Agenda - 02-05-2013 - 6b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Staff Response: The UDO has requirements for "Livability Space" (pertaining to residential projects) and for "Pedestrian /Landscape Space" (pertaining to non - residential projects) (see Section 6.3). The definitions for these two terms (Article 10 of the UDO) include counting walkways as part of the required ratio. The exact ratio required is dependent on the zoning district (see charts in Article 3). Projects in the Efland Village Overlay District would have to conform to the ratio requirements; however, it would be possible to meet the required ratio without installing walkways. The Planning Board was asked by staff to make a specific recommendation on this point at its December 5, 2012 meeting. The Planning Board believes that providing pedestrian systems (and other modes of transportation) is very important, especially in denser areas of the county, and not only in larger projects. The Planning Board voted unanimously to direct staff to include language to require privately - owned, connecting walkways in the Efland Village Overlay District area and to circulate the proposal via e-mail for any comments. Staff has done so and the proposed text in Attachment 3 contains the additions in green text. The reason the Planning Board voted to require privately -owned connecting walkways is because county governments in North Carolina have limited ability to fund and maintain sidewalks (see materials in October 2011 work session link in Section B.1 of this form). Staff is not recommending that the Planning Board's recommendation be adopted due to the reasons outlined in the abstract. Instead, staff has included language in Attachment 2 that will require internal pedestrian systems on multi - family and larger non - residential projects in the Efland Village overlay district. Additionally, staff recommends the County continue to study and look for ways connecting pedestrian systems can be provided outside of municipal areas. 6. The Planning Board member who also serves on the EMSAP Implementation Focus Group and was a member of the original EMSAP planning group confirmed the Group's desire to not have fast food type of restaurants north of the railroad tracks and to have some architectural controls on projects south of the railroad tracks. 7. A Planning Board member asked about allowing 15% of parking in the "front yard" and asked if this allows parking on grass. Staff Response: Staff clarified at the public hearing that this means in a designated parking area that conforms to the requirements of the UDO for parking (Section 6.9) and that the UDO refers to the required setback as a "yard," which may not be the same way a layperson thinks of their front yard. 8. A BOCC member asked about non - conforming properties and how this action affects non - conforming properties. 0 10