Agenda - 02-01-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Q 5 Page 4 She inquired about separate entrances for each lot on to- Jones Ferry Road. John Coffey, developer, responded that common driveways were to be used to cut down on clearing and to provide for good sight/access points. Greenberg indicated this was not shown on the plat. Coffey responded he wanted to see if the lot lines were to be changed through the review process. Post indicated the driveways presented no impact on the stormwater management plan. • Greenberg questioned the plans for managing drainage. Post indicated the drawing was schematic and not to scale. He noted the basin fits between the dashed lines and the driveway between the dashed line and solid property line. Greenberg inquired if there is a drainage easement for the inter- mittent stream. Post answered affirmatively. Greenberg asked if the stream had been looked at during heavy rains. Post responded that the drainage basin bad been reviewed in terms of a 25 year storm designee. storm much larger than normally seen. Greenberg asked if soil types were considered. Post reponded they were part of the study indirectly as runoff projections take into account slope and permeability. He noted the slopes here were • generally moderate. Greenberg experssed concern that sub-basin A-1/A-4 is critical for University Lake asking if construction in that area would have no effect on the Lake. Post responded the report did not say there would be no effect, clarifying that it said there was no effective way (1) to retain stormwater from the lot, notirg_:: that in perspective of cubic feet per second the increase is 10% only as opposed to the doubling and tripling of stormwater he is used to ; (2) that the quality of water supply may not necessarily relate to the water flowing into it; and (3) the ordinance does not require the management of every drop of stormwater. He noted that the site needs to be considered as a whole and that attempting to manage each drop is impractical and may do more harm than good. Greenberg asked if it was presumed that trees be left. Post responded impervious surface areas were specified. They discussed the relative benefits of forest versus other types of vegetation in managing stormwater. Post noted portions of the site were pastures. Greenberg expressed concern about later home-building activities. Post indicated good engineering judgements regarding expected types of development were made ie..single family/large lots. Faircloth expressed concern about the lack of good clear guidelines for applying the Carrboro revisions to the S&E Ordinance noting a choice between approaching the development as individual lots or as an entire site. He continued that there was no place with concentrated runoff along the creek for detention structures. To try to do that would require diversions and concentrated flow across the buffer. The proposal submitted calls for sheet flow