Minutes 08-21-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

funds they get off of this particular application. Chapel Hill Transit has partnered with Triangle Transit and the Chapel Hill to Hillsborough route is still governed by Triangle Transit. Mr. Terry requested they open a Public Hearing to receive comments, close the Public Hearing, and then approve the application, have the Chair and Manager be able to sign the Certified Statement of Participation, and amend the budget in the amount of$12,713. Commissioner Gordon said it is important to note that Triangle Transit and Chapel Hill Transit are partnering on the commuter routes between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough in the morning and evening. They are some of the most productive routes of all the Triangle Transit routes so they're very successful. There were no public comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger, to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger, to approve the application for Rural Operating Assistance Program totaling $193,662 for fiscal 2012/2013; authorize the Chair and County Manager to sign the Certified Statement of Participation; and direct Staff to bring back an amendment to the OPT Budget for the receipt of the additional ROAP fund of$12,713.00. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text— Dimensional and Ratio Standards (UDO/Zoninq 2012-11) Perdita Holtz, Planner with Orange County Planning Department, said this item was to consider adopting of UDO text amendments that would amend some of the dimensional and ratio standards in certain zoning districts applicable in commercial transition activity nodes and commercial industrial transition activity nodes. These new ratios would allow for greater intensity of development in areas of the county that are to be served by water and sewer systems or already are served in certain circumstances. These amendments were heard at the May 29th quarterly public hearing and the Planning Board considered its recommendation at the Planning Board's July 11th meeting. The Planning Board unanimously recommended the BOCC adopt the amendments. The Manager's recommendation tonight is for the BOCC to receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval, to close the public hearing, and to decide accordingly. If BOCC adopts the amendments, the ordinance that would do so is attached in the Board's packets under Attachment 2. There were no public comments. Commissioner Jacobs said he had questions regarding local commercial and neighborhood commercial. He referenced page 3-20 and 3-22 and said it noted the setbacks adjacent to residentially zoned land shall be equal to the required side or rear setbacks in the adjacent residential district. He does not know what those are but for local commercial, which is typically a neighborhood or rural area, and where they're increasing the height of the building, a 35 foot high building is as tall as the tree line. He is concerned if it is at the back of a property adjoining residences it will be like a wall that blocks them off from whatever they have in their neighborhood that they may have wanted to be part of. Ms. Holtz stated she did not have all the setback requirements for all the residential zoning districts with her but most are at least 20 feet. There are not many side and/or rear setback requirements in residential zoning more than that. Commissioner Jacobs said he would not oppose this but suggested they have some drawing demonstrating what a 35 foot high building would look like against a 20 foot setback with a normal residence so they can get an idea of what the impact would be. Ms. Holtz said they could provide that. Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to understand the rationale. When they went through the first ones like LC-1 and NC-2 and CC-3, looking at the column approximately halfway down, they keep a distinction between RCU and NRCU. However, when they get to GC4, it appears they get rid of the NRCU. She understands this was done because it's no longer necessary to differentiate between those categories and it is okay to have one number. Ms. Holtz referred the Board to the zoning matrix in the comprehensive plan on page 30 of their packets. She said LC-1 and NC-2 zoning districts are allowed in