Agenda - 05-15-2001-9f - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 1 preference of the development plan. Davis said that the Planning Department and the Fire Marshall both 2 prefer two access points. Two access points are not mandated, however. 3 4 Woods made reference to lots 21 and 22 and the fact that they were so much larger than the other lots and S shaped in such odd shapes. Davis said that the reason for the large lots and odd shapes was because of the 6 soil suitability. 7 8 Woods asked if the staff commented back to the developer that drawing the lot lines for lots 21 and 22 in that 9 manner effectively eliminated lots 23-29 in having any direct access to the primary conservation area (13 10 acres of passive recreation for the subdivision). Benedict said that the original proposal was different in that 11 it had off-site septic Easements on the common area. He said that the easements would be an option for lots 12 23-29 to have access. 13 14 Woods said that, in character, lots 21 and 22 were remarkably different from the other lots. 15 16 Alois Callemyn, the land surveyor of this project from Callemyn, Callemyn, and Parker; introduced some of 17 his staff and members of the community. He said that there was a lot of input from the neighbors and 18 professionals (i.e., Orange County Health, NCDOT, engineers, and soil scientists) on this project and that 19 this was a goad development because of the input. He said that they have looked at other plans for this 20 subdivision and this was the best out of all of them. He spoke about restricted access and said that lots 23 21 - through 29 had restricted access even though they back on common area. He said that they did not want 22 people to think that they could drive across the common area. He said that landscaping was very important 23 in this subdivision. He said that the intent of the berms was to hide the back of the houses from the road. He 24 said that they were planning to have pedestrian easements so that people would feel comfortable walking - 25 through the subdivision. Regarding runoff, they have done an engineering study on the roads and an erosion 26 control plan that must be reviewed by Orange County and NCDOT. 27 28 Woods asked what kind of restrictions would be put on lots 21 and 22 to restrict their use of the land to 29 roughly the same area as shown on the map. Callemyn said that there would be a very defined building 30 envelope and restrictive covenants. The covenants will be enforced by the homeowner's association. 31 32 Woods asked about the height of the berm. Callemyn said that it would be five feet from the existing ground 33 to the top. Woods said that the plants would be dry in berms of that height because the moisture level in the 34 ground would be dramatically lower than the moisture level in the ground around it. ` 35 36 Woods asked about the maintenance of the berms when the developer leaves. Callemyn said that this would 37 be up to the homeowner's association. 38 39 Chair Gooding-Ray asked what the neighbors could do to make sure the buffer is maintained. Callemyn said 40 that all of the documents would be in the register of deeds and would be public documents. 41 42 Preston asked about a landscaping plan. Bateman said that the plan submitted was a basic plan. 43 44 Preston is disappointed that there were no details on the landscaping plan. She is concerned about how this 45 berm would work and what kinds of plant materials would be planted. She asked about the basic price range 46 of the homes and it was answered that the price range would be $125,000-130,000. 47 48 Callemyn said that the landscaping plan was beyond what was in the Orange County ordinance. Preston said 49 that at times there is a lot of sloppy work that gets passed on to the homeowner's association. SO S 1 Bateman said that the staff was asking for additional landscaping to make sure that no views to the backs of 52 the houses are seen from the road. 53