Minutes - 19840123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a.~~ 16 The site plan. requirements are as follows: Each application for a building ,permit shall. be accomL~anied by a site plan or plans which show the information specified in the proposed text. Proposed site standards includE: a} Conformance v.ilh the landscaping and screening requirements i.n proposed Article 12 ~~~~~,' ~ nine. b) The provision of a 100 foot buffer area from the edge of the right-of-way of an interstate highv:ay that shall remain in its natural state at the time of construction where c~aoded and landscaped in accordance wilt: an approved plan which takes into consideration the growth and naturity of existing frees, the policy of fostering wooded areas in tae buffer, and other Landscaping factors. i•Iithi~a these areas, ingress, egress and ulilit}> service shall be perrlitted, but no other disturbance for sire improvement shall be permitted. c) A 100 foot setback adjacent to the interstate regardless of whether it be the front, side or rear yard. d) A 50 foot setbacl: adjacent to inlersectinc roads al an interchange for the entire width of the district at these irterchanres. e) Conformance vrith off-street parking requirements st~ecified in Article ID ~~~-L~~la~~9 anc„ L~~s~1D~a,:. f) Conformance with the signaye requirements of Article 9 ~.,gns. Proposed amendments to the Article 9 would not allow outdoor advertising in the P•1TC district, anG would restrict sicrns to incidental and information signs only. g) A minimum of 25b of the total area shall remain in its natural vegetated condition. Area containing wooded area or areas with trees 12" in c~iameler at breas~ heichl shall be retained and set aside to meet the requiren;ent before other areas are so used. Commissioner jdillhoit referred to 6.2E.2 and suggested using the term "circurnference" insteac: of "diariieter" and define the term or instead of "breast high" use a standard height. Y-Tynan iiartin of Hillsborough Planning Eoard stated that with the irnr~act of T-40, this board also wants to consider and make reconu:~endatiors on the proposal. }3.B. Olive urged the l;oards to provide protection for the Upper i.ew ~Iope Creek basin. )3ew f?ope Creek has been used far research and it is important to avoid spills. I?e poled that catch basins maintained by DOT caould be.r.~ost useful. Fie added there is also a possibiJ,ity of ganger to Dul;e Forest. John ~~cAdams, engineer and representative of J.P. Goforth, felt that the proposal would benefit the County and he does support site planning, yet he feels a 100' buffer is inequitable and amounts to a "taY,iny of land". 1=e referred to DOT procedures and actions on acquiring Lands for the I-40 right-of-way. T•'rtritted clarifies: the proposal does not apply to single anc: two far~i ly dwelings. itizer added it does apply to higher residential densities. WiLLhoit askeG if the basis far BOm's reciuisition and settlement wc;E residential property. I~IcP_dams responded it was the status of the property a.t the time not enhancement value. I.1cAdams stressed that care should be taken so that the proposal is equitable so that we do r_ot end up vaith a very pleasing visual buffer for the good of the entire community and the transerts the cost of v~hich buffer is borne by the property owners within the district.