Minutes - 19831128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

93C service can be provided by OWASA by extending an 8-inch line from existing developments adjacent thereto. Access to a classified arterial road is provided by access to Weaver Dairy Road. Chapel Hill's adopted thoroughfare plan calls for the widening of Weaver Dairy Road to a 65-foot cross section (five lanes) with curb and gutter. The Land Use Intensity System, which is applicable to R-5 and greater residential developments, requires the provision of 1.75 acres of recreation area. Mr. Coutu read and entered into the record a statement from the Chapel Hill Planning Staff, and letters from Charles Pullian and Roberta Wollever. (See permanent agenda file.) John Buck read and entered into the record two petitions from residents of Weaver Dairy Road. (See 6errpamemt agenda file) Newton Fisher entered a plea to delay the rezoning to allow consideration of transportation hazards and difficulties, and consideration for the present attractiveness of the area for the elderly. He expressed concerns about increased density. Arthur Wurner, President of the Booker-Creek Association expresses: a concern for traffic on Weaver Dairy Road and noted the possibility of the count going from 3100 to 6000 because of new development in this area. The Town of Chapel Hill has not considered any new developments which will extend further out on Weaver Dairy Road and have taken the position that it does not have the responsibility for improving the roads and any improvements must be either done by private developers or by the State. He noted that the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road is now at a point where prime developers have developments which have been approved and are not able to acquire the land for the right-of-way to widen Erwin Road and to improve Weaver Dairy Road. John Dupree of Carol Woods stated that his primary concern relates to the privacy of the elderly (approximately 325) , in Carol Woods on the adjacent tract. He suggested' that the development be rezoned to R-5 instead of R-8, thus suggesting that this might be more compatible with the adjacent properties including Carol Woods. 6. n.0PDSEjL ZQMIYG oRD_1NANrS TEY.T AMENI7AiENTS — OTHER AX_t.icle 9 Signs Sue Snaman, Orange County Planning Intern, reported that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance are intended to remove inconsistencies contained in Article 9, entitled Signs' . There is also a change to Article 22 which clarifies the definition of on-premise signs. Within the statement of intent included in this section, further clarification is provided so that regulation of signs is a per lot basis as opposed to a per use basis. The designation of the lot is based on the description of the lot appearing on the current tax role. Where a non-residential use by right or by special use permit occurs in residential zones, one sign less than 6 feet high and 16 square feet would be permitted. Other amendments of a minor nature to clarify the sight preservation triangle at crossroad intersections, and the size, number, and duration of election signs are included. The most extensive amendments are contained in Table 9.11 which she summarized: (1) Brings county sign regulations into accordance with sign regulations contained in the North Carolina Outdoor Advertising Act which restricts billboards along interstate and federal and primary highways. (2) Pole-mounted signs, whether on or off premise, are limited to one sign with sign area determined by the zoning district in which the sign is located, (3) in residential districts where home occupations are permitted, each lot may contain one sign with a maximum area of fniir r;auare reer.