Agenda - 04-05-2011 - 9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a~~}~ ;' ~~o~ . ~~' ~~. I ;~a. ``'pr ~;~?i~ x3'i ,~b> s e~ ti ~ All of these ideas cannot be considered or pursued at once. Since both the Comprehensive Plan and this Implementation Bridge offer numerous ideas, Orange County needs a framework that gill allow the County to take action in a dynamic, orderly, and timely fashion. orange County has a strong culture and tradition of carefully and purposefully examining public policy proposals, Accordingly, this Implementation Bridge concludes with suggestions for priorities and phasing for next steps. All the ideas should be considered; but since all cannot be considered simultaneously in ineffective andtime-~efficientmanner, identification of priority topics would be useful. There are two categories of topics to highlight: (1) Issues that repeatedly were raised in public comments about Orange County's development regulations; and (2) Issues that are particularly compelling ortime-sensitive. It would be reasonable to construct a phased approach to pursuing amendments to the new UDC, once it is adopted, based upon the two priority categories described above. A preliminary list of prioritytopicsfollows, and it would be reasonable to schedule work and consideration of these as amendments to the new UD4 as soon as possible following adoption. Consideration of the balance of issues that have been raised should take place as time and workloads permit, 1. Issues Repeatedly Raised During Consideration of the UDO Ad'ust Pro osed Conditional Districts: The most common issue brought forward during Board and citizen comments, and by the jurisdictions of Carrboro and Chapel {ill, was concern about potential widespread use of Conditional Districts throughout the rural portions of Orange County. Concerns were both about lack of restrictions on locations for use of these districts, and about Planned Development language in the existing Zoning Ordinance that was not carried over explicitly into the new UDC. Orange County staff and Planning Board each responded to these concerns by proposing adjustments to the UDQ to be included prior to final adoption, The Planning Board's recommendation for approval of the UDC includes these adjustments. 1f the Board of commissioners n~a~es these recommended adjustments in the UDO that is enacted, the issue is addressed. If the Board of Commissioners decides that this issue needs f urther study and adapts the UL~Q without these adjustments, consideration of the adjustments should lead the list of next steps.