Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-25-2000-1a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2000
>
Agenda - 09-25-2000
>
Agenda - 09-25-2000-1a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 3:34:15 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:21:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/25/2000
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 09-25-2000
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br />Re~~ ised <br />9,-`07100 <br />Possible <br />Solution Environmental Factor°s - A school system is to pay particular attention to the physical <br />environment surrounding the site and new facility. <br />+ In order to avoid future flood hazards, a facility should not be located in close <br />proximity to wetlands, stream buffers, or in a flood plain. Facility siting should <br />also avoid other physical factors that create either additional construction or <br />longer-term maintenance problems, or other unfavorable enviroiunental impacts. <br />+ Once a system acquires a site and before grading begins, each school system <br />receives State approval of its erosion control plan and additional County review to <br />ensure that unnecessary cutting of trees or clearing of land does not occur. <br />Adequate natural buflers are to be left intact with existing trees, or replanted if the <br />areas are disturbed during constttiiction. Special attention should be paid to <br />"specimen" trees as outlined in the County land development code. <br />Roacl and Utility Requirements - l~lajor elements for a system to consider in siting a <br />new facility relate to infrastructure requirements by a Town or other public utility. In <br />some recent instances, the systems have been required to provide costly infrastYucture <br />such as sidewalks and road improvements. These elements greatly inflate construction <br />costs of new facilities. As a system begins initial planning, there should be a joint <br />meeting between elected Town, County and Education officials to discuss particular <br />requirements that all parties expect of other project partners. <br />Concern: CHGCS has a <br />3. Building Design Standards concern with the "detailed <br />cost comparison analysis"; <br />As a school system selects a particular facility design, it is important that they feel this would add to <br />the most cost-effective design alternative be pursued. Historically in the cost of the project and <br />Orange County, new school buildings have been designed uniquely for may not be able to be <br />provided until the architect <br />each particular project. The Board of Commissioners encourages has proceeded far into the <br />systems to pursue non-traditional, or prototype, designs that can be project <br />replicated for use on more than one project. Should a system choose a <br />unique design, it is to provide a detailed cost cotnparison analysis and Perhaps this needs further <br />justification in ~i-~riting of ~~~hy that particular approach was chosen o ~ discussion to address <br />a prototype design. Commissioner concerns <br />that using prototype <br />signs is one area «here <br />4. Construction Standards school systems could <br />Over the past fe~v years, the County has given special attention to defining construction <br />standards for each school level -elementary, middle and high schools. The standards provide a <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital Projects <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.