Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 010913
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2013
>
OCPB agenda 010913
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2018 2:01:50 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 1:58:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/9/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 010913
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
86
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 4 <br />Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been <br />renumbered. <br />10 <br />Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment <br />29. & 30. <br />Many places in the UDO have a restriction on the height of a <br />building. While residential structures tend to have 9 to 12 feet per <br />floor, commercial structures can have as much as 15 feet per floor. <br />As the structure covers more area, the roof can have a substantial <br />amount of height to it if it is not a flat roof. Architectural details <br />such as facades and cupolas can affect the height. My comment is <br />this: Would it make more sense to specify the number of occupied <br />stories as a limit on the structure? An occupied story would not <br />include attic space or utility rooms- it would be space occupied by <br />people working in the structure. Page 3-44 and page 4-18 are <br />examples of where this specification occurs. Note that the height <br />limitations that change with additional setback could be used as a <br />maximum height such that either a (for example) 3 story limit <br />_OR_ the maximum height based on setback would be the height <br />limit for the building. An example of this setback based number is <br />found at the top of page 6-2. I would also add in (not sure where) <br />than any building whose height exceeds the apparatus or ladder <br />height restrictions of the fire departments which would respond to <br />a structure fire would be required to be sprinklered. <br />Building height is measured from the mean elevation to the mean height <br />between the eaves and roof ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs (e.g., <br />height is not from the ground to the roof peak). As mentioned in #27 <br />above, a maximum building height has been set since these comments <br />were made, regardless of how much additional setback is provided. The <br />maximum height is 75-feet unless the Board of Adjustment modifies the <br />height. Sprinkling of buildings is governed by the use of the building and <br />building codes. It should be noted that the same ISO rating system is <br />used for both the fire departments and building codes. <br />31. <br />There are various metal vapor lights, the most common being <br />Mercury and Sodium vapor. It would be nice to know why Mercury <br />is being singled out. In particular, is it the presence of Mercury (i.e. <br />environmental) or is it the use of a specific type of fixture such as <br />the yard lights utilities sell that is the concern. If the concern is <br />environmental, then would it not also apply to all fluorescent <br />lights which use mercury? <br />This issue is being addressed in a UDO text amendment slated for <br />presentation at the November 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br />68
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.