Agenda - 12-01-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . . . . . • ....-- . „ • .- . __ • . . • . . . .. . • . _ . . • 073 - • - , . . . . . . • .- _ • . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. • . 1 • Council Member Werner: _asked if the commercial development and - • 7 . this proposed residential development was consistent with the .4:. 3 ' adopted land use plan. Messrs. ' Collins and. Weldon, 'said that . 4 0 • these types of development were consistent and were examples of _ . the kind of. balance expected to be acheived in mixed-use- designa- ' 6 tions. , . . . _•. - - . • . . _ • . • . '8 -• .- Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development' 9 ' would generate more traffic than residential . deve•lopment. .Mr. - . 10 ' . Weldon replied yes. . . . . - . .• . 11 . • . :, .• . - - . - • - - •-• • . , . , . • - . . • . . 12 • Council Member Preston asked abou.t. the topography of the site and 1:-. - 13 .• • the amount of impervious surface. She '• suggested there: be. a " i 14 • ". requirement that .protective fences , •lae. put.- around the trees •to . - • 15 • •••., - . • remain. r-,•; -,•:.-- -...- •-._::: :.•::,'•:::;.:::• -.•••:. • : ... •••• ;,,' ,• •.: - -. '.S..-..••.:-,•:-• .•.., .. . , .,' ..., • .,-. - •i _ .1. ,: ..••:,. - •. . •:__, _, . .. , , ,. 17 . - • Council: Member Thorpe" 'asked for •the reason. -why the County was .. .. -:. 18 requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins . i 19 ' • responded that the County had established specific areas where - i20 : they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems.. The . .. . * 21 • proposal's site was not adjacent to any of the designated. recrea- i 22 tional areas therefore the County had decided. to ask . for a . 23 . payment-in-lieu of recreation space. . . _ • . I 24. • . . . . . , .. ' . ,- . . • -. - • • . _ . . 25 Council Member Smith •questioned -the . statement of 'justification: :- • 26 regarding the traffic impact of the opening of .1-40 .to traffic on : • . I 27 , . N.C. 86. • • • • . • - • • • - -•' . . 28 . . . . . . - _ . . . . . . - . - • . . 29 . . Dana •.Staats, a landscape architect representing' the 'applicant, 30 • said they had worked ' with the Orange County and Chapel Hill - ' . 31 ' Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable • 32 to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their . 33 assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he 34 . • would answer questions from the Board and Council. • _ - [ 35' . - . - • • . ... i .36 . Commissioner Carey asked if the change in the .expected. completion ! 37 ' date from December 1990 to December, 1991 would affect the number • 1 38 . of units to be built. Mr. Staats said no, that it would just -. 39 affect, to timing of the units. . _ , . ' 40 ' . • . _ .- . . ...,. . ._ . 41 % - .Council Member Pasquini asked if the applicant were required -Ca ' 42 provide on-site public recreation space how, that -would be accom- : 43 plished: Mr. Staats replied that. he did not know, but that it 44 . would' require a major redesign of the -site as that requirement -_ 45 would mean approximately 60% of the site used for recreation. ' 46 . purposes. ' _ . .... . - . 47 . . . • . . • 48 . Ms. Gerrie Nunn, a resident of Eubanks Road,_ spoke in support of ' 49 . the the proposal. . . - - 50 • . . _. . . . 51 . Ms. Eliza Liptzin,- a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support 52 . 58 . - _ _ , . r . . . . _ . . 54 . .• • - • • • • ' _ ' . • - 55 of the proposal . . . • • - „ 56 . . . . . . . . _ . . . • - • 57 . . . - • • . . - . . - *- . • . . • . • - - • - 59 .0., . . • --. . . • -• .