Agenda - 08-02-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• ...F. ;ze.• • F ;17::7:A. • cowrY BO:Ft1.0 Cre'eLISSIONERS Action Ageoda it t,:o. ILl B Acricis: itf.;=.7DA ITEM AP-STRACT DATz. 8/2/82 Fequest by Fred & Elizabeth Cates for Rezoning from Residential-I (rt-1) to Residential - 8 (R-8) Depastrmeat: Planning L x Public Hearing: yes Attechnt(e) A,4Plication forms - 1-4 Iriforae,thon Cont- ct.: Rick cannity location raP/tax nap-pg. 5,6 .1 Phone 14\rmi-.•=r: 732-8181 Eer. 347 • PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation concerning &an applicatibn for a rezoning—from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residentibl-8 (11-8) . NEED: The applicarlt has requested high density residential (R-8) designation for property located in Hillsborough nship off Orange Grove Road, just south of I-45 the property is PAD Lot 28 block B Map 38 and is shown on Tax map 42, Hillsborough Township. The total tract is 115 acres, about 40 acres of Thigh lies south of 1-85. Property to the east and west has been developed by the applicant with 43 apartment units on 6 acres of land. Hillsborough In water and sanitary sewer service is available to the site. EXACT: The rezoning request is in general oonformance with the Orange ()minty Land Use Plan. However, the high density develozrent allowed under the designation may have adverse impacts on the existing development in this area. The rezoning request does not address the following important concerns: 1. fire protection for the existing units and for those proposed. Eevelopment at this density should have fire hydrants no further than 500' by road from every unit. 2. There are no receational facilities existing on the site, there Are none proposed. If approved there would be a total of 80 units with no recreational area. 3. There is no provision for central services, with the nuMber of units there should be sore provision for laundry facilities and central trash disposal. 4. There is no pedestrian circulation system linking the units to (-Ile another, to trash disposal sites and to the main roads. 5. Jtreets may not he hard surfaced nor aaeauate to handle the annunt of traffic generated by the number of units allowed. 6. Forking would have to be provided according to the Zoning Ordinance. BoArever, the existing parking spaces back directly out into the travel way. This is an unsafe situation and will beoore worse if the rezoning is approved. 7. with a rezoning the building-to-building setbacks are governed by section 6.12 but there will be no landscaping requirenents. TI)e applicant has provided minical landscaping around the existing units. The site is presently grown up in lobolly pine.