ATTACHMENT 12

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY MINUTES
COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006, 7:00 P.M.

Chairperson Jonathan Whitney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission members present were George Cianciolo, Gretchen MacNair, Laura King Moore, Scott Nilsen, and Robin Whitsell. Staff members present were Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein and Planning Technician Kay Tapp.

PUREFOY ROAD SUBDIVISION (File PIN 9870-64-1606, 9870-64-3619, 9870646459 

A request for a Concept Plan Review has been submitted to construct a new single family development with 52 dwelling units. The Habitat for Humanity of Orange County proposes to construct affordable housing in collaboration with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and Empowerment. The development is proposed to be located on the north side of Purefoy Road approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Rogers Road and Purefoy Drive (see area map on back). Two access points into the site are proposed from Purefoy Drive and Edgar Street. The 19.5-acre site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. The property is outside the Town limits and identified as Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 24..1 PIN #9870-64-1606, 1C PIN # 9870-64-3619, & 2 PIN # 9870-64-6459.

CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTATION

The Habitat for Humanity of Orange County presented a Concept Plan for 52 dwelling units on 19.5 acres. She explained that Habitat for Humanity provides residences for meeting a 50% or less median income and they receive more applications than they can provide housing. They are proposing five acres of recreation with access off Edgar Street and Purefoy Road.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

No citizens spoke on the application.

COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION QUESTINS AND COMMENTS

  1. A Commissioner asked about responsibility of maintenance for  the recreation area. The developer replied that if the area is used by the entire community, they hope that the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department will provide maintenance. If only users of the neighborhood use it, then a Homeowners’ Association will be created that will provide the maintenance. The same Commissioner asked if landscaping will be provided with the houses. The developer responded that usually a lawn is established in the front yard and homeowners provide landscaping.
  2. Three Commissioners expressed approval of the site plan. They thought it was well-scaled and well thought out.
  3. Concerns with the location of the recreation area was expressed be several Commissioners. None approved of the concentration of recreation area in one corner as shown on the plan. Several ideas were recommended. One Commissioner felt it would be better if part of the recreation area was also in the northeast corner.  Other Commissioners wanted the recreation area spread throughout the subdivision with suggested locations on Lots 45 and 46 centrally located and on high ground, two lots off Edgar Street to serve neighbors on the west, and on Lots 23 and/or 24 to serve residences in the central part of the subdivision.   
  4. A Commissioner asked if the electrical easements were high voltage overhead wires. The applicant replied yes, that two sets of creosote poles and erector towers contained high voltage lines.
  5. A Commissioner is concerned about stormwater run-off and 14-foot setbacks as effects adjacent owners. He recommends that the existing property owners be notified that new houses in this subdivision could be built within 14 feet of the property line.
  6. Questions of access and parking were raised. Will there be sidewalks? The applicant replied that there would be sidewalks constructed internal to the subdivision. Would there be on-street parking? The applicant replied that because it is believed that the Town will include the subdivision on a bus route, parking will not be allowed on both sides of the street, but parking on one side of the street is proposed.
  7. One Commissioner wanted to know if there was any public access at the end of Edgar Street. The applicant replied that existing homes prevented the extension of Edgar Street. He noted that lot 2 has a portion of the lot within the Duke Power easement and was concerned that no houses would be built within the easement or too near the lines.

Prepared for:   Jonathan Whitney, Chair
Prepared by:    Kay Pearlstein, Staff