Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Orange County Planning Board Members, and <br /> Orange County Planning Department Staff <br /> Page 3 <br /> December 30, 1981 <br /> Applicant's Proposal: spacing 18 feet and 26 feet, 79 units, <br /> monthly rent $65. <br /> If spacing were increased to a minimum of 30 feet, 69 units, <br /> monthly rent $74 (14% higher) would be required to produce <br /> revenues equivalent to those in applicant's proposal. <br /> If spacing were increased to a minimum of 37 feet (i.a.w. <br /> Ordinance) , 59 units, monthly rent $87 (34% higher) would be <br /> required to produce revenues equivalent to those in <br /> applicant's proposal. <br /> The applicant acknowledges that the Orange County approval process <br /> is not intended to assure a developer of a certain level of <br /> return on investment, and does not expect such assurance. But <br /> we do point out that whenever there is an investment in land and <br /> improvements, the revenues generated have got to cover the invest- <br /> ment, and if there are fewer units (greater spacing) in the <br /> development then the return from each unit has got to be higher. <br /> The requirement for greater spacing will cause the rents to <br /> increase, and it is the applicant's opinion (supported by evidence <br /> from the Public Hearing) that the people who aspire to live at <br /> The TiMbers prefer lower rent over greater spacing. <br /> -A hedge row about 25 feet long is proposed between each of the units. <br /> To change the spacing of the units would not require extensive <br /> re-design. The orientation of the units cannot be changed because of <br /> the topography of the site. Thus, if indeed it is required of the <br /> applicant to increase the spacing this will simply involve sliding <br /> the units down along the rows they are already in. If increased <br /> spacing is required, we ask not to have to resubmit; but rather just <br /> cover this in a stipulation. <br /> 3. concerning parking: <br /> --We have revised and enclosed the site plan to show the parking spaces <br /> in detail. It is proposed to have areas between every two cars for <br /> pedestrian access. <br /> --The proposed surface treatment of the roads would be a form of pave- <br /> ment, and there would be no dust. <br /> --Paved pedestrian paths have been provided along the edges of some of <br /> the parking, and through the middle of the development, to improve <br /> pedestrian circulation and provide separation from vehicular traffic. <br /> 4. Concerning recreational amenities: <br /> --We strongly object to including a bath house and parking at the pool. <br /> To do so would encourage non-residents to drive up and use the pool. <br /> 17 <br />