Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-E
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1994
>
Agenda - 05-02-94 Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 05-02-1994-IX-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2016 9:40:42 AM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:52:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/2/1994
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
IX-E
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19940502
(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.
/
102
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
Points to Ponder - -`--�` - <br /> Gordon <br /> 49 <br /> Population Density <br /> Com Ind - 'Located in areas with moderate to high population densities.' <br /> Ec Day - 'Located in areas with, or d for= moderate to high <br /> population densities. <br /> C. Comments/Questions/Recommendations <br /> I. Why were these changes made in the existing lend use plan? <br /> It would have been helpful if such changes had been highlighted. <br /> 2. Note that the 140/01d 86 proposed node is in the Hillsborough <br /> Cooperative Planning Zone. It is also close to the Rural Buffer, a part of <br /> the Joint Planning Arse with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. <br /> 3. It appears that no useful purpose is served by adding a new land <br /> use plan category. We should continue to use the existing land use plan <br /> category, 'commercial-industrial transition activity node.' <br /> 4. The 140/01d 86 node has more unaddressed issues than the other <br /> two nodes. <br /> If. Design Mgnugi <br /> It appears that the Design Manual has sections where fuzzy standards are <br /> Utilized. For example, consider sections 3.1 'Archi tectuai Design' and 3.2 <br /> 'Landscape Design' (found in the version of the manual I have, which may <br /> or may not be the latest version): <br /> A. 'Fuzzy' Stenderds <br /> It is hard to know whet is expected of a developer, given the way the <br /> manual is written. For example, in section 3.1 concerning 'compatibility <br /> with neighbors' we encounter this sentence: <br /> 'Unless there are overriding concerns or poorly defined aspects, <br /> a new building must reflect the architectural character of <br /> surrounding buildings in the following ways:' (a list follows) <br /> An example in section 3.2 concerning 'preservation of existing features' is <br /> found in the following sentence: <br /> 'Wherever possible, access to views are to be preserved for <br /> adjacent property owners and passing motorists.' <br /> Also in section 3.2 is this guideline for landscaping parking areas: <br /> 'Where practical, lowering the grade of the parking lot from <br /> existing street elevations may aid in obscuring views of <br /> outomobiies while promoting views of architectural elements <br /> of the structures beyond.' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.