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