Minutes - 19850910 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

aoo~~i be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained in order for the development to proceed. The request was submitted to a Joint Public Hearing with the Town of Chapel Hill on July 11, 1985. Concerns were expressed at that time regarding (1) open space and buffer requirements, partitularly the 100' perimeter open space/yard setback requirement for PD-H districts, (2) impact of power lines and facilities, and (3) the collector road system serving the area. These items. along with other items, prompted the Board of Commissioners to continue the public hearing to allow staff the opportunity to address these concerns. Approval of the request would allow development of the property for single family residences on lots containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet. Collins listed the issues raised at the June 11, 1985 public hearing as follows: Traffic impacts; Location of road stub-outs; Location of Weaver Dairy Road Expansion; Open space acreage and location; Pump stations vs. gravity sewer; Condition of a dam upstream from portions of this proposed subdivision; Impact of power lines on residential units; and Compliance with Orange County floor area ratios. Collins noted that the applicant has not submitted a revised site plan that addressed any of these concerns. Tn reference to the concern regarding stub-outs within the subdivision itself, Collins stated that the Town Manager and the County Manager suggested the possibility that a Collector Roads Plan could be developed for this area. Collins explained the Collector Roads Plan as developed jointly by the Orange County Planning Staff. the Chapel Hill Planning Staff and Engineering Department. Collins noted that condition D6. which originally recommended a 60' rightrof-way, was now increased to a 70' right-of-way since Sweeten Creek Road clearly falls under the Orange County designation for collector street. Another concern noted was the 100' setback provision which is applicable only in Orange County's jurisdiction. Collins cited the colored subdivision maps prepared by staffs and illustrated the range o£ lot sizes and adjacent zoning. The concern about off-street parking within the recreation area was addressed by recommending ten (10) parking spaces rather than the 2 proposed by the developer. In regard to the open space requirement, the developer could either enlarge the existing recreation area to 3.21 acres or he could make a payment in lieu of open space to the Town of Chapel Hill in accordance with Chapel Hi11's Development Ordinance to address the requirements for the portion of the property being subdivided in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Both planning staffs considered the impacts of the power line easements and could find no suitable alternative except to increase the lot sizes where the power lines cross. The applicant does not wish to revise the site plan so enlargement of the lots is not an option. Both staffs agreed that given the location of the power lines and the manner in which they cross the property, the arrangement that the developer came up with was about the best that could be done given the circumstances. Another concern had to do with the Orange County floor area ratios. The r~l+nvnf ovwOA~C the Intel e.nnnnt nf'flnnr ATPA ~ymYrP~ hV thP. CUnntv's Land