Agenda - 01-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

tY4D . 3 proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would establish dimensional requirements such as lot area, lot width, setbacks, building height, etc. for a proposed new zoning district classification, Rural Bu f C, r- (RB) . Collins' indicated that the information regarding lot sizes in the acje a packet was based on 80, 000 squarer foot lots and should be disr( c :.rded. He said updated information was distributed based on a two acro lot size before the mooting. Collins said data was collected frou the o,_ange County Land Records 02fice indicates that approximately 50% of the ppace?.7 within the proposed Rural Buffer have lot sizes of less than 2 acs. This in 'Lcates that 50% of all parcels within the area would becQxa-- nonconforming if the proposed minimum lot size standard of t!o acres were adopted. These p trdels conatitute only five percent (5%) pf the total acreage. Othr::r. dimensional' requirements that would apply include lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, building height and standards which apply to Planned Developments. The mini um lot width proposed in the RB district would be 200 feet. The proposed front yard setback would be 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed side and rear yard setbacks would require a 30-foot setback. The propo ie:d maximum building height is 25 feet. For Planned Developments, the minimum gross land area required would be 4 acres. A maximum floor area ratio of .04 is proposed and the minimum required open space (all areas not covered buildings) would be 86% of the site. The required livah:i?. ty space ratio would be 80%. The minimum required recreational spy c:e ratio on a lot-by-lot development would be equivalent to .014 . he explained that for any type of multi-family development or non-- residential development, the same minimum lot size would apply. The d11,. i. ;ional requirements for non residential use are identical to those for residential development in this Rural Buffer area. Collins emphasized that any existing one acre lot that existed prior to the time of the adoption of this Ordinance could be built upon pro ded. the owner of that lot did not own other lots with continuous fro: _ c.;:. If a per -,n owes more than three lo -s, the continnou=: frontage ro l : could apply. There are provision._ that would allow three lots with 80% of the lot area and 80% of the lot width required in the Rural Buffer district. If any structure within this proposed Rural Buffer became nonconforming as a result of the application and was destroyed up to 75%, of tha floor area, it could be reconstructed and would not need to meet the minimum lot size or minimum width standards. It would have to comply with front, side and rear yard setback requirements as well as the building height: requirements. 3 . . SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS • a. Section TV--B-1 Lou Scandards To clarify the application of lot standards within the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, it is recommended that the following wording for the first sentence in the first paragraph of Section IV-B-1 read as follows: - "The minimum lot size sfial1 he as required by the Orange County Land Use Plan, Orange County Zoning Ordinance or the Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, whichever is applicable. " Collins noted for the record the receipt of several letters. Thos,.? writing in support of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mr. William Mead, Mr. Dale Hammel:d, and R. R. McGregor Converse. Those writing in opposition of the 2 acre minimum lot size are Mazie Cradle, Surtronics, Inc. , and Mrs. Edna C. Harville.