Agenda - 02-16-1993 - III-F - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 2 1 Plan category which is called an Open Space Development Area. The Open Space 2 Development Area proposal was presented at Public Hearing on November 23 , 3 1992 . Comments regarding that proposal have been sent in from people who 4 live in that area and have been included as part of the Public Hearing 5 record. If the University Station property was to be placed in an Open Space 6 Development Area category, it would also allow them to go forward with the 7 next step if that Land Use Plan amendment is approved. That step would be 8 to apply for a Planned Development designation. That designation involves 9 the rezoning of the property, issuance of a Special Use Permit, and approval 10 of a specific site plan and subdivision plat for the project. The soonest 11 that that particular phase could be considered would be at the February 12 Quarterly Public Hearing. In each of these Land Use Plan categories there 13 are specific criteria that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning 14 Board must consider. These have been reviewed previously and are part of the 15 initial public hearing packet on December 1, 1992 . 16 17 Commissioner Insko asked that comments be focused on the agenda item. 18 19 PUBLIC COMMENTS 20 21 THOMAS BUELL read a one page statement which has been made a part of the 22 record of this meeting by reference. In summary he is against the University 23 Station development proposal as it is now proposed. He feels that the time 24 has come to consider some version of such a planned development. He feels 25 the golf course must be replaced with legitimate open space like fields and 26 woods. 27 JOHN STONE, a Professor at North Carolina State University specializing 28 in land use and transportation planning, read a statement which has been made 29 a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary, he stated 30 that while he supports the concept of neotraditional neighborhoods, he urges 31 the County Commissioners to reject the Comprehensive Plan amendment which 32 will permit the proposed University Station experiment to proceed. He feels 33 that the proposed University Station plan is flawed with respect to 34 neotraditional design guidelines and that the traffic analysis is incomplete. 35 He gave several reasons in his written statement why he feels the plan is 36 flawed and the traffic analysis is incomplete. 37 CHERIE ROSEMOND read a statement which has been made a part of the record 38 of this meeting by reference. She is concerned about the language used to 39 describe the proposed University Station project. She does not feel that 367 40 three story condominiums describe a rural village. She feels that traffic 41 will be a problem. She would like to see the golf course eliminated and the 42 density reduced by 50%. 43 LARRY BOHS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of 44 this meeting by reference. In summary his greatest concerns are the 45 preservation of the wildlife habitat, the forest, the streams and wetlands 46 that form a major part of the property. He showed some slides of the natural 47 areas in the proposed University Station area. He is concerned about the 48 runoff from the development and its affect on Stoney Creek. He thinks the 49 idea of clustered development is great and believes that with a thoughtful 50 density-neutral clustered development, it may be possible to preserve much 51 of the wildlife habitat and natural beauty of Stoney Creek. He does not 52 believe that Stoney Creek and the wildlife who live there will survive the