Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
01 <br />The applicant proposed <br />Fourteen (14) Design <br />Solutions (i.e. <br />amendments) for this <br />project. Action on these <br />items were as follows: <br />At their August 13, 2008 <br />The Administration <br />DESIGN SOLUTION ONE: <br />meeting, Board members <br />makes a <br />As outlined on page fifteen <br />X Yes <br />No <br />asked for a re-analysis of <br />X Yes <br />No <br />recommendation for <br />(15) of the application <br />this item due to revised <br />an affirmative <br />reading as follows: <br />information concerning <br />finding based on <br />the ability for these units <br />information contained <br />'The applicant requests <br />to be supported by local <br />within the record <br />a waiver from Section <br />infrastructure (i.e. <br />2.2 of the EDD Design <br />water/sewer) and based <br />Manual' <br />on clarification of staff's <br />The applicant is requesting <br />original comments and <br />the ability to allow for multi- <br />recommendations <br />family residential <br />concerning this item <br />development within Districts <br />11 and III of the project. <br />The Board voted Five (5) <br />Currently, multi-family <br />to Three (3) to <br />residential land uses are <br />recommend approval of <br />not listed within the <br />the Design Solution as <br />Economic Development <br />presented by the <br />Primary (ED-P) zoning <br />applicant. <br />district, which the subject <br />property is currently zoned. <br />DESIGN SOLUTION TWO: <br />During their August 13, <br />The Administration <br />The applicant had originally <br />2008 meeting, the <br />makes a <br />requested that the existing <br />Planning Board voted to <br />recommendation for <br />composite ratio methods <br />re-evaluate the request <br />an affirmative <br />established within the EDD <br />based on the applicant's <br />finding based on the <br />Design Manual be replaced <br />X Yes <br />No <br />proposed revision. <br />X Yes <br />No <br />revised Design <br />with a 'floor area ratio' and <br />Solution requiring the <br />,maximum building height' <br />The Board voted <br />developer to adhere <br />limitation to control land use <br />unanimously to <br />to a Site Volume <br />intensity, specifically a <br />recommend approval of <br />Ratio of One (1) for <br />maximum floor area ratio of <br />the revised Design <br />the entire project and <br />point thirty (.30) and a <br />Solution as follows: <br />that each site plan <br />maximum building height of <br />submitted proposing <br />six (6) stories. <br />The Buckhorn Village <br />the development of <br />Planned Development <br />an approved land use <br />On July 31, 2008 staff <br />shall adhere to a <br />shall provide the <br />received a letter from the <br />cumulative Site Volume <br />necessary data <br />developer indicating that <br />Ratio of One (1) for the <br />indicating compliance <br />they would like to revise the <br />entire project. The <br />with this standard. <br />requested Design Solution <br />developer is required to <br />and request that they be <br />demonstrate on all <br />allowed to adhere to a Site <br />submitted site plans the <br />Volume Ratio of One (1) for <br />cumulative total of <br />the entire project as <br />building and landscape <br />detailed within Section 2.3 <br />volume ratios and define <br />Land Use Intensity of the <br />how each individual <br />EDD Design Manual <br />development project is <br />complying with the overall <br />