Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-20-1996 - VIII-E
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1996
>
Agenda - 08-20-1996
>
Agenda - 08-20-1996 - VIII-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2013 3:33:26 PM
Creation date
10/29/2013 3:33:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/20/1996
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VIII-E
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19960820
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1996
RES-1996-033 Resolution approving the La Mesa Subdivision, Phase II, Preliminary Plat
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\1990-1999\1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
l <br /> W � � 18 � <br /> (2) La Mesa <br /> (21 Lots-Little River Township) <br /> Presentation by Emily Cameron. <br /> The property is located in the northeast comer of the county south of Bacon Road <br /> (SR 153 1)between NC Highway 57 and the Person County line. The total acreage <br /> of the tract is 72.65 acres. It is currently zoned Agricultural Residential and Flat <br /> River Protected Watershed. In the Land Use Element of the comprehensive Plan it is <br /> designated as Agricultural Residential and Water Supply Watershed. <br /> The property was part of a farm over twenty years ago.Former fields are now <br /> covered by typical early successional growth. Slopes are gentle except along two <br /> intermittent streams(one is not show in Phase III)which flow generally east and <br /> southeast where limited slopes approach twenty percent(20%).The soils are typical <br /> for Orange County with moderate limitations for septic systems,dwellings,and road <br /> construction. <br /> The Preliminary Plan for La Mesa was approved by the Board of Commissioners in <br /> August 1989. The Final Plat for Phase I containing eight(8)lots was approved in <br /> December of that year. Approval of the Preliminary Plan expired one year later <br /> because subsequent final plats were not submitted. <br /> To reactivate the subdivision,the applicants submitted a Concept Plan which was <br /> approved by the Planning Board on August 20, 1995. The Concept Plan was almost <br /> identical to the 1989 Preliminary Plan featuring public roads and 38 lots ranging in <br /> size from one to five acres. <br /> Phase II contains 45.38 acres which the applicant proposes to divide into twenty <br /> (20)new residential lots.Lot sizes are between 0.98 and 6.2 acres.Each lot will have <br /> an individual well and septic system. Lot 16 does not have a site approved by <br /> Environmental Health for a septic system;therefore,before the Final Plat is <br /> prepared,the lot must either be approved for on-site sewage disposal,combined with <br /> adjacent lots,or retained as open space and restricted for development. <br /> In 1994 the average daily traffic count for this part of Bacon Road was 70 trips per <br /> day. Access to Bacon Road will be provided via La Mesa Lane,a new public cul de <br /> sac to be built to State standards. Two other public rights-of-way are reserved to <br /> serve future development in Phase III. A stubout was required as a condition of <br /> approval in 1989 and 1995 between lots 14 and 15 extending to the western <br /> boundary. A road connection would be made in the event adjacent property is <br /> developed in the future. . <br /> The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for La Mesa, <br /> Phase H,with public roads built to State standards and the conditions contained in <br /> the Resolution of Approval(an attachment to these minutes on pages ). <br /> Hoecke asked for more information on lot 16. Cameron responded that it some <br /> clearing of dense vegetation must be done to obtain access for checking. <br /> Brooks asked if the Planning Board could decide the use of lot 16 if no perc site is <br /> found. Cameron responded a significant design change would require <br /> reconsideration.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.