Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 5c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 2/4/09 15 inundated with flood areas and not the four (4) or so properties to the north of the main entrance to the neighborhood and south of the Credit Union. Ms. Pinkerton said she felt it would be appropriate to allow for a reduction in required landscaping if it would encourage the preservation of the existing residential structures and allow them to be used for commercial purposes. Ms. Pinkerton said the proposed amendments were reasonable given the potential to allow for these four (4) properties with residential structures to be re-developed. Ms. Pinkerton said she felt there were too many environmental issues with the larger track in front of the Cornwallis Hills subdivision and that the County needed to do everything within their power to preserve an appropriate buffer separating any commercial use developed on the property and the subdivision. Ms. Pinkerton said she was also concerned over requiring parking to be located towards the rear of the property. Ms. Pinkerton said she was worried about light trespass onto adjacent residential lots. Ms. Pinkerton said she was also concerned about the possibility of having an increase in crime given the fact that parking facilities would not be visible from the street or passing police cars. Brian Crawford thanked Ms. Pinkerton and asked the Board members if they had any comments. Larry Wright said he needed clarification on what exactly this proposed amendment would do. Michael Harvey said the proposed amendment would only apply to EDD zoned property where an existing residential structure was proposed to be re- used for non-residential purposes. Michael Harvey said there would still be a fifty (50) to one hundred (100) foot perimeter buffer separating development on an EDD zoned parcel of property and a residential lot. Michael Harvey said the proposed amendment would not reduce the required landscaped area separating any non-residential development from the Cornwallis Hills subdivision. Michael Harvey said this amendment would only allow for a reduction of the required landscape area for EDD zoned properties in cases where an existing residential structure was proposed for use as a professional office space. Tommy McNeill asked Michael Harvey to clarify staffs recommendation and what impact the proposed amendment would have with respect to the demolition on existing residential structures and the construction of a new non- residential building. Michael Harvey reviewed the specifics of the proposed amendment and said any new non- residential building constructed within the area would have to abide by the established landscape and buffering requirements. Michael Harvey said if an existing residence was removed and a proposed new non-commercial structure was built then the landscape and buffer areas would be approximately fifty (50) feet from adjoining property lines as required under the current Ordinance. Michael Harvey said the reduction in required buffer area would only apply in cases where an individual proposed to utilize an existing single-family residence and maintain the residential facade of the building. Jeff Schmitt asked why the staff was proposing this amendment. Michael Harvey said the amendment served two (2) purposes, specifically encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing residential structures and preserving the visual integrity of the Old NC Highway 86 Corridor. Michael Harvey said the proposal was very similar to recent efforts to preserve the visual integrity of the Highway 70 area of Efland with the adoption of the Efland Cheeks Overlay District. Jeff Schmitt said he did not view the existing corridor as something that needed protection given the fact that there were several existing non-residential developments that had recently developed in the area. Jeff Schmitt said the Credit Union had recently started an expansion and removed several trees from the area and that, in his opinion, the comdor was unlike the Highway 70 area in Efland and there was nothing significant to protect. Brian Crawford said he had driven down the corridor and had come to the same conclusion but felt there may be a need to allow for some flexibility in protecting these types of structures from demolition to avoid turning the entire area into a modern commercial strip center. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked if this would preclude the property owner from making any and all improvements to the structure in an effort to maintain it. Michael Harvey said no it would not but that there would be a prohibition on incorporating design elements inconsistent with the residential look of the structure. There was general discussion on this point. Jeff Schmitt said he supported what was trying to be accomplished but felt that the area in question was no longer a residential area and that the preservation of these structures should not be a primary focus. There was general discussion on this point. 4