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
s <br /> 69 <br /> b. Consider reducing permitted residential density such that it is not more attractive <br /> (profitable) than business development. <br /> Staff Comment: Residential densities are limited to more than four (4) dwelling units per acre <br /> by the Design Manual (page 2.1.2). If density is a concern, the range of <br /> densities could be reduced similar to the approach taken with respect to land <br /> adjoining Stagecoach Run Subdivision. In that location, residential densities <br /> cannot exceed two (2) units per acre (page 2.1.6). <br /> If the type of residential unit permitted is a concern; i.e., single-family, <br /> condominium, apartment or mobile home, specific types of residential units <br /> could be allowed. For example, single-family attached and detached units at <br /> densities of not more than two units per acre might be allowed. If higher <br /> densities (not to exceed four units per acre) were desired, the developer <br /> would have to secure approval through the "planned development" process. <br /> C. Consider not zoning residential areas until a specified amount of the Primary Area has <br /> been developed. <br /> Staff Comment: heaving proposed areas in an R-1 zoning category until a specified amount of <br /> the Primary Area has been developed may result in low-density development <br /> at the fringes of the district instead of a"step-down" from more intensive to <br /> existing residential development.In addition,leaving the residential option in <br /> the Secondary Development Areas open provides more opportunity for <br /> properly planned development where non-residential and residential uses are <br /> considered as part of a single project. <br /> Planning Board We believe any residential development within the I-40/O1d N.C.86 Economic <br /> Comment: Development District will further constrict and complicate the planning of the <br /> district. Thus, we oppose any residential development within the district. <br /> Needed residential development can occur outside but contiguous to the <br /> district if the market supports it. There is land available. <br /> NOTE: 10-1, with Waddell dissenting because he felt that residential <br /> development should be left in as an option even though it may not be used <br /> fiw1ientlyj <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.