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

Browse Search

8 8.8.28.2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan meets the criteria 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 site plan adheres to the performance standards and design criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance or the applicant has proposed a design solution which is equal to or better than 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"major"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 20,000/40,000 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 would be the same as the approval of one large project by the Commissioners. A final concern is the 20,000/40,000 rule and its relation to water usage thresholds and permitted uses. As an example,some uses,such as individual convenience stores and fast food establishments, are permitted only after approval of a Special Use Permit through the Planned Development process. Projects which exceed specified thresholds for water usage are also required to secure approval through the same process. With the addition of the 20,000/40,000 rule, it has beeen pointed out that almost all potential uses would be required to secure a Special Use Permit. If that is the intent, the 20,000140,000 rule should be eliminated and all uses made subject to the Special Use provisions. As noted above, the Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process. The Committee did not support the 20,000/40,000 rule either, noting that it concurred with Commissioner Willhoit's assessment. c. Are there variations of or alternatives to the 20,000140,000 rule? One option is eliminate the water usage and use category thresholds completely and rely solely on the 20,000140,000 rule. If there are still concerns about convenience stores and fast food restaurants, they should be allowed only as part of a multi-occupancy building. Another option is to use the provisions of Article 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as a threshold instead of the 20,000140,000 rule. As applied to the Economic Development zoning district, no more than one principal