Minutes - 19840827 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. 1 "`~ 4 ff..l~~ t C.i 3 Squad, the kIomeowner's Association Bylaws and Articles, of Incorporation, and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Planning Board member I.izer inquired if Sears had seen the Oi9ASA and Chapel Hill staff comments. Sears responded that he han heard from the Pl.anninc, Staff that there was a concern regarding the number of pump stations, b'ut the developer was willing to work with OGdASA to provide whatever is required. ICizer noted further that the developer was unaware of these questions until just before the meeting when these letters were distributed. Thomas Heffner, appraiser from Chapel Hill, was asked by the developer to look at this project and present his findings. P~Ir. Heffner stated that the adjoining property uses were very similar to the proposed project. k?e cited a letter from Carol t4oods and stated that in his oninian the land was well suited for this type project and would have no harmful effects on property values and vrould probably enhance values, especially in the Lockwood area. lad Vick, representative of Kimley-Horn and Associates, presented the traffic impact analysis. He cited a series of maps and gave traffic projections including the developments around Sedgewood Apartments. Peak hour traffic analysis was done with and without I-n0. He noted the levels of service and noted that Level "C" is generally used as a design standard. Vick had received DOT criteria far signalization and felt that in time the level of service woulc be higher and a traffic signal would be probable. Goforth and his staff have agreed to 4-lane NC 86 from Lockwood Drive to T--85. Ti?illhoit stated that along with signalization approval he understood that DOT had already approved 4-laning of 8G. Vick responded that he was not aware of this. Vick further noted that Goforth would be willing to work cvith DOT in the four-laning of NC 86. 47hitted inquired vrhat kind of trafr"ic generation was being talked about in the segment that is to be 4-laned. Vick noted that with all the developments in this area, the tr~fiic would be over 10,D00 vehicles per day. 4?hitted stated that he was curious as to why PIr. Goforth thought ~-laning this segment would enhance this project. Vick responded thta it would give an additional loft turn anc right turn lane. Kizer noted the differences in the traffic patterns in morning and afternoon. Kizer also asked Vick if, in his experience with DOT, they responded to an anticipated need or only after road capacity had been met and Viclc responded only after capacity had been met. and hour it would impede traffic on 86. Vick responded that with the widening of NC86 and the left turn lane into Lockwood there vrould also be a lane for flow-through traffic. Marshall noted that the OwASA letter was to be entered into the record. Graves stateG that he would have liked to comment on the Chapel Hill letter, but it was not received ir, time. He summarized the comments and cited the intent of the Planned Development district. C•?illhoit then opened the floor for comment and questions from the public. I]ave Christianson (resident of weaver Dairy Road across from the Coventry Development), spolce of the frustration of the single homeowner in an area of this type development, yet he acknowledged that he was supportive of ^.r. Goforth's type of development. He noted concerns with traffic. I3e noted also, that Carol 4?nods was r_ct developed at R-5, but was zoned R-5 because of the dining and nursinc home facilities. Iie also expressed concern that the zoninc, decision