Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Excerpt of Notes Attachment 4 425 <br /> Approved 8/3/2016 <br /> 1 SUMMARY NOTES <br /> 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 JULY 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-At-Large Chapel Hill Township(Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township <br /> 9 Representative (Vice-Chair); Paul Guthrie,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham <br /> 10 Township; Kim Piracci,At-Large; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; <br /> 11 <br /> 12 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning <br /> 13 Systems Supervisor;Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant; <br /> 14 <br /> 15 ****** <br /> 16 <br /> 17 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(U DO)TEXT AMENDMENTS-MODIFY USE STANDARDS <br /> 18 <br /> 19 To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO that would establish use <br /> 20 standards to allow certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in <br /> 21 the 0/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing)zoning district. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Presenter:Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Ashley Moncado delivered presentation. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Tony Blake: Does this now permit drive-thrus? I think I remember that there were no drive-thrus. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Ashley Moncado: I believe that is correct. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Tony Blake: I kind of drew this thing on the board when we took the 0/RM blob there and divided up into the three <br /> 32 possible primary uses and then the secondary uses.The language that I'm missing here is where it talks about multi- <br /> 33 family there's a line in there that says, "The multi-family use is part of an overall site plan that includes at least 1 other <br /> 34 permitted..."That language is missing here for me.That language that says we need an overall site plan and what <br /> 35 I'm afraid to end up with is 25% here and 25% here and 25% here and 25% here, as opposed to a central master <br /> 36 plan. It seems to lend itself more towards this cut up view. Now maybe that's on purpose but that was what struck me <br /> 37 when reading this. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Perdita Holtz: It's not;that language is part of the next item though.We can probably just put in language indicating <br /> 40 that it needs to be part of an overall site plan. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Tony Blake:And that's what I was thinking. Because you could conceivably have all three of these different uses <br /> 43 inside this 0/RM and you don't know. Say this guy builds industrial and then they want to start building these <br /> 44 accessory uses.You don't know what the overall square footage is going to be in this whole thing so you can't say <br /> 45 what 25%of that is.And it just starts to get complicated and hard to figure out for a developer. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Craig Benedict: I think that would help during this site plan process to allocate an area of the site that maybe they're <br /> 48 not building retail in phase 1 but they could say here's part of the site. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Paul Guthrie: In terms in whether it's language or not,whether you can describe in a neat form that's understandable <br /> 51 of what you've just gone through. I'm wondering if the way to deal with the kind of would be to say that after the initial <br /> 52 development or something of the whole area any future, additional changes for some of these accepted uses inside <br /> 53 the area must go through the whole process again to make sure that they are not more than 25% of the area. <br /> 54 <br /> 1 <br />