Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-E - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r t 40 following pages and are divided into two categories, Performance Standards and Design Criteria. The Performance Standards establish "land use intensity ratios', or ratios of mea b+�wew-name construction to natural features as well as standards to eliminate or mitigate nuisances and undesirable impacts on the environment. a diush The Design Criteria the establish standards for landscape and architectural features,parking and circulation, service and storage,and signs and lighting,i.e., how the use"fits"the site and how it relates to the surrounding area- (The Ordinance Review Committee recommended eliminating "human" and "artificial" references as well as"manmade" to address the gender neutrality concern.) 2. Amend Article 8 by adding a new Article 8.8.28-Economic Development District Site Plans to read as follows: 8.8.88 Economic Development District Site Plans 8.8.381 Additional Information In additions to the u4br�mation r+equend in Subsections 82 and 8.8, the fallowing shall be supplied as part of the application: a) A ehensive side development plan,including all plans and documents required by Article 629 and Article 14.3 of this Ordinance. 8.8282 Standards of Evaluation The following standods shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan meets the crit+er is for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; b) The applicant has addressed agency comments solicited during the site plan review process;and/or c) The ante plan adheres to the performance standads and design criteria applicable to Economic D�Districts as set forth in Arri&6.29 of this ordinance or the applicant has proposed a design solution which is equal to or better disc could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. Discussion and questions related to the above proposals are identified below. a. Does the "special use"or"site plan approval"option satisfy the original intent of the economic development districts,• i.e.. to pre-zone property for nonresidential purposes and simplify the approval process? A concern voiced by EDC members as well as individual citizens is that simply zoning the property for economic development purposes does not carry out the intent of simplifying the process when one public hearing, i.e., special use, is substituted for another, i.e., rezoning. The concerns voiced by Commissioner Gordon are"accountability"and what avenue is available through which to address the concerns of the public. The Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process, since it would be perpetuating a lengthy process; i.e., substituting one public hearing for another. b. What are probable impacts of inclusion of"maior"and"minor' development definitions? The definitions suggested by Commissioner Gordon are essentially the same as those contained in the Town of Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. One concern of the Planning and EDC staffs, as well as individual citizens,is that developers will submit projects which fall below the 20,000140,000 threshold to avoid a public hearing. Related to this concern is one voiced by Commissioner Willhoit, that the net effect of approval of many small projects by staff j`'would be the same as the approval of one large project by the Commissioners.