Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 5 38 <br /> Approved 5/4/2016 <br /> 1 SUMMARY NOTES <br /> 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 APRIL 6,2016 <br /> 4 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE <br /> 5 <br /> 6 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill <br /> 9 Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township <br /> 10 Representative; Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; <br /> 11 <br /> 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township <br /> 13 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham <br /> 14 Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; <br /> 15 <br /> 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Ashley Moncado, <br /> 17 Special Projects Planner, Meredith Pucci,Administrative Assistant II <br /> 18 <br /> 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order and introduced new member, Kim Piracci, <br /> 22 <br /> 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-0/I <br /> 24 (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL)ZONING DISTRICT AND NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE <br /> 25 To REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UDO REGARDING <br /> 26 REVISIONS TO THE 0/I(OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL)ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A <br /> 27 NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE. <br /> 28 PRESENTER: ASHLEY MONCADO,SPECIAL PROJECTS PLANNER <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Craig Benedict presented information on map <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Tony Blake: So the part that would be 01 or 01/RM is the green/gray place but not Buckhorn?And you would not <br /> 35 want residential in there at all? <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Craig Benedict: The mixed use that we're promoting in this we checked with economic development department, the <br /> 38 mixed use their interested in is employment centers and possibly retail, but there's other land uses in the Efland area <br /> 39 that allow for multi-family and even single family. So, right now we want to protect our economic development zones <br /> 40 as much as possible for non-residential because if you allow a multi-family or a single family,which was allowed in <br /> 41 some of our other uses, if they happen to be the first proposals to come in and they were permitted by right in many <br /> 42 cases we most likely would allow them.And then when the business comes in we have residential people saying <br /> 43 they don't want that business there, even though the intent of the economic development zone was for jobs. Ninety- <br /> 44 five percent of Orange County Planning jurisdiction allows residential, it's only about 5 percent within our power to <br /> 45 focus on our economic development efforts, so we want to protect that from too much residential in that area. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Paul Guthrie: I have a basic question. How are you defining residential? I asked the question because I can think of a <br /> 48 circumstance when a business that this area would be useful to be in might very well want to have a residential <br /> 49 security manager or residential over-seerer for research or something like that where the residents would actually be <br /> 50 on-site. How would you handle a situation like that? <br /> 51 <br /> 1 <br />