Minutes - 19890227 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

,i ~..~ -_ area ratio (FAR). 4. Article 6.26 - Buffer Requirements Ad~ac_ent to Public Interest Districts A 100-foot buffer is proposed on lands adjacent to areas in the PID-1 district Criteria are proposed to allow for reduction in buffer width by the Planning Department. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Hartwell stated disagreement with the Permitted Use Table as proposed which would permit single family dwellings, with or without efficiency apartments, in PID districts (pg. 201) ar would allow for governmental facilities and office buildings (pg 204). Neither of those things seem to be within the spirit of Public Interest District, particularly if that is a district which would require that the adjoining property owners be subject to some buffering requirements. Public Interest Districts that he would support would modify the Permitted Use Table from the existing PID only to the extent that it is necessary to allow for legitimate research activities such as the University would want to carry out. In his opinion, that would not include governmental or office structures or single family dwellings. ,_..-: Chairman Carey noted that the agenda referred to the time period that the PID-II property is expected to remain in research uses as a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 20 years. He asked if that means that the expectation is that the owner would keep it in that use for that period of time after which they anticipate some other use. He thought that when this concept was considered earlier, a 50 year and a 20 year period was indicated, rather than a 5 and a 20 year period. ___, Collins responded that the PID-I classification was discussed in the Duke Forest Management Study with a 50 year time period. This was not included in. the proposal because the planning horizon is 20 years. Also the 5 year limit was used. However, in reviewing the Ordinance proposals with Duke University as it related to PID-II it doesn't clearly reflect the intent they were trying to convey in their management study. The 5 year figure came from our understanding that the Class II lands (Research Project Lands) would remain in that classification for 5 years. There is no certainty that those properties will stay in that classification for that length of time. That section will be revised to make it reflect what the intent of the Management Study was trying to convey. Commissioner Marshall indicated that her understanding is that the periods in the Land Use Plan represent floating time. There is not something that says exactly when to do things. Unless some action is taken the concept floats along with the years. Unless something happens down the road, that designation is still expected not to change. Steve Yuhasz asked if the intention of .the PID-II designation was to allow for a subdivision at that property. Collins indicated that that could be a possibility. The reason single-family dwellings were included as a permitted use was related to the concerns of the representatives of Duke University. Class I lands are fixed in terms of long term use by the University. They might want to develop lots for University professors and their families. Duke did want to convey a clear distinction between Class I and Class II. Class TI could change tomorrow and puke officials felt, and Collins agreed, that if there was some other use than strictly public uses, Class II would convey the message that this was a transition area and that transition could