Agenda - 07-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRFT The School Board has dedlined to decrease the surcharge and the developer has decided it is cheaper not to tap on to these lines but to exalatd the 30 foot missing link for the line on Oakdale Drive and put in a water boost pump station! Wilihoit asked if this was the most ideal method. MdAdans responded that a booster pump station would enhance the system by addressing a pressure problem in the pressure zone. Wilihoit inquired about plans for water lines. McAdams responded that these plans were not finalized. Whitted asked if them:ewes a sketch plan for the next phase. McAdams indicat- ed no. Whitted expressed concerns regarding the streets asking about con- ventional paving vs. surface treatment. McAdams responded that the main road. of the Timbers was to state standards and the loop roads would have surface trea=. - t. Whitted noted that the lack of snow removal.had forced residents to park on Orange Grove Road. He inquired about the design of the area to be developiat to improve safety. MbAdars responded that their consideration of the problem. had been cussory but that concern for traffic was legitmate. He indicated that based on theoretical capacity the road was Lightly loaded. Whiffed expressed concern about egress/ingress on the hill. Kizer asked MCAdams to briefly comment on each of the staff's concerns. McAdams responded: #1 OK; #2 swimming pool proposed and other recreational facilities were yet endertermined, # 3 no proposal for laundry facilities and one dumpOter exists and one is p . used; # 4 access ways connecting parking lot to building and buildings to recreational facilities but no building to building connections would be provided; #5 roads would receive surface treatment as developer would prefer not to pave to state standards; #6 parking would be provided off loop off main entrance and therewculd be no parking directly on the drivei#7 the developer was unclear on spacing and landscaping would be shrubbery and mulch but no grass; # 8 this is not provided for in the development. Kizer expressed concern about traffic backing out into the travel ways. MAdams respcInded that thereuculd be loop road parking. Kizer asked McAdams feelings on the Planning Depart/met:staff concerns. MdAdams'respdnded tht this proposal was a construction which was 60% developed and thetIALIcipst information on the proposal was the existing developed por- tion. He added that recreation facilities be provided at the completion of the project.. amity indidated that asa rezoning the Board must weigh the merits of this proposal at this location with this density not weigh the merits of the proposal on the developers intentions. Wiliboit added that the pro- posal also cannot be Wilaghed on the basis of the reomemended alternative. Cannity indicated he wished the recommendation could be rewritten as he recognized ti4is concern. David Rooks -1 Attorney representing 17 single family owner occupied residences. Rooks emphasized the rezoning, if approved, wouldpreclude control over what would happen lat the site. He noted Section 203.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which outlineig the reasons for a. rezoning and indicated that the Board had not made an error but had made a consemus choice to zone this area as it was. He added that there was an established community of single family residences which served as a buffer between Hillsborough and the County and indicated that rezoning to high density would encourage further high density developmentlreduce the value of existing property and destroy a