Browse
Search
Meeting 031496
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Advisory Boards and Work Groups - Inactive
>
Stoney Creek Work Group
>
Meeting 031496
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 4:56:11 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 11:37:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
different for Stoney Creek) . <br />Gene Bell: Reference to comments he made at subcommittee meeting, <br />i.e., why have a small area plan if it can't be different from <br />other areas. Gave example of three Economic Development Districts <br />(EDDs) in current County Plan. General goal of EDDs is same, i . e . , <br />to enhance the tax base and provide jobs, but there are differences <br />(in the ordinance) concerning permitted uses and design standards <br />from one EDD to another. <br />Verla Insko: So, EDDs are essentially tailor made. <br />Lee Rafalow: Think it is a good idea to make it explicit, but don't <br />think we have a problem. <br />Verla Insko: What other guidance does subcommittee need? <br />Lee Rafalow: Details, 50o vs 33o for example. Elio has also <br />provided-a list. <br />Dan Teichman: Need definitions of terminology, e.g., mixed -use, <br />retail -low impact... <br />David Yelton: Active recreation land hasn't been addressed and <br />payment -in -lieu doesn't seem to offer much. <br />Gene Bell: Received a report today on payment -in -lieu and haven't <br />had chance to review it yet. Will try to provide information on <br />this and potential of park site from development currently underway <br />in next agenda. Don't think subcommittee has time to address this <br />at their next meeting. <br />Adjournment time reached. <br />Lee Rafalow: Request that meeting be extended for 10 minutes for <br />additional subcommittee guidance. <br />Bob Hall: Conditional use /special use changes are complex and seem <br />to be adding more layers; could this be put off for awhile? <br />Verla Insko: Issues needing clarification? <br />Lee Rafalow: Amount of open space to qualify as open space (33o vs <br />500). This affects amount of density bonus. All this number <br />really means is where you start giving density bonuses; as example <br />propose 50% in yellow areas, 33o in pumpkin, and pack rust. <br />Keith Cook: Why increased open space in the yellow? <br />Lee Rafalow: Goal there is less intensive use. Also brought up <br />discussion at subcommittee about setback proposal along roads; <br />Curtis was especially concerned. <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.