Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 03-01-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 03-01-1994 - VII-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2015 11:56:54 AM
Creation date
2/9/2015 10:53:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/1/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VII-A
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940301
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
64 <br /> through the State Building Code; i.e. ; the Fire <br /> Prevention Code, and changes from the Code <br /> requirements would have to be approved by the <br /> Building Code Council. In terms of low truck <br /> traffic, standards could be set, but they would vary <br /> from person to person. The standards in the Manual <br /> address related issues such as location of loading <br /> docks, buffer requirements, and noise thresholds. <br /> Burklin asked if information was required concerning <br /> trip generation and improvements to thoroughfares. <br /> Collins noted that as long as the capacity of a road <br /> is not exceeded, as determined by an impact <br /> analysis, dedication of additional right-of-way <br /> would be required but not improvements. When the <br /> capacity of the road to carry the traffic was <br /> exceeded, improvements would be required of the <br /> developer. <br /> Collins then turned to the final set of questions, <br /> with the general concern being whether some kind of <br /> pilot project should be utilized. He indicated that <br /> further differentiation of uses in districts would <br /> only make the districts more restrictive and less <br /> likely to be implemented. With the involvement of <br /> the Commissioners in the approval of major <br /> development projects, the intent of districts would <br /> not be carried out; i.e. , staff approval based on <br /> design and performance standards, with Commissioner <br /> approval where projects failed to meet criteria. <br /> Before proceeding further, Waddell asked if the <br /> Planning Board members agreed with Collins' <br /> responses to Commissioner Gordon's questions. <br /> Waddell noted that, in looking around the table, <br /> there was unanimous consent with Collins' comments <br /> and asked Collins to continue. <br /> Collins noted that he wanted to highlight some <br /> changes appearing on pages 29-30 that staff was <br /> recommending. First, the Site Volume Ratios for <br /> office and retail uses in the I-40/Old NC 86 <br /> district are recommended for change as follows: <br /> Use Current SVR Revised SVR <br /> Retail 1.000 1.500 <br /> Office 2.000 2.500 <br /> Collins then noted that the number of trees per acre <br /> of unobstructed open space for industrial uses (in <br /> all districts) needed to be changed from 6 to 20 <br /> large trees and from 11 to 10 small trees to correct <br /> a distortion in the original analysis. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.