Agenda - 02-15-1994 - VII-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 However,due to the lack of a quorum of Planning Board members,the public hearing was opened then continued to the February 1 Commissioners' meeting. Citizens present at that meeting were permitted to present their comments for inclusion in the official public hearing record at this meeting. Minutes of the January 18, 1994 meeting as well as written comments provided at that meeting have been included as part of the "official" public hearing record (conducted on February 1). Following the December 21, 1993 meeting,Staff revised the Design Manual to reflect the Board's concerns. Insofar as the requirement of a 100-foot setback along Old N.C. 86 is concerned, a "sliding scale" solution was developed to address small lots fronting on that thoroughfare (see Section 3.1-Architectural Design).Application of a 100-foot setback in addition to a right-of-way dedication of 20 feet may have resulted in "taking" situations. The scale requires a setback of 15%of the lot depth for buildings and structures (not less than 25 nor more than 100 feet), and 5% of the lot depth for vehicular use and storage areas (not less than 10 nor more than 100 feet). As illustrated in the "case study" in the Design Manual, the scale allows smaller, existing lots to be developed. Larger lots with greater depth would have to meet the greater setback requirements. The Design Manual was also the subject of discussion at a work session held on January 10, 1994.At that session,the Board identified additional concerns,including the following. 1. The Table of Permitted Uses in Section 2.2 should be revised further to identify specific types of manufacturing uses which would be allowed as permitted uses in each district. 2. Thresholds should be identified for "low water usage" so that prospective uses which exceeded those thresholds would require approval by the Board as a Special Use.In addition,the location of existing water/sewer lines, the cost of extending major service lines to the Economic Development Districts, and the capacity of treatment plants should be identified. Staff revised the Design Manual to address the Board's concerns. Provided as an attachment is a summary of the evolution of the Permitted Use Table in Section 2.2. The principal concerns voiced at the February 1 public hearing are listed below. Staff comments regarding the concerns are provided in italics type. 1. Rationale for the permitted use table and the difference in the three districts. Using the I-40 101d N.C.86 district as a starting point, the range of permitted industrial uses is the most limited in this district. The list is based on a review of those types of industries which would provide the 'best fie in view of the location of the district, surrounding uses, and the desire to "match up" with similar types of uses in the Research Triangle Park (RTP) area Wholesale (distribution), office, and service uses were included on the list to provide for an appropriate mix of uses normally associated with business parks. Retail uses were limited to those which would locate in service courts or multi-use buildings to discourage convenience stores and fast food restaurants; e.g., the strip. Insofar as the I-85/Buckhorn Road district is concerned, a broader range of industrial uses is permitted because of the proximity of the district to Mebane's industrially zoned and developed jurisdiction. Wholesale uses are also permitted, but retail,office,and service establishments are classified as"special uses"to give more emphasis to the"light industrial-distribution"focus of the district. In the case of the I-851U.S. 70 district, the full array of industrial, distribution, retail, office, and service uses is allowed,principally because of the character of