Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br />DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes <br />1 o Dwelling; Two-Family <br />2 <br />3 Changes to Article 10 <br />4 - Modifications to Definitions <br />5 o Recreation Space Ratio (RSR) <br />6 o Open Space Ratio (OSR) <br />7 - Revises incorrect language to be consistent with other sections of UDO and actual practice <br />8 - Applicable to all zoning districts <br />9 <br />10 Whv O/I? What's Next? <br />11 - The Office/Institutional (O/I) .Zoning District is to be utilized in Land Uses where urban <br />12 services are or could be available; in areas targeted for economic development <br />13 - The O/I Zoning District is not currently in use within the County <br />14 - Additional evaluation of all County zoning districts expected; these proposed amendments <br />15 may be the first of many <br />16 <br />17 Recommendation <br />18 - Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) <br />19 - Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the <br />20 proposed amendments <br />21 - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to <br />22 the BOCC in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting <br />23 - Adjourn the _public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning <br />24 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments <br />25 <br />26 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the chart on page 373, the dimensional standard, <br />27 and asked what the four municipalities do the same arcumstances. <br />28 Craig Benedict said- that he would do some research on this.. <br />29 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 368 and Section 3.4, the second paragraph, <br />30 and read, "As stated in the definitions of these land use categories, these types of land uses are to be <br />31 located near major transportation routes and are intended for more intense non-residential and <br />32 mixed-use development. Urban services, such as water and wastewater services, have been or are <br />33 expected to be provided to these areas." Also, on page 374, she asked why #10 was deleted that <br />34 has to do with road classification. She thinks there should be some kind of mention of the direct <br />35 access to major transportation routes. <br />36 Craig Benedict said that presently, the County does not have an adopted commercial street <br />37 classification plan, so they thought that if this provision was included, it would be referencing an <br />38 unadopted plan. He would like to bring back a functional classification plan. <br />