Browse
Search
Agenda 06-04-2019 6-a - Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Fairway Hills
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2019
>
Agenda - 06-04-19 Regular Meeting
>
Agenda 06-04-2019 6-a - Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application – Fairway Hills
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/30/2019 2:56:32 PM
Creation date
5/30/2019 2:53:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/4/2019
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-a
Document Relationships
Agenda - 06-04-2019 Regular Board Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2019\Agenda - 06-04-19 Regular Meeting
Minutes 06-04-19 Regular Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2019
RES-2019-033 Resolution of approval for the Fairway Hills preliminary plat
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2010-2019\2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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
94 <br /> wanted to go over this to give you a further perspective on how we propose to finish our design with regards to <br /> stormwater. <br /> Adam Beeman: Are there any sidewalks proposed inside this development? <br /> Tim Smith: There are not sidewalks proposed. I know they're required, and we're not proposing to do any. <br /> Sidewalks would be added impervious so we're trying to minimize impact from impervious. <br /> Hunter Spitzer: I see you have a 20-foot storm easement running between the upper cul-de-sac and the lower <br /> between lots 13, 14, 7 and 6. Have you considering make any sort of pedestrian access between these two ends? <br /> Tim Smith: We sure could do that. <br /> Kim Piracci: I'm asking for clarity. I think I read that your stormwater control measures are for one inch of rainfall in <br /> 24 hours and that's the regulation; is that correct? <br /> Tim Smith: That's correct. That's one of the goals we have the meet per the ordinance. There are different <br /> intensities for different storm events. This is a one year 24-hour storm event, so one year of rainfall intensity over 24 <br /> hours that volume of water we have the attenuate and not release any more than what would occur prior to our <br /> construction. <br /> Kim Piracci: Okay, so it's one inch in 24 hours and that's the minimum? Have you given any thought to building for <br /> more than that because of this recent rainfall we had? What we're building for isn't going to accommodate that so <br /> there's going to be flooding, right? <br /> Tim Smith: Potentially,yes. This is what the ordinance regulations require and it's what we designed to. We <br /> followed Orange County's regulations. We run analysis and check what other storm events would do, but we're <br /> required to submit to them and to get proof as to what's here in the ordinance. <br /> Kim Piracci: I have one more concern. My house is right near the corner of Route 70 and University Station. You <br /> take your life in your hands to turn left on Route 70 and there are accidents weekly. I'm wondering what happens <br /> when they want to turn left out of this? I might be the person heading east that they hit. Is any consideration being <br /> given to that? <br /> Tim Smith: For this project we're doing what is done on all projects similar in nature. They have the analysis of the <br /> thresholds, based on the use and the number of trips to be generated. Orange County has a pretty high threshold for <br /> requiring a transportation impact analysis which would be a full-blown study. In this case, Highway 70 needs <br /> improvements and DOT does have on the books in the future to do things to Highway 70. In the meantime,we are <br /> doing what DOT requires for us to put in this road for this development to provide as safe as we can access lanes for <br /> each direction to get in and out. <br /> Kim Piracci: I'm not allowed to vote against this because he's acting within their parameters even though I don't have <br /> to use much imagination and see problems in the future.Technically, I'm not allowed to say,this doesn't sound good, <br /> but because they're meeting the requirements. <br /> Michael Harvey: Well, they are meeting the UDO and the department of transportation has indicated that these are <br /> the necessary improvements to accommodate the traffic flow. You as a board member can vote your conscience in <br /> whatever way, manner, shape or form but without any direct evidence to prove that DOT's recommendation with <br /> respect to access is flawed, a decision to deny this project based on roadway access issues is not based on the <br /> information was have available and is inconsistent with the provisions of the UDO. The practical reality is that without <br /> any documented evidence proving that it's a faulty model, the staff can't take that position because DOT has already <br /> certified that this is an acceptable proposal. They have already required them to do offsite improvements consistent <br /> with their model and data. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.