Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
amount of $12,823 for a 4.11 acres of public recreation was <br />required to meet current standards. <br />Planning Director Collins said the project was to be developed <br />in phases with a completed project date in December, 1991. He <br />further stated that the project would have a measurable affect <br />on the traffic intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. He <br />commented that at present the County had not required off-site <br />traffic improvements feeling the road improvements. should be <br />addressed by NCDOT, but that this was something the County <br />needed to review in light of needed road improvements to the <br />.ntersection of N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road and the lack of State <br />funding. <br />Commissioners Marshall and Carey asked about the size of the <br />pump station and who would pay for its construction. Mr. <br />Collins replied that the size of the pump station would be <br />agreed with OWASA and that the applicant would pay for having <br />it built. <br />Council Member Pasquini questioned the basis upon which the <br />land was valued for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. He <br />felt the amount was too low. Mr. Collins answered that the <br />1987 tax appraisal was used. <br />Council Member Werner asked if the commercial development and <br />this proposed residential development was consistent with the <br />adopted land use plan. Messrs. Callins and Waldon said that <br />these types of development were consistent and were examples of <br />the kind of balance expected to be achieved in mixed-use <br />designations. <br />Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional <br />development would generate more traffic than residential <br />development. Mr. Waldon replied yes. <br />Council Member Preston asked about the topography of the site <br />and the amount of impervious surface. She suggested there be a <br />requirement that protective fences be put around the trees to <br />remain. <br />Council Member Thorpe asked for the reason why the County was <br />requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins <br />responded that the County had established specific areas where <br />they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems. The <br />proposal's site was not adjacent to any of the designated <br />recreational areas therefore the County had decided to ask for <br />payment-in-lieu of recreation space. <br />Council Member Smith questioned the statement of justification <br />regarding the traffic impact of the opening of I-40 to traffic <br />on N.C. 86. <br />Dana Staats, a landscape architect representing the applicant, <br />said they had worked with the orange County and Chapel Hill <br />Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal <br />acceptable to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs <br />for their assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal <br />and said he would answer questions from the Soard and Council. <br />2$~E <br />