Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />Chair Brown asked if there was a process in place whereby residents of the Economic <br />Development District would be informed of the issues surrounding water and/or sewer services. Mr. Kirk <br />replied that the Planning staff always recommends that as an option but it is not required. <br />QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD - None. <br />QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br />Jay Smith, with O'Brien/Atkins Associates, Inc., indicated that this plan was first submitted in <br />March of 1997 and they feel that this latest plan is the best possible use of this site. They have worked <br />with Orange County Transportation Planner Slade McCalip to design the best circulation plan. The sewer <br />lines have been moved in this latest design so that parking could be moved to the back of the building. <br />Also, they have left the large trees and increased the buffers as much as possible. He also mentioned <br />that this branch building will increase the tax base by 1 million dollars. They have made many changes <br />but they cannot adhere to the 100 foot buffer requirement. <br />Steve Russ, with O'Brien/Atkins, indicated that he was available to answer any questions. He <br />mentioned that Slade McCalip felt that aligning with the CITGO Station would help with the traffic flow. <br />Jack Alphin, of Alphin Realty, mentioned that he does not have a vested interest in this facility. <br />He was asked to submit an opinion on behalf of the State Employees Credit Union. He referred to his <br />letter dated December 17, 1997 a copy of which is located in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's <br />office. He indicated that the Credit Union facility would at the very east maintain the area and would <br />probably likely enhance the ambiance and values of adjacent and area properties. <br />Robin Lewis, Manager of the Credit Union, indicated that she would be happy to answer any <br />questions. She agreed that the current plan appears to be the best use of the site. Members of her staff <br />are committed to providing a needed service to the citizens of Northern Orange County. In response to a <br />question, she mentioned that they rarely require a Sheriff's Deputy to provide an escort while Credit <br />Union employees transfer money. <br />A letter from James C. Blaine, President, State Employees Credit Union, was distributed and is <br />included herein by reference. He stated that the Credit Union has made attempts to address each <br />concern that was mentioned in his earlier discussion with John Link. His comments in their entirety are in <br />the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office <br />A motion was made by Chairwoman Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer this <br />item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no <br />sooner than April 7, 1998 <br />VOTE- UNANIMOUS <br />2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENT <br />(a) Floor Area For Existing Non-residential Uses in Residential Districts <br />Article 5.1.2 Schedule for Non-residential Development <br />This item was presented by Orange County Planner Emily Cameron for the purpose <br />of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to increase the <br />maximum floor area allowed existing non-residential uses permitted in the AR, RB, R-1, 4-2, 4-3 and R-4 <br />zoning districts. She stated that institutional uses such as schools, government buildings, and places of <br />worship are permitted in all residential zoning districts with site plan approval by the Planning <br />Department. In 1989 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to increase the floor area allowed for non- <br />residential uses in residential districts (RB, AR, R-1 & R-2) from 5.8 percent to 8.8 percent limit on floor <br />area, which might preclude any significant future additions to those buildings. The proposed amendment <br />would increase the maximum floor area allowed for non-residential uses legally existing as of 5/6/98 in <br />the RB, AR, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts from 8.8 percent (10 percent in planned <br />developments, 12.3 percent in R-4) to 14.1 percent. The proposed standard is equal to the current limit <br />on floor area in PD-R-4 district and is consistent with actual floor area of existing facilities. <br />QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None