Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
110 <br /> foundations with crawl spaces. Units will be stepped down as necessary <br /> to lay with the land. The loop road serving the site was designed to <br /> provide circulation through the development with all parking spaces <br /> located off the road. Two entrances are proposed for safety purposes. <br /> In regards to the buffer, 100 feet is provided on three sides of the <br /> site as required and the applicant elected to provide a buffer of 50 <br /> feet on the western side of the site. Staats distributed a photo of the <br /> site illustrating the denseness of the vegetation to be retained in the <br /> buffer noting that it is very dense, but where gaps exist, additional <br /> plantings will be installed. He noted that the recreation facilities <br /> are located away from Eubanks Road. <br /> Staats continued with comments directed at the conditions of <br /> approval recommended by the staffs. He indicated that the applicants <br /> would like the provisions in condition #2 regarding curb and gutter and <br /> a sidewalk along Eubanks Road to be deleted as it is inappropriate at <br /> this time. He addressed NCDOT's comments regarding sight distance along <br /> Eubanks Road noting that one would not feel comfortable traveling at 55 <br /> miles per hour along the road. He suggested that a more appropriate <br /> speed is 45 mph and sight distance for that speed could be satisfied. <br /> Staats noted that the pool will be fenced and that the tot lots are <br /> located within shaded areas. He indicated that the applicant would <br /> provide additional landscaping where necessary. He noted that NCDOT <br /> will improve NC 86 as they complete the interchange. <br /> Staats addressed the comment regarding maintenance of the existing <br /> landscaping during construction by indicating a willingness to fence <br /> these areas if desired by the governing boards and imposed as a <br /> condition of approval. <br /> He concluded his remarks by indicating that the applicant is not <br /> interested in a high density project. The proposed density is seven <br /> units per acre and the units will be for sale. <br /> Commissioner Carey inquired who would maintain the recreation area <br /> and Staats responded the homeowners association. <br /> Commissioner Lloyd asked if the staff's proposed phasing plan was <br /> impractical and Staats responded that the applicant was satisfied with <br /> the revised phasing plan. <br /> Councilwoman Andresen asked if the developer is responsible for <br /> common lands and facilities until all phases are complete. Loving <br /> stated that state laws require that the developer be totally responsible <br /> for these facilities until the homeowners association is organized and <br /> then to share the responsibility until the development is complete. <br /> Councilman Werner asked if the market survey conducted indicated <br /> that the unit pricing is compatible with development in the area. Loving <br /> stated that units will be priced in the 80 's. The market study <br /> conducted did not count on a flood of incoming residents but was based <br /> on historical figures. <br /> Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked the applicant to comment <br /> on the construction timeframe. Loving responded that there was a <br />