BOA agenda 070918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

c. Zoning of parcel:Economic Development Eno Low Intensity (EDE-1) ; Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District. d.Township:Eno. e.Future Land Use Map Designation:Economic Development. f.Growth Management System Designation:Urban Designated. g.Roads:Frontage along Old Hillsborough Road/US Highway 70 where primary vehicular ingress/egress is obtained.There is a privately maintained roadway/access road along the eastern property line. h.Water and Sewer Service:The property is located within a primary utility service areaand is served by existing utility system(s) maintained by the City of Durham. Surrounding Land Uses: a.NORTH: Undeveloped EDE-1 zoned property ; office building zoned EDE-1. b.SOUTH:Old Hillsborough Road / US Highway 70. c.EAST:Private roadway ; restaurant and commercial building zoned EDE-1. d.WEST: Car storage lot zoned EDE-1. Proposal:As detailed within Attachment 1, the applicant hasapplied for a variancefrom the side yard setback standards of the EDE-1 general use zoning district. Specifically the applicant is requesting a 15 ft. reduction in the 25 ft. required side yard setback for the aforementioned property.If approved the side yard setback for the proposed structure would be reduced to 10 ft. as measured from the western property line. The property has an existing 3,000 sq.ft. building used for non-residential purposes. This existing structure is already located within the required side yard setback. The applicant proposed an expansion of the existing structure to accommodate his proposed commercial operation. The addition was located consistent with applicablesetback standards currently enforced for the property based on itsEDE-1 general use zoning designation. Staff reviewed and ultimately approved the site plan approval allowing for the proposed expansion aftercompliance with applicable dimensional requirements, as detailed within Section 3.7 of the UDO, had been demonstrated. The approved site plan proposed the use of an adjacent private roadway to serve the project’s vehicular access needsin an effort to address County land use (i.e. setbacks, drive-isle width, parking, etc.)and State Building Code (i.e. vehicular turn radius) requirement(s). At the time of site plan approval use of theprivate roadway had, in principal, been agreed to. Unfortunately, the use of the private access roadway is no longer a viable option. The applicant argues the setback reduction is necessary to accommodate traffic accessing the property and maintain compliance with applicable County and State Building code standards. 30