Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-22-2018 Abstract for Joint Meeting Discussion Items
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2018
>
Agenda - 03-22-2018 Chapel Hill
>
Agenda - 03-22-2018 Abstract for Joint Meeting Discussion Items
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2018 10:40:07 AM
Creation date
3/20/2018 10:42:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/22/2018
Meeting Type
Municipalities
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
Agenda - 03-22-2018 Joint Meeting - Orange County Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 03-22-2018 Chapel Hill
Minutes 03-22-2018 Chapel Hill
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Pros <br /> More acreage designated for development in the <br />short term <br /> Provides greatest opportunity for highest number of <br />affordable housing and market rate housing to help <br />meet housing demand in the urban area <br /> More acreage available for development to offset <br />infrastructure costs <br /> Allows for double road frontage to offset road and <br />infrastructure costs <br /> More development and residential units to support <br />transit <br />Cons <br /> Additional stormwater treatment will be needed due to greater <br />amount of potential development and increased impervious surfaces <br /> Protects the least amount of mixed hardwood/pine forest from short <br />term development <br /> Only allows for the required 80 foot wetland buffer <br /> Depending on density, may have greater traffic impacts to Purefoy <br />Drive and Merin Road <br />Pros <br /> Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to wildlife <br />corridor <br /> Allows for additional areas of preserve <br /> Provides opportunity for a mid-range of affordable <br />housing and market rate housing to meet the general <br />housing demand <br /> More acreage available for development to offset in- <br />frastructure costs <br /> Allows for double road frontage to offset road and <br />infrastructure costs <br />Cons <br /> Less acreage is available for development in the short term or to off- <br />set infrastructure costs <br /> Less opportunity for affordable housing and market rate housing to <br />help meet housing demand in the urban area <br /> <br />Pros <br /> Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to <br />wildlife corridor <br /> Allows for additional areas of preserve <br /> Strives to protect the existing wildlife corridor and <br />provide for landscape connectivity <br /> Protects the greatest amount of Mixed Hardwood/ <br />Pine Forest from short term development <br /> Depending on density, may have less traffic impacts to <br />Purefoy Drive and Merin Road <br />Cons <br /> Less acreage is available for development in the short term <br /> Provides lowest opportunity for affordable housing and market rate <br />housing to help meet housing demand in the urban area <br /> Less acreage available for development to offset infrastructure costs <br /> Does not allow for double road frontage to offset road and infra- <br />structure costs <br /> Less development and residential units to support transit <br />Alternative 1 <br />Illustrates a high development option with <br />the greatest amount of acreage designated <br />for development compared to the other <br />alternatives. <br />Alternative 2 <br />Illustrates a moderate development option <br />by shifting acreage away from the develop- <br />ment land use with the transfer of acreage <br />to additional preserve and land banking. Al- <br />so allows for a 150 buffer along a portion of <br />the existing wetlands located onsite. <br />Alternative 3 <br />Illustrates a low development option by <br />shifting additional acreage away from the <br />development land use category to the addi- <br />tional preserve and land banking. <br />Preserve Development Land Banking <br />20.8 ac. 20% 78.5 ac. 75.5% 4.7 ac. 4.5% <br />Based <br />on <br />59.1 <br />acres <br />Low Density <br />(4-6 units/acre) <br />Medium Density <br />(6-10 units/acre) <br />High Density <br />(10-20 units/acre) <br />236 - 354 354 - 591 591 - 1182 <br />Preserve Development Land Banking <br />23.8 ac. 22.9% 66 ac. 63.4% 14.2 ac. 13.7% <br />Based <br />on <br />47 <br />acres <br />Low Density <br />(4-6 units/acre) <br />Medium Density <br />(6-10 units/acre) <br />High Density <br />(10-20 units/acre) <br />188 - 282 282 - 470 470 - 940 <br />Preserve Development Land Banking <br />34.3 ac. 33% 43.6 ac. 41.9% 26.1 ac. 25.1% <br />Based <br />on <br />24.6 <br />acres <br />Low Density <br />(4-6 units/acre) <br />Medium Density <br />(6-10 units/acre) <br />High Density <br />(10-20 units/acre) <br />98 - 147 147 - 246 246 - 492 <br />46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.