Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
�=ozr � r Z <br /> d�fJ- �Zol�-U3 / � �► <br /> C. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text— Dimensional and Ratio <br /> Standards (UDO/Zoning 2012-11) <br /> Perdita Holtz, Planner with Orange County Planning Department, said this item was to consider <br /> adopting of UDO text amendments that would amend some of the dimensional and ratio standards in <br /> certain zoning districts applicable in commercial transition activity nodes and commercial industrial <br /> transition activity nodes. These new ratios would allow for greater intensity of development in areas of the <br /> county that are to be served by water and sewer systems or already are served in certain circumstances. <br /> These amendments were heard at the May 29th quarterly public hearing and the Planning Board considered <br /> its recommendation at the Planning Board's July 11th meeting. The Planning Board unanimously <br /> recommended the BOCC adopt the amendments. The Manager's recommendation tonight is for the BOCC <br /> to receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval, to close the public hearing, and to decide <br /> accordingly. If BOCC adopts the amendments, the ordinance that would do so is attached in the Board's <br /> packets under Attachment 2. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said he had questions regarding local commercial and neighborhood <br /> commercial. He referenced page 3-20 and 3-22 and said it noted the setbacks adjacent to residentially <br /> zoned land shall be equal to the required side or rear setbacks in the adjacent residential district. He does <br /> not know what those are but for local commercial, which is typically a neighborhood or rural area, and <br /> where they're increasing the height of the building, a 35 foot high building is as tall as the tree line. He is <br /> concerned if it is at the back of a property adjoining residences it will be like a wall that blocks them off from <br /> whatever they have in their neighborhood that they may have wanted to be part of. <br /> Ms. Holtz stated she did not have all the setback requirements for all the residential zoning districts <br /> with her but most are at least 20 feet. There are not many side and/or rear setback requirements in <br /> residential zoning more than that. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said he would not oppose this but suggested they have some drawing <br /> demonstrating what a 35 foot high building would look like against a 20 foot setback with a normal <br /> residence so they can get an idea of what the impact would be. Ms. Holtz said they could provide that. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to understand the rationale. When they went through the <br /> first ones like I-C-1 and NC-2 and CC-3, looking at the column approximately halfway down, they keep a <br /> distinction between RCU and NRCU. However, when they get to GC4, it appears they get rid of the NRCU. <br /> She understands this was done because it's no longer necessary to differentiate between those categories <br /> and it is okay to have one number. Ms. Holtz referred the Board to the zoning matrix in the comprehensive <br /> plan on page 30 of their packets. She said I-C-1 and NC-2 zoning districts are allowed in a rural community <br /> and rural community activity node whereas GC-3 and CC-4 are not. Therefore, these are treated differently <br /> in the dimensional standards. Commissioner Gordon thanked her for the clarification. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger, to close the <br /> public hearing and adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 2 which authorizes the text amendments. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />