Agenda - 11-19-1996 - 9a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 16 NORTHEN, BLUE, ROOKS, THIBAUT, ANDERSON & WOODS, L.L.P. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 EUROPA DRIVE SUITE 550 JOHN A. NORTHEN CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27814 MAILING ADDRESS: J. WILLIAM BLUE,JR. P.O. BOX 2208 DAVID M. ROOKS, 111 CHARLES H. THIBAUT CHAPEL HILL,NC 27513-2208 CHARLES T.L.ANDERSON JO ANN RAGAZZO WOODS CAROL J. HOLCOMB November 6, 1996 TELEPHONE(919) 968-4441 JAMES C. STANFORD TELEFAX(919) 942-6603 CHERYL Y. CAPRON E-MAIL: nblawonetpath.net .ARLENE D.HANKS Ms. Mary Willis Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: University Manor Phase 2 Dear Mary: I write on Mr. Bailey's behalf to confirm his agreement to extend the time for action on this application through the November 19 Commissioners' meeting. I also write to respond to the questions raised by the Commissioners at their November 4 meeting when they asked (i) whether the park could be moved to another location in the development and (ii) whether Mr. Bailey would dedicate the entire park now instead of on a prorated basis as he has proposed. Some background would be useful in answering the first question. In July 1995, before Mr. Bailey became interested in the University Manor development, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee (RPAC) reviewed the concept plans approved for the area for the former University Station developers and expressed a strong interest in obtaining a 25 acre park on "high and dry" land on the north side of N. C. 10 at its intersection with New Hope Church Road. The Planning Staff advised Mr. Bailey's representatives of the RPAC's interest in the park site and the probable adoption of the Flexible Development standards at the outset of the approval process. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Bailey undertook to design an economically feasible development which met the 33% open space requirement of the Flexible Development ordinance and located the park at the desired site. The consolidated Concept Plan, which actually increased the total park area to 30 acres, is the result. The proposed park site has 6 to 8 percent slopes which are typical of the topography found within the more upland areas of the development. There are large areas of the development with slopes in excess of 15% which would not be suitable for active recreation uses. It would be possible to install athletic fields on the proposed site with routine grading which is not true of many parts of the development. Given the relatively favorable topography of the proposed site and the other open space commitments he has made, Mr. Bailey does not think it would be economically feasible to relocate the park.