Agenda - 12-01-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . . . . . • . . , . • . . - • . 074 . . . . . • . .. • . . . .. 1 . john Carne, a resident, spoke against the proposal. 'due to -the. 2imp, ' 311i expected increase in traffic ' on 'Eubanks Road, . and Northwoods • . Drive. He said he . would ' prefer to see approval of the ' project , . - - 4 include . conditions for improvements to the intersection of '5 • Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. . _ . 6 ' . . , 7 Mr. Harry Poole, a resident, spoke against the proposal because . • '8 of the expected increase of traffic on Northwoods Drive. Be 9 ' stated that ' the current condition of the intersection of Eubanks. . , 10 , Road and N.C.. 86 already had people cutting. through Northwoods ..1 - 11 - subdivision in order to avoid the intersection. - He also rom- I 12 . - mented . that he would prefer to see more green' . space in the . _ . 13 • . .. . proposal. ' . . . . . . 14 , -, . . . - - • • . • - . . . . ., , . . • . - . . 15 • : '..-. ' Council Member Andresen asked if the County- did not require- - - 16 • ::? off-site' improvements,.: how would the improvements get done and ] 1. ....,. 17 C. .- . . who would paid for them. - _ - . . - • -. • -. . -- . .:. . . % 18 .. , . . _ . 19 . . , Chair Willhoit responded that the County did not have a policy . . 20 - not to require off-site improvements, they bad just not -required 21 . such improvements tO date. He said this was something the County . , - -- . 22 . - - needed to review . and examine, especially when the . applicant :. - 23 • ' pointed out in his application that- the intersection of Eubanks - 24 ' , and N.C. 86 was already at or over capacity-. . ' . . * . . . . 25 ' . . * . . . . 26 . COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MEMBER PRESTON TO : • 27 -. - - REFER' TO THE MANAGER AND PLANNING STAFF. ' THE MOTION . PASSED - - 28( UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . . . . 29 . , , . .. ' . ' V . . • 30 • .„COMMISSIONER CAREY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARSHALL TO . 31 . REFER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE COUNTY MANAGER, PLANNING. 32 . ' STAFF,' AND PLANNING BOARD AND TO ADJOURN THE HEARING• TO'DECEMBER 33 1, 1986 WHEN IT WOULD RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING 34 . .BOARD AND CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUS- ' 35 ,. LY, (4-0) . . . . 36 . .. . . . . • • • . 37 • 'Joint Planning Agreement . . . . • . . . . . . . 38 . . ' . . . 39 - Ken Thompson, Orange County Manager, gave a presentation on the ' 40 . . proposed amendments to 'the joint planning agreement between — 41 Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said, in. essence the proposal 42 . . , ' would grant Chapel Hill the authority over development . applica 43 . tions in the transition areas. Orange County would present - a 44 . recommendation on the applications but. the approval would come 45 from the Town. He said the proposal would give the County the. ' 46 approval authority for the joint land use plan and amendments 47 thereto,. as well as approval for development applications in the - 48 rural buffer. Mr. Thompson stated the proposal called for Chapel • . 49 ' Hill to recommend zoning classifications for the -transition area 50 .. • and that the County would grant approval of the zoning based on 5U Chapel Hill's recommendation. Chapel . Hill - HWould. also .make . . 52 recommendations to Orange County for development applications in ' • 53(54 the rural buffer areas. He. said the, 'agreement would be- a two party agreement between Chapel Hill and Orange _County and would 55 • . supercede the existing joint planning agreement ' upon its adop- ' 56 tion. . . . , . . • • 58 . . . . v . . 59 v v . . . . . . . . , . . v . 50 - . - ..., . - • : . mmeimmw