Agenda - 09-08-2014 - C1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. The following information is offered: The proposed zoning overlay districts are consistent with the recommendations made in the adopted Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning/ documents /EflandPlanADOPTED06270g.pdo which called for design standards in the "core area" of Efland. The primary purpose of the overlay districts is to provide for a more village and urban style of development in an area of the county served, or intended to be served, by public.water and sewer systems. The affected area is also designated as a Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node ( CITAN) on the County's Future Land Use Map. It is pertinent to note that some of the zoning districts allowed in a CITAN land use classification allow residential uses "by right" (e.g., residential uses, including single family residential, are allowed in the County's commercial zoning districts). The proposed overlay districts requirements have been written so that the requirements will not pertain to existing or new single - family detached residential uses. New non - single- family residential uses (e.g., duplexes, multi - family) and new non - residential uses proposed in the overlay districts will be required to conform to the requirements of the overlay districts. Existing uses are not required to come into conformance with the new requirements as long as they continue to operate in the manner in which they are currently operating. The new requirements pertain to new development or substantially modified existing development. Because County development regulations pertain primarily to areas that are not intended to be served by public and water systems, which tends to result in larger lot sizes and lower density, some of the County's regulations are not suitable for areas intended to have denser or.,more intensive development on smaller lots. For example, some of the land use buffer requirement in Section 6.8 of the UDO would be infeasible to meet on a parcel of property that is less than 100 feet in width and has an area measurement typically referred to in square feet rather than in acres. However, in areas of the county slated for denser development than the outlying rural areas, smaller sized lots with buildings closer together is to be expected. Therefore, development regulations must be modified to reflect these physical differences while continuing to strive for quality development. The proposed overlay districts endeavor to encourage development while ensuring quality. Development will still be required to meet the impervious surface limitations contained in Section 4.2 of the UDO. Because the impervious surface limitations stem from State statutes /rules, modifications to the allowable percentages are not permitted except as allowed in Section 4.2.8. The primary reason the former proposal was not adopted was disagreement over whether sidewalks (publicly owned /maintained) and /or privately owned /maintained connecting walkways would be required in the Efland Village Overlay District. More information about this topic is available in the Amendment Form for the former project, viewable at: http:// www. orangecountync .gov /occlerks /130205.pdf. The link to the October 2011 work session materials where the BOCC discussed and gave direction on 2