Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 9. Town staff has already indicated an initial preference for a shared entranceway to <br /> minimize the number of new roadway cuts on this stretch of Old 86. If the <br /> proposed Villages at Berkeley subdivision to the south is approved,Town staff <br /> has discussed with the developer and County staff the interest in having one <br /> entryway (the "Twin Creeks Parkway") for both the park and subdivision. In <br /> earlier discussions, the developers offered conceptually to build this initial <br /> segment of the road to "parkway standards"with median plantings, for a short <br /> distance until their subdivision road heads south into the Villages at Berkeley <br /> development(and the Twin Creeks Parkway continues east into the park). <br /> However, ultimately this is a development standard and part of the CUP <br /> application that the Town will assess, and eventually recommend as a condition <br /> for approval.. As such the disposition of the nature of the road will need to await <br /> review of the CUP application, <br /> 10.. As noted previously, the Planning Board's specified role in this project is for <br /> courtesy review of the CUP application, at which time the Planning Board could <br /> make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners regarding bridges, low- <br /> impact design and stream crossings. There is only one stream crossing proposed <br /> for Phase I of the park, of Buckhorn Branch along the trail connecting the <br /> meadow and the playing fields. As previously noted, staff is familiar with low- <br /> impact design and has already discussed preliminarily with Town staff the <br /> potential for addressing sensitive stream crossings. <br /> 11. The offsets and minimization of sewer line easements would be a matter subject <br /> to the CUP application with the Town, but staff has already identified this as a <br /> topic for review with OWASA (it was originally suggested by the CHATPEC <br /> Work Group). <br /> 14. Construction drawings would not be finalized until the CUP application is <br /> approved for the park (and presumably CHCCS would submit a like CUP for <br /> ES#10 at the appropriate time). If this comment is meant to address the visual <br /> resources of construction on the higher elevations, it is staff's understanding that <br /> this will be part of the Town's review of the applications for site development <br /> (both park and schools). <br /> 16. The ultimate location of parking lots for the school site would need to be <br /> addressed with the Town and CHCCS, and any plans to utilize the Piedmont EMC <br /> powerline easement would need approval of that entity as well. If desired, the <br /> County could ask CHCCS to consider this as part of their eventual CUP <br /> application for this part of the site. It may be premature to change the master plan <br /> to reflect this without further discussion among the parties. <br /> 17. As staff has learned through the recent Town approval for lighting at Smith Fields <br /> (a County 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond project), the Town has extensive and <br /> stringent requirements in their development standards for lighting, and those <br /> would be part of the approval process with the Town. <br /> Park Construction (12,13,15,19) <br /> 12. Trails on the property would be designed by the Open Space Design Specialist <br /> and Land Conservation Manager in the Environment and Resource Conservation <br />