Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
I9€ <br /> floor development . The obvious distinction is that <br /> an ',increase in the building "footprint" is allowed <br /> between I-1 and I-2, but the 1-2 district represents <br /> the point at which buildings are directed upward. <br /> The "footprint" remains basically the same for I-2 <br /> and I-3 districts , but further encouragement of <br /> second floor utilization is prompted by the <br /> difference between the FAR and OSR for I-3 districts. <br /> FAR REQUIREMENTS VS . ZONING CRITERIA * <br /> Article, 4.2.20.b) indicates , as one of the criteria for <br /> application of an Existing Industrial (EI ) 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 .a) <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 lend 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 /> advisab,le to allow a greater building coverage in Ei and <br /> I--1 districts . <br /> In contrast , Articles 4.2.22 ( 1-2) 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 /> impacts' 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 ORDINANCE REVISIONS <br /> FLOOR AREA RATIOS <br /> Attached are two sketches which illustrate the existing <br /> (6 .3%) and proposed ( 20 .0%) FAR requirements for EI and <br /> I-1 districts . Under the current ordinance provisions , <br /> approximately 76 percent of a three—acre Lint 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 />