OCPB agenda 050416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township 13 Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 14 Township; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; 15 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Ashley Moncado, 18 Special Projects Planner, Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order and introduced new member, Kim Piracci. 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – O/I 26 (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE 27 TO REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UDO REGARDING 28 REVISIONS TO THE O/I (OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A 29 NEW PERMITTED USE TYPE. 30 PRESENTER: ASHLEY MONCADO, SPECIAL PROJECTS PLANNER 31 32 Ashley Moncado reviewed abstract 33 34 Craig Benedict presented information on map 35 36 Tony Blake: So the part that would be OI or OI/RM is the green/gray place but not Buckhorn? And you would not 37 want residential in there at all? 38 39 Craig Benedict: The mixed use that we’re promoting in this we checked with economic development department, the 40 mixed use their interested in is employment centers and possibly retail, but there’s other land uses in the Efland area 41 that allow for multi-family and even single family. So, right now we want to protect our economic development zones 42 as much as possible for non-residential because if you allow a multi-family or a single family, which was allowed in 43 some of our other uses, if they happen to be the first proposals to come in and they were permitted by right in many 44 cases we most likely would allow them. And then when the business comes in we have residential people saying 45 they don’t want that business there, even though the intent of the economic development zone was for jobs. Ninety-46 five percent of Orange County Planning jurisdiction allows residential, it’s only about 5 percent within our power to 47 focus on our economic development efforts, so we want to protect that from too much residential in that area. 48 49 Paul Guthrie: I have a basic question. How are you defining residential? I asked the question because I can think of a 50 circumstance when a business that this area would be useful to be in might very well want to have a residential 51 security manager or residential over-seerer for research or something like that where the residents would actually be 52 on-site. How would you handle a situation like that? 53 54 5