Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

aoo~~~ County. She continued saying that everyone catranc~ in with a Planned Development would have an equal opportunity whether they were r~oing for R-2 or 1~8 and no one would be penalized more than another. Cochran resporrJ~d he had first propose:, a general 1~-2 rezoning ar,d not a Planned Development, as this is essentially a subdivision am potential purchasers would not want to be involved with a homeowners association, and was told that the Prti-!rd t~-as reluctant to approve general rezonings due to loss of control. Pried on tYsis judgment, tl-,e applicant then pursued a Planned Development, Commissioner Willhoit responded that Staff noted it was possi)a].e to vaaive the 100' buffet if a buffer of equivalent screening or impact were pravic3.ed and he felt a backyard without a buffer was not equivalent to a 100' buffer. Cochran respcr~]ed he ~•aas nets-er ].ec: to believe he needed a perimeter buffer. 1t is really an open space requirement. County Attorney Gledhill told the Toard aria Cr3uncil Members that the provision in question is 7.14.3 a) 4. It is more co~].ex than just a 100` buffer. He noted that the term "buffer" was incorrect. Where ycu hive a PDH district ~~djoining another resider...tial district, the requirementsG of the ac:jni..nina resi.denti.aJ. cistri.ct apply along the boundary; in lieu thereof, you cnu] d 1-,ave a 100' open spare along the P1.?-f€ bour~3ary. That translates to aray lots along the R-1 District k~avinq to be R-1; if they are not R-1, tl-~er, 4here has to be 100' of open space between the PD-F; bourxlary and the R-1 zone. Mayor Nassif asked if the open space requirement were a separate entity and Gledhill resporx]ed i.t could be a setback within the lat. .He continued that if an R-2 District were adjacent to an R-1 District, trere would be no such requirement. Commissioner Carey noted the change from R 1 to R-2 triggers the re ,uiren~ent. Corranissioner Marshall noted that after the more detailed e.°plarx'~ti_on sl;e is even more convinced that this proposal seriou.s]y compromises the ger.•era]. plan for the physical development of the County. Gledhill responded that perhaps the perforniarace standard as used by the Town of Chapel Hill for its buffer requirement might address the concern regarding buffering one district-from another district. Commissioner Carey asked Cochran if he were aware of the performance • requirement under the ~nwn of Chapel Hi1]_'s Qrdinance and Cochran responded no. Roger Waldon described the buffer requirements of the Town Qrdiru~r~e~ noting that under the schedule of uses buffer requirements do not apply to this type of major subdivisior_ application creating lots for single family c~+.+ellings that adjoin vacant land zoned R--1, !~-2 or R-3. Buffers are required hl;e.re tt-,e 'c.,rc•. is adjacent to a street or other more intensive uses. In, this case the adjacent larx3 is ~ 2 and vacant. Larffers are required along Weaver Aairy and Sunrise Road. Chapel Hill staff cad requested that Town buffer starx3aras be applied in anticipation of annexation of the property into the "'rv.:m's corporate lfmits. Gordon asked if a buffer would be required rear the Potted Plant. Waldon_ responded tY,e buffer requirement. apY:lie. to n~re intensive uses but not single family property. Cprhran requested that the Town buffer requirements apply to this project. A Council member questioned the availability of buildable areas or_ lots 3S, ~1 and E•Z F•~hich contain drainage easemer+.ts ~ Cochran responded dv,~i ling units would have to be designed a_*,d located outside these easements.