Land .r v:.:,. .�.�.-� `�:-: Use .•Plan :c,esignatiaii ' _�- g ' � -- - � :,. :�_. >a ,lido-� ��..a :=,�'- . ' . •tion;,."for;multi-famll . d v, ,:, ~'c _ _ �. t 1;r _. __ •J.. Y;,; �v lapment: on phis R-4•LL.tract•1. „. , sii. ._ :(`i-: a.._� :and':•::reviewed.,'. `with re ��uests -:for :r •. , .z ted,r za s� _:,t:.=� _ q - evisons _.dvirrng:;I�.�5: ��-�.�30��arevi�z�~=��=`���-:ti. 1siozis.:;were ever 'made, •so h- •,. • i. �• - ,K: ..- �•:� �' applicati:an :�:sdormaxit' � �. ;,;�.:�.,�;.... #:. -�::�.• •,•.::: - mot.^"' t't _ . The: Oak S;'II .-!ei hbo �s dry _ vif'b - rX ' The •'Oaks �'TI' - - :� n•eighiborhood south ~of E�;h - 4 a : - ,::� • ,p esus"�C�iurch�.`'.Riaad'.�."his"t'. east*,..'.� _ ' :.:. i. '' .of•.. the Briarcliff ,:,:neighborhood •-is .,designated -. as . :low •.densit i . . , :,',- , ,residential. °A. single:, family, low •density subdivision,=:::the' .Oaks. :- ; '- :.,. .= li;'..•-.has:':.been',.:approved° for -.,this area•':and'...is nbw beiinig.._: 'bui'lt: ,.- �: • However s. ,. , ,•.:•the 'zoning••niapstill'•reflects . several. areas 7.'of. R-4,-:.'and ' .rj:'` - R-5 -.zoning.' : These. R• 4 and .R-5 designations. i.n the Oaks. II ''should . 'i" :` ',: • 'be .changed to:-R-1". a n:::accordance with the Land- use Plan: •.This area •-?�:_ .- could quali f for w.<':1 1' a -:ne ow• density designation:,: ,.���... ,:,��w .��_�x:�y .�:;., ! '=.0• - The Area Behind .Brendle's . .. ;on• Sage _Road: � • : . , ,.__ .. .. .. Between the commercial',,•zo ' zoning • of Brendle. s • and the .. Oreenfields Planned Development-Housing, east of Sage Road, there is' an area • zoned R-4 (maximum density of 10 units per acre) 'In 'accordance . . '-' with the' Land Use Plan. designation- of:medium• •density (4-8) 'units . -• .• •--c • . . . per acre) , the area should be rezoned from R-4- to „R.-2 'or: R-3 • . (maximum density' of '4 .units per acre) . . • .• ' •- _.. . • • , Laurel H �a Parkway• at::H; _'15-501 • •r: �.:�� ;.;x,::.:,•: :- .�._ and Use Plan' deliggna'tes_ an``,area' at :the southeast. corner: 1.; the proposed Parker Road and Hwy. 15-501 as high-density residen- tial • (8-15 units/acre) • and medium • density. residential (4-8. units/acre) .• : This area :is currently. zoned R-l. We believe .that ' • this area designated on the Land Use- Plan as 'high density should. `= be, at some point in •time, rezoned from R-1 ,to R--4 (10 units per acre) and the area designated as medium density be rezoned from- R--1 to R-3 (7 units per acre) . However, timing is a 'key consider.- • ation here. Laurel Hill Parkway is not built. US 15-501- has not . been improved. Sewer is not• yet in• the area. We do. not recommend rezoning at this time. • • • .. •. -6- '. _ • - , --••i,' •:,:,--,•},-;•'-::iv-A':-.:- .-1•7;:4-,-J,:xi,,e;::`:::. -.'......r4:: :•;• '4:;;;;:-.," . -.7: 1:',";=.4:,,,%:,..-M,),342,17:::.?•7j:. .''''sL.':ig-; _. :.:.,,,•,... . ,,. .: ...-. , ? ,i-i, :.•:..::.i.: ;f,: ..-.,i.&•/,4,': ',.='...".,:'.. -'.:•,:••"..:-'::7:.•,-;:-:7,%. :•: .*;- • ••:"".' ' - ••- "•••-"-.-. , - T • . . . .. . . , , , .. ... • . , - . _. ,: .• . .. . . . . . , • . .. .,. , ._ . , ,. . . . ...- - • ;.- • .::. ':.- i , .. ... .„. _ ,... :...•-•..... .....,... . . .,.. . •. • - : ,..., i--,.7....:.,:-.•:::,-.'/:::,:i::::„:. . . Sage Road at Erwin Road: :, ..: :,•_..*:-- :•- -• '': .•:::::...,.','- ','..,"'• -:. • ' . •, ...';'.-.. .:`.*:*':::•-,‘•::. :'-7-'''..%• I*"'. . , . . • . . . ,, . .,•• - - . . • - • . .. . • -. -. ."..•. .. . . . . ,.. _ . .. . .. ... . . .. . The northeast *ani3', southeaSt- corriers of the Sage Road ,and .Erwin : •, , . - Road intersections are currently ' soned . R-2. These areas : are*.• . , designated on the . Land ' Use Plan ' as Medium . density I(4-8 --• , • . . .. units/acre) . The- R:-.2 zoning. does allow up to 4 units _per acre, : - . . . however, '*we .suggest that ' this ' area be .rezoned from R-2, ta .: ,t-3 ..',•:•• • • :. .• maximum density -.of 7. ..units/a.cre) to: allow. a • greater: :densAty • '.: -. though still within the Land Use Plan . limitations. The oPrppertyi-,_:::: ::; . ....:.,:,_•:„.,,,,li,..., . :: :' at the Sage Road i. and Erwin':.:Road :intersection is along a major:• :''.,': -.1- — • .;,',.-.,:•-•..:. .., transportation :corridor that.''shduld. be .able*.-,to ,bandle- t.h*,.:higher, 41: ". ,'.,., :.1. c, ;. . ,. :density of 7 _units per acre...--:'.:::,--;-:•-.. .;.-., :i!,,; -..i ' ., .41' :Ir.',':.3W.g-M.:,...t:........2:•:"^J7r,..,t'''''4:,7 44,4.,;,-.,.:x„.,-,Q.,,,,154,',8 ;;..,:...,...,,,-,•:. ..°J:........,..,,,:,--. <:•:...-;:4;:•;.''iA.,:,E.,t,..i i4I'A' :-•".":",7: 5,t1t4-7,.;44V'144.7 1' .:.'t,ft:::::34t47:: 474•7?-4-,','.F , ,::,, ,,,,4:4;::,i,t,fi . ';',."'f.;;:t:',".••-• :‘. -:'•.(:-. ..,- ':' ,':.,'1.7.' . ,• It.f.-.: ....*.f.,:*.tc; .Skzi.f. .-,74- 0-,-"- %W . :2lkiL'i4t'''''''','"?`"1.',Npr,t..trfi:of;;Interstate::4.0 .;:at;::..-grw;:n :-,1;toad;" •...•,•'',.a :'" ;;:i: '•R'a'VA.•rFt*;';?,:ir';:'k.";:',t74::.; '-t'i-4',''''W 'T'''Fq4tZMrtgaIIIZgiai'bA.7a4i3O,k'g49,6P.410,MtgflrAil)'''e,/O'g ,i'-.,,a'6 -.::,-A',':;.'4,Agtaiz.'Y*.tf.f. -,_• ,,..1 ..2)„.5!ii-.,:.: -.,.:. I .'.;.LiViti.7.'• iin:f:the'. north side of •'-Interstate" ' ' ';-116::::,..a'Viriiitilli6ii,-4-2far:-!'t 7 area -•-•••',, :f.,:;T;A:i14,'•:,,,i131':,:•,:ilj,,,, .,••••• •:.-•,.....,, •::. , • '::, --„,.. ,;•,,...-:, :• : •„.".v.-..,...:,,: •,,...,7..,-,- -• ,-,.....T4,4,vm--. y4,..,:','",--..1:-t..;:!,11-• ,- .: -.-,...•.,.:,:::-/:_, .;;;--1; ,y4A'0.w,37,t43.14y...,:thP•:.Town, .s...,zon149'-:;1:.3ur4dictior.).,-,..rezon from -:the;,:current:.,-.,i,!r.,:c .Y: 0'44,1 1"7,•Iii,!•t.:!;' F.tlAi Stri qt.,to--1 ii•T'.:',1,,Totild',,•:be:?..:CcinsiStent::''.02.tiiiTithiS:'%in.ii :i•tith-ef.f.:i'lanr.;:;5, -'1.'';',',.,:i1VIn;-•• These areas 'north -cif: I.,-4 Cil'ar :'deSignated-;ai 4tizia1 :Residential: 11'.1.:7:" . ...': ....,•iz;,,:':,4::_,-,,!;,,,,.5!:;; :-...;',..':.• . • • • ..,:,: • • . . - • • ' ,-',:-.19,7,-!:01" r''', — .•unit :per '2 •acres): on the ''Land Use Plan and ,the•••• Rural:::TranSitiOn-1,..,,,`' .,."-x,!.`;'-'--t"1,,,i::,;:;-•:,1:4RT) - diSt.ii at„beet ::reflectS.:*-this)rtiralr''.:denet*Y4PkVA40:eT;Ita,j -"-*.11'i--4;':::7-; • '''''"4 r ' •T't;' !' ''':.Y,'".`";:?"::•'•*•1-..);"..'•:.'1:•,,;'::•:'IL•.:.--:. :. '..•-•‘•.::1: .--,i:,..-":7:-::•.4-?';:":,,.:=.1:--,;,',3t-t.,,,,,:7-1 t:.- :- -1.f;"P.::::. ".si.,cvii4''1„",:,''.: '.-.:;','-:.t:::-...s.."':',-.1•14,,,t -...Avi. .:.- i7., South Side. of Old Durham-Chapel *Hill :Roa4.::,:.i ,,:..;: . -- •- . '.; -;•.,..::.-: „;-.:',.':...-...' :,*..:.:::. ..':::.:',:':.;::..,..' .•,*, ':::::..;.•::- .': *.:.1 ,::•••••* ' .•:-:'''-.:,:..:*."'.i':,::':...*:: ,:::::....•.:"..:::;'. :*::;;;.T.' ---:.-1,;:,:' -1...::.:-:::',:::::::.;'' ff.--,;',47--' ,:::•;;;;-:-.4::?::::: :.,:, ,::::.;:,. 0.1i::.'.....4h.e..south aid e•-.*p of' :01d1.':burham-,CliaPel..-$11.1:'`ROad, ..west of'..;•Cooper .,,,,•:::::.%,g*;,i,..,:::•• ,:,::: Street, ' several :lots* are.':..Within- the...NeighbOrhOod ComMercial :. (NC) :1 •;".*::.:`,.,' t:;.-37atcr::',:::•:,:„.•":''...,'..• Zoning '*district.: : ... This. area is • *deSignated ''.aS medium density :'•:::...- r.f.'•;:-,::.', , .-.. residential. on the Land Use Plan. -and:, •therefore,. , We suggest :,`, 1 : ,:::-!;;,,;*:', *;,•.....-:. rezoning to the ,..R-;3: :-dittript!:-....(maxiMum::.:,density,:*of 724.init s.-:per , .'`:.'4'i...i.,:.-;:.*,1,:.,:-. •.-s„.. cre)...::-',.•':i... 1''...:-.::::::4:A0c,; :'s;'; '•,:,"i...,,%.:'-*:,'. -.-:--,,••:•?'1.-.'':,.:•*".• ' ,'?. ..':>,:'-',.*. :*''...! ,:ri:)...r:'::(11.-',.:•;,':,_'..i''•-:'k2.41.1;, ..,:.': .. •:.•••:....-.':'- ;Lii-'.:**:.:-:; :"-::•• . ' : s'*--: :‘-::1.: ..,.::.*'..'.1 4: is: : • ::'• •' *.::::'-.: .:•;_'' ••••• •-•:.::;;-:.• ::-. :1:';'-:.,4Y ; i•,:*4:.',04,4*;,;.„.*:*.....::kz**.7;-_,,:4-#14,0?;•q4*,-',„:',.-Y,....: !.:::-:•='::,,:E.4::•::,;.-',, _._,.._77.7__7_._.___.._.____.).,-„ YResiuentia.1:-NbnConftirmitieST:::::::.--'''':• *.j:: :::/...:;':;TiT,;--..,-..-•-'• -- :'':-:::*:•*'••:---7-,'".:,:'. *".‘, • ' " * *:, :.‘it::-,,:7.:-.:::,:::•: • . . ... . •777.,_____- * •- ••• '.-:. .::,/:::-:::;:::-:•,,:.;-*. .. • •' - *: ::7"' .'-`. ' 1 An ':-.impOrtant.„''Con'S ideratithi' with .the " introduCtiOn of -:a more .. :. . . . - . - restrictive residential district and with zoning -changes -is the , . . .creation of nonconformities. • A noncorifor-Ming Jot is ':a lot that *-:;.::::::::- :•-• : was 'lawfully , established •.but does 'not conform to the -current . .:---• •-•'..: • minimum gross land. area or current minimum:lot width requirements •;:::::: : . :,::':.i..,,,-.:....' ' .:. •established -.. in Article .-:5 ', for that :partioular zoning district; :. -.....:•.:::;:,.„..:-,,,,':,,.: :.,.Nonconforming •features :*are.,:thoSe;physical.';:featOres.-.:..or,:;.character_-: .,..''':.-..••,',,c ,......,:-.;,:*;:;i0„:.:},;.:•,,:,-....:, 1s tic of a use or',building that .were lawfully established but 'dos_ :.., not-s...;c oh form. to.'..current'•requirement S _Oft.Article;,:t "ar:-.:Article. 6 s..._Of• . •. ,..-,:,;•-•::,V*;:r.:':::- ... the...Ordinance. -.:::;..:•.,:'-';•::::'"..-',".-,;-:"... .-:-...: T •••,.. . • • *:::' : '•: •:. : - . -, :. . •• . - _. :: ". ,,,..4.,:- * .. .. , .- .- . . . .., ... : . . . . . •• •., . ,::.:_-..--,•'1...-. ,, Example. A: • ••••'. ..-:...-','..:'.1:':-‘,::: :':::':::.-.1..:.-: -',.•'••••,:::;.:•:',.'::::.:'_::-•'..::::-*.-.-'-:*.••••••:-:. ''•-•••::::i:.-.2':-.' .-' ' -' -:''': ::": .• ' -1::*--:' ''''.'•..-.'-:.": ' ' ' '- '"' ' ' • .-.. • , • - . . .7. : '; .': '• - • . . If a '1Ot were lawfully created 'with *24,000 Square feet • of ' . . gross land 'area ' and a lot 'width' of 100 feet,, it would . , . , . . conform , to the current requirements for the R-1 _district * . . • The R-1 minimum lot size is 17,000 square feet in gross land . . . ..:. . . , area and the minimum lot width is 80. feet'. . - • • . , . . . . . • . , .. If a new zoning district were created requiring a minimum . • . gross and area. of 25,000 square feet and 100 . feet* in lot . . - width, this lot would no longer be conforming.. In . .7.,„„ . • • , . . • • . . . . .. . . . . . . . • . • . • • • . • : . . . . • • - . . . . , - ._. . -' accordance,- with Section ,14 ~of the Ordinance, if :this lot r`'', - '', abutted another `lot of record held in the -same ownershi, , such lots would need . to ' .be combined Or recombined as• , necessary to form: a conforming lot or lots and could not thereafter be subdivided except in compliance with all- requirements. Furthermore, if the_ house- ,on this lot did not meet the' . setback requirements of the new .zoning district, ,it. : have nonconforming.. features: An addition to the. house. could ': ;.` not be built- if that addition, did not conform to 'the_ appli,_: - :-,;` :: - .„ :cable ' setbacks: for the new .district,.,;t - :•tlie house: urned''.d t' .(Section 4 a) -,- e: b own •'it could .t af. , v- :; not-'be rebuilt '-, ,1*• ,. :v.Z ri S sib .. u location ection.::1 i.l in.• t p e '� , ..�.. ,ze est 'a• �.4.2.b) :: It':would. 'bed p4 1 't-..8`��.�'" ,., qu va arice-. he' _ s e e _': ':�r ';,:,,. : - a:. : from t - Boar - • ' � � .�a'M:: :- �F�-r'. � �;��:s�tbacks; .;-i.f .'compliance o- :of.--Adatis#�.erit.s,•-`.:from . ._:_k:ti -,. ,- `, - p iance with- the . - ere 'ii--,_.._ :"-;'•; _ :,,.: not• reasonabl\�•possible (Section .2.3) 8 able. ,'setbacks.'were 'f �`:�" ; .� ( ction: 14.2 - :1-`:., �.. ::'r.. :,, :�.. _. .... .•�, �:•:..,5< .4}.i%tro�:ti:: v;u,'.� - :'Y:: _ - .� �:• ,. - -r'<:c:t .:•- .s +�ifr;, ) »Y. 5 Examen ' � : .-. ';l:p;, :act .;.r. : _ :: � _ -_ �. -- - - - Vi ' if 'Y. - _ _- `i '�� f - 0 l: F t -were :, •�.. 'lawfully created^ '; . -gross. land -area a ,with •26,,0.00 square �feet• `of;- , ;: '`-_...:' And the house 'included an accessory " -~.:' ' - - ' .ment ' (Section•,':;18.38) , 'then • a new zoning apart- •:- ::-4 ::. minimum lot:; size :of 25,000 square feet gross land area: would - } '`::' .•.::render this::ra::, nonconforming lot.,--,r The - minimum. 'gross :land ,• - # ` area required.- family-fam ly dwelling -on- a lot established ~:' :. prior to danuar shed ::: piior t • y '' 13, 1986 is 25,500 in the R-1 .:zoning - . iii accordance with Section .5.5.2 •of the Ordinance., - , . :::` ` . :',`The minimum • gross ~: land_ area required. 'for a two-family. [ dwelling is,.-one . arid-• one-half (1.5) :times the minimum gros '' land area established. A new district 'with a minimum :-'land area of : 25,000 ..for a single family lot' would require , 37,500 square--`feet of gross - land area for , a two-family y However,' if the lot were created after January 13, 1988, the .'..- minimum gross land area would be ' in accordance ' with 'the',maximum number of dwelling units per acre of established : in Section 5.8. gross land imum R-1 - currently has a `maximum:'':: ` ;A, .:density of '3 units per acre.- . If this number• . applied, to a - . new zoning district, the minimum gross': land area . would be `: :`1-_' 29,040 square feet for 2 dwelling units. In either case this lot with 26,000 square feet would not- comply with the minimum 'requirements for a two structure. When a nonconforming lot cannot be, combined 1or, -- recombined with other lots to form a conforming lot or lotsf - the lot may still be used. However, the structure could not be rebuilt as a two-family structure if it burned down (Section 14.2.3) . Furthermore, if the house on the 26,000 square feet lot did not already have an accessory apartment, then one could not be added after the effective date of a -8- :r • . ' • •• `•• new zoning district; since the- lot: would not meet the minimum • :., :_. ,` land area .requirements. - •_ . ' - • - s. The creation of nonconformities ' with • a new soni.:ng- .district or , • with other changes in the zoning is an important consideration. • 3).• The Land Use Plan v. Current Zonin• : ' Non-Residential • ' ' .-..„....;,.. .....-,....,,w;,,-,..,;„!..-_ . „,,..,,,t..:�'•; • dist T own currently` has the ollowing non residntil. -:'1 -°� k' t�, ,741i-.47.,,: t • -�,. �, pry /�fr g-� ::: :' ::� � enter:':Distr_ a_.cts�++ T mixed , •�= <., ' . �',1 t� 'it�YT»•y'. ,�...�: •�. :,f,.. Y- '� C1 ••and_....L{..:°.� • '�,', ..=.}'�:.9 :�'�x�^ �.',�,Y�.... _ �-,:`fin:- �%!:`. -,`7 - - - 7.. ,-.LAs�..,”di�t py{. a.. '' N,:3" ry 1r yi-� , A, - ,ia. S� ;:x. •!,-;! ?. .: _ '.1,,X';�:..:•,J?'•iR::' - 4'• ..�.. ''!1':'-;.;`: µ,,•i':S:Vt;t}ytnJ4.r1 .Yrs'.!C;'f"e-V%' �t;,•.i` ratr .'#, h t"�-:k.!'v:' ,. •n'r ,-i,• LI ' :::',,,--L-:•,i54• ;,. „ 'r i•,e� .t.e,,J� k.G+ _.S f•!•, ,s.. - `Y"r-k'='F:re�r :'�,:7f�'r ,a+•. f^ 'l'J=-, •=A'. v'l,,.tw",l� ����..u.;.. i'I..��Y�!!�,�n.,Nw._r--..fwrj;�• •he ...� T'�,. t�G.•4�`nt�.6..• �'{'+=F�� ,7:.:-'7,,--,'� t ?- ';A`{xC,.:;�.,:�i, }�i�i:-+� � °,:,v'.:r..,_,2;•N:,3?•sri .:rt'v'v:�. 4, '1 i:" "'Tr.'.. _ i _ n t.„. ic' u"t Y.'.io- .,,�r .w,+ - '-,.^, _ ,x r �f• .- T=�y •:u !. _�y a- .,4:_:-,c:. -�hxr`c�; ..A"• own "'S�'° �11•,� '.{;,... .'�"'9 .:n�.,�5�`, �i x�. <:"'K v's;tf:= 'n. .�r •:�•;i3.,w�Y','..�`drS.•vrn �: r.)!i... ., 4 i `:,•., e:`ti;:tA U.: J:fixed Usre.':Distiic .l,y::,• �^i x,ii'.'�q..6— N •:'. ��.,,,,.. `• ':D -,:. tS'. :'.{�II7®®I3t?c121d.�M�T".R1 -�.;g':iilj.` r�• yy�w (�,, •• t '. n4 •ti.Y-rr= - "r'-,_�"s'., �.t..c:;' --�' ��:`s•,-:K ti;,�,'}!�,":F. :::,.r�.y .�: .6L..• ...w .r.�.w', '.x ..fic„ I., v6 .A �.,4,i, :a. ;:' ,.,�:}ati-? �4:.:i,:•' .'4-a.4�.r�.4'.:r'-:'" i'•'_i'`-;v^'.;� ;.:1',4.-..V.:.5..414 .J•, ' ,,yc, oar`. a rc�!r, ,s:(�:w-n',!:'?; ,:-'.' • ,'2--c..•..-:.l c:^`;'�_ _`:�'�',r�` °�r�rz..-a.W-4;t..:�.r 'z: '"";C+'4�' s.+l r�i.. _ _ '.''t,,' i ...I :};: ppy�'�. T 'i^�' L :`F -.-.. wy .7.1.i3.••-y,¢_ y5 ,�S �",�. :.'�/;y,��•Z�t"�i- YT,.!,;.rv :. _ li�u�ar-_N+.�:•..>is Y i Ll 4r r'%r:.:.=.... d,��f _ ;';' `�, - tit. :5�? _ -C� ,'. •;_ ..� .t : ,.'-.. .?-., 'C` ;.3•ls .11^''' �.r. '�r't#@} •.��:. - - - - - :�ea4'J' }�qq � 'Si`rr': _:�n�:n,r�`-¢, Communit ,Commer - •,•�"} tai, ., Cla Y' 1-�Di' -- striei ' C) high r� onstgi =; .._ . . .r:+_ t • x:;,.e. _.>,. a ,y= x �_ A. `•ti;,:--,'�ai::c,:.�'�;;R;''- - 'S`roIQm t - ~k`lr�. - • .i.v.':,� eo-. R:t.ir.v*a ,S'''•�Sie l Sr'` :•s"- ..'4`:, .r:�{}} r.•[• �.. +� �pL '7 e} *]71:1- ."O w'' 45.+, -.'K k; 4::4:': - `',13:4^:.M.-<r:� .: .rcy,:}',"1.'.'1.....:!k.is,': -mot �;_ • -F.. nd.,:e'J..31' 4'+ ,,{',•;: . - �'uses� ,.�,,,. • Nei,LLhborhood '° '', :`::_ _'r;"r -- 9 Commercial~.�Iii�stx'i.et '(NC)� low int � � ' yr, : ' - _ ;3...r..,.g ,.?-. - - ; ; commercial a• 's' R .S 3• f' �- e Y�' S' ''4 use � �: s �xF..• •;:_; ;„; fice• Iii ,^ -:.�._ . .. _ � _ atior;al and',' _ -. }, •..h:. • =res - ea �-etc..: '. -:c.�-:::. 4f'f xeh.'uses.'� -.�,., /Ir3stxtu, ▪ r1� - .'r; - _• ) - medium �a.ntea�sit' .. . �z` office*- e* and .� - ti t , � . . . off' - -•.,, users • ''�:.. _ ':�.-_ ice/institutions fr `” :: ; �. 1 {OZ�-1� '��- -�Iow -�.ntensif - �= _ Y 'Office °r - .and `�.f� n s - - ti• to t . . i ono - 1. •Industrial •s( )' uses wholesale,: .d�.stribv-- i ' ' : .tion, .limited pro- • ., '. - . cessing;. and,produc- ' V - . ••.:•••- - • . =• - ' . . tion type uses - • '- Residential uses are allowed .in these 'non-residential' zoning • :.,_v;Y_` distracts, These .zoning distracts :_, -�: :;:::='. •,were introduce - ���..;:,.' introduced,- the. �(•' • • :T21;';.,.y- i. :;11., ,':19e1 Development Ordinance - The pre®1981: 'rtori�resid -`' ':. - :.:rs . _....; zoning. d -.L.-,:'.*: - istricts ,:included:..=� --- � - - • _ :•::,'.,•.: e t alp :, _ Pre-1981 Districts: Non-Residential Comparable 'Current District Limited Business District 0I- 1 and Central Business District : 01-2 • on :TCl and TC-2 • . Regi al Comr►ercial District • • • `a"`•Suburban Commercial District CC ', _ Industrial - I - University A - I- , I - University B 01-3 r - 01-3 3 :. • • • • -9- • 4161* ,• •• The Town's current non-residential districts expanded on the concept of the pre-1981 districts and more clearly defined the districts. The current , ordinance gives special consideration to the varied office-type developments. Varied intensities of office-type uses are permitted now with the 0I-1e 01-2 and 01-3 zoning dis:tricts. On October 27, • the Council adopted new Mixed. Use categories which further' eicpand the zoning districts. The new mixed use districts allow the Town to place emphasis on the desired integration of• commercial, residential and office type uses at. particular , _ . locations such as the Interstate interchanges and -en ranc- ewaYs into .the Town._ - ; - - - - . With the July 14 . adoption of the Land Use Plan, sonte,--„confliPts,,W..,t1 LT, with current non-residential zoning exist.. We belie-vie general, that the underlying zoning districts should Treflect tbe '11"At. use designation on the Land Use Plan. Staff suggests,ponsidera-: - • tion of the following non-residential zoning changes to accom- plish the purpose of the Land Use Plan. This list may not include every location to be considered or recommended for reziming. Legion Road Near Europa Drive: - The west 'side of Legion- Road south of its intersection with Europa Drive is currently within the Community Commercial (CC)- 5ts zoning district. -This area is designated on the Land Use Plan as • office use generally, with the Hampton Inn site shown as mixed use. The Zoning Atlas should be changed to 01-2 in order for ; this area to reflect the Land Use Plan designations. Eastowne at Interstate 40 - Between Eastowne Drive and Interstate 40 the land is zoned R-5. On the Land Use Plan this area appears within the mixed use category. We suggest the rezoning of this R-5 area to a mixed use zoning district such as MU-On. Dobbins Drive West of Sage Road: '- Between Sage Road and Erwin Road, a portion of the property fronting on Dobbins Drive is designated as mixed use on the Land 1: Use Plan. The land is zoned R-4. We suggest that this area be rezoned to MU-0I1 in accord with the Land Use Plan. University Property on Mason Farm Road: On the north side of Mason Farm Road just east of Purefoy Road there is a portion of University property (generally triangular in shape) that is. zoned R-1. The Land Use Plan designates this • area as University use. We suggest that this property be rezoned to 01-3 as designated on the Land Use Plan. (01-3 is the Univer- sity's zone.) -3.0- , . - -- . . = . • . . - - - . ,-. _ . Hwy. 54 at University Motor Inn and Slugs: - - _ I This area along the Southside Hwy. 54 between _the fire station on Hamilton Road and Finley Golf Course- Roa'd is currently within the • Community Commercial (CC) district. The Land Use Plan identifies the area as mixed use. . This zoning should be changed to MU-0/1 , in order to reflect the intent, of the Land Use Plan... ,- •- ,.- - -i,,Ii.:4 - ' " .. , BlueCross/Blue Shield and Performance CbevrOlet:_ - ,. * •,**•:,:_„:,-:""i•riTi.-. .,;_., ,r,'1,--.t-.,'_. , -' --.: , • - - -' - ' - --, „ t,.-,-‘:., :-..., _- - , ..-; - , -:- ';- -_-..-• 4.'-',,-,.:- t- t; `. ,1:,:iq;...'Wit . ,---;'-'w,' - -" - . - -• ' ' .- --(- ---.--- . :- : -- - .- ..--,11,-,!, v 1, -- . 7:' -.-b-'!::,--J--; Within the property .bound by Hwy.- 15-501, • 1-40 and Ithe ,--Old .::.7:i:•'-ul •-,.,: iv_:.:. ,?,-.Durharii-:Chape-1 Hill Road, an area designated on the -Land Use.'"Plan' r, ;::::i 'I? - ' •,-,4---!,!,,,,-..._ - . as retail commercial extends to the eastern property line. of;theIlJriro„-.... -:',;,',,‘;',t,,tlij:•::;',:', Performance Chevrolet Property, .- From that property.1-line `-east, the area is indicated., as mixed Use. •-On the zoning atlas,-•-•bommu-.- .LI '• •.-7 f t,•=1.741,T).•,•• ' . , . . .nity Commercial. (CC) zoning bisects the Performance I Cevrolet • -...-„(,..-,, , . . 4,:w4,1:,_; - • - property. The eastern half of the Performance Chevrolet lot and _,. ,,..... Blue Cross/Blue Shield_ are zoned 01-2, with the Lakeview neigh- . 1 •,,:,..-4,..,,, • , , -borhood zoned R-2. The 'Lakeview R-2 zoning' adjoins the land near the Interstate which was recently annexed and zoned for mixed , ' - use. We suggest rezoning of this area to reflect the Land Use 4) Non-Residential Nonconformities • • - ' , . , . . As discussed early, any zoning change may create nonconformi'ties. Nonconformities are those uses, features, or lots which no longer .•-• -- -‘.•:,- * comply with the ordinance requirements. These would in Ialude for ; . ._•-:,,:-, - . , example; a commercial use within an office/institutional zoning , -; -• , ., -- :- • district, a structure that exceeds the floor area limitations for • : ' that particular districts and a structure that exceeds the height -'- •* 2"- ' limits for that district. -Nonconforming uses and features cannot be expanded, extended or enlarged. The intent of the ordinance is the eventual elimination. of nonconformities. However, : we believe bringing •the Town Zoning Atlas into accordance with'. the - _ guidelines of the Land Use Plan is a desirable pursuit'. - '- 5) Considerations - , - '- '. ' - ,• - -_ -. -..',-; -- - :. , . ' . • '• -.- . , The Council has several options for consideration with this situation. They include: . . . . 1) Calling "a public hearing ' to consider a Development Ordinance Text Amendment creating a new, low density residential zoning district. • , 2) Calling a public hearing to consider comprehensive rezoning in accordance with the Land Use Plan. . . 3) Calling a public hearing to consider making some I changes to the Zoning Atlas in accordance with the Land ' f Use Plan. . - . . -11- Several areas exis which the` t- Council may not wish to rezone at t this time. In some cases, the Council may consider waiting for requests from property owners for a rezoning, Special Use Permit,• . '-'.:: or Special Use District rather than immediately rezoning.: the property. For example, on the south side of Town at the Hwy. ' 15-501 and. Laurel Hill Parkway intersection, an . area of medium and high density residential exists on the Land Use. Plan. Because the Laurel Hill -Parkway corridor has not been Located exactly but instead' is shown in concept only on the Thoroughfare ' Plan, the Council may consider not rezoning those areas along the - Laurel. Hi.11 Parkway in accordance with the Land Use ' Plan ' at this_: .' .; tune= !y ;n ':.: >;; ....,,,-.--..,...,,,173,:t*,. � -.A -. .yam._ �:.R is f �.�, r`� c; - '..Y' .cam r• :._:? ".t;'',,,,,-':f.'t'!..2,11'n,:,•:. ;a-+�.:.. _'n K■- There are . other.`areas where the current zoning ~ermits s. a' '` �' q P ,wider. -;��'T. .- :variety:.of.- uses* than•:those .designated on the Land ' Use.=Plan, -We'-:=< :::suggest that =Council:; consider rezoning these areas:_'as:'soon :as:: ,: -: ,:;: : possible to eliminate the .:,conflict between current zoning and the :- -E - Land Use Plan..•designation,:: :and to encourage ' the ,:conformance of ''. .:: :-' any development that occurs with the Land Use Plan. - 1" a r -C a :. 'i1t-t^ .xx v'F:a:°� - ::. - . Recommendation �:•' , - We believe that:-the :establishment_: :of ,a-' iew, low. densit: "'zoniri u: : -' district is an appropriate action. in X• . g` -:'' pursuit' of the Land Use Plan goal of preserving existing neighborhoods. Chapel Hill `does have .: , ;:-:;,, neighborhoods with an average lot size greater than the 17,000 _ square. feet minimum lot size of the R-1 zoning district. f�:,.:' - Furthermore, we believe that zoning changes to bring the Town • ,. : Zonin '::Atlas: into.greater conformity with the = Land Use Plan :-are appropriate. The extent- of the specific changes is a question .•. .; ':' ;II • for the Council to discuss further:' We •recommend that the Council adopt .Resolutions A and B 'sched'iil- ing a date for a public hearing to consider a Development ©rdi- _ nance Text Amendment creating a new, low density residential zoning district and zoning changes to bring the Zoning Atlas more into. conformity with the Land Use Plan. : :• _ - - -' Resolution I would schedule a ' public hearing in February. ' for a :` Development Ordinance Text Amendment' creating a new, low density zoning district., - , Resolution 2 would schedule a public -hearing' in April for zoning changes to bring the Zoning Atlas more into conformity with the • Land Use Plana -12- • A RESOLUTION CALLING-A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT CREATING • A NEW, LOW DENSITY ZONING' DISTRICT (86-11-24/R-1) • BE IT RESOLVED by the' Council of the Tort of Chapel- Bill that a • Public Nearing be scheduled for February • 16, 1987 to consider a - proposal to amend the Chapel Bill Development Ordinance in a • manner that would , create . a new, low density residential zoning _ •• •district®. : , - - _ . - . : - _ 3• q � .;.a; •. :•%e.. 'i ' its ^�=e1�:,' ,.•T,,,�'w+i`-"�'+•:'ii t,r,s" . _This the 24th yaveb , €T .LL , ;., .,.,.. •..; - . ': • • • . ,... . -- . , .... .1.:•., _ , , - .• ... . .. • 'A' RESOLUTION CALLII+IG• A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING CHANGES . ' ' - TO THE TOWN ZONING ATLAS TO BRING THE ATLAS MORE INTO' CONPORMITy . WITH THE LAND USE PLAN: (86-11-24/R-2) : • • . BE IT RESOLVED by the ' Council of the Town of Chapel, Sill that a: • Public Hearing be Scheduled on April • 21, , 1987 to consider a' - . ' comprehensive rezoning in an effort to bring the Atlas more into ' .' : conformity with the Land Use Plan. .•- Thin •the 24t.h day..-- m 8 r. 1986.of November a .fi'f'r� - wRY - _ y S-t.i: - rW 1.2. trte•Y 3 t 1( . • Jr r�ti 4'. - , - - C _ y.: fir, '2 1M1`t°f:Y • ra f " :•k L' t `W .0;11-,,,f7,,-%,r:, • r ?4'" � Gp�:t. _ �. :`r?.�'�" "7u . ` _ : s. - , u - -n§ ..—= xpzt. T1: - - .• . ._• - S`-` - ^4 3y. y• tf(.31`::t+' .ry.f:f..r.'in':t: t3 •'•.,. - • • • • • • • . � �� _ > • • -—— I Ve- a 411 .,.'7A ,X-....e.e., 0..ar) / 4 erPlKWIIJrjrMIIIIIIININMTIII ATIN • .A. ,.... taw -. .., - ,... / • 4/' ' ''' ...ate, ..0116:41111121 }P.0 i II fr ad-d"Oki I ill " ,41-ma' 4 11"1.,:gLeZM:e0 , 4Ir ..1/1 -4.' f 01 An., Air Aier _ ,.„,... . . ... „AL / . ......■ .if _ A .,or i''.o ./ ' 0 4 1 __. A....! _..,. ■:--.1+, -4 .0r: ,A. ca.P , IP ipiwirmivii IA a p n , -41 , -A-0-0.41 t.4...... - #1•/../4_.ei.r. , a ia IL Apt AWIWAIINWri ' ei„mmiwiiill PM ,AS' _ Aallr/ 11' All _ 17. 11. 11119r19'4-411111111Willii: ' ' - - - - • t i Awl iiiippillgE=1111111111111 27 kirifq( • l 11,1:4r, lerirepAr / •kW WoOe7eS-CoPPLE : et - WM. o.1.-S.i.t- /IA L - - „.. 6Aa . ertt ,:." i rt- Sim,e..- 2, MI WESVYA 2- Acot- mo k-o-i- size CV)j/;e07-1 /--4,74C-4 ti‘ II ,.. A-c i .13, ,itutio . Art) 6- "ri,' ir I A BE. 0,41/4 1 ., AP 1 ,.., .. I6 I e I e g S r 7.) , 94 q okc...k...0,.A , ,g et-r—e—c. Af . ,, -4-•_MIAMIr,, /..., ,i Ar „ ..' ?Air_... ,,,,oigo....•,.0 .01,9,,Mir MITiryArt -%,. ; A 2 z .e,b, "P / Ad • • .,•,_-_,""_. ;;Itif,„ ,, f," , , •// / . _ t... . ,..a.. _ ..i-ri..■■ ... ..i (i, .5 '' MUM, , t VI, ....."- A - 1 I ' . , . . ....,. . , F . I[ _ . . . - • 4, �.J • i