Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

0003 Council member Sir~ith inquired if the 100' buffer is part of the lor. V?illhoit responder noting can be built i.n this open space area. Collins responded it e~_tereds frcttr: the l.ot lire. Ccsmanissioner PZarshall questioned the safety of the dam located south of the tract. Cochran reslac:~ed that the Sci1 Conservation Service was ;nvclves in i.ts construction. 'b~:e Chapel Hill Planning Hoard reccurmerciati.on~ were introduces into the record by xs.ice Ingram. She indicated that the Planning Board does agree with the t,anager's rece~-endation and their concerns were incorporated ir~tc t~•:e Fiariager's report, but noted that the Board did not know of the probl~ns with the ponds and stzeams and that a cor.~cern regarding utility line voltage was not incorporated in the Niar~ager's report. ~?igh voltage lines may pASe art ac~rez::e impact. S"he continued that the Board raiGe~ questions regarding irZ~•.ct~: c:f stub-outs in the neighbcrhood i.-ttegrity of the develoFanent. No co~m,eaat was received from the F~,earance Commission. Collins introduced the full agenda packet into the record as eviQerce asxi specifically cited the Orange County P,ecreatian Department: rercr,vr~er,aati.on. Council member Smith inquired vrhy only two parkins s~x'rces were provided at the recreaticn area, noted tY:e distance of the facility from some lots, ark requested addit,.ar~.]. s~,cces. Rarx3y Smith. agent for the applicant, commented the facility v,Gr: irterx]ed to be urea by residents of the development only and that the furthest lot w~ L2 mile away. Collins introduced the 3une f, l~'S5 letter frcan Ralph Cochran. No citizen c~anents were received. Mayor Ivassif requested tYaat directian_ be provided tc Tovm staff on the review of proposals and application of standards. E:e ncted tre c:evelopn~ent is likely tc be urban i.n nature and questioned the adequacy of tkae loco]. toad network. I3e continued that the develog,:ent should not be considered a neighborhood un?ess adjacent vacant land was included by nature of the design. F_e innquired how the road network is affected by this developeE=nt, especially improvements to Weaver Aairy Road. He noted it is inctmibent on -the governmental ur~?t:s 'co c=cn~;-c~c-z the ]Deal road network so that deve].oPers of unseveloped land have sane guidar~e on the projected road network. He continued that the survey of the projc~t:tc-ci continuation of Sage Road across Erwin and Weaver Dairy Road should be completed prior tp approval of the project and that the site plan should be revised accordingly. r~frr. i?arssif further ccmanerted on drainage ar¢3 power li.r_e impacts on lot design., maintaining that these easements should not be part of the Lots. He anted that pump stationer may be a legitimate proposal in this case. Planning Board member l~.rgison inquired when ~;~eacer Dairy Road will be improved. N_anager ~`aylor responded it is tc be widened to 5 lanes arxi is a high priority project. Planning Poard member Yuhasz inquired if Chapel Hill has a Roaa~vay Network Plan for undeve]. Ln-~r', ]-ar?d in i.ts jurisairt3ar, in t.lie jcint ~:lanna.ng area or, if r_ot, what ideas stxzti].d be used to gu9.de us in consideration of how these stub-outs are to be developed. h~ayar Massif responded tkere is no plan in place and that staff shou]_d att~npt to address the road network to serve uridevelrped ].and as 4he developers have no auttwrity over the laru7 in r1uestion_. Pwas,rzing Board Chair Gordon auestior~ the status of the 60' right-cf~ay existing to the Potted P].ar_t G.rK? ~-i-•E: e~c~~.vcr requested on age 44. Collins responded that any further develognent would be required to use tYie stub-out provided from Sweeten CzeeN Road and that the existing right af~way weu].d be rl nfix7.