Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />16 <br />9. Tree Survey — BOCC member suggested a tree survey be completed identifying all <br />significant specimen trees. Applicant suggested survey shall be completed as part of <br />typical site plan submittal. <br />Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. <br />10. Condition limiting number of lights left on after normal business hours — Applicant <br />suggested number of lights left on after hours be minimum necessary per industry <br />standards (i.e. IES /ANSI, OSHA, etc.) for public safety purposes (Agenda Item 5a — <br />page 172). <br />Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of condition. <br />11. Percentage limit on retail operations — Applicant suggested a 30% limit (78,540 sq.ft) in <br />District 2 (Agenda Item 5a — page 165). <br />Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of suggested <br />condition. <br />12. Limit on hours of operation — Planning Board did not recommend the approval of such <br />a condition based on applicant's concerns. <br />13. Planning Board Recommended Condition — Planning Board recommended 1 % of total <br />required parking in District 2 (exclusive of hotel development) be reserved to support <br />development of electric charging stations. Applicant agreed (Agenda Item 5a — page <br />171). <br />Planning Board voted 6 in favor 5 against to recommend approval of condition. <br />Conclusion <br />• Staff continues to recommend approval subject to issuance of all conditions. <br />— STAFF COMMENT: Regulations embodied within the UDO will have to be <br />adhered to unless explicitly `modified' as part of this application. In most <br />instances the applicant is being more restrictive (i.e. allowable floor area, utility <br />connections, building architecture, etc.). <br />• Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval subject to issuance of all <br />conditions. <br />• Applicant provides additional specificity in pending presentation. <br />Recommendation <br />1. Receive the additional information on the application as detailed within abstract and <br />attachments. <br />2. Accept additional comments from the staff, Planning Board, and the general public. <br />3. Close the public hearing. <br />4. Decide on one of the following options: <br />a. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; <br />b. Adopt the Statement of Consistency for proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment(s) <br />(Attachment 10), the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas and imposing <br />conditions (Attachment 11); or <br />c. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no <br />application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of <br />one year. The one -year period begins on the date of denial.) <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is known what would happen to trees. <br />Michael Harvey said specimen trees have to be preserved, and the Applicant said they <br />will comply with the UDO regulations. <br />Commissioner Price asked if there will be warehousing. <br />