Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> 13 <br /> 5 <br /> create a Stoney Creek Basin Overlay Zoning District;and <br /> modify Flexible Development provisions in the Subdivision <br /> Regulations as applied to the District to provide consistency between <br /> the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. <br /> The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on <br /> February 24, 1997. Planning staff indicated it had not been possible to <br /> translate some of the Planning Group's recommendations related to the <br /> Flexible Development Village Option into ordinance language due to a <br /> lack of specificity. Public comment was limited to one planning group <br /> member who spoke in favor of the proposed amendments,but asked if <br /> it might be possible to re-visit the Village Option recommendations to <br /> see if greater specificity was possible. <br /> A meeting was held in the Planning Conference Room on April 7 to <br /> review the following Village Option recommendations developed by <br /> the Planning Group at meetings on August 22 and September 19, 1996: <br /> 1. Limit Village Proper to higher and intermediate intensity areas; <br /> 2. Commercial cannot be visible from road; <br /> 3. Village Green must be surrounded on four sides by Village Proper; <br /> 4. Village Proper shall be surrounded on four sides by the Village <br /> Conservancy; <br /> 5. Buildings should be permitted to front to pedestrian access with <br /> streets/alleys in rear; <br /> 6. Lower the maximum Village Proper from 100 acres to 50 acres; <br /> 7. Increase the required open space to 50%. <br /> Only four Planning Group members were in attendance,but they were <br /> all residents of the area who had been active in the process from the <br /> beginning. They also represented a broad cross section of landowner <br /> opinion regarding the small area plan and implementation strategies. <br /> Staff pointed out that items l and 6 had been included in the proposed <br /> plan and ordinance amendments presented at public hearing. Upon <br /> further discussion,it was group consensus that items 2,3,4,and 5 were <br /> either addressed adequately by the existing Flexible Development <br /> standards or that the incorporation into ordinance requirements might <br /> otherwise limit the ability to incorporate certain desirable features,e.g., <br /> scenic views,in a village development. There was some <br /> misunderstanding regarding the status of item 7 and staff pointed out <br /> that it had not been included in the public hearing package due to a lack <br /> of specificity as previously mentioned. Some disappointment was <br /> expressed,but group consenus was to stay with the Village Option <br /> recommendations as presented at public hearing and not recommend any <br /> changes. <br /> The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to <br /> the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Atlas,Zoning <br /> Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. <br /> Barrows asked the difference between higher density and intermediate <br /> density as it applies to the location of bonus units. Bell responded <br /> noting that the key word was intensity rather than density with the <br /> difference being that density applies to zoning and refers to the number <br />