Browse
Search
OCPB minutes 020415
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2015
>
OCPB minutes 020415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:40:54 AM
Creation date
3/14/2018 5:04:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/4/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OCPB agenda 020415
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Approved 3/4/15 <br />5 <br />Lydia Wegman: These changes that go in the UDO, these would be applicable only to two overlay districts? 216 <br /> 217 <br />Perdita Holtz: Correct. 218 <br /> 219 <br />Lydia Wegman: So they wouldn’t serve as some sort of precedence if there were some subsequent…. 220 <br /> 221 <br />Perdita Holtz: No. When you get it back there will be in a different color to show what has changed from what was 222 <br />show at the February quarterly public hearing and the changes that have been made along the way. We try to make 223 <br />it clear what the changes are when we give you information. You may have also noted when you look through this, 224 <br />like suggestions about community character, that we plan on asking the community at the next public information 225 <br />meeting to share their thoughts about community character. If they have strong feelings about what they think are 226 <br />examples of community character that should be replicated or nearly replicated, to please send it to us because we 227 <br />would like to have some sort of photograph document to give to people who are maybe interested in developing in 228 <br />the area. Community character is a little bit nebulous to what one person thinks that might not be someone else’s so 229 <br />if we could get input from the actual residents on what they think the character is to show the developers or others 230 <br />interested in doing something, we think that would go a long way. 231 <br /> 232 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: My take on community character is that we don’t point to some of the painted cinderblock buildings 233 <br />that we have that made a great deal of sense 30 years ago and say that’s how we do it in Efland and we would just 234 <br />get more of them. Road access was a big issue, the idea that you’d have to put in an access road, particularly the 235 <br />parcels north of the railroad tracks, you lose a 30-40 foot chunk from what is already a small piece of property. 236 <br />Another thing discussed was chain link fences and it was decided to allow a five foot chain link height limit so it’s a 237 <br />practical fence to keep the dogs and children from the street but business can’t come in and put up eight foot chain 238 <br />link fences with barbed wire which would drive a community in the wrong direction. One thing to remember is Efland 239 <br />is a very unique area; it’s the County’s town. It has water and sewer but is not in an incorporated area. 240 <br /> 241 <br />Andrea Rohrbacher: I thought I saw something about the entrance to a building does not have to have street 242 <br />frontage. That has been very controversial in Chapel Hill in several spots. What was the thought process behind 243 <br />that? 244 <br /> 245 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: When you look at the area between the railroad tracks and US 70, it not very wide and there really 246 <br />isn’t a predominant street. Everyone coming from the interstate is going to be on Forrest Avenue which runs parallel 247 <br />to the tracks and then there is US 70 and there maybe 400 feet between the two and businesses need parking so we 248 <br />want to make sure if you have a building that faces 70 that if you had parking in the rear, you could have a rear 249 <br />entrance to the building. This is an example of trying to fit into the existing building and the lay of the land of the 250 <br />parcels in the northern part. 251 <br /> 252 <br />Tony Blake: Has Steve Brantley given any guidance to this from an economic development perspective? I’ve 253 <br />heard, Bonnie [Hauser] has told me, that there isn’t a vision for the area. I wonder if he came up with suggestions on 254 <br />the businesses to be attracted to the area. 255 <br /> 256 <br />Pete Hallenbeck: I know he is aware of what is going on particularly in the economic development zone and west on 257 <br />Buckhorn and I think right now this is laying the groundwork for Steve to come in because we have all this different 258 <br />areas of density and mixed use. 259 <br /> 260 <br />Lisa Stuckey: That BOCC appointed committee met for 10 years and then the citizens met for a year and brought it 261 <br />back to planning staff and everyone is in agreement so why would we mess with it. 262 <br /> 263 <br />Tony Blake: Exactly. 264 <br /> 265 <br />Lisa Stuckey: I’m serious, I’ve been on this Board a long time and we keep going back to Efland, let’s finish. It’s 266 <br />probably not a good idea to upset the apple cart. 267 <br /> 268
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.