Agenda - 05-06-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MM I � r (013 Design standards were mentioned. Stancil responded that it is a possibility that one of the recommendations from one of the work groups will be for design standards for some node in the future. Eidenier noted that the Target Advisory Committee of the Economic Development Commissions has asked that all of the interchanges be.reconsidered. MOTION: Burklin moved to accept the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Cantrell. VOTE: 5 in favor. 1 opposed (Waddell) 2 abstained (new members) (2) CP -2 -91 Efland Area Study Presentation by David Stancil. This item was presented at the February 25, 1991 public hearing. Four citizens spoke to the item at the public hearing. One issue was a request for more information. A copy of the abstract information and memorandum, with attachments, of additional information requested at the public hearing are attachments to these minutes on pages Stancil reviewed the information included in these attachments. The Planning Staff recommends that the Efland Area Study be received by the Planning Board, and that.the- Efland node adjustment, plan amendment CP -2 -91, be adopted. Jobsis asked if the residents in the proposed node were notified of the proposed amendment. Stancil responded that a sign had been posted and special letters were sent to the residents but no responses were received and none of those residents spoke at the public hearing. Stancil noted that it seemed that there was some confusion about the meaning of neotraditional planning, the end product. He noted that he did not anticipate a great deal of change in the Efland area. There would probably be mixed uses with recommended standards. Eidenier asked about the Habitat for Humanity project was explained. Stancil responded that