Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 4a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 12-01-2008
>
Agenda - 12-01-2008 - 4a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2008 4:43:38 PM
Creation date
12/1/2008 4:42:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/1/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
4a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20081201
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
18 <br />1 applicants are willing to live with whatever regulations that the Board of County Commissioners <br />2 might impose for drive-thrus in the County. The stipulation that is the most problematic, which <br />3 was never discussed with the staff, is number 2, which says that, "No drive-thru facilities shall <br />4 be located within 100 feet of an exterior property line, including building, drive lane for the drive- <br />s thru, or parking facilities. He said that this renders any of the pad sites in the site plan unusable <br />6 and unviable for a use that would require adrive-thru. He said that there was a discussion with <br />7 staff about five drive-thrus and he thought that there was a compromise that no more than three <br />8 of those would be for restaurants. This has been reduced to two. In addition, item #4 refers to <br />9 the type of planting and he said that this would require that the area be at least 10-15 feet, <br />10 which would dramatically impact the ability of the facility to fit on that site. He asked the Board <br />11 to consider adopting the language under `S' that the applicants proposed and then establish <br />12 Countywide guidelines for drive-thrus. <br />13 Commissioner Carey asked for staff response to the proposed condition 'S' by the <br />14 applicant. Craig Benedict said that the majority of the setbacks in the EDD zones are 100 feet. <br />15 The goal with the vegetative strip would be to absorb some of the emissions. Regarding <br />16 alternate language, staff has noticed the consternation about drive-thrus in the Hillsborough <br />17 EDD where drive-thrus have been prohibited. There are other sections of the County where <br />18 drive-thrus are allowed. At the appropriate time, staff will take the direction from the Board to <br />19 reexamine the drive-thru ordinance. <br />20 Geof Gledhill said that, with respect to Mr. Perry's proposal, so long as it is written in a <br />21 way that makes it apply to this permit, it is a good solution. <br />22 Chair Jacobs said that the Board could refer this to the Planning Board and advertise it <br />23 for the November 24t" public hearing. He said that Commissioner Nelson is supportive of no <br />24 drive-thrus and the Planning Board recommended one drive-thru for the entire development. <br />25 He is sympathetic to Mr. Perry's argument that it is not fair to impose restrictions on this protect. <br />26 <br />27 Chair Jacobs acknowledged the Planning Board members in attendance. He asked the <br />28 Manager or Craig Benedict whether the $400,000 in Economic Development money has been <br />29 secured and Laura Blackmon said that it has not been secured. She suggested that something <br />30 be put in writing requesting information about this to DOT. <br />31 Chair Jacobs suggested putting a resolution on the agenda for October 21St and then <br />32 forwarding it to DOT. <br />33 Chair Jacobs pointed out typos and grammatical mistakes on the following pages - 69, <br />34 71, 73, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 94, and 96. He gave the corrections to staff. Commissioner Gordon <br />35 said to also look at page 65, number 12-a. <br />36 Chair Jacobs made reference to page 69, item #5, about not having smoking within <br />37 structures. He would like to delete smoking from all structures instead of designated structures. <br />38 Michael Harvey said, with respect to #5, the applicant has no concern with prohibiting <br />39 smoking within structures, but they requested language be added to that same section <br />40 indicating that residential development shall be excluded, so that residents are allowed to <br />41 smoke in their own homes. <br />42 Chair Jacobs said that he was confused about transit stops: On pages 85 and 86, #19 - <br />43 talks about use of parking lots to support car pooling activities. He suggested preferential <br />44 parking with carpooling so that it is rewarded. <br />45 On page 86, item 27-d, he asked why there was only 20% compact car parking. Craig <br />46 Benedict said that there are parking standards. If there is interest to have higher than 20%, <br />47 then the Board could ask the applicant. Chair Jacobs suggested wording it, "no less than 20%." <br />48 On page 87, #2, he said that Orange County has a landscape architect on staff and he <br />49 suggested having them included in these discussions about landscaping. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.