Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
114 <br />1059 Judith Wegner. What about that the applicant undertakes to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through <br />1060 such means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. <br />1061 <br />1062 MorioN made Judith Wegner to applicant undertake to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through such <br />1063 means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. <br />1064 <br />1065 Michelle Kempinski: Clarification on the site plan requirements on this SUP, this technically is the site plan. I am still <br />1066 confused because I see the criteria for a site plan and I know that our past SUP approvals for the altemative school, <br />1067 things like planting plans, grading plans, etc. were all required to be shown on the site plan that was being approved <br />1068 as part of the SUP process. Why are we seeing a different set of plans? <br />1069 <br />1070 Michael Harvey: You were given the full grading erosion control landscaping and the full plan for the altemative <br />1071 school. The ordinance requires that you _ shown in the orientation layout and development of the physical site. <br />1072 The applicant is proposing a variable butter by maintaining the preserving of existing trees. You are saying that you <br />1073 want a Type A Buffer. That is a normal part of the site plan review approval process by staff. <br />1074 <br />1075 Michelle Kempinski: Looking at the criteria and looking at this plan, this plan doesn't require some of the criteria. <br />1076 <br />1077 Judith Wegner. What about a further condition that the applicant submit a landscape plan in connection with the site <br />1078 plan that is <br />1079 <br />1080 Michelle Kempinski: I will drop it but I wanted to make a comment that there seemed variability in the requirements <br />1081 for the information submitted on site plans with the same SUP processes. <br />1082 <br />1083 MOTION made Judith Wegner to applicant undertake to minimize traffic impacts on adjacent properties through such <br />1084 means as encouraging carpooling or other appropriate strategies. Seconded by Jeffrey Schmitt. <br />1085 VOTE: Unanimous <br />1086 <br />1087 MOTION made Judith Wegner that the whole package be approved. Seconded by Lany Wright. <br />1088 VOTE: Unanimous <br />1089 <br />1090 Jay Bryan: I would asked that the issue of the amount of traffic that triggers the requirement of a Traffic Assessment <br />1091 come back to use in the near future. <br />1092 <br />1093 Michael Harvey: Commissioner Jacobs stated at the Public Hearing that staff needed to begin the process. <br />1094 <br />1095 Jay Bryan: Before any other projects of this general nature in the rural locations come before us. <br />1096 <br />1097 AGENDA ITEM 9: CABS CROSSING (FORMERLY BRAMCO PARTNERS) SUBDMSION -PRELIMINARY PLAN <br />1098 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC for the Cabe Crossing Preliminary Plat. The <br />1099 proposal is for twenty (20) single family residential lots on 73.47 acres on the south side of <br />1100 Cabe Ford Road (SR 1570) west of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) in Eno Township. <br />1101 (Original proposal was for 38 lots, amended to 33 lots). <br />1102 Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II <br />1103 <br />1104 Gene Bell: Reviewed abstract <br />1105 <br />1106 Jeffrey Schmitt: In our previous discussion where there was double the number of lots. At some point, on the <br />1107 backside, west side, there was going to be dedication of some land to the Eno River Association, which property was <br />1108 that? <br />1109 <br />