Agenda - 06-11-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 to almost an acre in size including the 100' buffer and the setbacks from the 411 proposed streets. Nassif questioned, with the area that is left given the setback requirement, will houses placed on those lots be closer to the street than on the other lots. Collins responded that if everybody wanted to build on the setback line along this particular road they would all, be the same. There is more flexibility in the northern part of the subdivision to shift the houses on the lots. Some parts of the subdivision are more limited than others, but there can still be some variation in the setbacks. Collins referred to the recommended conditions of approval included in the agenda packet, specifically conditions 7 and 8. He added that condition 10 should be expanded to include an additional sentence that all roads be built to Town standards. Sweeten Creek Road would be Class A in accordance with Chapel Hill standards. All the stub-outs presently shown on the site plan, plus one additional stub-out, would be constructed to Class B standards and all the cul-de-sacs presently shown on the site plan would be constructed to Class C standards. Regarding condition 14, the Chapel Hill staff pointed out that the recreation area situated south of Sweeten Creek Road as shown on the site plan is a little over two acres in size. Applying the Orange County recreation space ratio and Chapel Hill requirement, a total of 3.2 acres are required for the entire project. What has been shown is less than that amount. The Town of Chapel Hill recommends that additional recreation space be provided on the site plan so that the total recreation area is 3.2 acres for Chapel Frill and Orange County combined. As for the County's requirement, the developers have satisfied the requirements; if they wish to provide additional recreation space they could do so within the Chapel Hill jurisdictional area. Collins noted condition number 24 relates to Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Nassif raised questions about the pond design asking if there were lots proposed downstream from the pond. Collins summarized the position of the Orange County staff in that the applicant complies with the general standards and regulations with the exception of the three negative findings. He continued that staff received no indication that this development would be hazardous to the general health, safety and welfare. Orange County staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval included in the agenda packet. . Ms. Kawalec indicated her concern about the power line that cuts through the site adding she did not quite know how to approach it using Orange County's system. It appeared to her that it is going to desecrate the recreation area. She asked if staff had considered that and what their thought on this subject was? Collins responded the developer in this case really had an option: he could either design his lots in such a manner that they would back up to the easement or he could provide some type of open recreational space adjacent to that power line, using that as a buffer or screen to keep residential units away from the easement itself. The fact that he has kept his facilities on either side addresses the latter. We do not anticipate any particular problem under the power line. Ms. Ingram inquired about lots 62 and 63, in particular, and then 28, 29 and 37. She noted these lots are going to have a view of a vast expanse of vacant land with power lines. 410 Collins addressed each lot separately as to suggestions for best possible improvement. Commissioner Marshall asked if the acreage of the recreation space includes the land in the entire easement? Collins responded yes.