Agenda - 02-07-2012 - 7e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

P] Each change has been color -coded as either "housekeeping," minor, or substantive (see further explanation in Attachment 2). Section 2 of Attachment 1 contains an analysis of the proposed changes. Additionally, each change has been footnoted to provide a brief explanation of the rationale or reason behind the change. Future amendments to the UDO may be desired to further encourage non - residential development in designated growth areas, but this amendment packet provides a substantial first step, especially for the EDDs. Public Hearing: The proposed UDO text amendments were heard at the November 21, 2011 joint public hearing. No members of the public spoke on the proposed amendments. BOCC members made the following comments and staff has provided a brief response to the comments as necessary: 1. There was a question about architectural design controls and how they would apply if the requirement for a Class A Special Use Permit is removed as proposed for Sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6. Staff response: Staff addressed the question at the hearing and conducted further research after the hearing. Staff is proposing that existing 6.5.1 (Architectural Design Standards for the Economic Development Districts) be amended to apply to all of Nodes that are subject to the proposed changes in Sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6. Please see Attachment 2 for the modified Section 6.5.1 and the accompanying footnotes. 2. Using decibel levels is not a very effective way to measure noise and allowable sound levels should not be increased. Staff response: Current County regulations use decibels levels as the means of measuring sound. If this measure is to be changed, the BOCC should consider directing staff to work on a comprehensive overhaul of relevant regulations. Staff is suggesting an increase in allowable sound levels in Economic Development, Commercial, Industrial, and Conditional zoning districts as the existing allowable levels are somewhat low. The maximum proposed sound level of 75 decibels (see Attachment 5 for examples of comparable sounds) is applicable during daytime hours only to non - residential uses locating next to Industrial uses. 3. In Section 6.6.2(G) — Architectural Design Standards for the Efland- Cheeks Overlay District, subsection (g) could allow things like air conditioning units to be visible from adjacent roadways in the case of corner lots. Staff response: This is existing language that is only being moved from one section of the UDO to a different section and no changes have been suggested to the language. However, Section 6.8.9 (Screening) of the UDO requires screening of a variety of items, including the mechanical equipment of non - residential development. 4. Please provide information on the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer break that was allowed as part of the Buckhorn Village project. Staff response: The language from the Class A Special Use permit is in Attachment 6. 5. In the Public Interest District (PID) and (Agricultural Service) AS zoning district charts, why are specific development standards #6 and #7 (PID) and #9 and #10 (AS) being deleted?