Agenda - 09-10-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 Mar 'son inquired about the timing for the road construction. The developer responded approximately 3 years. Allen Aldridge, applicant, was sworn in for his statement. Barry Jacobs inquired about traffic projections in regard to 1-40. Collins referred this question to the applicant and noted that Chapel Hill staff had done a Weaver Dairy Road impact study. Walden responded that Chapel Hill staff had prepared a corridor study of Weaver Dairy Road from NC 86 to US 15-501. The three intersections studied were NC: 86/Weaver Dairy Read, Erwin Road/15-501, and Erwin Road/Weaver Dairy Road. The conclusions were as follows: (1) Considering the existing conditions and develop eats approved, but not yet constructed, there is a problem of overcapacity at the 15 501/Erwin Road intersection. This will be partially mitigated by the improvements proposed for Sage Road Extension (2) The Erwin.Rd/Weaver Dairy Road intersection is not yet at capacity (3) The Weaver Dairy/NC 86 intersection is well below capacity Walden noted that this study did not address the impacts of I-40. Jacobs asked for NZDOT projections of I-40 impacts on the area. Willhoit reviewed the procedures to adjourn the public hearing. Allen Aldridge, applicant, requested that the hearing had been continued o receive staff re speak. a stated noted Mr. Aldridge could speak to those concerns. reports. ' i stated that Mr. Aldridge began by apologizing to the Boards for bringing in the manner in which it was presented. this project difficulty in trying to deal with 4 bodies ( 2 ' Be Fie noted there afs great governmental agencies) as well as CJWASA. - Administrative staffs and 2 Be stated that the project. was begun 12 months ago and extensive preliminary engineering studies have been done:- The amount of $16,500 has been spent, as well as considerable time, effort and energy. He noted that his firm had tried to comply with all the recommendations. He continued that he had received a six page report on September 9, 1985 with many of the previous recommendations changed. Be noted it was the first.written report his firm had received since the June 11, 1985 public hearing. His intent was to develop a nice residential subdivision'with curb and gutter and sidewalks. He felt it was a very unfortunate circumstance that he could not 100' 1 buffer now being required by the County and develop the comply with the ne0 Be felt the considerable road requirements development ns planned. equirements were unfair and unfortunate. He also noted the recreation area was for the neighborhood and it did not seem to him to be necessary to have 10 Parking spaces, particularly since there were to be sidewalks on both sides of the street going to the recreation area. He felt if these items could not be overcome, the hearings might as well be stopped as his firm could not develop the project under these conditions. Mayor Massif asked if Mr. Aldridge was withdrawing the petition. Aldridge responded no. He continued that he would like for the Board and Council to make the decision as to whether the conflicting items could not possibly be overcome and, if so, then he felt the petition should be withdrawn. Massif continued that as long as the petition was before the Boards it would require action and that the developer would be the one to withdraw the petition. Aldridge stated he was not willing to withdraw the this point, but could not meet the requirements now being application at Chair Willhoit adjourned the public hearing and referred they to the Chapel Hill Tbwn Manager and the County Planning aBparcatior recommendation. He noted the 'earliest the Comidssiiooners could receive for be September 30, 1985. He asked if the recommendation could be received from the Board and Council by that Taylor stated that the Town Council's next meeting date awas Manager County Attorney •Gledhill stated that several requests for additional information had been made and could only be considered if brought before the Boards at public hearing.