Minutes 11-14-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 nearly all parcels on Davis Rd. Removal of that buffer will degrade the homeowner experience. 4. Visual aesthetic. The good news here is that most of this is completely under control of the developer and the county. But I would hope that the design criteria would strike the use of a 50ft 20x20 sign for District 2. Again, that would be wholly inappropriate for the area. Old 86 is a scenic drive and the northern most part of that highway should have as much protection as is possible from an aesthetic point of view. Likewise, Interstate 40 has a very clear and clean visual aesthetic. Driving east from Efland where Interstate 40 splits from Interstate 85, there is no signage of that size on the road until one arrives in Wake County. Much care has been taken to remove standing billboards of any type from intruding on the visual experience of the highway. The Interstate 40 corridor is, visually, one of the nicest highways in state in this regard. In Orange County it has many aspects of a boulevard and it should be kept that way. I think that it is fair to say that most homeowners on Davis Rd, and in this area of the county, view the exit at Interstate 40 and Old 86 as their entranceway to their homes. At present that entrance way is rural and quiet. The county now wants to allow the placement of three large developments literally right on our front steps. I cannot argue against development, but I would hope that the county and the developers respect the character of the area. One only has to drive west into Alamance County to visualize what I am most concerned with: another highway exit built to satisfy transit economics but completely disrupting the character of the surrounding local area. Best regards Matthew Kostura 4201 New Hope Springs Dr Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ronald Siebar reviewed the following comments: Dear County Commissioners: I strongly disagree with the actions taken so far in regard to the three parcels that make up the proposed Settlers Point Development. 1. I find it appalling that not all of the members of the Planning Board had adequate time to read the comprehensive proposal for this huge development before sending a recommendation to the County Commissioners. This appears to be a "rush job" and to whose benefit? 2. I object to any approval of District I tenants in the "warehouse district" until ALL members of both commissions have been able to read the report and vote on the proposed development. It doesn't make sense on such a big project to do otherwise. 3. I object to the proposed rezoning of Districts II and III because the described districts do not disclose what tenants or tenant mix is going to be present, nor do they adequately take into account the water resources that Hillsborough will be asked to supply. I understand that District III has been delayed until a later date; we need to delay the up- zoning for properties in the proposed District II as well. 4. The proposed development of the districts does not adequately anticipate, and therefore does not protect against, the adverse visual and aural impact of such a development on the rural and residential neighborhoods that immediately surround it. At the very least, the law of unintended (or overlooked) consequences will very likely change the ambiance of this semi-rural community. Drastically. The proposed development of District I will have a tremendously negative impact on the tree buffer that now exists for the benefit of rural and residential properties along Davis Dr. to the west of Old NC 86 because the proposed development abuts these properties. Clearing the tree buffer will assault these residents with noise from the 1-40 corridor that this district will flank. A