Agenda - 02-22-1999 - 1a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

101 Mr. Murray indicated that the intent was not to discourage use by the surrounding properties. He indicated, however, they would not expect people to drive in from across town and have organized soccer games. This is designed more for pick -up -type soccer, or baseball, for the people in the surrounding neighborhoods close at hand, outside of Lawrence Park, but not across town. They have a community in Durham where they were able to have four or five soccer fields. They were able to host leagues, but that can become a large happening and tends to crowd out the immediate residents and neighbors if your not careful. Mr. Murray then distributed copies of a document showing the types of houses that are proposed for Lawrence Park. A copy of this handout is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Krichbaum stated that he asked himself owhat were the concerns about Lawrence Park.o To date he has heard four primary concerns. The first is added traffic. He reminded those in attendance of the existing conditions with US 70 Business experiencing an average of 2400 daily trips and Lawrence Road at approximate 2500 trips in the vicinity of Lawrence Park. These roads are categorized as major thoroughfares and would be expected to carry 8,000 to 10,000 trips daily in their two -lane configuration. The trip distribution for Lawrence Park is such that the maximum additional trips due to Lawrence Park on any stretch of the external roadway is 1200 trips moving between the entrance on US 70 Business toward the east to the merge with 70 Bypass. That would bring the total number of trips, including Lawrence Park traffic, to 3600. That is far, far below the intended capacity of roads with this designation. Both right and left turn lanes would be added to the two primary entrances to Lawrence Park allowing for a smooth flow of through traffic in this area. The primary and secondary intersections serving Lawrence Park all perform, after buildout, at level of service A or B. The only intersection that Lawrence Park influences, that will have level of service less than A or B is at the intersection of NC 10 and Highway 86. That intersection would be dealt with by signalization if the warrant exists. The "second concern was water pressure and volume. He indicated that from his conversations with Hillsborough, it is not clear the nature of this problem and to what degree the problem exists. He suggested assuming that it is a problem and it/Es a problem today. He asked who would pay to correct the problerh. In the absence of any change, the answer is obvious, the current customers are going to pay for the problem. He asked how Lawrence Park figured into this equation. He reminded everyone that the cost of extending services to and through Lawrence Park is being borne by Lawrence Park. Do not think that after having spent several hundred thousand dollars to extend these services, and after having provided 247 new rate paying customers, that Hillsborough might be willing to allow them to tap on for free. As he indicated earlier, that is not the case. In fact, they will be paying double and they will be generating $889,200 in tap fees to the town which Hillsborough may use to improve their facilities as they need. That is money that would otherwise not be available in the absence of a project of the density and with the utility connections that Lawrence Park proposes. The third concern is increased runoff. Virtually all of the runoff from Lawrence Park exists at one of two locations. One of the locations is in the northeast corner and the other location is on the south side of the property. At each location, detention facilities have been designed to catch and release storm water at a rate not to exceed the pre - development, 25 -year storm event, in conformity with County policy. In addition, the northern pond, has been designed so that it will serve as both detention and retention from the stand point of being a oweto pond that will serve for water quality purposes, since this is the only area of the property that is in a designated watershed, although not a critical watershed. The final concern that he has heard is that it is too dense. He does not know how to answer that because it is what the County/Es Comprehensive Plan says should be there and it is at a density that would, by any normal standard, be considered moderate, certainly not high in terms of its use. It is a well - planned community, well conceived, with a use and housing type that enhances the adjacent property without competing with it. They believe it is the project that the Comprehensive Plan contemplated when it designated this to be a 20 -year transition zone. They think that it is a density that is certainly compatible with the adjacent R -1 and R -2 uses. It is a plan that will provide significant good for the county with a minimal amount of disruption and harm. They trust that the County will agree'with them and they thanked the County for their time and attention. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Mr. James Singleton asked everyone who is a citizen of Orange County to stand. Those in attendance who were citizens of Orange County stood. He asked them to stand because he recently received a pamphlet in the mail which stated that the Board of County Commissioners is the one body representing all Orange County citizens. The people who just stood are the people who elected the Board of Commissioners. They are the people that the Commissioners represent. None of the developers stood at that particular, moment. The reason they are here is that someone wishes to develop an open piece of property. That is the American way. 'The developers are here for one