Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
35 <br />Michelle Kempinski: On page 002 under existing, the appropriate number of lots should be 18 <br />This is also noted on p. 003 at the bottom -there is no reduction of lots with the new design.. <br />Glenn Bowles: It was suggested that the density was transferred from the larger tract, but as you <br />can see, when the tract was cut off; the density was not really affected under the flexible <br />development. <br />Robert Davis: This absh act was prepared before the other property changes were made. <br />Michelle Kempinski: Is the hatched area considered as open space? <br />Glenn Bowles: It is not considered as open space, but the developer has considered some lot <br />restrictions. Number 3 and 2 in the staff conditions show that we want to keep the open space <br />areas in their existing natural conditions, except a possible trail. This will be further defined in <br />the preliminary plan. <br />Ted Triebel: So, the total acreage is 61.5 acres. On page 4 regarding water recharge rates, it <br />shows 67 acres, What's the difference? <br />G1ennBowles: The number of households did change. There is one less house,. <br />Ted Triebel: Are these national averages? <br />Glenn Bowles: I used numbers which were from Madison, WI for total residential consumption, <br />not total consumption, Also, the State of'the Environment 2004 report r°eflects that as average, <br />led Triebel: My gut feeling is that 65 is low, and there is potential for a problem.. <br />Glenn Bowles: 100 is frequently recommended, but that reflects total consumption. I feel <br />confident about the 65, <br />Bernadette Pelissier: When you take an average of all households, this development is for' rather <br />wealthy people, and wealthy people often use more water due to landscaping, etc. There is no <br />data available reflecting varying average by income levels or size of houses. The actual usage <br />will probably be higher than what is shown here. <br />Craufurd Goodwin: I'd like to point out that recommendation #2 on p. 004 makes no sense. <br />There is a duplication of words. <br />Glenn Bowles: We will make that change, <br />Michelle Kempinski: On #6 of the recommendations -why was only Gayle Wilson's attachment <br />addressed, and not the other comments? <br />Glenn Bowles: The other comments were already incorporated into the recommendations. <br />Bernadette Pelissier: On recommendation #7 regarding traffic. Does this pertain specifically to <br />this development? <br />