Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
-6 <br /> 1 Council Member Werner asked if the commercial development and <br /> 2 this proposed residential development was consistent with the <br /> 3 adopted land use plan. Messrs. Collins and Waldon said that <br /> 4 these types of development were consistent and were examples of <br /> 5 the kind of balance expected to be acheived in mixed-use designa- <br /> 6 tions. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development <br /> 9 would generate more traffic than residential development. Mr. <br /> 10 Waldon replied yes. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Council Member Preston asked about the topography of the site and <br /> 13 the amount of impervious surface. She suggested there be a <br /> 14 requirement that protective fences be put around the trees to <br /> 15 remain. <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Council Member Thorpe asked for the reason why the County was <br /> 18 requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins <br /> 19 responded that the County had established specific areas where <br /> 20 they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems. The <br /> 21 proposal' s site was not adjacent to any of the designated recrea- <br /> 22 tional areas therefore the County had decided to ask for a <br /> 23 payment-in-lieu of recreation space. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Council Member Smith questioned the statement of justification <br /> 26 regarding the traffic impact of the opening of 1-40 to traffic on <br /> 27 N.C. 86. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Dana Staats, a landscape architect representing the applicant, <br /> 30 said they had worked with the Orange County and Chapel Hill <br /> 31 Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable <br /> 32 to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their <br /> 33 assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he <br /> 34 would answer questions from the Board and Council. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Commissioner Carey asked if the change in the expected completion <br /> 37 date from December 1990 to December, 1991 would affect the number <br /> 38 of units to be built. Mr. Staats said no, that it would just <br /> 39 affect to timing of the units. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Council Member Pasquini asked if the applicant were required to <br /> 42 provide on-site public recreation space how that would be accom- <br /> 43 plished. Mr. Staats replied that he did not know, but that it <br /> 44 would require a major redesign of the site as that requirement <br /> 45 would mean approximately 60% of the site used for recreation <br /> 46 purposes. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Ms. Gerrie Nunn, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support of <br /> 49 the the proposal. <br /> 50 <br /> 51 Ms. Eliza Liptzin, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support <br /> 52 of the proposal. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 <br /> 55 <br /> 56 <br /> 57 <br /> 58 <br /> 59 <br />