Browse
Search
ORD-2003-142 PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Addition Special use permit
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2003
>
ORD-2003-142 PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Addition Special use permit
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2011 3:49:35 PM
Creation date
8/12/2011 3:49:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/24/2003
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
C.1.a
Document Relationships
Agenda - 11-24-2003-c1a
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2003\Agenda - 11-24-2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
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
recommendation back to the BOCC. We would take it to the Planning Board the first week in <br />.January,. and then get it will.. back to the County Commissioners in January or early February. That <br />is our recommendation. <br />Hunter Schofield: Very good. pk, let's move forward. 1f we could hear from the applicants: <br />Please make sure you've been sworn in -and please: state your name as you come forward. I have <br />a list of speakers here, but I'm not sure if they overlap with the applicants. I've got a Jona#han <br />Parsons. Is that one of the applicants? Jonathan, please. come forward.. Welcome. <br />Statements h sunnart of the nroaosal; <br />:Jonathan Parsons:: I appreciate your time. this evening to go overthis project and basically just to <br />sum up what Mr. Davis.has already spoken to you about. We are an existing bank site or credit <br />union sate. And, we're, quite literally, trying to do this: improvement #o better serve our current <br />customer base that is slightly expanding, but we're just mainly out to give our clients the best <br />possible facility they can have. As it was stated, we are trying to minimize any impact to the <br />existing site... We're. helping to preserve those really large cedars and the: hemlocks and the <br />grasses. And; in fact, we're actually incorporating similar materials into all the expansion area to <br />help make if anice--uniform, very visually-pleasing appearance from the intersection,. so when <br />you`re coming by you see one homogenous appearance. Ands. if you go back.#o, the landscape <br />plan, you would see it in the section showing a very similar character.. <br />With that, we have talked at length with. the Planning 'Department and have agreed with al'mast all of <br />the frndings. And we've talked with NCDOT and have gotten their input on Phis. We would like.. to <br />move forward with the site plan°with the exception of - we will. accept their condition of removing the <br />second proposed driveway. But, :pending a presentation by my traffic engineer, Rynal Stephenson, <br />we would Tike to keep the existing driveway a full access drive, as we understand in 2010 or so, that <br />drive- would be converted to a right-in and right-out.. But, with the current facility being as it is, we <br />can`t'foresee when the adjacent southern parcel would develop and give us that full access <br />intersection with Millstone. And DOT has reviewed our plans and they'believe the intersection that <br />is currently there, the existing driveway, is a functional driveway. It's not an optimum, but it is <br />functioning. There is enough queue space for people making alert-hand turn into our site and`vice <br />versa on Oakdale, so it seems to work. With that, we are prepared to go forward with the right-of- <br />way dedications. We've actually shown it on all of our plans that we submitted to the State. We <br />have carried the additional right-of-way an $6, and it is in line with the entire sidewalk we're <br />proposing. We're planning on extending that to the edge of our property line. And the same with <br />Oakdale. I believe that was actually already filed with the previous site plan:. <br />If there are any questions of me specifically aboutthe site plan, I'd be happy to cover them now, <br />Otherwise, I'll let our traffic engineer give you a quick analysis of what they found from an actual'.: <br />study of thearaffic countwe've done in'the past week, just to help justify why we think we're making <br />a qualitative improvement, not pushing the quantity up too much:. <br />Hunter Schofield:- If it's ok with'the Board, I think we'll hear from all of the applicants and their <br />consultants, and then, perhaps, we'll turn it over to questions. Isthat agreeable? <br />OK. Then I've got J':W. Smith and Rynal Stephenson and it can be in#hat order, or how you <br />choose. And again, please make sure you've been worn in :and please state your°name. <br />Rynal Stephenson: Good evening. My name is Rynal Stephenson and t`m with Raimey Kemp and'. <br />Associates, a'traffic engineering. firm out of Raleigh, N.G'. We went out on Thursday of last week: <br />and conducted traffic counts during the. morning from eight o'clock to tern o'clock a.m, and":also in <br />the afternoon from four o`clock to sa :o'clock p.m. This handout that Jonathan: is currently passing <br />out -the first page gives.-you a summary of this brief study-that we have conducted. and is followed``. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.