ORC minutes 070616 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JULY 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-At-Large Chapel Hill Township (Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township 8 Representative (Vice-Chair); Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 9 Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning 12 Systems Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant; 13 14 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 15 16 Lydia Wegman called meeting to order. 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – MODIFY USE STANDARDS 19 20 To review and comment upon proposed amendments to the UDO that would establish use 21 standards to allow certain principal uses to include a small component of other specific uses in 22 the O/RM (Office/Research and Manufacturing) zoning district. 23 24 Presenter: Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 25 26 Ashley Moncado delivered presentation. 27 28 Tony Blake: Does this now permit drive-thrus? I think I remember that there were no drive-thrus. 29 30 Ashley Moncado: I believe that is correct. 31 32 Tony Blake: I kind of drew this thing on the board when we took the O/RM blob there and divided up into the three 33 possible primary uses and then the secondary uses. The language that I’m missing here is where it talks about multi-34 family there’s a line in there that says, “The multi-family use is part of an overall site plan that includes at least 1 other 35 permitted…” That language is missing here for me. That language that says we need an overall site plan and what 36 I’m afraid to end up with is 25% here and 25% here and 25% here and 25% here, as opposed to a central master 37 plan. It seems to lend itself more towards this cut up view. Now maybe that’s on purpose but that was what struck me 38 when reading this. 39 40 Perdita Holtz: It’s not; that language is part of the next item though. We can probably just put in language indicating 41 that it needs to be part of an overall site plan. 42 43 Tony Blake: And that’s what I was thinking. Because you could conceivably have all three of these different uses 44 inside this O/RM and you don’t know. Say this guy builds industrial and then they want to start building these 45 accessory uses. You don’t know what the overall square footage is going to be in this whole thing so you can’t say 46 what 25% of that is. And it just starts to get complicated and hard to figure out for a developer. 47 48 Craig Benedict: I think that would help during this site plan process to allocate an area of the site that maybe they’re 49 not building retail in phase 1 but they could say here’s part of the site. 50 51 Paul Guthrie: In terms in whether it’s language or not, whether you can describe in a neat form that’s understandable 52 of what you’ve just gone through. I’m wondering if the way to deal with the kind of would be to say that after the initial 53