Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 050416
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
OCPB agenda 050416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 11:55:50 AM
Creation date
3/8/2018 11:48:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/4/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 050416
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
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
DRAFT <br /> <br />2 <br />Craig Benedict: We could allow that as an accessory use. We’ve had mini warehouses where they wanted an on-site 52 <br />resident and you could accommodate that as not a primary use but as an incidental and secondary use. And we can 53 <br />make sure that’s allowed for big factories there might be some residential or over night component to it. 54 <br /> 55 <br />Paul Guthrie: It just occurred to me that if you barred that completely it could give you a problem. On the other hand, 56 <br />if you allowed it then I think somebody could attack the whole principal on the basis. 57 <br /> 58 <br />Craig Benedict: We’re allowing hotels and motels, and someone might say that’s residential but that’s a commercial 59 <br />use. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Michael Harvey: I would make the argument that’s not a residential land use. The principal use of the property would 62 <br />be X and it’s up to the applicant to justify, “ I need this for this reason. “ and again I know we shouldn’t be fixating on 63 <br />the examples but in that example that’s what I would say; that it’s not functioning as a residential development, there 64 <br />is a component but it’s in support of the principal use which, let’s say, is this research manufacturing unit. 65 <br /> 66 <br />Lisa Stuckey: So if I drove through this, what would it look like? 67 <br /> 68 <br />Craig Benedict: These would be more of a corporate park but, corporate parks and business parks and industrial 69 <br />parks have changed over the last 15-20 years. Our zoning, as evidence by office institutional, was very regimen. This 70 <br />is where you put your Class A office building, and then somewhere else you put your warehouse, and somewhere 71 <br />else you put your manufacturing, and somewhere else you have R&D. Now they don’t do that anymore, they put 72 <br />everything in the same place. They’ll have their clean office, they’ll have their R&D Park they’ll put it all together. This 73 <br />district will allow office, and research, manufacturing, and distribution. So, the buildings could be from 20,000 to 74 <br />100,000 square foot. So you could see a few of those buildings in there that have multiple activities. And by the 75 <br />secondary uses that are allowed means that somebody could come in with a business and say, “I don’t see enough 76 <br />restaurants around here, how about if I bring as part of my master plan a Chili’s with me?” and that’s a bonus. When 77 <br />we were looking at another retail site, Cabella’s, even though that was all retail they brought a hotel with them and a 78 <br />restaurant. We’re definitely not having this as a retail focus, we’re listing this stuff as secondary uses in there so we 79 <br />can keep that prime use as job based light industrial manufacturing. 80 <br /> 81 <br />Lydia Wegman: Have we heard of any companies that are interested in this particular kind of land use? Or this is just 82 <br />to make us attractive to companies if one is interested? 83 <br /> 84 <br />Craig Benedict: This is just to make us attractive. When the candy factory came, they was designated Office 85 <br />Institutional, and it did say manufacturing was okay… I’d say it’s a relatively small fix, as you were mentioning some 86 <br />of the economic development zones, we need to go into there and take a look at the way the uses are fashioned in 87 <br />there too. This is not for any specific… The next project that you’ll hear from Perdita Holtz, probably in the next month 88 <br />or so, is in the Hillsborough Economic Development. Because we have a joint agreement with Hillsborough we’re 89 <br />trying to align both our joint land uses and the zoning categories that can go within that land use. And right now, 90 <br />they’re all over the place. 91 <br /> 92 <br />Tony Blake: I have a question. I read through this and I read the column and what it allows and accessory use and all 93 <br />that stuff and I came down to the automotive/transportation and because I’m sort of passionate about the way we’re 94 <br />doing our transit and thinking that BRT is a good rapid transit solution. I noticed that it would allow a bus passenger 95 <br />shelter, which I view as one of these little cubicles by the side of the road, but not a bus terminal or garage. And Bus 96 <br />Rapid Transit has a raised platform appeal, especially in an area where there’s a concentrated number of transit 97 <br />people. Would that be allowed in this zone? 98 <br /> 99 <br />Craig Benedict: Well, we can make it. It does make sense. I think what they were thinking about was kind of a simple 100 <br />city bus terminal, so we can make sure that our bus stops and level platforms and all stuff could be allowed. Because 101 <br />we do have our bus service that is going very close to this zone, if not through it, and if we get some employment 102 <br />concentrations we will modify that transit system. 103 <br /> 104 <br /> 46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.