Minutes - 19841001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 ~~ ;. l.; 3 hearing to receive the Planning Board's recommendation to the November 5, 19£4 Board of Commissioners meeting. t~iarshall seconded the motion. VOTE: UNANT[~10U5 ~B. HOI~IESTEAD,RO.~,D APARTI9~AITS Collins made the staff presentation. Collins noted that the Orange County Planning Staff did not have sufficient time to review the revised plans submitted in response to Chapel Hill's comments for compliance with the Orange County ordinance. He reviewed the originally submitted plans and how they met the ordinance. ;Ie reviewed the revised site plans prepared to satisfy Chapel 1-Iill's recommendations. He indicated that the staff recommendation was to continue the public hearing until November 26, 1984 to allovr time for staff revievr of the revised site pJ.an. Idayor Massif was sworn in. D?ass if read the September 24, 19£4 resolution by the Town of Chapel Hill Council recommending denial of the project. He emphasized the Town's concern about annexation of the project site into the Town of Chapel Hill and a desire to see it conform to Town standards. He noted that though the Town staff and Planning Board had recommended approval of the revised site plan, the Town Council had not • recommended approval of either the original or the revised site plan. I3e expressed concerns about crowding of the buildings, congestion on Homestead Road, and reviewed site features and design concerns including buffer provisions, unit types, drainage, access, traffic patterns, dumpster locations, etc. He noted the strategic location for the Town. - "Iarshall asked if the Town Council had looked at the administrative proposals and schedule far the Joint Planning Area. Taylor, Tovrn T•Ianager, responder that they had received the final agreement and administrative standards for action by the Tovrn Council next week. tiarshall recognized the zig-zag jurisdictional boundaries in the area. She felt that the staff recommendation regarding a November public hearing did not make sense adding that though the Board did agree that the project was not subject to the Joint Planning Agreement, the cooperation of the developer with the Town of .Chapel Hill provisions did bring the project vrithin the calender for the joint planning Agreement. tiiillhoit noted that under the Orange County ordinance the project must be referred to the Planning Board. P?assif stated that the Town was not soley interested in the technical aspects of the development, but also in liveability and cited the closeness of the units, the elevations of the buildings, dwarfing the special proportions of the building, the closeness of the buildings to the _ parking lots, the frontage of all the units on the parking lots and other buildings. Be felt that the land was pat suitable for this type of ~. --- development which would, in his estimation, require the leveling of land. Steve Upson, developer, reviewed the history of the project approval process noting that they had presented the project to the Town Planning Board on September 4, 1984 where disagreements were apparent between the Town staff and Tovrn Planninr, Board. At.that point the developer recognized the need to work out a good plan to satisfy both Town and County. He indicated that they had submitted 4-5 different layouts for the Town Planning Board to consider. Tt is his company's practice to fit the buildings to the land.anc that he had stated that to the Town Boards. His company uses bath full and half split foundations to meet elevation The nrimar~r Pnt.r~nra crac nrioin~lly placed on ITC 86 vrhlch responded to tha