Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10 1 Chair Jacobs said he agrees more or less with what he has heard so far. He said he 2 has some different feelings about the accessory buildings. He does not care what existing 3 accessory buildings look like, as these are already in place and part of the neighborhood; 4 however he feels that new accessory buildings should be required to meet the proposed 5 standards. 6 He said the screening could be handled with set-backs that are appropriate for 7 residential versus rural areas. He said it is difficult with only AR, but using a setback that would 8 not work well in a smaller residential area would make it easier to avoid screening. He said a 9 setback of 500 feet would obviously not be used on a smaller 1 acre lot, and the noise and light 10 would not really impact neighbors, whereas a setback of 50 feet might allow disturbance. He 11 said this might be a way to address the rural versus suburban areas. 12 Commissioner Price said these she has found some of these proposals to be too 13 restrictive. She said asking a homeowner who is trying to make a living with a home based 14 occupation to put in fences, landscaping and certain trees is a financial challenge. She said this 15 is going overboard. 16 She said small businesses are a big part of the economic development scheme and 17 should be encouraged. She understands the need to save the rural character, but she also 18 wants to be fair to residents in the rural area. 19 Commissioner Price said she also thinks the language could be edited to be a little 20 simpler. 21 Commissioner Rich said she is encouraged by this. She wonders how much of a live 22 document this is. She questioned the steps to modify this if it is put in place and then 23 adjustments need to be made. 24 Ashley Moncado said modifications can be made if neighbors complain, and this would 25 be done using the protocol for proposing a text amendment. 26 Commissioner Rich asked if this would be true in the case of needing to give more 27 leeway. 28 Ashley Moncado said yes, it would be open for examination by staff and the planning 29 board. 30 Commissioner Rich asked if this would come about through public input. 31 Ashley Moncado said yes. 32 Commissioner Gordon said the goal is to create a balance. She said most of the issues 33 could be addressed by making the changes to the major home occupations category and not 34 making changes to the minor occupations. She said this allows things to be tailored through the 35 special use permit process. She said this is not losing too much and it directs the intense 36 development to the larger lots sizes in rural areas. 37 She said this is about putting non-residential uses in residential areas, and the character 38 of the residential areas needs to be considered. 39 Chair Jacobs said he does not disagree with much of what Commissioner Gordon has 40 said; however he questions the existing standards for minor. He said the accessory structure 41 screening is in there now, and he feels this should be more a function of the lot size than a 42 blanket requirement. He is proposing a change to this. 43 Tony Blake said the goal in the original conversation was to align with Chapel Hill. 44 Ashley Moncado said Chapel Hill currently allows 35 percent of the floor area, or 750 45 square feet, which is in line with the increase. 46 Pete Hallenbeck said the concept of character comes back to what you can see, hear, 47 and smell, as well as the traffic involved. He said those are the things being addressed when 48 balance is discussed. He said the example of teenage traffic activity may be more acceptable 49 to residents because is an occurrence for only a finite amount of time.