Browse
Search
Agenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-D
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1995
>
Agenda - 10-02-95
>
Agenda - 10-02-1995 - IX-D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2015 2:48:56 PM
Creation date
1/7/2015 2:48:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/2/1995
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-D
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19951002
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
20 r <br /> what has been done with the design manual is to <br /> set up the basic design standards that are to be <br /> met when each development comes in. The <br /> considerations that will be taken into account <br /> include how the development fits in with the <br /> surrounding area. Those are design issues that <br /> come into play carrying out the design manual for <br /> each individual use. Waddell noted that it would <br /> be somewhat speculative, very difficult for Staff <br /> to provide such drawings until some specific <br /> plans are presented to them. <br /> Price indicated she understood; however, when <br /> working in Planning Departments, early on you <br /> have renderings to get an idea what a proposal <br /> would look like. She noted that she had a <br /> lot of concerns about how much land is going to <br /> show. With the two areas being added to the <br /> EDD, she indicated she was under the impression <br /> that the County was buying land in the EDD and <br /> consolidating parcels. She continued wondering <br /> what it would look like and referred to comments <br /> from other Board members about retaining the <br /> residential flavor of the area. If we allow <br /> piece-meal commercial development between two <br /> residential areas, how is it going to pan out. <br /> Hoecke stated that he felt the Board was in <br /> danger of losing track of what they were dealing <br /> with. We are dealing with an economic <br /> development district with a special concept <br /> designed to draw business to it so it wouldn't <br /> create strips and random development in the rest <br /> of the County. We are discussing it somewhat in <br /> the manner of "what are we going to do with this <br /> subdivision?" He continued regarding the <br /> concerns being expressed about the types of <br /> buildings noting that standards have been set and <br /> will be applied throughout the district. He <br /> indicated he was in favor of elimination of the <br /> buffer as recommended by the Planning Staff. <br /> MOTION: Allison moved approval as recommended by the <br /> Planning Staff. Seconded by Reid. <br /> VOTE: 7 in favor (Howie, Allison, Reid, Hoecke, <br /> Walters, Jobsis, Waddell) . <br /> 5 opposed (Barrows - felt the discussion <br /> explained her opposition, Rosemond - uneasy how <br /> it might be applied to other zones and wanted <br /> buffer, Katz - not comfortable with it along <br /> highways as opposed to other areas, Brown - does <br /> not protect Cornwallis Hills, Price - felt it was <br /> short-sighted, concerned with establishing and/or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.