Agenda - 08-22-2006-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3~ MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY .3, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; .Ioel Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large; Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large STAFF PRESENT: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant II; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Planner II; Glenn Bowles, Planner II AGENDA ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR 7HE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION (VOTING ITEM) Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II Planning Board to hear Staff Report to make recommendation to the County Commissioners regarding the Preliminary Plan application for the Orchard Subdivision, Glenn Bowles: (Reviewed Abstract). Lot numbers 10 and 11 have been reoriented so that all the platted land is not in primary open space as the concept plan approval required. As a result of the Fire Marshal's comments, the developer has approached OWASA to use the University Lake as a source of water for fire suppression, OWASA has agreed but the specifics or design have not been completed, The Carrboro Courtesy Review requested a trail system around the property, but Staff' does not agree because of the concern for erosion on steep slopes and maintaining the pristine environment. Also, they requested that the cul-de-sac be constructed to the eastern edge of the property. Staff' was concerned about extending the road because the non-use of the road, the expected deterioration of the road due to no use, and there is question if and when the adjacent property maybe developed and at what grade the road on the other side would be. Staff did not want the road to be paved twice if the grades do not match. Michelle Kempinski: Originally there was a question if' the Tanaka property should be considered as part of this subdivision when determining the number of allowable lots.. When the subdivision was redrawn to exclude the Tanaka tract, was the number of allowable lots readjusted? The number of lots is pertinent, as it comes up with one less lot., Jay Bryan: Your question to Glenn is how was the 181ots determined? Michelle Kempinski: Yes, My calculation is lower. Jay Bryan: Would it be helpful to have the developer explain the calculations or the staff? Bruce Ballentine: The calculations ar'e not only based on density. The underlying density is based nn the parent tracts of land as of October 2, 1989. When the regulations changed in the County, you calculate the density by going back to legal lots on that date (2 tracts), multiplied by 5 acres and the rest at 5 acres; the TanakaBennett original property was 47.91 acres, and was part of the parent tract. An additional calculation is the yield analysis.