Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

194 Approved 2/2/11 777 Brian Crawford: You know our ordinances are restrictive for subdivisions. We have one lot per five acres. These issues will be 778 before the Board and you will see some of these issues. Concept plan, preliminary plan, you'll see some of these come before 779 you. 780 781 May Becker: I feel like this is an ordinance that is a major starting point or major step and I get the sense there is a push to get it 782 through quickly and if I don't know and if we move on and don't talk about things like driveways. It's not ok with me. Another 783 thing, I live in Chapel Hill in an older neighborhood and there is lot of talk about developers coming in and changing the 784 neighborhood and people in the neighborhood there want to keep lawns there and old houses with porches. When you read 785 stuff like this, you don't know what type of developers are coming here and what is going to happen. 786 787 Brian Crawford: I know the driveway issue is a direct response from complaints from some of our more rural homeowners that 788 did not have access. This is a direct response from an Orange County meeting. Not necessarily a developer. This is 789 homegrown. 790 791 May Becker: If that is what is wanted, I don't see why we couldn't put in something like ... attach some type of approval to it. It is 792 something individuals wanted and something the inspections department are okay with, I would suggest we put it in here so that 793 when people read it, or the public reads it when developers consider this that is what is being communicated. Another thing 1 794 want to point out is there is a lot of development coming into Chapel Hill and they have a lot of particular restrictions, they want 795 green buildings, they want certain affordable housing, they want public area for a fountain so there is kind of a community sense. 796 If you have high quality developments with people who care about the community who are willing to revise things so it fits in the 797 community then it would be okay with ordinances that make sense whereas if you have a developer who doesn't care, I don't 798 think we want those types of developments. Quality developers aren't going to be scared away by ordinances. 799 800 (Larry Wright left meeting) 801 802 Mark Marcoplos: One small change on the driveway crossing it's really a bridge, isn't it? A culvert which would be with a small 803 stream and a bridge with a larger stream so maybe there is a way to pinpoint that so you don't have this image of an oil leak and 804 75 Ford driving through the stream. 805 806 Alan Campbell: This is a single family so if you put the bridge just to go to your house, that would be pretty expensive. 807 808 Mark Marcoplos: It happens. If it is a significant body of water you can put a bridge over it but if it is a small body of water, a 809 culvert is a little bridge. What I am getting at is an image of a driveway crossing and you are going to drive through the stream 810 and maybe tidy up the language. I feel like right after C, those lines basically say, you will have to meet the standards. I am very 811 concerned about keeping the waters clean but I am quite comfortable with that language. 812 813 Brian Crawford: At some point we will have, taking the suggestions, we will have to come to a vote. If we come to a vote right 814 now with the existing language is okay with the exceptions of the suggestions we had, we might not reach the goal you want to 815 reach tonight. We are coming to the point where we have to figure out how to make you comfortable but not to shut you down. 816 At this point, we have discussed it pretty much in depth. 817 818 Mark Marcoplos: I have found that it is necessary to be redundant. To phrase the same thing in a different way. Maybe we can 819 insert a sentence that says, don't be mistaken, you are not going to just do this without going through the proper process so no 820 one can say I didn't understand that. 821 822 Shannon Berry: We can come up with some language that will address the concerns I hope makes it very clear that you go 823 through a process. We can beef up the front part of that section and more clearly articulate that there is a process. 824 825 Brian Crawford: May, when I got your email, I realized that you did a lot of work on this and I am relying on your expertise on 826 this. But at the same time, I think we have discussion it and I think we are convinced that there is language is there to secure the 827 suggested changes that the staff have put in. I still want you to be comfortable. I think the compromise is that we allow staff to 828 suggest some changes to hopefully end discussion on those issues. 829 830 May Becker: Yes that sounds like a plan. On those issues meaning we are going to reconvene at the next meeting and 831 continue. 832 833 Brian Crawford: I don't know about the next meeting but I want them to send out language to address the concerns we talked 834 about this evening and hopefully, that language is agreeable to you. It sounds like permitted by right gives you some concern so 835 they will attempt to make sure that doesn't confuse the general public that they can do what they want without some process that 836 we believe is in there but we will beef it up to make you more comfortable. 14