Agenda - 10-13-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

amount of $12,823 for a 4. 11 acres of public recreation was required to meet current standards. Planning Director Collins said the project was to be developed in phases with a completed project date in December, 1991. He further stated that the project would have a measurable affect on the traffic intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. He commented that at present the County had not required off-site traffic improvements feeling the road improvements should be addressed by NCDOT, but that this was something the County needed to review in light of needed road improvements to the intersection of N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road and the lack of State funding. Commissioners Marshall and Carey asked about the size of the pump station and who would pay for its construction. Mr. Collins replied that the size of the pump station would be agreed with OWASA and that the applicant would pay for having it built. Council Member Pasquini questioned the basis upon which the land was valued for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. He felt the amount was too low. Mr. Collins answered that the 1987 tax appraisal was used. Council Member Werner asked if the commercial development and this proposed residential development was consistent with the adopted land use plan. Messrs. Collins and Waldon said that these types of development were consistent and were examples of the kind of balance expected to be achieved in mixed-use designations. Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development would generate more traffic than residential development. Mr. Waldon replied yes. Council Member Preston asked about the topography of the site and the amount of impervious surface. She suggested there be a requirement that protective fences be put around the trees to remain. council Member Thorpe asked for the reason why the County was requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins responded that the County had established specific areas where they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems. The proposal 's site was not adjacent to any of the designated recreational areas therefore the County had decided to ask for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Council Member Smith questioned the statement of justification regarding the traffic impact of the opening of I-40 to traffic on N.C. 86. Dana Staats, a landscape architect representing the applicant, said they had worked with the Orange County and Chapel Hill Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he would answer questions from the Board and Council.