Agenda - 12-01-1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-9- 079 DRAFT Council Member Andresen said she shared Ms. Preston's concerns about the impervious surface and traffic on NC 86. She commented that several residents had expressed concern about the potential for cut-through traffic through the Northwoods subdivision. Ms. Andresen also stated she would prefer to see more open areas and recreation space, saying she felt it was a densely packed devel- opment. Council Member Pasquini agreed with the comments of Council Members Preston and Andresen. He had questions about off-site improvements, especially the need for a stop light. COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER TO REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE TO- NIGHT. Council Member Pasquini said he would prefer to see a site plan taking into consideration that all the recreation space would be on-site. Council Member Howes said to refer it back to the Manager meant that the Council expected some changes to be made. He said a list of the concerns should be made, like on and off-site improvements, recreation, and the amount of impervious surface, which he said he did not think they could deal with that without drastically reducing the number of units. Council Member Godschalk commented that the way to change the amount of impervious surface and still keep the same number of units was to build up higher. He said this was the kind of trade-off to be expected if they asked for standards that were even higher than the Chapel Hill recreation space requirements. Council Member Werner said the key issue was the recreation space dedication on-site supersedes the rest of the problems. He said that there was not a good analogy for this site elsewhere in Chapel Hill. Mr. Werner said this site was pretty far from any other active recreation area with Cedar Falls Park being the closest and it was approximately four to five miles away. He said what bothered him was that the payment-in-lieu of $12,000 was not going to buy any useful recreation space that the residents of the proposed development would use. So basically, Mr. Werner said it was a question of whether or not the tenants would receive 4.5 to 5 acres or 1 acre of recreation space on site. Council Member Howes said he was not enthusiastic about the project and hadn't been from the beginning due to the location at the far edge of existing development and that developing the area in this manner was premature. He said the Council had attempted to mediate this type of problem with the designation of mixed use. He said he felt the area was one which needed some maturing prior to a development of this magnitude and scope was built. He