Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• 000200 I <br /> floor development. The obvious distinction is that <br /> ab increase in the building "footprint" is allowed <br /> between I-1 and 1-2, but the 1-2 district represents <br /> the point at which buildings are directed upward. <br /> The "footprint" remains basically the same for 1-2 <br /> and 1-3 districts, but further encouragement of <br /> second floor utilization is prompted by the <br /> difference between the FAR and OSR for 1-3 districts. <br /> FAR REQUIREMENTS VS. ZONING CRITERIA <br /> Article 4.2.20.63 indicates, as one of the criteria for <br /> application of an Existing Industrial (E1) district <br /> designation, that the use will not have adverse impacts • <br /> beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. A <br /> similar provision is also contained in Article 4.2.21 .0 <br /> for the Light Industrial (I-1 ) district . Article 4.3, <br /> Permitted Use Table, also indicates that manufacturing <br /> and processing operations where no adverse impacts occur <br /> beyond the immediate space occupied by the building are <br /> permitted in the EI and I-1 zoning districts. <br /> Such provisions seem to run counter to the FAR where <br /> significant amounts of additional Land are being required <br /> via a very Limited Floor Area Ratio (6.3%) . If adverse <br /> impacts are confined to the building space, it would seem <br /> advisable to allow a greater building coverage in Ei and <br /> I-1 dilstricts . <br /> In contrast, Articles 4.2.22 (I-2) and 4.2.23 (I-3) state <br /> that performance- standards will be used to insure the <br /> absence of adverse impacts beyond the lot (I-2) or zoning <br /> district (I-3) boundaries. Article 4.3, Permitted Use <br /> Table, contains similar wording. <br /> The provisions of 4.2.22 and 4.2.23 are also at odds with <br /> the apparent intent of the LUI system. If adverse <br /> impact e may be anticipated at the Lot or zoning district <br /> boundaries, it would seem that greater lot area <br /> requirements via a more restrictive FAR or OSR would <br /> apply. This would indirectly provide more of an open <br /> space buffer to mitigate adverse impacts. <br /> PROPOSED ORDINI‘NCE REVISIONS <br /> FLOOR AREA RATIOS <br /> Attached are two sketches which illustrate the existing <br /> (6.3%) land proposed (20.0%) FAR requirements for EI and <br /> /—1 districts. Under the current ordinance provisions, <br /> approximately 76 percent of a three—acre Lot would remain <br /> in landscape/yard area . Under the proposed amendment, 62 <br /> percent would remain . <br /> A figure of 20.0 percent was selected as a base or <br />