Minutes - 19840123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.'~Q~ 11 The site plan recuirements ~~re as follows: Each application .f or a building permit shall be accompanied by a site plan or plans which show the information specified in the proposed te:,:t. Proposed site standards include: a) Conforr.~ance with the landscaping and screening requirements in proposes Article 12 ,~~;,sc~niAga_s~BS_Ss~3.•.~~A.lA~. b> The provision of a 1G0 f-oot auffer area frari the edge cf the right-of-way of an interstate highway that shall rennin in its natural state Gt the time of construction where ~aooded and landscaped ir. accordance with an approved plan vahich takes into consideration the growth and maturity of existing trees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in the buffer, anti other landscaping factors. 4~ithin these areas, ingress, egress and utility service shall be permitted, but no other disturbance for site improvement shall be permitted. c) A 100 foot setback adjacent to the interstate regarcless of whether it be the front, side or rear yard. d) A 50 foot setback adjacent to intersecting roads at an interchange for the entire v.idth of the district at these interchanges. e) Conformance with off-street parkin, requirements specified in article 10 Off S$~~Q~ parkinan~;_yg,~~jp~ f) Conformance with the signage requirements of ArticlE 9 ~~~ Proposed amendments to the Article .~ would not allow outdoor advertising in the PITC district, and would restrict signs to incidental and information signs only. g) A ninirium of 25~ of the total area shall remain in its natural vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas witl; trees 12" in diameter at breast heicht shall be retainer and set aside to meet the requirement before other areas are so used. Commissioner I~7i11hoit referred to 6.24.2 and suggested usina the term "circumference" instead o~ "diameter" and define the term or instead of "breast high" use a standarc height. Myron I•iartin of I:illsborourh Planning Board stated that with the impact of I-40, this board also wants to consider and make recommendations on the proposal. B.R. Olive urged the Boards to provide protection for the Upper Ivew Hope Cree}: basin. riew f?ope Creek has been used for research and it is important to avoid spills. fie noted that catch basins maintained by DOT wculd be most useful. fie added there is also a possibility of danger to Duke Forest. John I~icAdams, engineer and representative of 3.P. Goforth, fElt that the proposal would benefit the County and he does support site planning, }%et he feels a I00' buffer is inequitable and amounts to G "taking of land". fie referred to DOa procedures and actions on acquiring lands for the T-40 right-of-way. t7hitted clarified the proposal does not apply to single and two family dwelings. I:izer added it does apply to nigher residential densities. T•7illhoit asked if the basis far I;OT's requisition and settlement was residential property. i~IcAc;ams responded it was the status of the property at the time not enhancement value. f~IcAdaras stressed that care shouts be taken sp that the proposal is equitable so that tae do not end up with a very pleasing visual buffer for the good of the entire cor:;munity and the transepts the cost of vahich buffer is borne by the property ovaners within the district.