Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-01-1988
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1988
>
Agenda - 02-01-1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2016 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/3/2016 12:30:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/1/1988
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
319
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Q 5 Page 4 <br /> She inquired about separate entrances for each lot on to- Jones <br /> Ferry Road. John Coffey, developer, responded that common <br /> driveways were to be used to cut down on clearing and to provide <br /> for good sight/access points. Greenberg indicated this was not <br /> shown on the plat. Coffey responded he wanted to see if the <br /> lot lines were to be changed through the review process. Post <br /> indicated the driveways presented no impact on the stormwater <br /> management plan. <br /> • Greenberg questioned the plans for managing drainage. Post <br /> indicated the drawing was schematic and not to scale. He noted <br /> the basin fits between the dashed lines and the driveway between <br /> the dashed line and solid property line. <br /> Greenberg inquired if there is a drainage easement for the inter- <br /> mittent stream. Post answered affirmatively. Greenberg asked <br /> if the stream had been looked at during heavy rains. Post responded <br /> that the drainage basin bad been reviewed in terms of a 25 year <br /> storm designee. storm much larger than normally seen. <br /> Greenberg asked if soil types were considered. Post reponded <br /> they were part of the study indirectly as runoff projections take <br /> into account slope and permeability. He noted the slopes here were <br /> • generally moderate. <br /> Greenberg experssed concern that sub-basin A-1/A-4 is critical for <br /> University Lake asking if construction in that area would have <br /> no effect on the Lake. Post responded the report did not say <br /> there would be no effect, clarifying that it said there was no <br /> effective way (1) to retain stormwater from the lot, notirg_:: <br /> that in perspective of cubic feet per second the increase is <br /> 10% only as opposed to the doubling and tripling of stormwater <br /> he is used to ; (2) that the quality of water supply may not <br /> necessarily relate to the water flowing into it; and (3) the <br /> ordinance does not require the management of every drop of <br /> stormwater. He noted that the site needs to be considered as <br /> a whole and that attempting to manage each drop is impractical <br /> and may do more harm than good. <br /> Greenberg asked if it was presumed that trees be left. Post <br /> responded impervious surface areas were specified. They discussed <br /> the relative benefits of forest versus other types of vegetation <br /> in managing stormwater. Post noted portions of the site were <br /> pastures. <br /> Greenberg expressed concern about later home-building activities. <br /> Post indicated good engineering judgements regarding expected <br /> types of development were made ie..single family/large lots. <br /> Faircloth expressed concern about the lack of good clear guidelines <br /> for applying the Carrboro revisions to the S&E Ordinance noting <br /> a choice between approaching the development as individual lots <br /> or as an entire site. He continued that there was no place with <br /> concentrated runoff along the creek for detention structures. To <br /> try to do that would require diversions and concentrated flow <br /> across the buffer. The proposal submitted calls for sheet flow <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.