Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommendation <br /> 2 The Planning Staff recommends approval in accordance with the attached resolution. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Triebel asked about the reasoning for no circular driveways. Bateman said that there is a potential for a major <br /> 5 collector and they want to limit as many accesses as possible. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Preston made reference to page 56 and the analysis. She asked why the figures did not add up. Bateman said that <br /> 8 this was a mistake and it was not the revised version. Benedict said that the numbers were due to rounding up. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Chair Gooding-Ray asked about the minutes for the concept plan. This was in November 2000. They were not <br /> 11 included in the agenda packet. Benedict said that the issues at that time had to do with water resources in the area. <br /> 12 The USGS Water Resources Report has been received. One of the projects this year is to look at some lot size <br /> 13 sustainability standards. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Chair Gooding-Ray asked if the concept plan was approved for all three phases and Bateman said yes. Chair <br /> 16 Gooding-Ray asked if it had changed from what was approved. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Steve Yuhasz, surveyor for the project, said that the plan has changed a little bit,but only in final arranged lot lines <br /> 19 to adjust to the soils. The overall concept is identical. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Schofield asked how subsequent phases might connect open space to create both recreation and an open space <br /> 22 corridor. He also asked about lot P 10. Yuhasz said that the concept plan has more lots on the west side of the main <br /> 23 road than on this plan. In order to reduce the number of driveways,the number of lots on the west side of the road <br /> 24 was reduced. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Schofield said that he would like to see a reconfiguration of lot P10 in order to make the open space more <br /> 27 consolidated. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Several other clarifying questions were answered by the staff and the applicant. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Preston said that we should make sure,as these lots are marketed, that people understand that the main road is <br /> 32 going to continue on and that they are not buying into a dead-end cul-de-sac. This can be a condition added to the <br /> 33 resolution of approval. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 MOTION: McAdams moved approval of the preliminary plan for Mill Creek II Section One <br /> 36 with the additional language as suggested by Preston above. Seconded by Katz. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 VOTE: Unanimous <br /> 39 <br /> 40 AGENDA ITEM#10: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS <br /> 41 a. January Calendar-distributed <br /> 42 <br /> 43 AGENDA ITEM#11: - ADJOURNMENT <br /> 44 <br /> 45 With no further items to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next Planning Board meeting is <br /> 46 February 5,2002. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 Nicole Gooding-Ray, Chair <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Becky Butler,Minutes Preparer <br /> 51 <br />