Agenda - 08-18-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• • • Ms. Amy Parker March 12, 1987 Page 2 4. There should be an explanation of the unusual configurations of lots 55 and 56. Does lot 56 meet Carrboro frontage requirements? 5 . There is no description of the facilities shown on page 1 between Blossom Hill Court and Carrboro Community Parka 6. The purpose of the unidentified lot between lots 86 and 87 should be indicated. 7 . Amberly Place should be part of Amberly Drive. 8. There are two errors in the point calculation for recreation facilities: Swimming ( sic) Pool Patio should score 72 points not 64; Bike Path should score 84.8 points not 83.2; the total should be 1945.24 points not 1935.64. 9 . Assurances should be given that all recreation facilities included in the recreation point calculation will be available to Amberly residents. 10. The phasing plan does not include any of the recreation facilities shown in the center of the development. They should be included in the phasing plan . 11 . The proposed sewer plan shows existing manholes in the cul -de-sac on Palermo Court and in Amberly Drive at Oakbrook Court. Is that correct? 12. The proposed location of the sewage immediately adjacent to an area whereusslopes texceed 15% . 13. The traffic impact calculation on page 10 d es not include the intersection of Strowd rowd Lane and . . fai Road�oes not i nc I ude any traf c genration by the proposed recreation facilities, O= nd ' does not address traffic flow to and from Carrboro Community Park via Brandywine Place.' 14. The note under traffic_ im_pact on page 10 assumes that traf.f i c- -. _geynerat.ed by Amber Iwi I I ,be equa.l_I y , distributed throughout th.e day. That is not correct. Peak hour trips will be significantly higher than other periods of the day. For Amberly, approximately 10 .8% of total trips will be made during peak hour.