Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2005, the General Assembly did land use plan modernization legislation, which imposed a <br /> requirement that the conditions of the permit had to be agreed to by the developer. He thinks <br /> that there can be an agreement where both parties can find something acceptable. <br /> Commissioner Carey said that he is not sure that there is a lot of difference with drive- <br /> ups and drive-thrus and it is reasonable to have some of both in a development like this. He <br /> thinks that they should be limited, but commit some. He also would like to remove those things <br /> from the conditions that are uniquely within the responsibility of this Board or any other board <br /> because the developer does not have the authority to do these things. He asked that these <br /> conditions be put on a list of goals for the County Commissioners to pursue over a period of <br /> time. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that the developers have heard the County Commissioners' primary <br /> areas of concern, and they can decide whether to adjust or not adjust, and the Board can <br /> decide on the conditions that it wants, and if there is no change then the developers know <br /> where the Board stands. <br /> Commissioner Gordon said that if this comes back on October 7th and there are still <br /> questions, then they should be addressed. <br /> Rosemary Waldorf made reference to the point earlier about affordable housing and <br /> said that there has been some back and forth discussion with the staff that if the developers <br /> knew what Orange County's affordable housing program was, they would work to comply with <br /> that. She would like to propose that they will write a stipulation that complies with the 15% <br /> standard that Chapel Hill and Carrboro does. Regarding the buffer and the visibility, she would <br /> like to follow up on the notion that there should be better illustrations. She asked that they be <br /> allowed to bring these illustrations to show the Board what is needed. Also, it is her <br /> understanding that the EDD design standards were really written not for a retail mixed-use <br /> contemporary kind of project, but were written for light industrial, etc., something that people <br /> would want to be buffered by vegetation. She said that the visibility for this kind of project is <br /> critically important, especially for the anchor tenant. <br /> George Horton said that this is not like Southpoint, but a mixed-use development and a <br /> village. There is one anchor tenant that is critical to the project. Without the anchor tenant, <br /> there will be no project. There are only two or three tenants that can allow this, and the <br /> requirements are visibility along the corridor. This will not fly with only 25%. <br /> Chair Jacobs suggested that the illustrations include something other than 60%. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to <br /> schedule action on the rezoning and SUP applications for October 7, 2008 consistent with the <br /> Board's discussion and all of the issues that were raised. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> d. Education Facilities Impact Fee Reports — Receipt <br /> The Board was to consider receiving the Draft Education Facilities Impact Fee reports <br /> prepared by TischlerBise and direct staff on how/when to proceed. <br /> DEFERRED <br /> e. Resolution Submitting Comments Regarding Alternatives for the Durham- <br /> Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2035 Long Range <br /> Transportation Plan <br /> The Board was to consider a resolution submitting comments to the Durham-Chapel <br /> Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee regarding <br />