Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-02-2008 - 5aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 2, 2008 Action Agenda ~ Item No. SUBJECT: Buckhorn Village PD/SUP (Rezoning/Special Use Permit) Receipt of Zoning Items DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): Please Bring: FROM JUNE 3, 2008 BOCC MEETING: (Updated with Section F) • 3" White or Black Notebook with Blue Cover "Attachment 5 Outline of Rezoning..." • 1" White Notebook "Booklet of Attachments' ATTACHED HEREWITH: INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict 245-2592 Michael Harvey 245-2607 Zoning Officer/Planning Board Rezoning and Special Use Permit Ordinance Requirements and Recommendations 2. Approved and Draft Planning Board minutes from: May 7, 14 and 21; June 4; July 9 and 23; August 6 and 13, 2008 meetings (Under Separate Cover) PURPOSE: To receive comments and recommendations by the Zoning Officer and the Planning Board concerning the review of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development (hereafter 'BVPD-ED') rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application(s) proposing the development of a parcel of property within the Buckhorn Road/I-85 Economic Development District (hereafter 'ED') BACKGROUND: On February 25 and April 1, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board held a Joint Public Hearing to review the BVPD application proposing the development of a mixed use retail, office, and residential project with approximately 1.14 million square feet of floor area on a 130 acre parcel of property located near the southeastern corner of the intersection of I-85 and Buckhorn Road. With respect to the review of this project, the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance') apply: • Section 6.29.3 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts (i.e. the Economic Development District Design Manual), • Article Seven (7) Planned Developments • Article Eight (8) Special Use Permits, and • Article Twenty (20) Amendments As staff has previously testified, the review and processing of this application includes both a legislative (rezoning) and quasi-judicial (SUP) component. All of the information submitted or generated as part of the review of this application is part of the official decision on this application (i.e. the application, documents, testimony, comments from local citizens, and Planning Board recommendations, etc.) 2 record that will be utilized in rendering a formal submitted evidence, reports, zoning procedural County staff, and advisory board members, staff This information has been organized within a large 3" white binder with a blue cover distributed at the June 3, 2008 Board of County Commissioners meeting. This document was recently revised to include Planning Board, staff, consultant, and applicant activity subsequent to the June 3 meeting. This revision, specifically Section F, includes specific reports requested by the Planning Board during their review of the application(s). The reports are indexed F1, F2, etc. These reports, as well as all other reports from Sections A, B, C, D are cross-referenced to specific questions and/or requirements of the zoning ordinance. NEXT STEPS -REVIEW PROCESS: The Board of County Commissioners review and deliberation on this application is scheduled to begin on September 16, 2008 and shall include: 1. Review of the rezoning request to rezone the identified properties: From: I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development (ED) District and/or Rural Residential One (R-1) To: Buckhorn Village Planned Development -Economic Development District (BVPD-ED). As previously indicated, action on approving or denying the rezoning application is considered to be a Legislative decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Ordinance, and 2. Deliberation - In the event the rezoning application is approved, on the SUP application proposing the development of the property as a master planned mixed-use commercial development would include conditions of approval (COA). Action on approving or denying the SUP application is considered to be a Quasi judicial decision made in accordance with the provisions of Article Seven (7) and Eight (8) of the Ordinance. ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer's comments and recommendations are detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and detailed within the official record created. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends that the Board accept their findings and recommendations concerning this project as detailed within Attachment One (1) of this abstract and as detailed within the official record. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The review of this project is handled by existing County planning staff with participation by other departments and agencies through the development of advisory group. In addition, the Sanford Holshouser Business Development Group conducted an Economic Impact Analysis on the Buckhorn Village project. See 3" White Booklet, Section E.3 amended, pages 225-260. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the BOCC: 1. Receive the Zoning Officer/Planning Board recommendation as detailed within Attachment One (1), 2. Receive the information contained within the record for this project, 3. Close the PUBLIC HEARING, 4.a. .Schedule September 16, 2008 for BOCC review and deliberation, and 4.b. Schedule October 7, 2008 for BOCC action on the rezoning and SUP ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -1 RECOMMENDATION TABLE r `~ REZONING: The processing of a rezoning request is in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance (hereafter `Ordinance'). As part of the review of this request, the Zoning Officer is required to cause an analysis to be made of the application, and based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration of the request for review by the Planning Board (hereafter `Board') and Board of County Commissioners (hereafter `BOCC'). Additionally both the Ordinance and North Carolina General Statutes, specifically 153A-341, requires that the review of any and all Zoning Atlas and/or Text amendments include written comments and recommendations on the consistency of the proposed amendment with an adopted Comprehensive Plan and any other relevant plans (i.e. Small Area Plan, a corridor plan, a transportation plan, etc.) that have been adopted by the governing board. Prior to adopting or rejecting any rezoning request, the BOCC is required to adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest. The following chart details: 1. The Zoning Ordinance requirement concerning a rezoning request, 2. Staff's recommendation concerning the appropriateness of the application and its consistency with. the various provisions of the Ordinance, 3. The Planning Board's recommendation, and 4. The Administrations' recommendations/comments concerning the approval of this project. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SHADED AREAS INDICATES CONCURRENCE OF REFERENCED PARTIES (i.e. STAFF, PLANNING BOARD, ETC.) ORDINANCE REQUIItEMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 20.2 Amendment Initiation: Subject to the limitations of the foregoing Statement of Intent, an amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by: (a) The Board of County Commissioners, (b) The Planning Board, (c) Application, by any person or agency. Section 20.2: Staff reconmierided_ apprt~val Ai their May 2 i, 200$ Amendment Initiation - as detailed by;~ the evidence: Special meeting, the .Board and testime~ny offered by the voted unanimously to Zoning Officer as noted' accept staff's within the full applicati~sn, the : recbrnmeadation and 3 s`, anti 1 "notebooks findingz provided to the aril. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -2 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIItEMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 20.3.lApplication Submitted to Zoning Officer: All applications for amendments to this ordinance shall be in writing, signed and filed, two copies with the Zoning Officer and one copy with the County Manager for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. (For Planned Development amendments see Article 7; for Special Use Permits see Article 8). The Zoning Officer shall, before accepting any amendment application, ensure that it contains all required information, as specified in this ordinance. Applications which are not complete, or otherwise do not comply with the provisions of this ordinance, shall not be accepted by the Zoning Officer, but shall be returned to the applicant, with a notation by the Zoning Officer of the deficiencies in the application. Section '' 20.3.1; Staff recommended approval At their May z}, 21)08 Application submitted as detailed- b~ ,the e~+idence Special meetings the 13oaird to Zoning Uffieer: 'and testimony offered b}. the voted;::' un~imously to Zcming t~f,Cicer' as Hated accept staff's wzthin the't'ull application, the recc~rr~n~endatian .:"' ~ and ~ ", and l . <` noteboalc.s finding ptv~ided to the Btaard. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 20.3.2 Contents of Application: Applications for amendments to the Zoning Atlas and/or Zoning Ordinance text, without limiting the right to file additional material, shall contain at least the following: (a)` l;or amendrinents to Staff recvmmeuded approval ` At tbeic May . ~~, 2t~08 the Zoning Atlas,`. a as detailed by .the evidence' Special ~ne~ting, the Board frilly dimetisian~ct and testimony offered by the . voted. ~rnanimausly to map at a scale pfnot Zoning f3f7ice ~ as 'noted accept . sb.~''s less than one within the full a~lictttaon, the recommendation antl hundred { 1 t)Q} feet trr 3 w, and. 1 ~` natebcxaks £indiag the inch shaving the prgvided ~ the )3s~ard. land r~~hich would be covered by the ' .:proposed ; _ "Zoning Atlas amendment, 'and a legal '`description of The land ; ATTACI~MENT ONE (I) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -3 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: (b} For amendments to Staff ~recommendedapproval At their May 21, 2008 the "Zoning as detailed by llze evidence Special meeting., the Board Qrdinance text, a ; and testimony offered by the ' voted unanimausly to ; copy. of" tl~e existing Zoning Officer as noted_ accept staff's; text proposed for within the ful[ application, the recommendation and amendment ' al~d a 3. ", and 1 " notebooks' finding written statement provided to the Board. - des~ribing . t}te proposed changes - (e) ''The alliederror in Staff x~mmended approval At their' May ~ ~, 200 the Zoning Atlas as detailed, by the evidence Special meeting, the Board andlor Zoning and kes[irrxony alif`ered by the voted' rmanimtlusty to C)rditxzc,e test Zcining Off~c~r` as noted accept ~ _, '. staffls which', _ would b~ within tfie full ~ipplicatian, the ' recommendation a~ad 'corrected?; by Lhe ~ .~. ;",; anr~ l - " notebooks Ending proposed provided tc~ the Board. amendment (d) ,The chang*rd or Staff.rammended, approval ' At their May 2, 2~p8 changing ~ndition~ as detailed by ~ the evidenca peci~t meeting;-the Board in the area oc in the and twstinngny' offered by the ' vt~ted' unanimously ~to Caunt}r` making the Zoning; ..Officer: as - 'noted ' accept.'. st`aff's :.Zoning .atlas' andlor Y++ithid the full application, the ` recaarumenclmtinri and; text ax~rendment ~ ", and 1 notebooks:.: finding . 'nec:essaryy prodded to the lard. e} :The manner in which Staff' recommended approval ' At their.: May 21, 2tttl8 the proposed'.Zon~ng as detailed by the e~ridence: Special meeting, the Board Atlas amendment and testimony offered by the voted unanimously... to request will `carry Zoning 4f~cor` as :noted 'accept stag's `cut the intent and wathin the Full applie,atian, the' recommendation and 'purpose cif the 3 ", and 1 " notebooks finding adopted provided to floe ~3oard. Comprehensive Plan. `or part:.: thereof ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -4 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE REQUIItEMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: f) A trat~c impact Staff recornme~ded approval At their ;May ;21, 2008 study: as required by as detailed by the evidence Special meekuig, the Board Article Thirteen (l3) and testimony gff'ered by the. voted. unanimously tv Zoning .:Officer as" Hated' accept star s within the full applicatiart, the rerumrriendation 'and 3 `; a~~d l : `~'- nutelxvoks ` finding , provided td ~ Board, g} .All other ~ Stall' reca~m~ed approval . ' At their May 2t; ~ 2408 circutx~stances, .: as ' detailett . by the'. evidence Special rrieetin~ tho Board factors, and reasons ~tid:testimony offered by the voted : , ~: itnanimattsly t that the aprpli~ant ' fining Officer as ::noted accept, Staff's ' offers ~ustifyittg the wtthtn the full applrea~Dn, the reconxmendatx~sn and request ~ ~ ~, and 1 <` ttotebvoks - pending prbvitled_ to the. Bt-ard. In completing a review of the rezoning portion of this application, and as this is a Planned Development rezoning request, staff is required to make a recommendation on the appropriateness of the request based on criteria outlined within Section Article Seven (7) Planned Development, specifically Section 7.5.4 Zoning Officer's Recommendations, reading as follows: (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed; (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments; (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. Subsections (d) and (e) address elements of the proposal that are connected with the review of the Special Use Permit portion of the application. As a result they will be outlined with that portion of this recommendation. ATTACHMENT ONE (I) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -5 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 7.5.4 (a) As to the suitability of the proposals for the general type of PD category, the physical characteristics of the land, and relation of the proposed development to surrounding areas and existing and probable future development; (i). As to the suitability Staff recommended approval At their-May 21 and August' of the proposals for as '.detailed, by''the evidence 13, ':2008 :,meetings, 'the the general '.type of and testimony offexed by the> Bciard un~timously ~ to ; PD caregr~ry'° ~ 2~ating ~ as :Hated support staff"s #iriding w;th within the Cu## application, the xegar~I to (i}' .. 3'. ", ztnd . 1 zaateboalc~ . provided tc~ the Beard ,.:_; {ii}' As to the physical Staff' recommended approval At th~irMa~21 ancf.~iugust'- characteristics of the as detailed by. the evidence .13, (l~~ meet~nps, t)te land -and testimony offered by the Board ' unanimous#y ~g - off cer as 'Hated ' supp{art stabs fuxdin~'wxth tivithin the' ful# application, t17e t'egat'd tt~ {ii}.- 3 ",. 'aad 1 :` notebooks; provided is the Board. (iii} Relat~ctn 'af the Staff reuntmended approval ' At their May 21 and August proposed as detailed by 'the evidence 13, 2008 meetings the development . to arid, testimony offered by fhc Board voted Five (5) to surrounding ' areas Zoning fJtlicer as 'noted'.: Three (3) to recommend and existing and within the full application, the denial based on the prpbal~le future 3 ", and I notebooks following findings: development provided tca the Soard. The project is not consistent with other nearby existing development (existing residential areas) and goals and recommendations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and The project does not involve the creation of a development with the range of uses (i. e. manufacturing and industrial) as anticipated by the EDD Design Manual for the specified area, but involves primarily retail trades, ` hotels and services ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -6 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIItEMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 7.5.4 (b) As to relation to major roads and mass transit facilities, utilities and other facilities and services; (i) Relation to major Staff' recommended `appravaY At their May 21 and August roads' and mass as :detailed b,~ the evidence 13, 2008 meetings the transit facilities and testimony offered by the Board voted Five (5) to honing Q~cer' as 'Hated Three (3) to recommend withiz~the'fiill application, the ` denial based on the 3 ~ ~`.`, and l: " ~otebaoks ; following findings: provided to the Baaurd. The transportation analysis fails to adequately address issues related to weekend travel patterns, issues related to County residents' travel to the project ,, property, and insuj~eiently addresses issues that would arise in the event that NC DOT fails to fund necessary improvements in I-40 and Buckhorn Road Stan' recommended apprt~val (ii} Relation tp _ utilities as 'detAil~ by ,thy evidence At their May 21 and August and other faei~lities and testi~riany offer by the 13, 2008 meetings the and services' Zoning' Officer . as Hated Board voted Seven (7) to within the:. full stpplicaYian, the Two (2) to recommend 3 ", aa~d 1 " notebt~oks denial based on the provided tb the l~aard. ; following findings: There is insuff cient information on how the demands of the project would affect future `' ' availability of water and sewer in the Ejland area and other nearby locales ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -7 RECOMMENDATION TABLE i~ ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIItEMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 7.5.4 (c) As to the adequacy of evidence on unified control and the suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments, or for amendments in those proposed Section 7...'5.4 (r~ Staff recgmmended 'approval AI their May Z 1, 2008 as detailed by the evidence Special nneetwg, .the Board and. testiuony offered by the ` voted utianiznously to Zoning Officer as >'noted' ~ aceept staff's within the dull application, the ` r~nrtznendation_ and '' 3 ", ar~d 1 . " natebnoks' ' finding, prodded' to the Board...,, ,. . ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 7.5.4 (d) As to the suitability of plans proposed or the desirability of amendments Se,~tiort.'~.a~',~~tl~}:-, % Staff. reccammended approval ' At their May 21 and August ~ `detailed b~ the evidences 13, 2008 meetings the Noted above ~~ testirnany a£fered by the Board voted Seven (7) to Ztiaing . U,fficer as noted. Two (2) to recommend within the'full applcatiotl, the denial based on the 3 and 1 " notebooks following findings: prodded to the $oard. The project calls for the creation of retail and hotel jobs, but not the higher- - ' income employment jobs anticipated by County plans, and The applicant and the County's consultant have submitted economic analysis that assumes significant sales tax and real property tax revenues would be generated by the proposed development, but this analysis is significantly flawed insofar as it fails adequately to assess costs of public services, and relies on inadequately justifted assumptions about property tax values extrapolated from other locales ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -8 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ~~ ORDINANCE ZONING OFFICER PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENT: RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Section 7.5.4 (e) As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other ** NOTE: The applicant has proposed fourteen (14) Design Solutions seeking to modify existing general regulations as they would apply solely to this project. Each proposed Design Solution is outlined below with the appropriate finding from all parties ** DESIGN 'SOLUTION Staff zrannmended approval The Planning Board C3NE: as detailed by the: evidence originally recommended As outlined paSe and f~sstimony offered by the denial of this Design fifteen (1S) af~.. ~e Zontng Qfficer as .;.noted' Solution at their May 21, application reading as within the;full ~pplicatian, tl7e 2008 meeting by a Five (5) follgws: ~ .s~' and 1 ' " . notebooks to Four (4) vote. provided tc- the Bird `Thy czpPti~ant rec~~re~s~ts' ~ ~t~aiyer from Section 2.2 a, f the ~,pD Design Mtmua' The applir.~at ~~- allow far' multi-familj residential - devealsmerr within Distrs'cts II' and lr of the project< ~urrentTy multi-fan~i~ residentia land uses `are not lister within the Econami Development Primar} (IJD-P) zcaning disiriGt which ' the_ ' subjec property is currentl} ioued. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -9 RECOMMENDATION TABLE t ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DE~IGh1 SOLiTTION Staff recom]z]e]ided approval The Planning Board TWO: us .:.detailed by the evidence originally voted to "I~he applica]tt had and testimony offered by the recommend denial of this originally 'reques#ed that Zoning Officer ~ ' nnted Design Solution as it was the'` existing ecmposite .wi#hin the full application, they originally proposed. ratio methods established 3= ", and 1 " no~lzooks within the.. EDD Design provided to the Hoard. ' During' their August tar. Manua} lae replaced with 2008 ix]eetin~, the Planning a `Haar aii~ ratio' aiad Board vat~d' tp reevaluate `ma~imu]n building tbc~ req]]es~t based.' an : Vie- heip~ht' Iimifatirrn ~ to ..`-'t appllc:ant's proposed` ~snlzal land use intensity, .. ' xevision: speci~ipally a ma:~imuxn float area~° ratio at grit `l:'he-. Beard vakcd shirty (:~r~j ~ .. at]d ~ ' ~ unanimously to reco]i~rnend' ma~imum'building height `~ '' apprpval of ,the revida of six (6) s~raes 4 _- .. Desi~] Solution as follows: Can July 31, ~ ZUt~B staff = '' ~'he "' Brukharn Yllla~e received a letter fro]n the developer. i]tdiea~tug that . , Plcvrned Develapmerrt shall they. Wpuld 1]lce~ta revlsa ; aclhe~'e try a c:urrtuluttve Srre the . tristecl Desigt Yolurne Rrxtia df (rte (IJ,ft»~ Solution anti request that the ~rztrre prr~}eat:., thejr.be aHawed td adhere developer . rer~uired. t~ to a;Site Vol]zme Ratio ref demonstrate . ~ an, colt C)ne, (l j~. far the entire submitted sits plZrns' the prO~eCt as detallCd W]t}111f -- t"TUnlrlatiY~ tatcil ,Of blrrltlUr~, section 2~ Land use ' and I~ca~ rolurne Intensity of the EDD ' rrn'ias ertrrl defrnc~ hnw each Design Manual indtvdtuxl c~veldprrrerrr ' pra1ect Is c~rrrplying ]with the overall Site Yalaune ~rtia:;stutrdards of Dne ~1) ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -10 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ~a ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLL]TION Stag reccxlullended appraval At their May 21, 2008 THREE: as detailed by tl~e evidence Special meeting, the Beard and t~stilr~ony offered by the; voted. SiY (6} to Three (3} to ` As autlitled on ° page Zoning = Officer' as noted recommend ' approval of twenty (20} a# ..the within the..>full application, the the proposed Design applicationY reading as . ~, `~, anal l . " notebooks ` Solution -based an staff's follows: ,provided to the Board. ' frnding and :' ala tlle.' Z~1G aP~7xL"rmt ~ fOllawing canditxcsns: requests C7 wuZY~'r from ~S"PCtiOt1 ' ~~`# Staff flxl~hex 1'eCOintnended ' ~,~~?~ the'-,vv~tt'Vllt CJt; the ,- -. Errvironmerttal Fuc'tor~ ~~~ $ GondltlOil }~ placed all grading ~ re<}utrement - Grading~cr.~d'Eraszr~rt thee.... SUP 'indicating that tile' :. reviewed an a ease_byw. G`arr1rC11 ~ Planting proposed .' modification only .: c~sr,basis in ardanGe area ~~rq~C'S; of :th,e be ' . allr~Wed ,' CU13eri ' the ~t+ith .. ~, : :' statf's EbD b~siget Mcuaual Rpp1~ .sari ~emcanstrate Ori° x~comrllenda~ipla, and . . The applicant is a ~ site-~%1"ie ~ develr,pmenf plan thy tteed, and benefits to ~:`~t ' .' ~J~NR:.:' . best , requesting' the .ability to , , an»~It~. n~ti>;"aI: ~'esources, of; - r~tan~gementr Irractir„es be p lned''µ tio, 'the grading ~~ utilize a rraiaxirn~l al~ipe. waiving the requiremeat clue p a tld reestablishment of factor of 2: l : ratlneir ttlan ' ts~.ihe fallavving: ~ file listed rnaxilinum slope grass slopes l,Steeper' hack': slopes will reduce;overall site grading Within fhlr request .the ', __arld dis~rharnce, and.: ~ applicant indicates .that ' 2.Less :. sits g~ading and the existing ~rad~ of the property would require di~~nrb~nee ~ will preserve,' ry ~, g unneeessa In and tnar~ laird area ill it present inereate tb~e total faatprir-t natural ccnnditian. : aC disturbance' if 'the f. maximum 3:l slope ratite was adhered to.' The applicant is requesting the ability to use a slopa ratio of 2:l` or hatter in an effort to avt~id unnecessary dis-lurbalaee . on the property and nuke use cif the, natural shape of the land withminimal grading. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -11 RECOMMENDATION TABLE 13 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGhI SOLL1T10N Staff recommended-approval. At > their May 21, 2008 .FOUR: as detailed by the evidence Special meeting, the Board' As outlined . on page and testimony offered by the voted Eight.(8} to One 41~ twenty 420) of the ,Zoning Ufficer as ...noted ~ recommend approval of application reading . as within the'fuil application, the r< the proposed Design ' follows: ~ y. and 1 " notebooks Fs Sglution Izased oia stal ~ provided to the Board. finding and on ttae `7~te ct~plz~unt requests <., folktwing eouditior: u fvcrtver frr~m ,Seetign a ~ 'Ettvircnmet~tul Staff der recommended 1.That tlre'waivin of the Factors -- Urarling acrd' ~~ a canditian be placed otY ~ requirement be ~'s~ewed ~'rpsinrt CortttOr - - tlt~'. SUl' indicating that the ' ©~. ~ case-by-case. basis Drt1eivay; and ' f1CCL'S,~ pt'nposed modificatican only in' accordance ~ '~ with Drive ~S'lape,~ of the EDD be' 2lllowed when, ~ . the - siat~'s 1'eG~}mmeTldatiflTl, ~sigrt ~t'anuul:. ~plicaiit cart demonstrate ' . a, .. life-specific development . , __ Thy appli~rt. is -plan the iaeed, and bertefts, of requesting' the ability' ta: atl>3wixtg .far the' rwetva . utilize NC DOT sfanda ~rc.~nt (I2%} siap~: ,l",~tft~r, ` nf' two percent ~~°fa} of staff recommended that this.. '14n per fcxot mmunum and 'TnAd,rf ieatrnrt be allowed only a twelve pereerat ~ i2~~a) in '~r , ipsta.ne~ ~ _ :;where maximum ' acccssldrive coihplia~c~ r~+ith NC TAT _ slope where neees~ry. _ n- r+~uiremterits was necessary.. ` 'T`he applicant ax'glies that with the' exislirfg slope standards of twcr' percent ~ (~%} minimum and five percent (5°/ff} rta~cimvm ' for accesstdriveways . is common, -thete will be need for aciditiar-al flexibility given the n«mbcr ~f ctrnnc~tions prt~pased with this development, ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -12 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ,~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION Stag xecanunetided'approval At their ..Maya 21,_ 2008' FIVE: as 'detailed by the evidence Special meeting, the Board As outlined an pAge and testimony offered by the voted` Seven, (7) to Twa (2)' twenty-seven (47) of the Zoning OfBeei• as noted to recommend approval of ; application. reading as within the'full application, the ' the - proposed besign follows: `; and 1 " notebooks ~ Sctlutipn based on staff's `7'1te crppli~cmt requestx provided tc~ the Board. `.. finding ~ and on the ~; waiver from S~trvn following conditions: 3, I ~lrchtec~turrrC Deri~~t '" ! Staff further recommended I.TITe modification shall - - ~uilcCtng Setbcrci~ ancC ' . that_a condition be pled on only:,be ~ allowed when Ileig/z~ of ih~ ~ DD S~TP indicating that the the. = the. ~ applicant can Dcsi~r MartuaC rrtrd the . propased modification..- only demonstrate on a site- rewired _t~rn {1`D} fart the Ue:' a~loWed when : ,tptfre; d~evelapment clriveways~f8c~ck ~- _ . _ applicant-raft demonstrate ott ~~ plt~n ..tb~ -the proposed ; Thy applicant is a~ sate~sp~ific :development ` buildings will- be able to ~ requesting.:.: The, ' abrlity plan that `~e pts~pvsed' . aceessed bar local ~'' rnadify ;the existing buildings ° will ba able ' r4 emergency responders; setback aid, :'building, ar.~~Sed by Iocal emergeztcy including fire, ,,EMS.'and ' . height : liiaxitatians for respt~nder~ (i,e, ,Fire,: ,EMS ~ address palm : a internal lrroperty.. lines y ta address a ~~}, Pvlice ; pUb11G safety.- issue; .'itt " far the Bttckhorn Vil lade . y ~- pubic-safety issue. keeping. ~ with staff project to allow fos.' ' recorrtrnextdations 1. A franc, side, srid _ plart~ ~viIl have 'to Thy rear ~rard se#~Z far . demonstrate c~-znplianee with freestanding-! atay and all applicable State buildings and 13uitding andJar Fire Codes structures a~teu {I0~ and txt~et ail applicable feet versus twenty-~ Cc~unt~r and City rsf' Mebane'' f ve {2S} feet, _ : ~ regulateiry ~ standards' for. 2. A setback far iri-lute emergency ,vehicle ' and shops, and buildings ' pedestrian mess. fiat fqr of one (l} front ' and rear setbacks and s ~rc~ (0~ side.- -yard setback, 3, ' A zero (0) line setback for buildings adjacent to vehicular use areas, storage areas; and si+xns. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -13 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION Staff recommended approval At their May 21, 20U8 SLY: as detailed by the evidence Special meeting, the Board and testimony offered by the voted.Eigl-t (8} to One {1), As s~utlined on page thirty Zoning pflicer as :noted to recomrnertd approval t~f (30) of the application " within the'full application, the; the prapdsed Design readirtgasfollows. ' ~=.~ and 1 " notet~ooks Solution based oti staff's `Thy cgjpl,~ccmt regrresxs prpvided to the-Board, . w. finding . tr waiver, frafn Secl~arr , ' " =' The Board `' also .3.1 .~r~chite~tural De~zgxr $ttff "further . re~omxrended r+ecornrnended thai s~f1"s ~'vrrtrgared ' ' Metal; that a ctin~litipn ~` plarrec! an condition be placed on SUP Hi~lrly --, Reft'ectiv~ the SUl' indicating" that tlts' to address- potential. publyc Surfcrc~s; ' alxd Prop~sseti ' adil~eatiori' onl~* - s~'~y r.~ncerns. ~-- ', Illutnirrcxter~ Roofing of 1~:... Ali-owed in . situations - ttr~ : EDD ,I~siir 'Where iC is demonstrate~.iha~ Aranruxl ' .r . Tl~e` appli~anf ~ ' ~~~ l,The light reflecbng;= from „~ :.. , r~1tC5trll~ tIIE: .ability ~ ': x~~ng,mate~als and vvill ' ,; ~- ~` ' '~ have fl~'rability in' usitrg r' not create a public .~f~fy, hi # rellecttve xoof , tt'a~rc hazard, ;~ of -:~_ ~. .mate talc : Whetr They are ilrlnUy~TSC~ to others, designed to achieve tl~e :2.5,11 : roof rrtaterit~ls' shah various 'energy objectives r ~: Piave SRI for roof pitches _ outlined ~vithut ...the Tess than 2,12 of ?8 attd an . ap~lliG~tiE)n. ~. 0~ ~~ .f`c)t' roofs ~+itl1 "pitch . ,greater. than ' ~: l 2 (Reference to LEk~D . Standards ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -14 RECOMMENDATION TABLE i 6 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION Stag recoiumended approval At .their May 21, 2Q0$ SEVEN• • as `detailed by the evidence Spec~I meeting, the Board and testimony offered by the voted. unanimously to As t~utlined on page thirty Zoning Officer as noted recommend approval of (30) through thirty-one within the fult application, the the . proposed Design (3I~ of ttie .application ~ ~, acid 1`' ." notebooks ` Salutrau based orgy staff's.:. reading as follows. provieled try the Berard.. finding . 'The irppl~rmt reyuest~ Tlaa ' ~, Bba1'd also a waiti~er frpXtz. S~ctfran Sniff fiirther r~cvmmended•; reco~namended that=' staffs 3.1 tlxr:hiteeturul ,U~s%grt that a conditigri le {laced on condition be placed on SU,I' -~ Corrugrited Metcxl ' the. SUP-'; indicatiirg that:. the to address pptentiai public Hi~)!ly Ref1 ~~~ve ' prapc~sed 'mo~iiflcadon., only safety CCrncerns. . ~~urf ~c~s: ' ~ r~rtd be , allowed . ii`t' _ siti~tiQns - ` Illurr~~alc>d Rt~nfrng of whez~ it is'clearnoxtratedthatM the - ~ EUb ;" ~esrgn M~rrruul' ~~; 1.The Iighi:~reflectrng-.from ; The I?tiI7 Uesi~t Tvl`ariual " so~az ~ ex~exgy, . ~ll~ticiri ; requires that solar panel` ~' features`~rrill tint crew a must be #Iush .with, the ".. public safety hazard, and slope of =the . road: ~'he 2,Any `~ buildings " .utilizing applicant indicates. that .solar ~nels shah have its . there may' be situations : lotrger building. axis' ~ at ' ; whets solar panels'caui~ot _ i~nst ohe and - a half ~ I Ufa} be flush with the roof and timers the shorter axis acid that flexibility is needed ~ the longer axis is within to allow for their rise.' ~fteen.degree {l~°) of the geographic eastJweSt axis (f,E6D,~tandard) . ATTACHMENT ONE (I) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -15 RECOMMENDATION TABLE , ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION StafT recommended approval At aheir May 2t, 208 EIGHT: as detailed by., tl~e evidence: Special meeting,;..the Baird As 'outlined on paged anr) testimony offered by the voted Seven (7) to Twv (2) thirty-two (33} `through Zoning Officer as :'noted..: tt> recommend approval of thirty-three (33} of- the within the'fult application, the the proposed - Design application eflciing as ~ .~, and ) . " nq#o~woks Salutio» b~secl ~r~ staff's follows: provided to the Beard. fording. `The crpplicr~rt r~~r~ues'rs The :. . Beard .; `. atso a ~rziver from' Sectran Ste' further recoinrnended recommended thax staff's 3..~ Lvnds~ap~ .l~~srgn - that a candition.be placed art condition he placed asr ~UF ' ~,UUtIt~SCCI~llllg ~ ;Pq'1'klMg` ~li~ ~~~. inE~fCatillg tlla# ~p tQ.,addre5S potential publtG f c Areas of thy' EDD . pr~posecl`, n~adi~cation only'` ~ oncerns. ety Desr~mMa-zuu7' b~ allawcd , in Situations The IDD Desigrt'M~ual 'where it is :.'deixtoristrat~d requires that ~, landscape that island ~ ', provided f'ar .. l' ~ pifly percent (50'~Q) of every 'teri!~. (l0) parking the parking.' tat 'sutf spaces. _ aria' shall 'be in shade ;' Th0 applicant ~ within five (~~ ~ a~ proposing the fo1lOWing:' ~ initial ' . cangpy #r~;~ planting ` .., shade treed are tv be .. 2,. I+arking sttrface" paviin~ prpVSL~Gt.~" t1I' p 7"g7r0 Uf :-materials Shall have ~ cmtx {~,~ tltr~~: inch {,I "~ , . SR.t of ,_ at 'least . 29 ,' . ` crYl~per tree ,~r',t~rz ~'~r7} {LEl~b Standard}, and . individrail p~rr'kang ~, Open gr;d parking #trt spates provir~e~:. that paving or other pervious rlllt4ti: percent. ~9(t%~ 't~,f paving. " ' SyStertl5: . a~ tip SpCYCNS rrre witht~r ' Str011~1y encc>ur&bed , f~ty ~SCt} feet : o, j the because off' their hi~ rpntc~r of q SITac~~` tree' ' reflectance- valu~S and;; The applicant argues that their compatibility with this provision will requites hea# island ~ffK~t the ` planting of the wine reduction. number cif tr~s5 that would be ?rexluired under the Design Manual, but :would allow ~ for larger trees to be pl~isiled, allow for a more; ocxiipact parking- lot with. less impervious surface area. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -16 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ~~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: --- PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION Staff re~olumen~led approval At their ,May 21, 2008 NINE: as detailed by ,tl,e evidence Special t~eetiag, the Board and testimony pffered by the : voted Seven (7) to Two ('?} As .outlined nn page Zpning Olficar as noted t~ recommend approval of- thirty-four (~4) t~f the within tlle;full application, the the ~ proposed. Design applicntinrt reading ; as ~ ".< and=. t " natebc~oks Scllutic~n based, on sta#~'~' foIlaws: -provided to the 13Uard. lending. `7~ ppp~r~'rrrrt requests a waiver'' ,~i"~»t S~ctian ~, ... ~ '~' 3,~' 1'.rxnc~c~ape T~esi~m '- ~~.. Br~~l~lir~,~ and ~~~~~~ ~.~ the'' EAU .-pesKzt _ :' Manual' ~ 1~M 1.ll..J R.~ .r~~~~....~~AN 11 G~4F ~' ' ~'f ~ _ I requires that ~ tfte entire base or . fQaladahcln pf .~ i prrrpc~sed ~ ~t~['e is to . ~~ .sx „. be - landscaped. - ' 'Hle applicant is propc~sirtg the ~ ~ .. ,-,_ 'K S following: ` lv pr~vfde for ~` ~ ~IUilclin~* 't7ritl ~rpttlk~S ~' ' thirty per~erzf ~'3fI%} cif a } : . hulrlin~ ' pe~metet' to r sa~err 8urlc~zr7~' 'ed~~s' while mc7r'reta#r1ir1~ rieGesst~~'y ~'rclewrltk. attrl vutclrrar ~rsplay cxz'~as' The' applicant argues that this IT#C1d1~C~tli?11 wSll allow fnr' the use of sidewalks and pedestrian plazas to ' prc~mr~te ttie accessibility crf the project. ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -17 RECOMMENDATION TABLE i~ ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTIdN Staff recommended approval At their May 21, 2008 TEN : as detailed by. '..the evidence Special me~ting,,the Board As outlined on page and testunony offered by the. voted Sig Cn) to Three {3} to ' thirty-five ` (3~} of the Zoning . C}fficer as noted recommend ~ nppraval af application reading as within the. full application, the ~ the ', proposed .- Design. follows: , and l " notebooks ' ~ ` Solution l:~sed. ~n,. staffs provided #v the Board. finding.. . . `77~e p~pliccznt r~qu~,~~ts The ' Board also .cr warvc7r from fiction Staff fitxfiher r~cottnxiiended rcco~iimended that' 3.»~ X,trttc~~t~pe 17esi~tt - ^`that`a condition be placed on conditions be plate ~sn the Building arrct Gr~tmtls of ' -'the SUP; uidiaating tlta# the SUP ' indicating :that this : EDD 1)esrgrt the Mr~tual' p~po~d , n~odillcatiott only D~s%gn Solution can fly . be .allowved in sitrtations be `utilized ~ when ., the, The EDD Design Manual ~11~ iY s~ demc~nstt'a#e~l on a applicant ,can demvns~acte indicates that no fence or ~ situ-specific devetgpment~ on °= a .site-~ific wall shall:. be 'allowed plan. that: tIa~ desig;u turn development plact. that there within ten {It3) feet of any :wilt . not' ;~~ ~:_: 'public- ,shah nt~t=;: b~~ - aany " pnblC" front pr~l~r:rty ',link ~X ~.s~#'ety ~ risk ~ aria tluit the` safety risk' .created;- ar~d street, right.-of-gay, ., encroachment' i~ n~ded to additional crr~achrrient is foster ,asp#a;ble needed, tti ~ - foster ~ tl~ The . `- applicant is ~hitectural' features or developtnent~~©f°ac~cptable proposint; to reduce this iL~apir-g. architectural featu ar~c5r reyuixement and atl~rw for ~ landscaping, the' placement of landscape and architectural walls within one (1}.foot of`internal property lines and street .~ . ;~ tight-of ways provided tlra# adequate ~ site triangles and utility accesses a~ preserved. '' ~---~ -_ -~~ -~_ RECTpMM EST pIVE {1) _ -____ ENDATZON TAB~zpN~G/SUp p~~A1V REQ ~A~rcE CE ~ UI ' I~ESI'rN ~~NT: ~C N~'G UFFICER ~ ~~ENT S Page 1 -1 ~ E~E4E1V: ~~LUTIpN- ~~~ ~ OM_ME~r~AT~~N: pL~~~G 8 eCOnlhrende~ _ ~pAItD tr As ontlir~ed on as detrtiled a~pt'oval - ~C~~ENDATIO `~ ;' sip {a{ t'aKe thin -_ ~d I'J' the ev~d rlt 2heit Au,-- N: ~ of the: "aPplicati ~ ~+ninestimony offered b ~rlcQ ~Pecial Lust 13< 2 Og j ~~ding ~ #ollo y tho y titeetin~', 1 ~; '~ al~cer as- otecl Six tho Ru;~r ; `ire within tht~ full noted recd (bl to '~.ee d ~~ ~t'cYlvc~.~ltc~t r~guestr a 3 ~ mid applicatio mmend ap ~~) tc~ f''°~ Se X n' th° proPos~d Proval a f the II ~i~~ ~ Lr~~ f~~, "~ s p~vid~ tc~ t~,o $o~,~ ~ebc~k5 b on. S~~s~~n Solution nercrj _ ~e fallow` finding ~~~ q/ the I:~~~ C'rrf,~.r~ exception, i flan DesJ~z S~'cii'trall, «ith respect to the ur1l, . r~omme r ~ Project f'ri The EBB tided the fvllo .staff 'voted tolD 51~, the mad b~'Si ~~ual - ~'~'a~ wing, reco BOat'd ~ ` limits . the pry 3~ro feet X,i'l~; of this sin mmend denial within this d~ .oC` signs Ong 1 gle Provision. strict ~ ~ ~ Fb'd ~ . 1 why is n,~ Fond ;that r~~ ~nti~rah ~ ~e pro,~~c~ . ~ ~ to suPp~ ncit mo,~ ~~4) few ;n her y En ~~ wide ~' ~`artal: q 1~ a~plrcartt re4~ts.. ~ h° h}gher . ~ Pieced ~' ll~agr~ ' ~ ' g Saxe ,tla~t. ~~ ~ ~' and nat r. ~'enan~j~ of ~~ Y ~`oside~, Pet side l~crr ~ fly rv Sift t ~~-~ ~~ arty t~q)> ~~ ~ Te ~ ~imm» ~nf ei ~~ ~ hrrr~red , ~ height and sip h ~!~zrecto ght {S) each :. at"~o~ ~gn r (500 ~~~ ~ G~ ~ rY Sir . (each ~~ f arm feet : rzt hive ~ S : f hei are Mutt S . azae ~ ,1. ~t in ~ht'a ~ ~ . ~. side being ti h~~ dye ~ S~ #~er sido ~'~ft~rl.~ar Tenn . {~~ ~, ~ of ett ,Total si, ~~rex q~ feet pbr ~.. ~~n sid e° , r.~C~ ` ~ Signs th ~trecto~ ~ beitzg c~.rn ath .{each 'l"`en~,t~. ~ajpr/h,t~ ~~ ~~~ feet a~ ~ighf ~~~' M~rj+~rll'Hlnpr ~,~ d ~ ~~~' etr) fog ~~ bu~ sigma (fit, ~~ ~ thr~ nd f'or ' - Aunt;- ;shown in iidtng of {3btl~ ,s haPdred Bch ~ o ~I~ h t~ #n~t~t ~ as ~i~n ~i+at'e feet of tie ~{~) sites r~inr~r v`ersant' i`oat a ~ att 1~1~` sigr-. oaclt, each {wetly ete ~ b!uild~d ~ lm~ ~.f'tsr ~ ~UllCll~g ~~ ~ far P~c~d with' frontage:: ~ Tenant ch ~~ajor/l4~inar ~~ m3~er sigt .ply bhown to sign : fide m a design~'ci (;vall, ' ~ ~~) sites iron ,~.~ 1tr~N foot. o~ h ed rite ~r~hm ar~~ 300 ~~ '. ,i ~~indo~v, etc? .for dot ~ Placed wi uildzdg .~chu' each bt~itc#ln~ ;~ Sf' b'nec~ sid ~~ tkzin ~ ~ ~t ~-have wa '' 4.~ne {t~ Pro,e n'axt,mturs ode - 3t3Q One ~~ l~ayst Tenass , each.I etin~_rtot ~f Bout a~°v~ wal ~~~ ~ ~ ~~e~~ a~ slgn (~i t , ~'a3's; I~ttt t ~pr~i»or ~ -S: birecti~n.91 ~~ {1} prt j~ctFZ1 r ~ si far~ach ,Ma, ~ sign {6 SF ~11re~unal Sp ~ maximtirir lici~~ ~ a Dir Jorllt`tinor ;f~~t,~ D; gns: ght k'etir~nal ~honal ~ si s~ m t~a:~irniir~z}feet with a D;rcctib ~t~ns: ~irrzurrr hei~t~ ~ ~ a hundred ze sA' ~1ZYinsur~ lei s~~~~ of 3t a s ~~ oeet with a of t-~relve feel f. (1bb~ Kht f ntax;munt or each sign. of` ~ feet ~wi#l~ ~ ni3:.~r delve ~gsrare ~e one htsntirerl {llJO ~-`_-'- __-_ ' one hum- ~ r murr,sizc et for cacl} si > -_~`~ feet fad oath sled (I Ub) ~tuare fin. ~~ ~~ ~.. RECp ~M ENT ONE ~1} _ EN-RATION TAB~ZON~G/,SUP O~~A o1~~ANCE NCE RE ~4U~MENT; ~ ONIlYG OFFICE. QUIREMENTS page 1 -1 DE~~rGN 9 ! 7' W~L ~ SOL ~,I ON - C--~-~ENDA T7O1~r. ~CANNI~rG BO ~. As ~~~`` recorncnended OM~~~4T QN; o~~ !i t~yrtY-hvc~,in~d2 on Page anddet~led by the ~ Pproval At esrinaan nonce their htay '1, ~ applicatinft r ~ of ~~ ~nin ~ °~e~d ~ Sp~e. µ0U8 foNOws: taclin~ as. g b#fieer J' the ial meetiq the f3 'within voted S • g, ~.d tt7~ f~rll ~ ' noted ~ (6) #a T `Th4 aPplr~,rmt r ~ r~ and 1 apl'1~Catron~ the ~mrrtend ~ hreei (3} ~ ~' N'trive~. > f.~,~_ :~~1 Gt.~ 1?~vtd'e~(. tcs ~~ ~~~,~ tehoglts. ~o~ ropos~~ 1'r°~~si cif. r 3..~ ~ ' ' ~'rrc ref ~ All`.: _ ` ~ n `~ p~"kin~ 4fir~ir' ~~~ ether :: ' ' s ~. u par f ~ ~~~~ of she .~11 ~ ~ It~r~ents ~ ; to r~a;'~ '. The . aPplr~arit ~quc5tino~ ~ .~~ is f p~~r, ~ ~ ' ~' #vr ~d t inQd'ii7~retail uses ~ r_'~ ~ ~: s~ce . for ~~' arl~ '' (#) .,' .. ~ nn red ~` ~} ~i ~~c~ e tt) Spy feet hunk ~'~rr~~ ~~,. ~ ' 1 i bES~GN `}° ~~E TI~gTE~SOL~t~O~ ~ .-. ... ? f As outline.. ~~ ~nendecl. $ppr€~v I f° ~~ e ~ (~~ on ~'ag~ . ~ test~irn ~ l'~ t~~ evid~~ At their Ma applic } of ~e ~nin ~ ~ ~ ofl+er Special Y 21, 2008 anon reaclin ~~ ~ bf#rcer ed ~~` the meetin the fallrity~4. & , as ~tltr`r~.th~ frill a ~ ?~cit~ recoed S1x ~6) to ThreeBo~d ~ ;~~.; I~Alcativ mmend f )to i ~ ~11d ~ u ~ the i `Tt'e a~'plrc'a~~t proposed denial of provided to ~~ riote~~s I Desigcl Sol the ? K alts-erla ''~`p~l~/efH~`t~• ~.. 13aa~rd. ution, .7.~ ~~{~4 ~~~ 4~k 4i 11R1fF .r~f~1~I ~`~~} ~~SI~ , . ~~~~~~ I~r~Q,~ r~> r~ g = tlr~ e Cirrzitec~ to Ube ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~y: frve 3 T7~e ~~~~ ` apPlit'ant 1 re~luesting that ?s `huf~~r bre more to ~j(] o TICS #i'otti 75oj the 1 ~ atlo~ved aloe nterstnte to word th~ #~~elaAment isibilr addihanal -~°~ ATTACHMENT ONE (1) -REZONING/SUP ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 1 -20 RECOMMENDATION TABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: ZONING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: DESIGN SOLUTION StafF recanunended .approval` At their May 21, 2008 FOURTEEN as de#ailed by the evidence Special meeting, the Board As outlined on pAge and testitnany offered by the voted Seven (7) to Two (2) forty-six (46) of .:.the Zoning , pfficer' , as `noted' to recommend denial of the application reading as within the full application, the proposed Design Solution follows; ~ . ", and 1. ,: " notebooks The applicant requests provided tt~ d~~ Board. a waiver: frr~rn , SectirJn . l :! That'' ttte buffer around 3.2' of the E.b,~ De~szgn ~ .the 'Clearvi~w single- n~anual rerXuYrutg ftftY ~ family, residential t~~~ t0 one turd SubdiYlSlgn' ~ilt~ (IOD) .fckitY~u~ers ala~rg 'adjoining resiclential- culjrrcerrt :,' : resrd~rrtial ~a'on the north side or propcrties along ~1r'est Ten Raad~ 'shah $uc~harri Rau~d,' ' - remaixt .~ ' as required The': applicant is ' ~ ~~untler Section 3.2 of the , , ro in to reduce .thi;s p . 1~ g . ~ ~. EI~U Design Manual, ~-- ::. bu#Ter to twenty~tve (~~) 2.~ `Tat' the buffer a~ang ~ ~ feet in width..., ... ', ~ floe ~as-tern portion of _ 'the .~' proye~t ~ sha.tl be _ 'reduced to ri~enty-~vs ', . (25 } feat is width,"' ~:'~ Thati the ITC buffer remaitl .unaltered r~xcept, .~ modified runcler the upprv~ed Design Salutign Thirteen 4.' What' ~e huger a(csng the vvestet'tt potion of the prUp~rty sham be reduced tc~ twenty-five (2S) 'feet except where the pmject abuts six {6) prttpcrties cw~ent[y. util%zed #o support singleMfanniiy residences.:: lip this case thc~ buffer shall:. be tiftyr (50) feet in width