Browse
Search
12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2022
>
12.7.22 PB Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2022 4:57:35 PM
Creation date
11/30/2022 4:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/7/2022
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
16 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 496 Doug Burr: I don't exactly know they sourcing since I am the developer but they are a large company and they buy in a <br /> 497 huge selection and they have a limited price on their items so I don't know. <br /> 498 <br /> 499 Beth Bronson: So whether or not they deviate from their very structured plan. <br /> 500 <br /> 501 Doug Burr: I don't know the answer to that, I'm not sure. <br /> 502 <br /> 503 Charity Kirk: A question about the conditional nature of this because that's one of the things in the White Cross <br /> 504 development,we couldn't set conditions,what kind of conditions are possible for us to set? <br /> 505 <br /> 506 Adam Beeman: Things in the past that we've done was we negotiated electric charging stations in the parking lot. One <br /> 507 of the things they wanted to get away from the adding of the tree buffer and a lot of people don't get away with not <br /> 508 having the tree buffer. They are asking for that exception here. You can basically ask them for anything you want but <br /> 509 whether they agree to it is a different story. It's up to you and the applicant to agree on that and the Planning Board <br /> 510 would have to come to a consensus on whether we all agree with somebody's proposal before we presented it to the <br /> 511 applicant to go back and forth on but you can set any kind of condition you want to try. <br /> 512 <br /> 513 Cy Stober: I am Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director for the County. Mr. Beeman is largely correct, it has to be <br /> 514 mutually agreed upon. The site plan the staff had on hand when packets went out and the site plan that is featured in <br /> 515 your packet,there were 2 waivers requested, 2 conditions requested to deviate from the development standards of the <br /> 516 ordinance; 1 for the parking because they were deficient at that time by 1 space but they also did not have the terminal <br /> 517 landscaped islands in the parking lot. They've since addressed that in the site plan you saw before you tonight so that <br /> 518 waiver is no longer being requested. The consequence of providing that landscaping is that they essentially lost 2 <br /> 519 parking spaces per terminal island so now they are requesting the condition to not meet our parking standard to have 46 <br /> 520 rather than 53 spaces. I think that was also based on a slightly different building footprint; it's about 52 so they are <br /> 521 deficient by 6 spaces at this time but Mr. Beeman is correct if there are additional elements that you'd like to see on the <br /> 522 site plan, this is a site specific plan,this will be the footprint that is binding to the property. All other development <br /> 523 standards must be complied with in Article 6 or any use specific standards for the retail use must be complied with <br /> 524 unless the condition has been requested by the applicant at this time as has been disclosed to staff it is simply the 1 <br /> 525 condition to deviate from the parking standards. If are additional amenities or features you would like to negotiate with <br /> 526 the applicant this is an appropriate time to do so. <br /> 527 <br /> 528 Randy Marshall: I am a little confused,we're dealing with an application for zoning atlas amendment but you're talking <br /> 529 about putting conditions on proposed project that seems like its 2 different items to me. <br /> 530 <br /> 531 Cy Stober: Welcome to the wild world of conditional zoning, it does not have a long history in North Carolina. It is a <br /> 532 relatively new allowance under General Statutes, it dates back about 15+years and it does allow for site specific <br /> 533 requirements for unique zoning districts with unique requirements and unique allowances to deviate from the ordinance <br /> 534 requirements as seen appropriately in the legislative authority by the elected body, in this case the County <br /> 535 Commissioners and as advised by the Planning Board. This is a zoning district, it is a zoning district with a site specific <br /> 536 plan, if approved, it would be a zoning district with a site specific plan and specific conditions. At this time the only <br /> 537 condition that would be different from any other development standard is the parking. <br /> 538 <br /> 539 Randy Marshall: So we are doing 2 things with 1 decisions here. <br /> 540 <br /> 541 Cy Stober: That is correct. This is how metro areas end up with literally tens of thousands of zoning districts each with <br /> 542 their unique characteristics and they all have to be tracked. <br /> 543 <br /> 544 Delores Bailey: It says Planning Director Recommendation what was that,would you remind us again. <br /> 545 <br /> 546 Cy Stober: I am recommending the request as presented given the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and its <br /> 547 goals and objectives. <br /> 548 <br /> 549 Brian Collie continued his presentation <br /> 550 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.