OCPB agenda 050416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 APRIL 6, 2016 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill 8 Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Tony Blake, Bingham Township 9 Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 12 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 13 Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Ashley Moncado, 16 Special Projects Planner, Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order and introduced new member, Kim Piracci. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – O/I 23 (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE 24 TO REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UDO REGARDING 25 REVISIONS TO THE O/I (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A 26 NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE. 27 PRESENTER: ASHLEY MONCADO, SPECIAL PROJECTS PLANNER 28 29 Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract 30 31 Craig Benedict presented information on map 32 33 Tony Blake: So the part that would be OI or OI/RM is the green/gray place but not Buckhorn? And you would not 34 want residential in there at all? 35 36 Craig Benedict: The mixed use that we’re promoting in this we checked with economic development department, the 37 mixed use their interested in is employment centers and possibly retail but, there’s other land uses in the Efland area 38 that allow for multi-family and even single family. So, right now we want to protect our economic development zones 39 as much as possible for non-residential because if you allow a multi-family or a single family, which was allowed in 40 some of our other uses, if they happen to be the first proposals to come in and they were permitted by right in many 41 cases we most likely would allow them. And then when the business comes in we have residential people saying 42 they don’t want that business there, even though the intent of the economic development zone was for jobs. 95 43 percent of Orange County Planning jurisdiction allows residential, it’s only about 5 percent within our power to focus 44 on our economic development efforts, so we want to protect that from too much residential in that area. 45 46 Paul Guthrie: I have a basic question. How are you defining residential? I asked the question because I can think of a 47 circumstance when a business that this area would be useful to be in might very well want to have a residential 48 security manager or residential over-seerer for research or something like that where the residents would actually be 49 on-site. How would you handle a situation like that? 50 51 45