Minutes - 19850611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

diffa.cu].t to work with. The applicant has worked with Chapel Hi11 and Orange County Planning Staffs and feels re has a good, low density development for the area. He continued, noting the reallocation of densities (1.35 in Orange County jurisdiction and .77 in Chapel Hill jurisdiction). Cochran commented on the sight distance at the eritrancev~ay which was referred to earlier by the staff. ~"he sight distance requirement has been met and will be r_oted on. the plat. E'loor area ratios. will be in ccttnpliance with the Planned Pevelop~~nt section of Orar~e County Ordinance. Tn reference to the Resource Conservation District, the apg~licar!t is prepared to lose a lot if necessary to come into ccanpliance. He noted that the question regarding buffers seemea to be an important one. xhe project is buffered fr~n all streets. honors the I~P1C recuiren'ent and is c~~pa-tide va3.th the existing land use in the area. All lots have large rear yards which also act as buffers. re addressed the question of increased traffic generation at the intersection of 15-501 and Ei~ain Road. Fie noted that the studies made indicated the increase would only be about 1/2~. He then addressed the question of pump stations. He noted the reliability of pump stations because they were r~nitored at all times. David Godschalk, Chapel Hill Town Council, remarked on the shape of the s:.i~e and incuired i.f the applicant had any interest in the adjoining property ax if he knew what might be going to take place an these adjoining properties. Cochran responded that this property is under one ownership. The property inside the "L" is awned by a local family and is held in trtast by PTC[~ Trust Department. The area to the north has already been subdivided into several parcels and the parcel on the corner has been purchased for a church site. Gcdschalk asked about the aFg~licant's n~rke4 study for executive housing and the 1ir.~itations such a study identified regarding the power line runnirx3 throuch the property and the property's location adjacent to the interstate. Cochran responded he had marketed other properties with similar cons]i.tions and recognized that those which were are the least desirable would most ]-ikely have to be discounted for sale. Godschalk asked haw stror~ly the applicant was cccnmitted to this site plan. He fe7.t it was obvious tre~re were same areas that could be redesigned to perhaps enhance the buffer area or make the recreation area n~re desirable. He asked if same of these alternatic-es had been explored or is the apl>J..a.cant willing to explore soxae of these alternatives. Cochran respor~ea that the project had been redesigned for Orange County, for Chapel Hill ark for DOT. The applicant-agree: to meet the open space requirement and will be lookir~ at the area arounr.txe stream possibly to provide this space. Cormissioner Carey inquired what was being proposed ir_ the way of a buffer around the perimeter other than the area that abuts the interstate. Cochran responded he had pat been tall of additional buffer reciuirements by either staff. TN~o of these lots abut each other to the rear and this provides additiona3. buffer. Hopefully, if the adjoining land is rezoned and is incoanoatible with this development, this existing neigr~arhood would be protected. Commissioner 1~~rshall noted tha.s seen~d to be a very curious intexpretati.on of the regulations. The buffer a.s recuired to protect the aua].ity of development ark she felt waivir~ the buffer requirement would be a serious comprc~use to the general plan for trfe iha• ~r.ca]. development of the ~e