Agenda - 08-04-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-w i9` DRAFT 5.,27.86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AGENDA ITEM C 2. Z-6-86 JAMES M. AND MYRA KIRKMAN The staff presentation was made by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman . James and Myra Kirkman are requesting a rezoning for 1 . 18 acres of land located on a state maintained unpaved access road leading to U.S. 70 at the southwest corner of th intersection of U .S . 70 and Interstate 85 in Eno Township . -. -The property is known as Lot 77B of Tax dap 25 for Eno Township . The parcel contains 1 . 18 acres or 51 , 400. 8 square feet. - The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial- Industrial . Transition Activity Mode in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential (R- I ) . The application is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . Approval of the request would allow development of the full range ‘ commercial uses at this location . Rezoning of the property would allow fo, the expansion of the commercial uses In the area as a single commercial development or, alternatively, through the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services. See impacts Statement for further information . The Planning Staff recomr.;3nds approval of the general rezoning . Commissioner Willhoit InCuired about the annexation policy of the City of Durham. Smith responded that the City has no active annexation plans in the area . She added that the City does not require annexation for the extenson of public water and sewer service. Smith noted that an existing well and septic system serves the property . Planning Board member Kramer inquired about annexation proposals In the Durham 2005 Plan . Smith responded that no firm annexation proposals had been proposed by the City of Durham. Kramer noted that the Town Council had adopted the Plan . Planning Board member Best inquired how this request differed from the N .C , 751 rezoning case. Smitw responded that this site utilizes an access road which funnels traffic in the area to one point on U.S . 70, rather th( resulting in individual drives and points of conflict. Best inquired about the applicant ' s statements of justification . James Kirkman responded that t14y had reviewed as much information as they could in making the statements* including the Hillsborough 701 Plan . He noted that land adjacent to h +;fi property has been purchased, cleared, and has