Agenda - 11-20-2012 - 6c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 Responses to Planning will be in Bold Purple Italics. 1. BOCC members expressed concern over the proposed clustering of foliage along NC Highway 57 and Mile Branch Road rather than a continuous land use buffer. It was recommended that a continuous vegetative buffer be provided consistent with County standards. It was noted at the meeting that there was one member that specifically indicated concern over the clustered buffer and landscaping along Mile Branch Road and NC Hwy 57.As stated in the response to the BOCC member,the clustering will allow visibility of the proposed use,but will also provide a visual break up to reduce the monotony of the storage building fagade, especially along NC 57.It was noted at the BOCC meeting that in general,the buffers proposed on Sheet C-6 were amenable to most of the Commissioners and this is still the direction that the applicant would like to move in considering the ability to propose/provide buffers fitting the use and intent in this zoning district with the lack of specific standards. 2. There was a lack of consensus over the appropriateness of proposed land use buffer widths along adjacent roadways and residentially zoned properties. The applicant proposed the following: • 20 Foot Type A buffer along NC 57 and Mile Branch Road, • 10 foot buffer along the southern property line adjacent to the Wilson property (PIN 0910-22-6989) 0 No land use buffer along the portion of property abutting the existing concrete plant. • Staff indicated typical land use buffers for a self-storage facility in comparable general use zoning districts were: I. Type F buffer, 100 feet in width, along adjacent property lines abutting AR zoned property, and II. Type B buffer, 30 feet in width, abutting adjacent road rights-of-way. Staff and Planning Board members asked for direction from the BOCC on this issue. Coming away from the BOCC meeting, the applicant felt that there was general consensus that the buffers proposed were appropriate and that minor modifications or requests may be made in relation to the buffers at the next meeting.However with the ordinance for the REDA-CZ-1 zoning being lenient on the required buffers and setbacks,the applicant feels that the buffers proposed will achieve the intent of the benefits that a buffer would provide in this area,given the use and location.As stated above, the applicant is open to direction from the BOCC if it is a general consensus that the BOCC was not satisfied with the proposed buffers. The applicant would like to state that it does not seem fitting that this use would provide a buffer equivalent to those in the general use districts,otherwise why would the buffer requirements be so flexible and not list this as the minimum requirements? 3. BOCC members asked staff to complete a field survey on an adjoining residentially zoned property to verify if it was undeveloped at this time.