Orange County NC Website
z/~.3/98 PtJeSC.iG NE4J'.1~jC1 NliIIUTES <br />1 to response to a question Dy Commissioner Gordon, Eddie Kirk reviewed the surtnunding uses <br />2 which include a CITGO station, several reSidenCes which are located in the Economic Development <br />3 Districts to the south and west 7o the North is a residence in the Town of Hillsborough's jurisdiction. <br />4 He aho indicated that the sewer connection would eitl~er beat FMt RidgQ or at the prison far~7ity. <br />5 <br />6 Commissioner Brown asked if there was a process in place whereby residents of the Economic <br />7 Developrrter>< Disbfet would be infom~ed of the issues surrounding water and/or sewer services. Mr. Kirk <br />$ replied that the Planning staff always recommends water 8 sewer but it is not required. <br />9 <br />10 GUESTION$ AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE I~tJINNWG BOARD -None. <br />11 <br />12 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br />13 ' <br />14 Jay Smith, with O'tirteN-Atkins Associates, Inc., indicated that this plan was fret submitted in <br />15 March Of 199'7 and they fee! that ells latest plan is the best possible uSe of this site. They have worked <br />16 with Orange County Transportation Planner Slade McCaiip to design the best circulation plan. The sewer <br />17 lines have bean moved in this latest design so that parking could be moved to the back of the building. <br />18 Also, they have left the large trees and iacrpased the buffers as much as possible. He also mentioned <br />19 that this branch building wilt increase the tax base by f million dollars. They have made many changes <br />20 twt they gnnot adhere to the 100 foot buffer reQuinement <br />21 <br />22 5t~ Russ, with O'BrieNAtkins, indipbed that he was available to answer any questions. He <br />Z3 mentoonec! that Slade McCafip felt that algning with the CITGO Station would help with the traffic flow. <br />za <br />25 Jack Alphin, of Alphin Rsalty, mentioned that he does not have a vested interest in this faality. He <br />28 was asked bo submit an opinion on behalf of the Stabs Employees Credit Union. Ne referted to his letter <br />27 dated December 17, f 99?' s copy of which is located in the permanent agenda Ala in fife Clerk's offrce. He <br />2$ indicated that the Credit Union facility would at the very least maintain the area and would most likely <br />29 enhance the ambiance and values of adjacent and area properties. <br />30 <br />31 Robin Lewis, Manager of Credit Union, indicated that she would lie happy tQ answer any <br />32 Questions. SM agreed that the cun~ent plan appears to be the best use of the site. The staff of the Credit <br />33 Union are ooKrtmitbed to providirt9 a needed service b !fie at¢ens of Northam Orange County. In <br />34 response to a question, she mentioned that they rarey require a SheriRs Deputy bo provide an escort <br />35 whiles Credit Union employees transfer money. <br />38 <br />37 A tenter from James C. Btaine, President, State Employees Credit Union, was distributed and is <br />38 inducted herein Dy roterence. He stated that the Credit Union has made attempts to address each <br />39 ooncxm that was rrwntioned in his eerlier discussion with John Link. His comments in their entlroty are in <br />40 the permanent agenda file in the CterKs office <br />a1 <br />42 A motion was rtrade by Chairwoman Brown, seconded by Commssior-er Halkiotis, b refer this <br />43 item tD tb Planning Board 1br a recommendation to be r+stumed to the Board of Commissioners no sooner <br />44 than ApN 7,1998 <br />45 1tOTE UNANIMOUS <br />46 <br />47 3. ZONMG OROWANCE TEST AMt'eNDMENT <br />48 (a) Floor Area For Ex;ating Non-rasidentlst Uses in Residential Districts ARtda 5.1.2 <br />49 Schedule for lVon-residential Owelopmer-t <br />50 This irerrt was pr~esenbed try Orange County Planner Emiy Can+eron 1Fir the purpose <br />59 or nceivinp dti~en c~ornrnerrt or+ s proposed srnsndment tv ate toning oroiraN,o. to tnaease the <br />52 rreuamum floor lees aBOrVad for coasting non-residenast uses pertnitbed in the AR. R9. R-1, R-2, R-3 and <br />53 R•t soning districts. She stated that institutional uses such as schools. govemr~ent builadings, and places <br />54 of worship sn permitted in aU residential Zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning . <br />55 Department. In 1989 the Zoning was amended to inue®se the floor area atkswed for non- <br />56 residensial uses in nsidenasl districts (Rt3, AR, R-1 8 R-2) ttom S.8 percent to 8.8 percent limit on floor <br />57 era. The proposed amendment would increase ate rrwdrtrum floor are® Mowed fornon-residential uses <br />