Browse
Search
Twin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Master Plan - 5-3-2005, Item 9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Historical Information
>
Historical Information
>
Twin Creeks District Park and Educational Campus Master Plan - 5-3-2005, Item 9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2016 11:03:52 AM
Creation date
6/15/2016 10:53:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/3/2005
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Others
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-03-2005-9a
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2005\Agenda - 05-03-2005
Minutes - 20050503
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
11 <br /> 7. Staff would welcome the opportunity to work with local birding(and other <br /> related) organizations regarding possible habitat areas on site within the master <br /> plan. However, the locations for these activities would likely occur in future <br /> phases of the park or after development. The potential for storrnwater wetlands <br /> will be part of the CUP process, <br /> Conditional Use Permit/Development Standards (4,5,6,8,9,10,11,14,16,17) <br /> 4. The method of curb and gutter and road pavement will ultimately be a matter for <br /> the Town of Carrboro, whose development standards would apply. However, <br /> Town staff has already indicated an interest in using low-impact design(LID) <br /> standards for the connector road, and the County has a long history of preference <br /> for the use of swales and on-site infiltration of stormwater. Staff plans to propose <br /> similar arrangements (to the degree they are feasible and the Town is willing to <br /> receive them) as the CUP application and construction drawings are prepared. <br /> Staff would propose to explore LID standards further with the Town, as the CUP <br /> is prepared and submitted.. <br /> 5. The idea of involving advisory board members in formal negotiations with the <br /> application approval process is unprecedented, and staff feels it would be <br /> inconsistent with longstanding County policy(and potentially add cost and time <br /> to the process)to insert parties other than staff and the elected boards at this level <br /> of negotiation. Additionally, there are other advisory boards that have been more <br /> involved in the Twin Creeks process (the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council <br /> and the Commission for the Environment) that would likely also be interested in <br /> being part of an expanded negotiation and application review process as well, <br /> 6, The Joint Planning Agreement specifies that development applications in the <br /> Transition Area of the Joint Planning Area would have the County Planning <br /> Board receiving courtesy review of development applications. The Conditional <br /> Use Permit application will include substantial levels of detail, including some <br /> drawings at or near construction detail. The Planning Board would have the right <br /> to review and comment on the application to the Board of Commissioners. After <br /> approval of the CUP, final construction drawings would be developed and the <br /> project would be bid,resulting in a contract award by the Board of <br /> Commissioners. Advisory boards have not been involved in this level of approval <br /> of internal detail in projects, and staff feels that such involvement here (and again, <br /> the RPAC and CfE might have similar interests if roles were expanded)would be <br /> inconsistent with longstanding County policy. Staff would be interested in <br /> receiving the courtesy review and comments of the Planning Board (and other <br /> advisory boards) of the CUP application, as per Joint Planning procedures, which <br /> may capture much of the desired detail. <br /> 8.. The number of parking spaces is an estimate on the master plan, and the exact <br /> number of spaces would be subject to determination by the Town staff and <br /> addressed in a more exact way in the CUP, The general number of spaces <br /> reflected in the master plan is consistent with initial readings and discussion of the <br /> Town's development standards, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.