Agenda - 10-05-94-IX-C - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 • Special Use Permit: The first option involves amendments to Article 8 - Special Uses and Article 6.29 - Development Standards for Economic Development Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, "minor developments" or those with building areas of less than 20,000 sq.ft. and which disturb less than 40,000 sq.ft. of land area would be approved by the Planning Staff. Projects which exceeded these thresholds would be considered "major developments" and must have a Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners. This process would involve a public hearing before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners.Also proposed as part of amendments to Article 6.29 are the elimination of references to "man-made" so as to provide gender neutral text. • Site Plan Approval: This option involves an amendment to Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, the same thresholds as outlined above would apply, but only site plan approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners would be required.No public hearing would be involved in this process. • Subdivision Approval: This option involves amendments to Sections II, TTT-B, and W-C of the Subdivision Regulations. Under this option, both "minor" and "major" subdivisions must receive approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, but no public hearing would be involved. The amendments also incorporate the design criteria and performance standards applicable in Economic Development Districts by reference. • Planned Development Approval: This option involves amendments to Article 7 - Planned Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.Under the current provisions,certain permitted uses and projects which exceed water usage thresholds must obtain approval as a planned development by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing.This option specifically involves the elimination of such provisions from Article 7 if either the "Special Use Permit" or "Site Plan Approval" option is adopted. Public Hearing Comments: Bill and R.L. Clayton indicated that they were opposed to the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Atlas, since they owned property directly across Old N.C. 10 from the proposed district expansion. The Clayton property is currently zoned R-1 Residential but is located in a Commercial Activity Node. Larry Baker, an owner of property included in the expansion, supported the change, so his property would not be split by the district boundary. Planning Staff Recommendations: The Planning Staff recommendations are as follows: • CP-4-94:Approval of the map amendments as proposed. Since the district boundaries would be located along the northern right-of-way of Old N.C. 10, a 100-foot buffer would be required (see attached page from Design Manual). The buffer would not be required of existing uses. The alternative to providing such a buffer would be to secure Planned Development approval from the Board of Commissioners. • Z-4-94: Approval of the map amendments for the same reasons cited in CP-4-94 above. - • Approval Procedures:Approval of the proposed amendment to Article 6.29.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate references to"manmade"and approval of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations to utilize the subdivision approval procedures to provide Planning Board/Board of Commissioners review/approval.In all other respects, retain the existing ordinance provisions as adopted on March 2, 1994.