HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-21-2011 - 7dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 21, 2011
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 - d
SUBJECT: Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) -Office /Institutional
(O/I) Zoning District and Other Related Sections
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Land Use and Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) Amendment Outline Form
(UDO/ZONING 2011-01)
2. UDO Text Amendments -Ordinance of
Approval
3. Memorandum Outlining Relevant Standards of
Municipalities
4. Draft Minutes -May 23, 2011 QPH
5. Draft Minutes -June 1, 2011 Planning Board
Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2592
Meeting
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on Planning Director-initiated amendments to certain sections of the Unified
Development Ordinance related to the Office /Institutional (O/I) zoning district and other related
sections. Specifically, the following sections of the Unified Development Ordinance text are
proposed for amendment:
• Section 3.4 -General Commercial Districts (Office /Institutional)
• Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses (OI District only)
• Article 10 (Definitions) - `Open Space Ratio' and 'Recreation Space Ratio'
BACKGROUND: The proposed UDO text amendments were heard at the May 23, 2011
Quarterly Public Hearing. The form in Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis
regarding this County-initiated UDO text amendment.
Public Hearing: No members of the public spoke on the proposed UDO text amendments.
BOCC members, however, made note of the revised language in the 'Purpose' section of the
Office/Institutional (O/I) Zoning District Chart and the tie to the language within the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the BOCC asked for information on the standards applied to
similar zoning districts within the four municipalities in Orange County. Staff researched the
municipalities' standards for similar zoning districts, as requested, and the findings are included
in Attachment 3. The draft minutes for the May 23, 2011 QPH are provided in Attachment 4.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
UDO text amendments based on the following:
A. The UDO text amendments are reasonably necessary to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare and to achieve the purposes of the adopted
Comprehensive plan or part thereof; and
B. The UDO text amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 2 contains the proposed Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments.
Planninct Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed UDO text
amendments at the June 1, 2011 meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed UDO text amendments as included in Attachment 2.
The DRAFT minutes for the June 1, 2011 Planning Board meeting are provided in Attachment 5.
Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified
Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in
writing to the Planning Board prior to the Planning Board's recommendation to the BOCC.
Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of
presenting information also submitted in writing. Section 2.8.9(8) of the UDO requires that the
BOCC consider all relevant evidence presented at the public hearing and any submitted written
evidence that was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. The public
hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. No written comments were
received prior to the June 1, 2011 Planning Board meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for the legal .advertisement were included in the FY2010-11
Budget. Existing Planning staff is coordinating the processing of the amendments and
associated costs are included in the departmental staffing budget.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the BOCC:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation of approval;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within
Attachment 2.
3
Attachment 1
LAND USE AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO/ZONING 2011-01
A. AMEN DMENTTOPIC -VARIOUS CATEGORIES
1. Land Use and/or Zoning (Map and/or Text)
1.a Land Use Text
1.b Land Use Map From:
To:
1.c Zoning Text Office/Institutional (OI) Laneuaee and Standards Chanee
1.d Zoning Map From: To:
2. UDO Development Standards X
3. UDO Development Approval Processes
1. UDO MinorText Changes X
B. RATIONALE
• Purpose/Mission
To review Planning Director initiated amendments to certain sections of the Unified
Development Ordinance related to the Office /Institutional (OI) zoning district and
other related sections. Specifically, the following sections of the Unified
Development Ordinance text are proposed-for amendment:
• Section 3.4 -General Commercial Districts (Office /Institutional)
• Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses (OI District only)
• Article 10 (Definitions)-'Open Space Ratio'-and 'Recreation Space Ratio'
Following adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) on April 5, 2011,
Planning staff began review of existing regulations and their application to future
development proposals. It was determined that several of the standards applicable
to many of the current zoning districts overlapped, and in some instances were
onerous and limited development potential in districts intended for economic
development.. In addition, there are inconsistencies in terminology within the UDO,
as well as between the UDO and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The- proposed
amendments to the UDO are intended- to create more reasonable and effective
development standards for the Office/Institutional (O/I) zoning district, as well as fix
the inconsistencies in the text.
• Analvsis
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
Page 1 of 7
4
Commissioners'. For analyzing the proposed UDO text amendments, the following
information is offered:
^ Section 3.4 General Commercial Districts
The proposed amendments to Section 3.4 for the Office/Institutional (O/I) zoning district
are intended to provide more reasonable and effective standards of development,
specifically with regard to the linked land use classifications where the zoning district is
permitted, the intensity of development expected in those land use classifications, and
the potential availability of urban services.
In accordance with the Land Use and Zoning Matrix contained within the adopted 2030
Comprehensive Plan, the O/I zoning district is permitted within the Commercial
Transition Activity Node and the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node land use categories.
As stated in the definitions of these land use categories, these types of land uses are to
be located near major transportation routes and are intended for more intense non-
residential and mixed-use development. Urban services, such as water and wastewater
services, have been or are expected to be provided to these areas.. The proposed
changes to Section 3.4 for the Office/institutional zoning district are consistent with the
corresponding land use classifications. The modification to the purpose of the district as
well as the increased floor area ratio (FAR); the modified open space ratio (OSR), and the
amended pedestrian landscape ratio (PLR)- are more in keeping with- the intent of the
corresponding land uses and will permit more intense development in areas designated
for economic development. In addition, the acreage limitation and access requirements
proposed for deletion unnecessarily limit the application of this zoning district within the
land use classifications it is linked to.
^ Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses
The proposed additions and deletions to the uses permitted within the O/I zoning district
are consistent with the purpose of the zoning district and are intended to allow an
appropriate mix of uses suitable in the- areas of the county designated for more intense
development (i.e. the Commercial Transition Activity Nodes and Commercial-Industrial
Transition Activity Nodes) where the O/I zoning district can be applied.. Class 2 and Class
3 Office & Personal Services are proposed to be added as permitted uses, as well as
Assembly and Packaging Operations and Postal & Parcel Delivery Services. Lower
intensity residential uses not necessarily compatible with potential non-residential
operations are proposed for deletion as "permitted by right" within the zoning district
while 'Dwelling; Multiple Family' is proposed to remain as a permitted use, for mixed-use
application.
^ Article 10 Definitions
When evaluating the development standards for the O/I zoning district, staff discovered
inconsistencies between the definitions of 'Open Space Ratio' and 'Recreation Space
Ratio' included in Article 10 of the UDO and how those ratio standards are actually
applied, per Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.5. The definitions are incorrect. The proposed
amendments to Article 10 correct those definitions, making them consistent with the
standards in Article 6 and actual practice.
• Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Page 2 of 7
5
Below is a list of key issues identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that the
proposed amendments to the UDO address specifically, as well as several supporting
Goals and Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposed
amendments to the UDO are consistent with a proposed amendment to Chapter 5:
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to clarify language
as it pertains to economic development and mixed uses presently allowed within the
existing Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) land use category.
Chapter 3• Economic Development Element
Section 3.2 -KEY ISSUES
^ The need to diversify the County's tax base from one primarily composed of
residential property (86.4 in 2005) to a more balanced tax base that includes a
diversity of businesses and services.
^ Ensuring that land and public services are in-place to support desired economic
development.
^ Overcoming the perception that Orange County is not a business friendly
community.
^ Providing employment opportunities for the underemployed, unemployed
and the aging workforce.
Section 3.6 -OBJECTIVES
^ Objective ED-1.5:
Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local
businesses, and mitigate these barriers.
^ Objective ED-2.1:
Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by
water and sewer. (See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and
Wastewater Objective WW-5.)
Chapter 5: Land Use Element
Section 5.6 -GOALS
^ Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and
designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities
sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy
consistent-with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives.
^ Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable
growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and
a high quality of life.
^ Land Use Goal 3: A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a
program and pattern that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural
character, minimizes land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and
balanced transportation system.
^ Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques
and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all
Comprehensive Plan goals.
Page 3 of 7
6
Section 5.7 -OBJECTIVES
^ Objective LU-1.1:
Coordinate the location of higher intensity /high density residential and
non-residential development with existing or planned locations of
public transportation, commercial and community. services, and
adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed
Internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with
protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning
districts where adequate public services are available. (See also
Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water
and Wastewater Objective WW-2.)
^ Objective LU-3.1:
Discourage urban sprawl, encourage a separation of urban and rural
land uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary
community facilities and services exist through periodic updates to the
Land Use Plan. (See also Economic Development Objective ED-2.8.)
^ Objective LU-3.9:
Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial
and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more
pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be
applied in areas where public services exist or are planned for in the
future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on
the Land Use Plan map.
^ Objective LU-4.2:
Review and amend the Orange County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances to identify and eliminate existing regulatory impediments to
objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Such objectives
include but are not limited to the development of energy efficient
buildings within the County, water efficiency standards for new
development, and development of affordable housing. (See also
Housing Objective H-4.4 and Solid Waste Objective SW-4.)
• New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
C.1 TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. Setting of a Quarterly Public Hearing date and remaining on target
May 23, 2011
b. BOCC updates/checkpoints
May 3, 2011- Approval of Legal Ad; May 17, 2011- BOCC approval to proceed
Page 4 of 7
7
C.~ PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange
County ordinance requirements.
a. Planning Board Review
June 1, 2011
b. Advisory Board Input
c. Local Government Invitation
d. Outreach
d.1 General Public
Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange
County ordinance requirements
d.2 Small Area Plan Workgroup
Will send email to Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation
Focus Groin (EMSAP IFG)
C.3 FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the legal advertisement were included in the FY10-11 Budget. The total
cost of the legal advertisements was $2012.00; cost per agenda item was $287.00.
Existing Planning-.staff is coordinating the processing of the amendments and
associated costs are included in the departmental staffing budget.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
• While the amendments proposed at this time deal with the development standards for the
O/I zoning district only, staff intends to eventually address the standards for all non-
residential and residential zoning districts linked to the urbanizing transition areas designated
on the County's Land Use Element Map that are slated for water and sewer services.
• Current standards do not permit a level of development intended in the Commercial and
Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes.
• Orange County is making significant investments in infrastructure within many of the County
Transition Areas. In order to maximize the County's investments, development standards
need to provide for more intense development with the availability of water and sewer
services.
Page 5 of 7
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Ce-o A++~rhmcnt 7
Page 6 of 7
AMENDMENT SCHEDULE
Process 2011
Task j f m a m j j a s o n d
Task 1
1. Ado tion of Process X
2. Qtr. Public Hearin X
3. Plannin Board Review X
4. BOCC Ado taon Consideration X
Ordinance #: 2 011- 0 2 3
Attachment 2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
10
WHEREAS, a review of the adopted Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) found
inconsistencies in terminology within the UDO, as well as between the UDO and the 2030
Comprehensive Plan that needed to be corrected ,and
WHEREAS, it was determined that several of the development standards applicable
to the O/I zoning districts were onerous and limited development potential in districts
intended for economic development, and
WHEREAS, the County intends to develop more reasonable and effective
development standards for the Office/Institutional (O/I) zoning district, and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
have been deemed complete, and _
WHEREAS, the County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably
necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare -and to achieve .the
purposes of the adapted Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-341 and Section 1..1.7
of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
has found the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the goals and policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as follows:
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
11
Section 1. Amend Section 3.4 `General Commercial Districts: O/f' to read as follows:
RED =Proposed Text
~eag# =Deleted Text
~ • ~ ~ ~ -• ~
. ~ ~~ ~
Lot Size, min., per R [1] None
• • ' dwelling unit or use NR
(square feet) ,
NR-CU 5,000
• `?'E"`'a ;;.~.,e~~ ~~ .. -
' ~ ~ ~rR~°~. ::None
~~
"L"ot WidthE min ~ (feet) ~ ~ NR'CU ~
The
ur
f the Offic
titutional
O/I) District is t
rovide locations
ose
/In _
p
p
(
o
o p
e
s
for medium and high intensity office, service, aadinstitutional, and R, None
residential land uses in areas where urban services are available or are NR - CU
to be made available as part of the development process. This district is Front Setback from
intended to provide for employment centers near transportation routes. ROW, min. (feet) NR 25
is "~ ., ; R~• ~, None.
Side Setback, min
This-district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: (feet) ~ NR 10 [2]
.
"~` ~°~~ _ :,
~ NR`"~'CU :~ ;' None. (2]
1. Site is located in areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive R None
Plan as Commercial Transition Activity Node or Commercial-Industrial
Tr
nsiti
n Acti
it
N
d Rear Setback, min. NR 10 [Zj
a
o
v
y
o
es. (feet) '
NR - CU None [2]
y y,. ,}: :~
~~ r , ~~,~. ~ t s,
32. Water and sewer mains are ' He~ght~max^~(fe`et) ~'.?~ . -~ X35 [3] "
existing at the site or are to be made available during the development
process. w F,S,~c .,rrl
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES: R - CU egg 40
[1] R =residential
NR =non-residential
CU =conditional use Floor Area Ratio, max. NR
,
,
.
[2] Re
uired side and rear setbacks adj
ce
t t
re
id
ti
ll
d l
d NR - CU -2~A_45
q
a
n
o
en
a
y zone
s
an
shall be equal to the_required side or rear setback of the adjacent Required Open-Space -~ .55
residential district. Ratio'; rein -
[3] Two feet of additional height shall be allowed for one foot increase of Required Livability R - C U ~ 52
the required front and side setbacks. mace Ratio, min.
.. ~~~
'Regwr•d~Recrea#ron
r R'~,
~ j 1 11' _ -
gym ~`'
¢Spaat
~ R =~U ~`r 114
{
" ~. ¢,
Gross Land Area, R - CU 5,000 /
min./max. none
(square feet) NR-CU 200,000 /
none
q
~` ~s
- ~-9 05 `
Lands:,ap~,Raho; mrn.--.~
NR
- CU
1. Uses shall be restricted to those indicated for the O/I District in Section 5.2, unless a Conditional Use (CU) or MPD-CZ
District is approved (see Section 3.8). Additionally, non-residential use s are restricted based on t he Watershed Protection
Overla District in which the property is located. Refer to Section 4.2.3 for land use restrictions.
12
2. Development within the zoning district shall be subject to all applicable use standards detailed in Article 5 and all applicable
development standards detailed in Article 6 of this ordinance.
3. The residential density permitted on a given parcel is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the
property is located. Refer to Section 4.2.4 for a breakdown of the allowable density (i.e., the number.of individual dwellings
that can be developed on a parcel of property).
4. Allowable impervious surface area is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located.
Refer to Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 for a breakdown of the allowable impervious surface area. Additionally, Section 4.2.6 may
• require a larger lot size for non-residential uses than is contained in the Dimensional and Ratio Standards Table.
5. For lofs outside of a Watershed Protection Overlay District (see Section 4.2), the minimum usable lot area for lots that utilize
ground absorption wastewater systems shall be 30,000 square feet for parcels between 40,000 square feet and 1.99 acres
in size; zoning lots two acres and greater in size shall have a minimum usable lot area of at least 40,000 square feet.
6. Proposed subdivisions are subject to all applicable subdivision standards detailed in Article 7. Note that Article 7 provides
for different dimensional requirements than those shown in the Dimensional and Ratio Standards table depending upon the
type of subdivision proposed and the percentage of open space provided_
7. Subdivisions proposing private roads are subject to larger setbacks and minimum lot sizes than those listed in the
Dimensional and Ratio Standards. Refer to Section 7.8.4 for additional requirements. Refer to Section 7.8.5 for private
road standards.
8. Subdivisions in the Economic Development, Commercial and/or Industrial Nodes are subject to the procedure outlined in
Section 2.16.
9.
10.
.The site shall be located near major transportation corridors and have access to adequate public
roadway network.
11. No more than one principal structure is permitted by right on any non-residential zoning lot greaterthan two acres in size.
Where more than one principal structure is proposed in order to carry out the principal use of the property, and the lot is
greater than two acres in size, a Class A Special Use Permit and Site Plan, Conditional Use (CU) District, or Conditional
Zoning (CZ) District shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. For the purposes of this requirement, an
unstaffed telecommunication tower subject to a year-to-year or other short term lease, shall not be considered an additional
use.
12. On parcels less than two acres in size, multiple non-residential uses shall be contained within a single principal structure
unless a Conditional Use (CU) District or Conditional Zoning (CZ) District is approved.
13
Section 2. Amend Section 5.2 `Table of Permitted Uses' to read as follows:
TABLE OF PERMITTED USES -GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS (EXCERPT)
* =PERMITTED USE
A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE
B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE
'`Use not permitted as a Conditional Use District; permitted only in zoning districts where
noted on Table of Permitted Uses; See Section 5.1.4(E) .
Denotes deletion of use as a permitted-
use in OI district
Denotes use added as permitted use in
OI district
GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS
LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI 11 12 13 PID
Commercial Uses
Offices & Personal Services, Class 1 * * * * *
Offices & Personal Services, Class 2 * * * * *
Offices & Personal Services, Class 3 *
Manufacturing, Assembly 8 Processing
Assembly and Packaging Operations
Including Mail Order Houses, But
Excludin On-Premises Retail Outlets
Residential Uses
Dwelling; Mobile Home *
Dwelling; Multiple Family * *
Dwelling; Single-Family * * *
Dwelling; Two-Family * * *
Automotive /Transportation
Postal & Parcel Delivery Services
Section 3. Amend Article 10 `Definitions' to read as follows:
RED =Proposed Text
~~iketfa~sg# _. Deleted Text
Open Space Ratio
The minimum square footage of open space required for each square foot of #leef
gross land area. This area includes parking and vehicular access areas and it can
also include balconies, and roofs improved for recreation.
Y4
Recreation Space Ratio
Recreation space ratio is the minimum square footage of open space in residential
areas, suitable by location, size, shape, access and improvements, required for
each square foot of #leer gross land area.. This area is a public or private exterior
area improved for recreation of all residents, having a least dimension of 50 feet,
and average dimension of 100 feet and a minimum area of 10,000 square feet.
Section 4. That this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances.
Section 5. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption.
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner ,the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
day of , 2011.
I, Donna S. Baker, Glerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said
Board at a meeting held on
2011 as relates in any way to
the adoption of the foregoing and that~said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the
said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said. County, this day of
.2011.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
Attachment 3
ORA~tC;E COUNTY PLANNING & IPI~PECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
@f'1'1 O
ro: Planning Board
Board of County Commissioners
1=rankW. Clifton; Jr., County Manager
From: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director
gate: June 1-, 2011
Re: Office/Institutional_(O/I) UDO Text Amendments and Orange County Municipalities
In response to a request by the Board of County Commissioners at the May 23, 2011.
Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH), staff has researched- the development standards the
Towns of Catrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and the City of Mebane utilize wi~hin their
Offrce/Institutional .(O/I) (or similar) zoning districts.
It is important to note that the municipalities and the County are separate governing bodies-
and.many of the zoning districts, uses, development regulations, etc., contained within each-
set ~f land use regulations differ, making an "apples to apples" comparison -not possible.
However, following ar-e brief summafions of-each municipa[ities' standards to compare to the
O/I zoning district standards proposed for modification in-the UDO text amendments item on
the May 23, 2011 QPH-and the June 1, 2011 Planning Board agendas.
Town of Carrboro
0 Office/Assembly_-(O/A) zoning- district similar to Orange County's Office/Institutional
(O/I) district
^ Does not establish Floor Areas Ratio (FAR) or Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio (PLR) for
zoning districts
^ Open space requirements for residential uses only
Town of Chapel Hill
^ Office/Institutional (O/1-1,
County's O/f district
^ Maximum FARs:
o O/I-1 & O/I-2:.264
o O/I-3: .566
o O/I-4: N/A
O!I-2, O/I-3 & O/I-4) zoning districts similar to Orange
15
~~~n4c • ~u p` p
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919:} 245-255 ~ ~ Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 n=qx) P O Box 8181
www.co.oranae.nc.us ~;'r~ ~a~~''~ Hillsborough, NC 27278
O/1 UDO Text Amendments MEMO
Page 2
^ Does not establish Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio (PLR) for zoning districts
^ Requires dedication of recreational areas, or payment in lieu, for residential
subdivisions and/ormulti-family developments
Town of Hillsborough
^ Office/Institutional (O/I) zoning district similar to Orange County's O/I district
^ Does not establish Floor Areas Ratio (FAR) or Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio (PLR) for
zoning districts
^ Requires open space dedication for all applications for Master Plan, Conditional Use
Permit, or Special Use Permit for residential and/or non-residential purposes
involving the creation of multiple lots from a parent parcel
0 10% of gross parcel, or
0 35% of gross parcel for `Conservation Subdivision'
City of Mebane
^ Office & Institutional (O&I) zoning district similar to Orange County's O/I district
^ Does not establish Floor Areas Ratio (FAR) or PedestriaNLandscape Ratio (PLR) for
zoning districts
^ Utilizes 'Maximum Lot Coverage' (principal and accessory buildings) for residential
zoning districts only
^ Requires open space and recreation space dedications for residential developments
only
While there are many differences between Orange County and the municipalities with
regard to the specific standards affected by the proposed UDO text amendments for the O/I
zoning district, there are similar development regulations utilized by all, including but not
limited to:
o Impervious surface limits
o Building setbacks
~ Minimum buffers
o Maximum building heights
16
In summary, it is difficult to compare the County's development standards with those of the
municipalities. Each jurisdiction utilizes multiple methods or "layers" of standards to meet
development goals, not always consistent with the other.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23-
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes
Attachment 4
C.6. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments - To review a government-initiated
text amendment to the following sections of the Unified Development Ordinance: Section
3.4 - General Commercial Districts (modify the Office/Institutional [O/I] Zoning District
including the Purpose, Applicability, Dimensional and Ratio Standards, and Specific
Development Standards sections); Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses (modify the
Permitted Uses allowed in the OI General Use Zoning District); and Article 10 -
Definitions (modify definitions of `Open Space Ratio' and `Recreation Space Ratio').
Craig Benedict made the PowerPoint presentation.
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments
UDO/ZONING 2011-01
Sections Proposed for Amendment
- Section 3.4 -General Commercial Districts: Office/Institutional (O/I) General Use Zoning
District
- Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses (O/I District only)
- Article 10 (Definitions) - `Open Space Ratio' and 'Recreation Space Ratio'
Proposed Changes to Section 3.4
- Modifications proposed to Office/Industrial (O/I) Zoning District only
- New language to clarify `Purpose' and `Applicability' of zoning district
- Modfcations to pimensional and Ratio Standards:
o Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
o Open Space Ratio (OSR)
o Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio (PLR)
- Changes to O/I District Specific Development Standards
Proposed Changes to Section 5.2
- Changes to O/I Zoning District Only
- Added uses permitted within On Zoning District
o Office and Personal Services, Class 2
o Office and Personal Services, Class 3
o Assembly and Packaging Operations (Mail Order Houses)
o Postal and Parcel Delivery Services
- Removed uses from list of Permitted Uses within O/I Zoning District
o Dwelling; Mobile Home
o Dwelling; Single-Family
17
18
DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes
1 o Dwelling; Two-Family
2
3 Changes to Article 10
4 - Modifications to Definitions
5 o Recreation Space Ratio (RSR)
6 o Open Space Ratio (OSR)
7 - Revises incorrect language to be consistent with other sections of UDO and actual practice
8 - Applicable to all zoning districts
9
10 Whv O/I? What's Next?
11 - The Office/Institutional (O/I) .Zoning District is to be utilized in Land Uses where urban
12 services are or could be available; in areas targeted for economic development
13 - The O/I Zoning District is not currently in use within the County
14 - Additional evaluation of all County zoning districts expected; these proposed amendments
15 may be the first of many
16
17 Recommendation
18 - Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
19 - Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the
20 proposed amendments
21 - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to
22 the BOCC in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting
23 - Adjourn the _public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning
24 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the chart on page 373, the dimensional standard,
27 and asked what the four municipalities do the same arcumstances.
28 Craig Benedict said- that he would do some research on this..
29 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 368 and Section 3.4, the second paragraph,
30 and read, "As stated in the definitions of these land use categories, these types of land uses are to be
31 located near major transportation routes and are intended for more intense non-residential and
32 mixed-use development. Urban services, such as water and wastewater services, have been or are
33 expected to be provided to these areas." Also, on page 374, she asked why #10 was deleted that
34 has to do with road classification. She thinks there should be some kind of mention of the direct
35 access to major transportation routes.
36 Craig Benedict said that presently, the County does not have an adopted commercial street
37 classification plan, so they thought that if this provision was included, it would be referencing an
38 unadopted plan. He would like to bring back a functional classification plan.
19
DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes
Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is conceivable that a large property could be developed
from front to back and he does not want to restrict too tightly the definition of a road that provides
adequate access to one of the major transportation corridors.
4 Public Comment
5 None.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
8 receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as detailed in this
9 abstract and attachments; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
10 recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and
11 adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
12 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
EXCERPT - 06.01.11
DRAFT
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY- PLANNING BOARD
JuNE1,2011
REGULAR MEETING
Attachment 5 20
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove
Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alan
Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel
Hill Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham
Township;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant-
Eno Township Representative;
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Special
Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
(Documents handed out: Once/Institutional (0/I) UDO Text Amendments and Orange County Municipalities; Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) Implementation Bridge)
AGENDA ITEM 1 O: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS:
To make a recommendation to the BOCC on this item to amend the Sections 3.4 and 5.2 and Article 10
of the UDO, as heard at the May 23, 2011 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter.• Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Craig Benedict: Reviewed abstract.
Lisa Stuckey: On page 60, what does Recreation Space Ratio mean? If I want to build and office, what can I do?
Shannon Berry: It doesn't impact office, it is applied to residential uses. It is one of our multiple layers of standards. When we
reviewed-this, the definition actually was inconsistent with how it was applied and how it is stated throughout the rest of the text
so that is-just a clean up. We are not changing anything just a typo on the definitions.
Craig Benedict: It didn't make sense to have the recreation space ratio based on floor area. It should be based on the gross
land area.
Shannon Berry: The point is that this is in the definition section and the definition is incorrect.
Maxine Mitchell: The chart on page 59 talks about the different uses within the Office/Institutional. If someone currently has a
mobile home, would they be able to continue using that?
Craig Benedict: If we had an area that was zoned Office/Institutional and had a mobile home, you can continue to use that for
the life of the mobile home but after that is removed, then the use will convert to the future land use, Commercial Industrial Use.
Larry Wright: On page 57, how does this compare to state standards?
Craig Benedict: State standards do not get into specific zoning for Orange County, you can set your own standard. There is
some relationship to what the state allows impervious area but we are within those standards as recommended by the state.
Commissioner Jacobs requested that Shannon come up with what does Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Mebane do and
I wouldn't say there is any consistency across the board but it is clear that you want these areas with public water and sewer and
the intensity similar to what is being suggested.
DRAFT 21
58 MorioN made by Judith Wegner to approve the recommendation set forth under item 10 relating to Office/Institutional sections
59 include the Recreational Space Ratio. We recommend the Commissioners ~ adopt this package as written. Larry Wright
60 seconded.
61 VorE: Unanimous
62
63
2