Agenda - 07-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

161 aL1,5 Mr. McAdams: Said that that, safety, had been given a "cursory" consideration. He added that given the theorectical capacity of that road, "the road is lightly loaded at this time." Mr. McAdams was unsure if sight distance on the hill *as a problem. Mr. Kizer: Asked Mr. McAdams if he would respond to each of the concerns listed by the Planning Staff (please see pages of this book for that list). Mr. McAdams: #1—Will be provided; #2--Recreation facilities will be provided, including a swimming pool, but he is unsure what else is included; #3--Is not aware of any proposed laundery facilities; one dumpster is at the site and "at least one more dumpster is proposed:" #4--Walkways connecting the parking areas with the buildings is proposed and when recreation facilities are provided walkways connecting those facilities with the buildings would be provided; #5--the same surface pavement as those already existing there; Mr. Kizer asked if Mr. McAdams preferred that the roads not be "paved to State standards." Mr. McAdams replied that, "I'm talking about what is intended by the developer. We've come to you with a rezoning request; not a Special Use Permit proposal." #6--parking will be off a loop which is off the main entrance drive; #7—"I don't know what spacing has been provided." The landscaping is pri- marily "shrubbery, pine bark mulch, no grass." Commissioner Whitted asked if Mr. McAdams had designed Phase I and he replied, "Mo." #8—Is not a "development provision." Hr. Kizer: Asked Mr. McAdams about his feelings for the recommendation j 2 by Planning Staff for a Planned Development for this project. Mr. McAdams: "If the zoning had not been enacted in September, the developer would have done what we have in mind anyway and we're just asking for the rezoning so he can go ahead and do it. The existing development down there provides the best information on what will be continued." Mr0 Cannity: Reminded the Boards that this is a rezoning request and they must weigh the merits of the project for this zoning district.in its particular location. "It is impossible for you to weigh the intentions of the developer or anything he says he intends to do. You need to be ready to accept the R-8 zoning with none of these things addressed. Although the developer may make the state- ments that his intentions are to do such and such." Ms. Crawford asked for audience comments in favor of the rezoning request; there were none. Ms. Crawford asked for audience c,..7mments opposed to the rezoning request. Mr. David Rooks, Attorney for residents living along Orange Grove Road, said that there were currently 17 families living in single units along Orange Grove Road to its intersection with Oakdale Road. He said the issue is rezoning.