Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 06-03-2008
>
Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 7:51:00 PM
Creation date
8/28/2008 9:24:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/3/2008
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5b5b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20080603
(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.
/
34
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
~~ <br />I~1~:~~ T 1VITl~I-CTT~ ~ <br />1 more traffic and other impact from District (II than District I1. I couldn't really tell, but my <br />2 inclination is that District fll actually might be more disruptive of the community than District II. <br />3 So, I would just be curious as to what the thinking was. And then something that Commissioner <br />4 Nelson said that I also wanted to point out, on page 17 at the bottom, it does say the EDD <br />5 Design Manual for the uses of light industrial and distribution uses. One of the questions that <br />6 was asked was about incentives and certainly the Department of Commerce is more <br />7 predisposed to support non-retail uses in considering whether or not to allocate and state <br />8 incentives. 1 was wondering why the developers decided not to include any light industrial or <br />9 even flex space in this development. I also think if you're going fio have housing units within <br />10 these districts, that you might want to consider if you want fio make it a viable community, that <br />11 there be some kind of recreation that people could access, whether it is a fitness area or <br />12 something. Because if you want them to actually stay there and live there, then you want to <br />13 make it somewhat livable. <br />14 . <br />15 On page 21, there's a whole discussion of transit. I would hope that the developers would <br />16 consider contributing to the public transit line that the County is discussing that would run <br />17 east/west on US 70 that might easily include this development so that people wouldn't have to <br />18 use automobiles to get there, so people who maybe couldn't afford an automobile could gefi <br />19 there, or were too young or too old to be driving to get there. <br />20 <br />21 On page 22, it talks about designated smoking areas, and 1 would suggest that you might want <br />22 to reconsider whether or not we want to have designated smoking areas in a development in <br />23 Orange County. <br />24 <br />25 On page 24, you talk about the stormwater impoundments and best management practices. I <br />26 think I saw it, and I'm assuming that you'll use those waters, especially now that the State has <br />27 become a little more flexible, to do your irrigation as opposed to having to use any potable <br />28 water. <br />29 <br />30 I was also concerned what we're talking about on page 40 regarding the signage, the maximum <br />31 height being 50 feet. I'd just be interested in knowing more clearly what kind of lighting we're <br />32 talking about, what kind of sign we're talking about. There's some discussion later on, on pages <br />33 ~49 and 50 about relaxing some of the buffers in order, 1 assume, to make development and <br />34 signage more visible, but we also heard people speaking the other night who were concerned <br />35 about losing the green buffer along the interstate because it would make it louder. And as <br />36 somebody who lives about a third of a mile from I-40 and 1-85, I can tell you it makes a big <br />37 difference. When they widen from four Panes to eight lanes and took out a lot of trees, it made a <br />38 tremendous difference. So, I would be really cautious about how much I would be willing to <br />39 reduce the buffer along the interstate or reduce buffers near residential areas: And I know <br />40 there's some discussion in here about that. <br />41 <br />42 There's also mention of a public building site, but it's pretty vague. Mayor Phelps mentioned <br />43 Waterstone, the developer of Waterstone actually gave the Town a site and I believe is. helping <br />44 them build the fire sfiation. This_ is just a proposal to set aside a parcel with no clear offer of <br />_. __ . _ <br />._ .. <br />45 anything - a gift to the public, a reduced price, a function. l'd be interested in knoviiing what the <br />46 proposal is. I saw the most recent documents that the proposal is to have three access points <br />47 onto Buckhorn Road and two onto West Ten. Some of the visuals, I only saw one access point <br />48 onto West. Ten. I'm not sure why we need two onto what essentially is, of the two roads <br />49 involved, the secondary road, whether we want to be encouraging the trafr=tc in and out to the <br />50 extent that we have two entrances on it. Some places showed that and some places didn't. I <br />.~~ <br />r~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.