Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Attachment 9 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 3, 2010 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bflan Crawford (Chaff), At-Large, Eno Township; Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large, Cheeks Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; May Becker, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; MEMBERS ABSENT: Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township $TAFE PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtr, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Zoning Administration; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; OTHERS PRESENT: Kent Wiles, ownerldeveloper; J.D. Cecil; Vicky Hendel; AGENDA ITEM 7: PRELIMINARY PLAT -THE LODGES AT CHAPEL HILL (FORMERLY ALPENGLOW TRACE) To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Preliminary Plat application for The Lodges at Chapel Hill (Formerly Alpenglow Trace) Presenter: Glenn Bow/es, Plannerlt Glenn Bowles: We are here tonight to review and make recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Lodges at Chapel Hill which you have seen previously as Alpenglow Trace. On page 46 is the application, on page 48 there is a vicinity map, on page is a fiscal impact analysis. Page 53 is the minutes from the June 3, 2009 Planning Board meeting where you approved the concept plan for Alpenglow. Page 63 is the preliminary plat, page 64 is the resolution of approval to go to the BOCC if approved. Page 69 is from the information meeting that took place in April of last year and on page 70 is a memo from ERCD. The subdivision itself is a conventional design with open space and a total of just under 44 acres. There are 12 residential lots on it. It is zoned RB, Rural Buffer, it is in both University Lake Protected and University Lake Critical Watersheds. Roughly 33% of the property will be open space and will be owned by the home owners association. (Reviewed PowerPoint presentation) Glenn Bowles: The twelve parcels range in size from 2.01 acres to 2. 7 acres with an average of 2.1 acres. The overall density is 3.65 units acres per lot with just under 15 acres of open space with represents 33% of the site. At the concept plan there were three options presented one was the flexible plan, one was a conventional plan with dual access both were discarded. The property itself is wooded right now some relatively steep. The steeper areas are all in buffers which are also in the proposed common open space, 85% of that open space is termed conventional. It's protected open space, the steeper slopes and floodplain but there is also a flootlplain involved in the crossing. The applicant, if BOCC approved, will have to apply for a no-rise certificate. They will have to prove to FEMA and the planning department that they will not back waters up due to the construction of the crossing. The recommendations are that you receive the application, that you make recommendations to the BOCC to accept the in lieu of parkland dedication, and also make recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat to the BOCC in accordance with the resolution of approval which is attached and the staff findings. Mark Marcoplos: I am fairly familiar with this land. Where the proposed road is, you see the width of Price Creek and you see the width of the flood plain and it flows under Damascus Church Road and it not that far from University Lake. It is probably one of the most unique eco systems in Orange County. The Cypress Wetlands are amazing. Glenn Bowles: There is also beaver activity here. Mark Marcoplos: It seems like we talked about working with other committees, it seems the Commission of the Environment could have been involved in this. I will reiterate what was in our packet, my comments from the meeting last summer. I am fine houses being built I just think putting a road across the wetland is a bad idea. If is ashamed we could not find a way to have that development connect to the Booth Roatl neighborhood and make the changes that need to be made. I think it is a bad trade off. I would like to encourage people to check the wetland out. 35