Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
61 <br /> Planner Susan Smith summarized the proposed zoning ordinance <br /> text amendments as identified in the agenda as items 5g through 51. <br /> These amendments are in response to the concerns raised during the <br /> last year regarding mobile homes and mobile home parks. <br /> NO COMMENTS <br /> M. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - PEDESTRIAN AND <br /> LANDSCAPE AREA RATIOS <br /> n. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - PEDESTRIAN/LANDSCAPE RATIO <br /> With reference to items 5m and 5n, Ms. Smith indicated that the <br /> ordinance currently provides for pedestrian and landscape ratios to be <br /> applied to floor area. Application of all other ratios listed in the <br /> Land Use Intensity table is determined on the basis of gross land <br /> area. The proposed amendment would apply minimum pedestrian access and <br /> landscaped area requirements in non-residential developments to gross <br /> land area. <br /> Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz made reference to the table <br /> illustrating the application of the current and proposed landscape/- <br /> pedestrian ratios and asked how the figures were determined in column <br /> A and what the figures represented. <br /> Smith noted that Column A represents the resulting <br /> landscape/pedestrian area derived from applying the ratio specified in <br /> the current ordinance to the maximum floor area allowed in a district. <br /> The second column represents the resulting area derived from applying <br /> the proposed ratio to the gross land area. The proposed ratios were <br /> determined on the basis of specifying 25% of the total open space as <br /> landscaped area. <br /> NO COMMENTS <br /> t�. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ZONING DISTRICT <br /> APPLICATION CRITERIA <br /> Cl. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS <br /> With reference to items 5p, and 5q of the agenda, Susan <br /> Smith noted the amendments would specifically delete from <br /> the zoning district application criteria the references to <br /> specific townships and joint planning areas. The amendments <br /> further exempt those uses permitted on a special use permit <br /> basis or zoned Existing Commercial-V from inclusion in the <br /> calculation of maximum acreage requirements specified for <br /> the LC- 1, NC-2 and CC-3 zoning districts within a given <br /> activity node. <br /> Planning Board member Steve Kizer commented that one of the <br /> reasons for not putting GC-4 in all the townships is that, for <br /> example, in Bingham Township there are not appropriate areas for GC-4 <br /> districts and uses. This amendment has some significant impacts on <br /> what will be set out for the other townships. He voiced opposition to <br /> the EC-5 exemption in calculating the amount of commercial land in a <br /> specific area. The design criteria describe a local commercial node <br /> intended for uses equivalent to a "Mom and Pop" store or a local <br /> service station. The problem with EC-5 is that, as was done in some <br /> areas, certain nodes were designated which include the EC-5 <br /> designation to try to take into account the fact that the existing <br /> businesses were already there. Some of these businesses can be quite <br /> large and, by the time you add those and if you raise the maximum <br /> again for LC-1, you have eighteen acres plus whatever was already <br /> there and the node is no longer a small commercial node in a rural <br /> area. By doing this, the intent of the nodes is changed. To not <br />