Agenda - 12-01-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-8- DRAFT 07$ curb, gutter, etc. was to occur. Mr. Waldon said this require- ment was for the part of Eubanks Road along the site' s frontage. Council Member Smith expressed concern about not requiring open space on the site when the payment-in-lieu would go to Orange County and the residents of the proposed development would use Chapel Hill's recreation facilities. He said that on that basis he could not support the project as recommended. Mr. Waldon responded that there was recreation space provided on the site but it was not sufficient to meet the new Orange County requirements. He said that what was being proposed on-site was a swimming pool with club house and tennis court. Council Member Godschalk asked what was the difference between the County' s and the Town' s recreation space requirements. Mr. Waldon said the County's regulations for improved recreation space for this site would be 1.75 acres while Chapel Hill' s regulations would be . 64 acres. Mr. Godschalk asked how much was currently being proposed by the applicant. Mr. Waldon said that it was 1 . 08 acres. Mr. Godschalk stated that this meant they actually had proposed more on-site recreation space than Chapel Hill 's regulations would require. Mr. Waldon replied yes. Council Member Godschalk said that in terms of Mr. Smith's concerns it seemed to him that there was quite a bit of recrea- tion space being provided that was in excess of the Town' s standards. He also pointed out that there was a large open space buffer around the site. He said he found the site plan to be a competent, well worked out site plan. Mr. Godschalk commended the Town staff for their negotiations on density and road im- provements. COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-11-10/R-2A AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE DEPENDENCY or NCDOT APPROVAL FOR STIPULATION #4 TO BE VALID. Council Member Preston said she was not pleased with the project, feeling it consisted of pavements and roof tops. She said they had reduced the impervious surfaces to 45% but she would prefer they be approximately 33%. Ms. Preston also said she would prefer to see more recreation area provided on the site. She asked Mr. Waldon that since the site was now in a mixed use zone, would the project integrated with other projects that might be developed nearby. Mr. Waldon responded that the site was in an area where it was hoped to encourage mixed use development but that the site was not zoned mixed use. It was designated as such in the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, but in the Joint Land Use Plan it was designated as Office/Institutional with the intention to encourage mixed use development. Currently the site was zoned residential. He said the site was not in Chapel Hill' s jurisdiction at present. Mr. Waldon said that one of the reasons for the stipulation regarding a sidewalk along Eubanks Road was in an effort to integrate this development with other potential developments.