Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
074 <br /> DRAFT PB MINUTES 3-17 -86 PAGE 22 <br /> The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 <br /> (R-1 ) . The property is also subject to the <br /> Protected Watershed-II (PW-2) and Major <br /> Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay zoning <br /> districts' standards. The applicant is requesting <br /> a general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . <br /> A general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) <br /> for 75.1 acres was denied on January 7 , 1985. <br /> Rezoning of the property would increase the amount <br /> of area zoned for commercial purposes within the <br /> designated activity node and would allow for <br /> expansion of the existing commercial use or, <br /> alternatively, the subdivision of the property into <br /> individual lots for commercial development. <br /> The Planning Staff recommends denial of the general <br /> rezoning request. <br /> Staff further suggests that development of this <br /> site upon submittal and approval of a planned <br /> development rezoning request is preferable to a <br /> general rezoning request given recognized existing <br /> and potential traffic impacts resulting from the <br /> current and expanded use of the site, the location <br /> of the site within a designated protected water <br /> supply watershed and the desire to provide as much <br /> protection to the quality of local water supply in <br /> the site development process , and County policies <br /> (MTC district) directed at the establishment of and <br /> compliance with aesthetic standards along major <br /> entranceways into the County within the County's <br /> planning jurisdiction. <br /> MOTION: Kizer moved denial of the rezoning request . <br /> Seconded by Best. <br /> Pearson inquired how traffic could be better <br /> addressed through a planned development . Smith <br /> responded further road improvements could be <br /> required . <br /> Shanklin noted that at one time two entrances were <br /> to be recommended . Kizer responded that NCDOT <br /> recommended only one entrance and exit . Smith <br /> noted that staff had not recommended two driveways . <br /> Orange Investors has been refused approval of <br /> requests for an additional driveway in order not to <br /> allow expansion of a non-conforming use . <br /> VOTE: 6 in favor. <br /> 3 opposed (Pearson, Shanklin, Yuhasz) <br /> 2 abstained (Kramer & Margison - not in attendance <br /> at the public hearing) <br />