Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_0922 (2)477 POPE: Is there any objection to exhibit 1 being received into the record? Hearing none, exhibit 1 is admitted into the rec;,rd. BECKHAM: To state some f=cts about the property. Twc.ity-one d ening units ire shown on the plat. Six of which are the typical single-family, detached. Seven are attached, meaning a common dividing wall. In many ways this plat is like a subdivision other than that there are attached units. Every lot does rot abut street as is required in a subdivision. And there is common open space. These are three main differences that distinguish this from what would otherwise be a subdi- vision. The density is at .89 units per acre. The development will to all residential structores. The development creates an environment of sustained desirability and stability as is shown on this plan. This is the entire project shown. There is no future phases. The building locations are approximate; however, they will not be any more, less than 35' for front and rear yards, and 15' from the side yards. All buildings will be under 35' in height. The street and throughfares are designed to be suitable for the anticipated traffic. The district highway engineer has not reviewed this plat, but will review this plat and approve it, to be subject to the approval here tonight, is the DOT enginer's approval. Also, the DOT engineer will approve the design for the grading and drainage for this project. Plans for water and sewer system will be subject to approval for the appropriate health authorities. That approval has not be submitted, but any approval here tonight could be made condition upon receiving that approval. No above -ground sewage treatment facilities are proposed. The Iredell County School Superintendent has seen the plat and commented upon it favorably. The buildings will all observe a 45' setback from the exterior property lines, and they will he buffered in accordance with Section 41.6 of the ordinance. The acreage for development exceeds the minimum requirements, which is ten acres. It well exceeds that. The entire project is contiguous. There's no island involved. The requested density is well below the maximum of four units per acre allowed under the PRD District, the density, again, is to he .895 acres. Excuse me, .895 units per acre. Commonly owned, useable open space is provided for in the plan. It's approximately 23,000 sq.ft. Section 87.2 of the ordinance requires liability insurance be provid^_d for planned rosiden- tial district. The developer has the understanding that the board of commissioners plans to delete that requirement once a waste water treatment ordinance is in place, and I'll call it to your attention that the developer has not presented any proposal for liability isnurance, assuming that the commissioners will re-examine this requirement in the n^.ar future. You may want to discuss that specifically with Mr. Jennings. All the technical specifications of 87.2, the development standards, have been addressed except those that I have mentioned conditionally, being the DOT engineer and the local or state health authorities, whichever would be appropriate. The technical specifications of 87.5 have been met, and, in my opinion, no part of the proposed development shall be so located or operated as to create a nuisance to nearby residential areas. The planning board voted 6-1 to recommend approval of this PRD rezoning and special use permit. The planning board heard this case on two separate occasions, the first being their July meeting where there was approximately 20 residents there to ask questions. The planning board postponed action for members of the board to visit the property. The planning board took action in August, at which time they voted 6-1 to recommend this proposal. That concludes my presentation. POPE: Any questions of Miss Beckham from the commissioners? HEDRICK: Lisa, how many people were in opposition at that last meeting where the adoption, or the approval of this took place? BECKHAM: It's hard for me to say how many were in opposition. Approximatel20 attended. Five of those twenty asked questions. Several seemed to be in opposition at that time, but in later discussions with them, they told me that their questions had been answered to their satisfaction. There was word out that this was going to be z. multi -family development or apartment development, and they were concerned about the effect that multi -family development would have on their residen- tial community. I have not heard from those people since August. So I assume by their silence that their opposition has been quietened. POPE: Other questions? HEDRICK: In looking at lot X4, for example, you can clarify something for me. There appears to be a driveway shown, a right-of-way or something, down at the $4. Do you see what I'm talking about, off the street? BECKHAM: Actually that's a driveway easement for 3, 4, 5. and 6.