Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 110216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
OCPB agenda 110216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 12:28:48 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 12:23:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/2/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 110216
(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.
/
90
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
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 was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to <br />Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013). <br /> 72
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.