OCPB agenda 040115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T PUBLIC CHARGE 55 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 56 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 57 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 58 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 59 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 60 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 61 62 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 7: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS: 65 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments that would 66 establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. This item was heard at the 67 February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing and the Planning Board received an update on the 68 topic at its February 4, 2015 meeting. 69 Presenter: Perdita Holts, Special Projects Coordinator 70 71 Perdita Holtz reviewed the item and background. 72 73 Paul Guthrie: On page 22 in the middle, second paragraph, what is your definition of “high quality development”? 74 75 Perdita Holtz: It was something talked about as part of the small area plan process and wanting to ensure that we 76 didn’t end up with a preponderance of metal or cinderblock buildings and the regulations that pertain to internal 77 pedestrian systems, etc. that all add up to what we would term “high quality development”. 78 79 Pete Hallenbeck: If you look at the proposed amendments, you talk about community character and the Planning 80 Department will take pictures of buildings to have something to look back on when you are making that somewhat 81 subjective call. Your point is well taken but there will be enough recorded for someone to look at that and say, “how 82 did that happen?” 83 84 Craig Benedict: Some of the differences are that we had a lot more mandates about how development should occur 85 very prescriptive but it did mention high quality development. That is subjective but we are creating a mandate and 86 that didn’t go together so now we are creating something that is feasible. 87 88 Pete Hallenbeck: I am happy with the development and the community involvement. 89 90 MOTION by Laura Nicholson to approve amendments as presented by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 91 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 92 93 Craig Benedict reviewed the history of this project for the new members. 94 95 Paul Guthrie: This is a good case study about how we deal with changes in this county. This whole county over the 96 next 50 years will urbanize tremendously so this kind of issue will come up over time and some time when the 97 planning staff catches their breath, they may want to strategize the process so we won’t have to reinvent the wheel 98 each time. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: A lot of those steps are underway. The UDO is not perfect or light reading but a lot better. There 101 is progress here. What happened in Efland will set a lot of precedence. 102 103 AGENDA ITEM 8 DISCUSSION ITEMS: Planning Staff will present information on the following items and receive 104 feedback from the Planning Board: 105 a. Impervious Surface Issues currently being discussed with the state 106 b. Zoning Code Enforcement in and around the Economic Development Districts 107 c. Sexually Oriented Businesses 108 2 6