Agenda - 04-21-1998 - 8h - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. o • © ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 .~ This item is for consideration of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum floor area allowed in existing non- residential uses permitted in the AR, RB, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R - 4 zoning districts. Institutional uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of worship are permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning Department. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor area allowed for non-residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1, and R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent, the standard in the R-3 district. Since that time, the Board of Adjustment has reviewed at least three requests for variances from the standards in Article 5.1.2 as applied to churches and schools. Several existing institutional uses are at or approaching the current 8.8 percent limit on floor area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed' amendment would increase the maximum floor area allowed for non-residential uses legally existing as of S/6/98 in the RB, AR, R-1, R- 2, R-3, and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in Planned Developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The proposed standard is equal to the current limit on floor area in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor azea of existing facilities. The amendment was presented for citizen comment at the public hearing held on February 23, 1998. A representative of Ebenezer Baptist Church spoke in favor of the amendment. There were no questions or comments from the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners. The item was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 6, 1998. The Planning Staffrecommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Schedule ofNon-residential Development. Barrows asked if there were requests just based on the possibility of expansion rather than on a particular need. Cameron responded that many times churches do have plans for expansion but must wait on funding. They also may not be aware of future needs for expansion. She noted also that some of the older schools have reached maximum capacity and have requested variances in order to expand. Katy asked what the increase to 8.8 percent in 1989 was based on. Cameron responded that the ratios did not change, they just moved up to the next highest density. Katz asked about the basis for the floor area limit and whether it relates to impervious surface. Cameron responded that it does not always relate to the impervious surface since there may be more than one floor. She continued that since she was not with Orange County when the ratios were established, she could not say how the original calculations wen established. Katz suggested that this be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee for determination whether there should be a requirement or standard in the ordinance regarding floor area ratio. Cameron asked if this could be tied to one of the goals for future consideration. Members agreed.