OCPB minutes 080316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/7/2016 12 category to it and they were going to consciously say which areas were going to be residential and non -residential. 594 They didn’t do that because part of the cooperative agreement didn’t go forward. That’s why we’re here 2 years 595 later saying, well we need to put a zoning category on it that fits exactly, as close to possible, what the intent of our 596 Economic Development District. Mixed use as we mentioned is supportive of non-residential, jobs, employment, 597 multi-family does have a good mix. But it’s true, single family chews up more land and creates more fiscal impacts 598 and costs than the non-residential. 599 600 Lisa Stuckey: And I think the sort of philosophical thing about this sort of siloing residential versus non, that people 601 are separated from their jobs and they have to commute and that has a bad impact on our quality of life when you 602 pull things apart like that. That comes with it’s own set of problems. 603 604 Craig Benedict: One other thing that was mentioned a little bit earlier was how these categories and things evolve 605 over time about how you use zoning. And zoning 10, 20, 30 years ago was very siloed. This is manufacturing. This 606 is retail. This is office. And you saw from our amendments that went through the last 3 or 4 months that we have 607 these categories such as office, research, and manufacturing. They put them all in one building. This EDH4 and 608 EDH5 that we’re looking at is one of those combined districts where somebody can come in and do office and some 609 assembly and some R&D and we’re also suggesting some retail so that if you have the jobs they don’t have to go 610 too far to go to a restaurant or bank. And really even thought this will probably be developed in these little zones, 611 this whole area of all 4 quadrants of the interchange is going to be mixed use. We don’t need to mix it completely 612 on every parcel but somebody living in a multi family on the south side can easily get over to the hospital if they 613 were working there. 614 615 Tony Blake: This is why RTP’s putting in all the residential. 616 617 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. 618 619 Lisa Stuckey: That’s the flip of it. 620 621 Craig Benedict: That’s the conventional zoning ideas back in the 60s. 622 623 Tony Blake: So just to talk directly to the first gentleman’s concerns, this would not preclude a Gorilla Manufacturing 624 or an asphalt plant or anything like that. There are other components to the UDO that would address those. But this 625 particular zone would not prevent it. 626 627 Perdita Holtz: You mean the EDH5 zone? 628 629 Tony Blake: Yes. 630 631 Perdita Holtz: They could theoretically be located in EDH5, but practically, with all the development standards that 632 the UDO contains, it’s not likely. 633 634 Craig Benedict: This isn’t in the UDO but this is in the practice that all cities and counties are doing in the region. 635 There’s demand for quality growth and our Commissioners and Economic Development Department targets 636 industries and if it’s the appropriate industries that give us the tax base and the high paying jobs , there’s incentives. 637 Jobs or businesses that are not fulfilling that targeted market are not likely to get incentives and therefore the 638 pressure for them to locate here is lessened. Meaning that some of those higher intensity uses that are listed in that 639 manufacturing category, we’re not going to be escorting those in with incentive packages. 640 641 Lisa Stuckey: There’s also small businesses that it seems to me that some of what you were just talking about 642 would really… that there’s not much land that’s available right now to do this kind of construction in Orange County, 643 really. 644 645 Craig Benedict: That’s correct. There are not too many interchanges and everyone that we have, besides the one in 646 North Chapel Hill, New Hope Church interchange- nothing can happen there. And this is within proximity of our 647