Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-01-1982
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1982
>
Agenda - 02-01-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2017 10:14:09 AM
Creation date
3/30/2017 10:04:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/1/1982
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19820201
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1980's\1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
135
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
EXCERPT FROM <br /> ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ON <br /> "THE TIMBERS (CLASS A) SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATI0N:"------"".""m''".ee"eee.'"e' <br /> The Orange County Planning Staff recommends denial or deferral of the Planned <br /> Development (PD-4) - (Class A Special Use Permit) (and Rezoning from to <br /> R-8) request for The Timbers. <br /> The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: <br /> 1. The location of this project adjacent to interstate highways could pre- <br /> sent noise problems. The proposal does not address this concern. There <br /> is no buffer of distance or vegetation between the roads and the units. <br /> Staff feels a minimum of a 50 foot buffer should be required. <br /> 2. The site has been logged in the recent past and there is very little <br /> significant vegetation remaining. The proposed layout shows an average <br /> of 18 feet between units: This distance does not provide enough <br /> privacy, especially since there is no vegetation between units. Staff <br /> feels that the size and capacity of landscaping should be increased and <br /> indicated on the plan. Further the distance between units should be <br /> not less than as calculated in Article 6.12.3 j. <br /> 3. The parking for each unit will be along the roads; without separate <br /> pedestrian circulation within the project there is considerable possi- <br /> bility for accidents, especially with the smaller children. Also, <br /> with no designated parking for each unit, it is possible that residents <br /> would have to park a considerable distance from their unit. The staff <br /> feels there should be separate pedestrian circulation within the <br /> project to avoid possible conflicts. That parking should be off of <br /> the travel surface of the road. The road width could be reduced if <br /> this is done. There should be a minimum of two spaces per unit located <br /> on the site plan. The surface treatment of the road, should be such <br /> that there would be no dust. <br /> 4. The swimming pool is a good improvement for this type development. <br /> There should, however, be some additional improvements. Bathroom <br /> facilities need to be built at the pools, including a drinking fountain. <br /> Two tot lots should be provided, one at each end of the development. <br /> This would allow young children to stay much closer to home. The <br /> usual play equipment should be supplied, swings, slide, bars, eta. are <br /> good examples. There is no parking provided at the pool. This would <br /> require the residents to walk and carry all their belongings and their <br /> children to thepool. There is no indication of when the swimming pool <br /> and other improvements will be completed. Staff feels all improvements <br /> for the project should be installed before the last section of units <br /> is ready for occupancy. <br /> 5. Two dumpster locations are proposed for the project. The dumping <br /> schedule is supposed to be twice weekly. Staff feels at least one <br /> more dumpster is necessary. Presently some residents will have to go <br /> 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.