Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved & 7 - 23 <br /> 1042 Whitney Watson : I heard and saw some references to the historic asset on the corner of business 70 and Lawrence <br /> 1043 Road . But I was surprised to see in the packet that it is not listed as a historic asset that needed to be considered for <br /> 1044 development. Did I misread that letter? <br /> 1045 <br /> 1046 Cy Stober : Yes Mr. Watson , it' s on a property across Lawrence Road , so it' s not on the property itself. It was considered <br /> 1047 as part of the traffic impact analysis , but it' s not included in the site . <br /> 1048 <br /> 1049 Statler Gilfillen : Is that something that comes under the purview of the historic review board ? <br /> 1050 <br /> 1051 Cy Stober : Yes it does . <br /> 1052 <br /> 1053 Statler Gilfillen : Did Peter Sandbeck make any comments about it? <br /> 1054 <br /> 1055 Cy Stober: He did , and felt that our landscaping requirements would offer buffering requirements . . . <br /> 1056 <br /> 1057 Whitney Watson : So in the consideration of the staff analysis , one of the things we are asked to consider is whether the <br /> 1058 COCAs next residential neighborhood definition supports this use , so I ' d like to hear some more about if that really is a <br /> 1059 walkable/bikeable from the surrounding residential areas to the sites particularly the athletic sites . And , does that mean <br /> 1060 there will be sidewalks put in place if there are not existing bike lanes as well ? <br /> 1061 <br /> 1062 Cy Stober: So probably no , not on the public roads , there is a sidewalk provided on the private road network , internal to <br /> 1063 the site , but no because these are DOT maintained roads and not connected to a public road network . The DOT made <br /> 1064 the determination that the complete streets policy is inapplicable because they would not connect to a larger network . <br /> 1065 We did require that the internal site may be walkable , and we had a discussion with DOT about the need for offsite <br /> 1066 walkability and safety , and they stuck to their current interpretation of their streets policy . <br /> 1067 <br /> 1068 Whitney Watson : I guess technically it meets the definition of being walkable for residential units , dwelling units . . . <br /> 1069 <br /> 1070 Cy Stober: It' s arguable that the existing development is not walkable , the proposed development was walkable , as the <br /> 1071 regulatory agencies would allow, the county requested sidewalks negotiated with the applicant they were provided and <br /> 1072 DOT disallowed them . <br /> 1073 <br /> 1074 Whitney Watson : One final question ; I noticed in the packet the page about superfund sites . There are three inactive <br /> 1075 ones within a mile of this location , what' s the plan to continue to monitor those and to see if there is any impact and see <br /> 1076 if the site has to draw well water for schools as well as recreation ? <br /> 1077 <br /> 1078 Cy Stober: Superfund sites are regulated and monitored by the state and not by the county . I do not have that <br /> 1079 information at this time , I would have to get back to you . <br /> 1080 <br /> 1081 Lamar Proctor: So , there is an indoor facility proposed , is that correct? <br /> 1082 <br /> 1083 Patrick Byker: For? <br /> 1084 <br /> 1085 Lamar Proctor: Tennis , I believe . <br /> 1086 <br /> 1087 Patrick Byker: In the long run , yes . <br /> 1088 <br /> 1089 Lamar Proctor: So the parcel would be subdivided into three parcels , is that correct? <br /> 1090 <br /> 1091 Jim Parker : Four if you count both schools would have their own parcel . <br /> 1092 <br /> 1093 Lamar Proctor: Two schools : baseball and tennis . So the school ' s , baseball , tennis , what is the fourth ? <br /> 1094 <br /> 1095 Jim Parker: Each school has a parcel . <br /> 1096 <br />