Agenda - 11-04-1996 - 9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 36 would offset the payment-in-lieu required initially with phase one. Willis continued that after phase one the concept plans were combined and included dedication of a 30-acre park. With the third phase,a significantly larger percentage will be required. Pro-rating is an equitable way to require dedication. Katz asked what would happen to the remainder of the park if phases three and four are not developed. Willis responded that it is anticipated that the development will be complete with the 30-acre park. If,for some reason,the remainder of the development does not occur,one option would be to acquire the remainder through monies collected through payment-in-lieu. Willis pointed out that there are some old,dilapidated structures that are located on the area that will be addressed with the Final Phase. The possibility is great that these structures are not salvageable. Brown asked if the County would have to bear the cost of demolishing the buildings or would the developer be responsible. Willis responded that would be part of the preliminary plan approval process for phase four. By the time this point is reached,there would have been more involvement with the Recreation&Parks Department and Advisory Board to determine the best way to handle these concerns. Brown asked about the time frame for phase four. Willis responded that the next preliminary plan must be submitted within a year for the concept plan to remain valid. She noted that phase three will be presented next, so,according to the Planning guidelines,it could be two more years before phase four is presented. She emphasized that the concept plan would remain valid for one year. If regulations should change,those changes would have to be reflected in the preliminary plan. Brown asked at what point the concept plan might become invalid and have to be redesigned to meet flexible development standards. Willis responded that if the concept plan is allowed to expire,then a flexible development plan must be presented. Barrows expressed concern that the fiscal impact analysis for this project is very misleading when it is broken down into phases rather than being presented for the entire project. She felt it would be more accurate if used for the total number of lots in the entire project. Willis responded that there are several ways to address this concern. One would be that the analysis from previous preliminary plans could be included that would address the continuation of the project. Another would be to provide it for the entire project;however,the template requires that the breakdown be by number of years to buildout,value of the houses within each year and the number of houses in each phase. In a large project such as this,there are many variables and she felt including in each project a summary of the previous phases could be done. This could address the cumulative effect of the development. Barrows agreed that this could be helpful. Katz noted that there had been previous discussion on the template and the key number is the number of pupils per household. It was noted at the time that this was from census data and was Chapel Hill Township rather than the entire county. He asked if this had been corrected. Willis responded that she would have to clarify this with the Planning Director since she did not work directly with the template. Katz continued with concerns that the figures for revenues and expenditures under the school budget are the same. Willis responded she was not involved with creating the template and would have to obtain that information from the Planning Director.