Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

000~2G Massif questioned how a deter~r~ination would be reached as far as which property is going to be the highest density -what if the next proposal comes in with acre lots? Would that one have to give up the 100'? Collins answered no. L~evelofar~ent of or_e acre lots would be at R-1 density and would not have to provide the buffer. Iyassif asked who would have to provide the buffer, and whether it was a floating requirement of the County. Collins explained the requirements of the County subdivision regulations noting that if the property adjacent to this was subdivided under the currer_t zoning buffer requiranents could be imposed if needed. Alice Ingram questioned if what the applicant proposes would meet Chapel Hill's standards? Ts the applicant asking for a total waiver? Collins responded that the applicant has asked for a waiver of the 100' buffer in our jurisdiction, Chapel Hill's 30-50' buffer is adjacent to Stuvrise and Weaver Dairy Roads aril operates as well along the perimeter in the Town's jurisdiction. Dis. Kawalec stated her concern about the lots along T-g0. Does each of those lots contain 20,000 square feet in addition to the 100' buffer or is the 100' buffer included in t~`ie 20,000 square feet m;n;minn of the lots? Collins answered that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer is ir~luded in each lot size. The lot sizes adjacent to T--40 vary fr~n 112 acre to a7.mast an acre in size including the 100' buffer and the setbacks fro¢n the proposed streets. Nassi.f questioned, with the area that is left given the setback requirement, will houses placid on those lots be closer to the street than on the other lots. Collins responded that if everybody wanted to build on the setback line along this particular road they would all be the same. There is more flexi}aility in the northern part of the subdivision to shift the houses on the lots. Sates Farts of the subdivision are more limited than others, but there can still be some variation in the setbacks. Collins referred to the recam~ended conditions of approval included in the agenda packet, specifically conditions 7 and 8. He added that condition 10 should be expazxled to include an additional sentence that all roads be built to Town. standards. Sweeten Creels Road would be Class A in accordance with Chapel Hill statx7ards. All the stub-outs presently shown on the site plan, plus one additional stub-out, would be constructed to Class B standards and all the cul-de-sacs presently shown on the site plan would be constructed to Class C standards. Regarding condition 14, the Chapel Hill staff pointed out that the recreation area situated south of 5~veeten Creek Road as shown on the site plan i.s a little over two acres in size. Allying the Orange County recreation space ratio and Chap21 Hill requirement, a to`~al of 3.2 acres are required for the entire project. What has been shown i.s less than that amount. The Town of Chapel Hill recc~nends that additional recreation space be provided on the site plan so that the total recreation area is 3.2 acres for Chapel Hi11 and Orange County cagnbined. As for the County's requirement, the developers have satisfied the requirements; :.f i:)aey wish. to provide additional recreation space they could do so within the Chapel ?ill jurisdictior~a7. area. Collins noted condition number 24 relates to Chapel Flill's jurisdiction.. ;. P~assif raised ataestions about the pond design asking if there were lots r.rrwv~car~ r7r~e,mctrean~ {rron ~I-Yw rrlnr~-