Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 03-04-2004-9a
i~ 4 ~t ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 4, 2004 Action Agenda Item No, ~`-A SUBJECT: PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Addition Planned Development Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): Resolution to Approve Zoning Atlas Amend Resolution to Approve Special Use Permit NCDOT Requirements (1997 Letters) Application Vicinity Map Findings of Planning Staff NCDOT Comments (11-17-03 Letter) Draft November 24, 2003 Public Hearing Minutes Draft January 8, 2004 Planning Bd. Minutes Traffic Accident Information Traffic Assessment Site Plan Maps (Under Separate Cover) PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) NO INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, ext.2592 Eddie Kirk, Planner II, ext. 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To close the Public Hearing, hear recommendations and then make a decision regarding the State Employees Credit Union's proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities. BACKGROUND: Applicants: State Employees Credit Union 1000 Wade Avenue P.O. Box 27665 Raleigh, NC 27611-7665 (919) 839-5000 O'Brien/Atkins Suite 400 5001 S. Miami Blvd. Durham, NC 27709 (919) 941-9000 Location: At the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (SR 1133) Township: Hillsborough Proposed changes: The applicant is requesting the existing 5,000 sq. ft. building be increased to 7,334 sq. ft., a 634 sq. ft. remote teller office be constructed with a 2,000 sq. ft. canopy and the existing drive through facilities be relocated with the addition of one drive through lane. Current Conditions: Zoning: Economic Development -Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) Adjacent Property Zoning: Economic Development -Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) Proposed Zonina: Planned Development Economic Development Linear Office (PD-ED-LNR), Class A Special Use Permit ~ ~~ 2' ,s Total Acreage: 3.25 The addition of 1.37 acres to the existing 1.88 acre site. Traffic Patterns: Request is for one full access point from Old NC86 and the existing full access from Oakdale Drive. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is recommending the access point to Old NC 86 be full access. Planning staff is recommending one right-in /right-out access point to Old NC86 and the existing Oakdale Drive access. One stub-out will be constructed to the southern property line to provide for interconnectivity and a stub-out easement will be provided to the western property line. Water-Sewer: Hillsborough water and sewer is located at the site. Lines will be extended to the remote teller office. Agency Comments: Comments attached from Town of Hillsborough, Sheriffs Office, Emergency Management, and NCDOT. Zoning Consistency: The proposed expansion plan does not meet three of the performance standards of the ED- LNR zoning~district. However, the ordinance allows the Board of Commissioners to deviate from these standards through the Planned Development process if the BOCC determines that a public benefit or purpose is being met. • The maximum floor area limit in the Linear Office District is 5,000 square feet with 20,000 square foot minimum zoning lot. - The proposed facility will be on 3.25 acres or a lot of 141,570 square feet, which is approximately 7 times the minimum zoning lot area for the District. The plan is to expand the existing building to 7,334 square feet total with a new remote teller station of 634 square feet and a relocated new canopy of 2,000 square feet. The total constructed square footage proposed, therefore, is 9,968, which is substantially less than the total floor area that would be allowed with 7 separate 20,000 square foot zoning lots [i.e_ 7 X 5,000= 35,000 square feet]. Even if the 1.37 acres were subdivided and developed separately as two zoning lots, each lot could allow up to 5,000 square feet each for a total permissible floor area of 10,000 square feet, which is more than the proposed area of 9, 968 square feet. Additional office space to accommodate walk in traffic is a part of this proposal. • The Hillsborough Area EDD has a prohibition against drive-through facilities. - The existing facility has four drive-through lanes, including the ATM lane. The request is to relocate these lanes, to add one extra drive through lane and to add tellers (at the remote teller station) that are dedicated exclusively to serve drive-through customers. The additional lane, when served by a dedicated teller, has the potential to reduce emissions by shortening the time of vehicles waiting in line to perform transactions. The Credit Union is also promoting use of on line banking which also may reduce the number of trips. • The maximum building height is 30 feet. - The existing building is 35 feet in height. The additions are less than 30 feet in height. !J c 3 The following conditions were placed on the State Employees Credit Union when the Special Use Permit was originally approved on April 21, 1998. Existing Class A, Special Use Conditions: (Recorded 7-17-98; Book 1763, Page 450) 1. Sewer lines shall be installed at the time of site development. 2. Parking, landscaping and buffers shall be installed and maintained as shown on the February 6, 1998 site plan. 3. Sidewalks shall be constructed and maintained by the State Employees' Credit Union until the property is annexed by the Town of Hillsborough. 4. NCDOT requirements as specified in its April 17, 1997 letter and September 16, 1997 letter shall be complied with. (See attached letters) 5. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in it's entirety and of no effect. 6. This Special Use Permit shall automatically expire within twelve (12) months of the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of the time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided by Section 8.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Information/Issues at Public Hearing on November 24, 2003 1. Request for information on sidewalk location. - Sidewalks on Oakdale Drive will remain where located. Sidewalks along Old NC 86 will be extended south from the end of the existing sidewalk to the new property line. 2. Discussion of right-in/right-out access only on Old NC 86. - NCDOT is recommending one full access point on Old NC 86 with the anticipation that when Old NC 86 becomes a divided highway the access would become a right in right out only. The Planning Staff recommends the one access on Old NC 86 be constructed as a right-in right-out at the present time due to increasing traffic on Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive. Concerns were discussed at the Public Hearing about the full access on Old NC 86. 3. Discussion of right-of-way for an additional lane on Oakdale. - Additional right-of-way has been provided by the Credit Union on Oakdale Drive for future improvements. NCDOT has been contacted about the possibility of having a right turn lane constructed on Oakdale. NCDOT has indicated a right turn lane may be possible using spot safety or small urban funds. Due to funding limitations of these funds the State Employees Credit Union will be responsible for costs of the turn lane above $75,000. The cost and feasibility of construction is being investigated by NCDOT. A formal written request for a right turn lane will need to be forwarded from the Commissioners to NCDOT. 4. Concern was expressed about adding an additional lane to the drive through and air quality issues. - Jay Smith with Obrien Atkins indicated the additional lane would increase efficiency and thereby reduce wait time and air pollution. 5. Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern about a possible future rear drive. - It was pointed out that there is a stub out to be constructed to the south and aright-of--way proposed to the west for a possible future connection. The existing plan indicates a private right-of-way along the western property line on the adjacent property. When adjoining properties are developed additional drives will be considered. 6. Request for information on accidents at the intersection of Oakdale Drive and Old NC 86. ~. 4 ' - Randell Welborne indicated there had been no accidents at that intersection since June 1999 that he knew of. Information. from NCDOT indicates 7 accidents at the intersection with 5 minor injuries and no accidents at the Credit Union entrance on Old NC 86. 7. Request for information regarding whether the existing house would be deconstructed or moved. - Jonathan Parsons with O'Brien Atkins has looked into moving the house and due to the house being in poor condition and having to move the house in several sections, it was cost prohibitive. Therefore, the applicants are proposing to have a controlled burn for fire safety training or deconstruct the house. Development Process, Schedule, and Action • Public Hearing held on November 24, 2003 • Petition refered to the Planning Board for a recommendation, to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Board meeting January 8, 2004: • Petitioner again requested full service access on NC 86. Also, answered questions concerning tree retention, underground stormwater capabilities and impact on Oakdale Drive if right in/right out on NC 86 is required. • Ina 9 to 1 vote, recommended approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities with the proposed conditions (attached as Resolution of Approval Version Two, which includes a condition that access entrance on Old NC 86 be changed to a right in/right out entrance only when the level of traffic at the intersection of Oakdale Drive and Old NC 86 exceeds a level of service D). (Draft Planning Board minutes are attached) • One Planning Board member did not agree that an additional drive-through lane should be allowed and did not agree with the NCDOT's assessment that aright-in/ right-out on Old NC 86 should not be required at the present time. Board of County Commissioners: • BOCC to consider all evidence presented at joint public hearing and any new evidence that was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. Option 1: Close the Public Hearing and Approve proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities with the attached conditions in the Resolution of Approval Version One or Resolution of Approval Version Two. Option 2: Close the Public Hearing and deny the proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities. Option 3: Leave the Public Hearing open and table decision to future meeting date. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None determined. RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration Recommendation: Approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities with the attached Resolutions of Approval Version One, which includes a << t condition that access entrance on Old NC 86 be immediately changed to a right in/right out entrance. 5 Administration recommends that the BOCC authorize the Manager to send a written letter to the NCDOT Division Engineer requesting improvements to Oakdale Drive as listed in Condition 12. Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities with the attached Resolution of Approval Version Two, which includes a condition that access entrance on Old NC 86 be changed to a right in/right out entrance only when the level of traffic at the intersection of Oakdale Drive and Old NC 86 exceeds a level of service D.. Planning Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing facilities with the attached Resolution of Approval Version One, which includes a condition that access entrance on Old NC 86 be immediately changed to a right in/right out entrance. ~"~ x l RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BORD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION Date: March 4, 2004 Owners: State Employees Credit Union The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a petition submitted by State Employees Credit Union to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas by rezoning from Economic Development -Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) to Planned Development Economic Development Linear Office (PD-ED-LNR), Special Use Permit, Class A property located at the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (SR 1133) being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office by Parcel Identification Numbers, 9863-97-4356 and 9863- 97-5102 and containing 3.25 acres more or less. The property is identified by the following legal description: BEING All of the property entitled Recombination Survey for STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION HILLSBOROUGH, NC. dated June 8, 1998 and recorded in Plat Book 81, Page 14 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. and, BEING All of Lots 62, 63, 64, 65, 78A and 78B of Gray W. Lloyd Property according to survey and plat of F.M. Carlisele, C.E. ,dated January 14, 1949 and recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 110 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. This ordinance shall become effective upon approval. The foregoing ordinance having been submitted to a vote received the following vote and was duly adopted this 4~' day of March, 2004. Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: Donna S. Baker, Clerk to BOCC Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Commissioners SEAL: r 1 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CLASS A FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION VERSION ONE Date: March 4, 2004 Applicant/Owner: State Employees Credit Union The Orange County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves an application submitted by State Employees Credit Union for a Planned Development and Special Use Permit, Class A for State Employees Credit Union and the site plan drawings #LA-2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 dated November 3, 2003, applicable to the following property and subject to the following conditions: Property located at the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (SR 1133) being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office by Parcel Identification Numbers, 9863- 97-4356, and 9863-97-5102 and containing 3.25 acres more or less. The property is identified by the following legal description: BEING All of the property entitled Recombination Survey for STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION HILLSBOROUGH, NC. dated June 8, 1998 and recorded in Plat Book 81, Page 14 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. and, BEING All of Lots 62, 63, 64, 65, 78A and 78B of Gray W. Lloyd Property according to survey and plat of F.M. Carlisele, C.E., dated January 14, 1949 and recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 110 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. 1. Sewer and water lines shall be extended at the time of site development. 2. Parking, landscaping and buffers shall be installed and maintained as shown on the November 3, 2003 site plan. Existing trees will be preserved wherever possible. 3. Sidewalks shall be constructed and maintained by the State Employees' Credit Union until the property is annexed by the Town of Hillsborough. 4. All NCDOT construction requirements shall be met. Rights-of--way shall be dedicated where required. 5. One right in/right out access entrance on Old NC 86 shall be permitted. 6. A stub out to the south shall be constructed as indicated on the November 3, 2003 site plan. Across-access easement agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. ,, ~A 7. A stub out easement shall be provided to the western property line for potential connection to adjoining property when developed. Across-access easement agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. 8. The applicant shall insure a controlled burn for fire safety training or shall deconstruct the existing house and accessory structure on the site. 9. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in it's entirety and of no effect. 10. This Special Use Permit shall automatically expire within twelve (12) months of the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application for extension of the time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided by Section 8.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 11. A stub out easement shall be provided across the southwest corner of the property to provide for potential future connection to the south and west properties. Across- access easement agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. 12. The State Employees Credit Union will be responsible for costs of the right turn lane on Oakdale Drive that exceed $75,000, which is the limit that. NCDOT is willing to commit to this project. This Special Use Permit, Class A shall become effective upon approval. Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 4`h day of March, 2004. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on March 4, 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2004. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners •~ `r , RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CLASS A FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION VERSION TWO Date: March 4, 2004 Applicant/Owner: State Employees Credit Union The Orange County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves an application submitted by State Employees Credit Union for a Planned Development and Special Use Permit, Class A for State Employees Credit Union and the site plan drawings #LA-2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 dated November 3, 2003, applicable to the following property and subject to the following conditions: Property located at the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (SR 1133) being further identified in the Orange County Land Records Office by Parcel Identification Numbers, 9863- 97-4356, and 9863-97-5102 and containing 3.25 acres more or less. The property is identified by the following legal description: BEING All of the property entitled Recombination Survey for STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION HILLSBOROUGH, NC. dated June 8, 1998 and recorded in Plat Book 81, Page 14 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. and, BEING All of Lots 62, 63, 64, 65, 78A and 78B of Gray W. Lloyd Property according to survey and plat of F.M. Carlisele, C.E., dated January 14, 1949 and recorded in Plat. Book 5, Page 110 of the Orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a more particular description of the same. 1. Sewer and water lines shall be extended at the time of site development. 2. Parking, landscaping and buffers shall be installed and maintained as shown on the November 3, 2003 site plan. Existing trees will be preserved wherever possible. 3. Sidewalks shall be constructed and maintained by the State Employees' Credit Union until the property is annexed by the Town of Hillsborough. 4. All NCDOT construction requirements shall be met. Rights-of--way shall be dedicated where required. 5. The access entrance on Old NC 86 shall be changed to a right in/right out entrance when the level of traffic at the intersection of Oakdale Drive and Old NC 86 exceeds a level of service D. 6. A stub out to the south shall be constructed as indicated on the November 3, 2003 site plan. Across-access easement agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. 7. A stub out easement shall be provided to the western property line for potential connection to adjoining property when developed. Across-access easement t, ~Q agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. 8. The applicant shall insure a controlled burn for fire safety training or shall deconstruct the existing house and accessory structure on the site. 9. If any condition of this Special Use Permit shall be held invalid or void, then this Special Use Permit shall be void in it's entirety and of no effect. 10. This Special Use Permit shall automatically expire within twelve (12) months of the date of approval if the use has not commenced or construction has not commenced or proceeded unless a timely application-for extension of the time limit is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as provided by Section 8.4.11 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 11. A stub out easement shall be provided across the southwest corner of the property to provide for potential future connection to the south and west properties. Across- access easement agreement shall be approved by the .County Attorney's office prior to recordation of Special Use Permit. 12. The State Employees Credit Union will be responsible for costs of the right turn lane on Oakdale Drive that exceed $75,000, which is the limit that NCDOT is willing to commit to this project. This Special Use Permit, Class A shall become effective upon approval. Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 4~' day of March, 2004. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on March 4, 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2004. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners ,~.- ~o~~ ! ~ ~ ~ t '.~ •s STATE OF NORTH C.AROLIiVA \ - DEPARTMENT OF Z~A.NSPORTATION J~,rtES B. HUVT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS G,~t~NO B. GArt~TT)R GOVERNOR SECRETARY P. 0. Box 766 '~ Graham, North Carolina ?7253-0766 April i7, 1997 ORANGR COUNTY Eddie Kirk, Planner . Orange County Planning Department 306E Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 _ Subject: State Employee's Credit -Union -Hillsborough, NC Dear Mr. Kirk: Please be advised that I agree with the Traffic Impact Analysis for the above subject which consists of the following: _ _ _ 1. Developer dedicates an additional five feet of right-of--way along Oakdale Road. 2. Developer dedicates additional right-of--way to create a 50-foot right-of--way from the center _ line of Old NC 86 to the property line. 3. Developer dedicates a 35-foot by 35-foot triangle at the intersection of the two rights-oE way. 4. Recommend that Credit Union driveway be shifted approximately^_1.15 feet to the south to __. - - - _ -_ ~ line u~±tli_o-ther_drive~r_ay_as-indicated ~n=analysis=_~F~=fu-lhnovzm~n~t-drive s desired. • -- 5. If shift is not feasible with the proposed site plan. it will become a restrictive drive and other - measures will nced to be discussed with Orange County and with NCDOT. Do no[ hesitate to call Michael S. Venable, Assistant District Engineer. at 910-570-6833 if you require further information. Sincerely. ~_~'L7 T. J. Dyer DISTRICT ENGIIYEER TJD:MS V:kww - cc: J. W. Watkins, P.E. s ~ JAMES B. HUNT f R GOVEF,VOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPA.RTMFNT•OF ^I~':~NSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P. 0. Box 766 '•. Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 16 September 1997 ~~ ~: s •~~~% ORANGE COUNTY Eddie Kirk Orange County .Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 919 732-8181 EXT 2580 GAru~NO B. GA~r~r )~. SECRETARY SUBJECT: Final Plan Review: State Employees Credit Union (Hillsborough) Dear Mr. Kirk: This office has completed its review of the subject's proposed final plans for compliance with current Department of Transportation minimum construction standards. We wish to advise that the final plans received at this office on 12 September 1997 are under standby status awaiting revisions. Pursuant to any approval, this office will require the. owner/developer to meet the following requirements before starting any construction. 1. Prior to any construction of any new access or alteration of any existing access within the right of way, the developer/owner is required to secure a permit with this office. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to obtain a permit. _._ _ _ ~_ .: _: _ ., :v: _~ - _ _ __ " 2- During the constru_ctZOn, it 1s _the- responsibility of the _ owner/developer to'provide verification certifying that the roadway surface, drainage, and seeding satisfies the approved design outside the State's right of way. ~ • 3. When working within the State's right of way, the • owner/developer will contact the Graham District Office before each of the following phases: (A) Drainage, (B). Grading, fC) Placement of base,. (D) Paving, and (E) Seeding. Failure to notify this office before each phase of construction may justify a verification certified and signed by a professional engineer. 5. Any area within the State's right of way and/or easements disturbed during the construction and/or maintenance shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the District Engineer or his representative. A ~. ~% '~ _- ~ ~ ~ ~ ;a 6. Before planting any landscape within the right of way, the encroaching party shall submit an application for a planting permit to this office. The permit must be approved prior to installing any plants. • :~ 7. The owner/developer shall adhere. to all the attached requirements and/or the notes marked on the submitted plans to include .~ A. Traffic movements need to be delineated in driveways B. An encroachment agreement needs to be submitted for the • _ sidewalk that is within the right of way. • C..Yard Inlet #8 is ,not an approved junction box for DOT R/W D. Storm drainage table should include Drainage Areas and Discharges fQ25) ~ . _ E. 10' x 70' Site Distance triangles =need to be at edge of R/W F. Right of Way needs to be dedicated not reserved If you have any questions, feel free. to call me or_ Mr. Mi_c_hael 'Venable at (910) 570-6833. _ ,_ , _ . _ Sincerely, T-~"r~~ T. J. Dyer _ __, __ _. ,,_ DISTRICT___ENGINEER. ,- _ _ ._ _ _ - .. . _.. --- =- _ _,_ _- - - -= `-~lttac meats - cc: J. W. Watkins, P•. E. Division Engineer TJD/MSV/EAP/eap SFA70916.EP1 • • 4 f3 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT -INK ONLY) APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE:/~/~ APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- ~ - D.3 I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as rovided for in Article ~!• ~.~ ~ - of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for _ ~, ;Wien ~ ,~c ~' o~{t. E~,.devr_rs Cir'er.~'~F- The following information is provided in support of this request A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street' Address or Location: 2 13 Q1~ 1JL `~'~ anr~ ~ofi ~a So~•!'-. .. _- _ .._.. _Orange County Tax Map i'1~.{ Block' Lot(s)~~~~'~ Township_ Zoning-District(s): -LU- ~ Ae o = ~ ~ ~ -- ~ - Lot/Parcel Size: .2 { - ~5 acres or hi~,~paS. L square fe Number of Existing Buildings: Gross Floor Area: ~~~3'7 -_ s~uare fi Number of Proposed Buildings: i- ' ` Toss Floor Area: 63N SF glola ~ o2S3a sF squa'~e 1 Water Supply: ,1C-N,yt=6.~,. Public (Specify) Community ~ Individ~ Wastewater Disposal: ~ - Public (Specify) Community Individu School District Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: sn' < ~n Critical Areas: Stream/Drainagewa Flood Prone A~ Watershed (Specify) Historic Other (Explain) ~}'hjs iS a-n e'xrs~'.~ ~-r~.E- ~~~+ ~o~ ~^ B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: --- - T-wenty-sib (26)-.copies of a Site Plan,-.prepared b.y a registered-1+1Drth Caroliha - surveyor or engineer, are provided as required~by Article 8.8 and which contain the - --- _ following information: ,_~_ North point, scale, and date. ~_-r-. Extent of area to be developed, ~~_, Locations and widths of all easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent `to the site. Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. • ~/vnr- Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shovva ~`~on flood maps or soils maps. e~ Zocation of all water conxses on the site, including direction of flow. ~_ Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based oa mean sea level datum. ` ____~_ Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking; service, and storage areas. _~_ Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used. foz access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) ~~ C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: k Elevations of all strirctnres proposed to be used in the development. • x Two (2) full-size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax lvfap, one (1) copy with the property in question clearly marled. " . ~ The names and addresses of the property owner(s) aadlor applicant(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. ~C Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. _ ~ Traffic impact study as required liy Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. , Additional iaformaiion regarding the proposed Special Use as required by e rx~-c1E-8-af the 7-~ning_4ldinance. Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is net available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department - certifying the suitability of the existing and/or proposed • wastewater treatment system for the property. 2, Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. -- - ' --° --- - - -- - ~ 3..Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site, - - ~ • ---- - ~ - I (We), the applicant(s), hereby cetti~f y that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate_ I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. n •_ ; ~• ~ .. APPLICAN`f'SIUNATURE(S) ~ ~ ~ :• . • , -. -_--_ - - - - ___ NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. **s+tsr~*t+~sts+~rstssss~~**t***r+r~**sss+**s+*ts*~*sv:*+~e*+~*ss+~s+~~*i*tr~*~sss*st*t• /dad. d0 - ,QB3 FEES: Amount $ /~ ©9d . Od ___ Date Paid: ~/ / ~~ / 0~ Receipt ~ ~~ CURRENT PLANNING DNISION Application For Orange County Planning & Inspections Planned Development District P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 ZAning Atlas Amendment 419 245-2575 FA}X 919 644-3002 t. I (We) ~ t'~pltLt~~~.cS~ ~f ~:'~" ~n~on ~ Owner CASE# of ~ b~D ~c~rlL fives Q. r ~+aN+ - NG 'a761)~•S 914 . ~3R. SObp Street Address City Statc Zip Code Telephone do hereby petition to amend the Zoning Atlas of Orange County. --~-$-y-re~~ssi#ying#rern tbB Zang-L)astsirt~~y.~~ to,}the Zoning District ~~Z~ - L~1~~ 3. The property located OI ~" ~'~1 `3 fa~C~ NL-~'h ~~ ')'~- ~~~' '~ ~ SDt'"~^ and having frontage(s) along bordering streets as follows 4. Containing 3•~ ~, - iaeres. S. TMBL(s) PIN #(s) ~f: yy. a. aH 6. Intended use(s) of the property: L ~ ~ ` '~ - L (Please attach on a scpatatc sheet any additional information about the intendod use or any special co itions to which the 7. Owners Stgn e~S~: a acknowledge the provisions in the Zoning ordinance for general. use ahd ann de p ent ni and herebXproceed widt a planned d elopment zoning petition. 8. If the petitiop is executed by property owner, but an attorney or an agent will handle public speaking, etc., please indicate: ~00 O Mflt~t 1 ' Atto ey or Aeent • Street Address City State Zip - Telephone 9. Notification signs will be prepazed and posted by the Planning Staff when the rezoning application is scheduled for Public Hearing. The required legal advertising is also handled for you by the Planning Staff. PLEASE MAKE AN APPOIt FOR SUBMTC>'AL OF YOUR APPLICATION IMPORTANT: Only Applications with on 'nai signatures are considered complete. Faxed Applications NOT accepted. .~ .a~~ wishes to be bound) ~~. I. GENERAL 6ITE INFORMATION TO SE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT, KITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLAIINING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED A. Zoaiag and use of adjaceat progerty. North ~S~ ~~~~~6 f South 1'CEa,7l~w~ia East Co~ert~~+-/ West ~cs,'a~~-~+/4a- I H. Topography: highest elevation ~~~.. lowest . elevatala.n - - _--~~ general direction of slope ~or~ ~~ Estimate $ of property with 0 - 5 $ s lope `~~~' 5 - ~.5$ slope ~ ° 15 - 25~ slope more than 25$ slope ,~ReQUired only for the portion of the site associated with ar impacted by the proposed activity) ... --.~- _ -- - ---. ._ Are there ang streams r drainage easements located on the property? onfG ~ a l'~„n„ble. b~r GTS ~( (~ Is any of the site located within a: Watersupply Watershed _ Water Quality Critical Area _ ~Floodplain _ Describe - ~. - D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory - Natural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, = Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina".) - - yes no a. b. c. e. f. 9~ cemeteries ~_ archaeological sites ,~C.^ historic sites - _. - _~.. a-~e-ageo3~~gi~a3=s-s-grrrf~ca7rc designated natural areas mac. designated habitat other For each ".yes" answer above, please indicate location on site plan and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange County Environments.]._Plan.~er.~.Atscz_c.omplete Attachment A. (1) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource ~-- -------- -- _. _ -~ ~-?-~-- T -- e o f resource ,. ~_- _.~_-_ _---~__-,.- - Inventory reference:_:no, or page.. Description of resource (Attach additional sheets if needed) r - ' ~ ) II. TO BE COMPLETED SY APPLICANT A. PROJECT DESCAIPTI~N 1. Describe proposed use of property '~T ; o~ aF -~,u~~cn ~ ~ c d ~ ~- C ~ ~'Di't - - - - _ .. 3. Number of structures . 4. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for - development of attached residential units - (excluding roads, but including parking areas) 5. Estim ted square footage of area to be ~ ded far non-residential use (excluding roads) ~ 6 . Estimated area to be graded for roads Il o ~ ~ ~~~ - 7. Road Type:. Public 'Private Class A Class B Class C Total road length _8'. Hour-s..:of- eration ,for commercial -or industrial use __ t ~~~ 8. STATE PERMITS REQUIRED _ 1, Does tha project involve the mining of earth products? -, • If sa, .how many cubi feet of material are expected to be excavated? ~ ~ Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? ~~ 0'~' Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed act~v~ty ._.._....... _ ._ .. .... _ .-_-_ 2. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? (A listing of all hazardous materials is available from the Planning Department ) Nt7•~ ~' ~ ' Describe the wastes to be generated. How much material is expected to be generated per month? Will any material be treated onsite? _ Volume?~ Will any material-be stored onsite? . _, -. _ __ --- ._- _ -- - -------- - -- ------------ ._._-.~._Vo.l-ume.?-- - -~r _ -- Where will disposal of the material take place? How will materials be transported to the disposal site? What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? ~~ 3. dill the project involve a land applicatioa system for treatment of wastewater? ~1v N~ If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? 4. Is a septic tank system proposed which has a design . .. caaaci~~czf-mere -thaII-3QDD-.cJ~llere pg~d...--~--.._.. If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental • Management or Orange County Department of Environmental `_'. - Health? - _ .-.-- __ 5.' Daes the activity involve sludge disposal? -.N~,~ If yes, where is the source of the sludge? • Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed. Has a NPDES permit from the NC Division of Environmental - --- Management_,,been_ issued? 6. Hater Usage •a. Estimated no. of employees ~ x 25 gpd = ~SU gpd 'b. Estimated water use for climate control gpd c. •Process water 9Pd $ consumed $ discharged to septic system $ discharged t~ surface (including storm sewers) (describe : ) $ evaporated $ reclaimed/reused $ other 100 $ a~ gpd gpd Total Water Usage e . Describe sour./ce 10~ f, water 1 ~~...n Ot" IT~~tS ~D'f0 K~n ATTACHMENT A TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF INVENTORY' SITES} I5/ARE IDENTIFIED IN I.E. (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY) (1) a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development d. Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing reused MU~, -consumed - ~ discharged . (describe: ) ~ other .. 1.0 0. (2} a. Impact on Resource from P b. Proposed Mitigation lopment ~~ i ~ _ - 4.45.:20- _4.45.. ~ ~ 4.44.6.22 19~,F ¢. .B. ~ 4. .B.'. .44.6. 9 _ _ _ _ 4 .6.1 D =dL~! 4.45R..1 4.44.6.24 4.45 R..1 4.44.6.25 4.45 .. 4.45R..28 4.44.6.2 4.45..2 4.44.6.2 .6.20 .28 - - Q~ - --- . __ ~~ y p twlrw t a Peak This map r.or~ains parcels Prepared foc the inverdory d real propety wltlrh N Text 6VetlText Orange t.ourdy, and is oompilmd from retorted deed. Plats. end odw public . Pae~ nrcoNs and data. Users d this~map are hereby Tied that the aforanentinned ~u6lor ROads Y'aliQii~~~ P,d~6c Primary idomraton so~sus ahoate ba ooa~sWled for ver~aticn d 2ha 1 :400 rail 7wasApToQ infotrrlaliorl CwAakred Ort thk map. The county and ps rnappGg eomponks assume •7owmMpx no legal rcspora:~ifity for the information contained on tftis map. - - ie~tcayT.e - _ Grange Counfiy GIS a ~~ PAGE 1 OF 3 8!11!2003 TMBL OWNER OWNER2 OLDPIN ADDRESS CITY ~ STATE Z]P 4.4SR..28 ALAMANCE NATIONAL BANK 9873060807 i 1128 SOUTH MATH ST GRAHAM NC 27253 ~ 4.458..27 ALAMANCE NATIONAL SANK 9873062921 P O BOX 1310 GRAHAM NC 27253 4.45R.1A OLD MILL PROPERTIES LLC 9873071242 P O BOX 1904 GREENVILLE NC 27835 4.458..1 OLD SOUTH INVESTMENTS LLC - - 9863979149 103 MILLSTONE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 4.45..2C MOORS BOBBY RANDALL JR & COC PROPERTIES INC 9863977490 807 S 3RD STREET MEBANE NC 27302 4,40.A.23A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA 3$73072758 -PO BOX 1351 - - ~ _ RALEIGH - NC 27602 4.44.A.1S GORDON LAWRENCE - ~ ~ - - ~ - =. 9863877678 201 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8754 4.44.A.16 LAWS C A ETAL & LYNNE J 9863970720 1300 FAUCETTE MILL RD HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8606 4.44.A.I7 JENNINGS ELIZABETH 9863971680 109 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 4.44.A.18 DALEHITE EDNA D & WILMA D WADE 9863973676 P O BOX 806 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-0806 ' 4.44.A.19 WADE 1AMES H JR ~ & WILMA D 9863972881 PO BOX 806 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-0806 a~- PAGE 2 OF 3 TMBL OWNER OLDPIN ADDRESS OWNER2 CITY sninoo3 STATE ZIP 4,44.A.20 FREELAND DONNA L 4.44.B. ] 9 ALEXANDER ROY F JR & BRENDA 9863869708 210 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8754 4.44.B.19A RAY LMILY E 9863970241 118 OAKDALE DR - HILLSBOROUGH NC .. , :_ .27278-8753 4.4~4.B. ] 9C HAYNIE RUTH WARREN 986387917] ~ BOX 365 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-0365 4.44.B.19D HAYNIE ROBERT H JR & BEVERLY W ~ - - 9863961606 2419 DALTON DR EFLAND NG 27243 4.44,B.19E GAINEY ELEANOR JEAN RAY & JOHNNIE 986396]785 118 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8753 - _ f __~ _ _ _ 4.44.B.19F - _ STANLEY RAY L JR _---~-- __ _ _ ' & 1V1AItSH~1----~_-- -- 9863878116 204 OAICDALE DR - HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8754 4.44.B.20 ISAACS CLIFFORD C & BRENDA R ISAACS 9863971293 l 12 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8753 4.44.B.20A ISAACS CLIFFORD C & BRENDA R ISAACS 9863964502 112 OAKDALE DR HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278-8753 4.44.B_20B ISAACS CLIFFORD C & BRENDA R ISAACS - 9863963812 l 12 OAKDAI:E DR HILLSBOROUGH NC' 27278-8753 4.44.B.22 ~ STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UN PO BOX 26807 9863974356 1000 WADE AVE RALEIGH NC 27611-7665 ~~ PAGE 3 OF 3 8/11/2003 TMBL OWNER OWNER2 OLDPIN ADDRESS CITY STATE 2IP 4.44.B24 STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UN IGi~ t'-- 2't~'r ---~SS~~~~- -1-8tI0~~A~T~ 4.44.B.25 STURDIVANT JUANTTA S 98639659]2 2401 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 4.44.B26 iJNDERWOOD EDWARD LEON Sl 9863965768 6518 SCHLEY RD HILLSBOROUGH - -` NC 27278-7819 4.44.B.27 MILLER AUDREY S • 9863965688 2411 OLD NC 86 HILLSBOROUGH NC 27278 4.44.B.28 SMITH JAMES W 9863966573 2417 OLD CH HILLSBOROUGH R] HILLSBOROUGH NC , 27278 4.45..1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 9873071422 ~~:~-- -: ~ _ ._ _ ..- _ ~ - _.. Y --~DA'YIS~CHpiRI.FS W- - _. - - - - - 8c JAMES-L-AI~IIER-D~V-I~ ~_ _ - -- ^-_--_- 9873263893 718 GRAHAM ST RALEIGH NC 27605-I I23 Orange County Register of Deeds . . PO Boz 8181 ~ l Hillsborough, NC 27278 l~' Receipt for Services Cashier: Wendy Dixon Batch #: 2985 Dafe; 08/11/2003 Time: 03:46:05 PM ~ Date Document No Document Type Transaction Type Amount_ __ 8/11/2003 Public Grantor: ~ Grantee: S 11 XI--RS 40.00 Public Total; 40.00 Fee Total: 40.00 CHECK 10130 Payment 40.00 ._ _ _ <,na mt~nt~otal•- - _. 40.00 - - ___ - - __ Y_ - - Page Dr'T 14 20@3 ZO~~i rK HLf•urvt~~rvti~.~, __ E r ~. ~~~/ /unrP of ~~ ~t~ ., f~ ~ ~tfj ~~~~ ~ ~.t 90+11(~`71t~ FADE lr,~$ ~~~ . Joyce H. Pearson . Register of Deeds _- ._ .Grange .County North Carolina State of North Carolina, County of Orange The foregoing certificates of Penny S. Flake, NotaryJNotaries Public for the Designated Govetnmentai units is/are certified to be correct. See filing certificate herein, This day 5epternbrr Y7, 2002 • t ,!J JOYCE A. PE.ARSON, REGISTER OF DEEDS By: %1 DepntyJ _ t Register of Deeds *'* TOTAL PRGE . 85 gor~x2`714 ~ae~ 147 -k#•+t4hk+F~tir•Ic*•k~Ie~~t~F+k###ltei,E4it~r#t~Irt;eff~kdr;'irlr#f•k###+lrt#•Irtlc•k•!r•Ytki~•kiriirtitictt STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COQNTX OF ORANGE I ~ (~,~hvt,tj rj ~ ~~~- ,Notary Public of the afaresaid~Caunty and State, do hereby certify that GARTH 8_ HAAS AND D+TIFE, KELLY S . HAAS personally appeared before me this' day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. witness my hand and seal,/"s the _1q'N+~/d~ay of _`~~~ 2002 , f . 1 1 _ ~s off'.. /. .. My commission expires: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUI~TT`i Or^ ~,pq/•~p ~- ~ ~~ I•, ~~~~ ~5 ~Q 1Cf? _ __- ,Notary Pu Q.c o • e a£are5aid County and State, do hereby certify that HANS C _ HAAS , AND WYFE, SII/ILA. C . HAAS personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execta.tion of the_fare~oing instrument. witness .m11 hand az1d seal, this the /G~ day of ~~. NOTANY PUBLIC +Ypy, 1 My commission expires : ~/,a~l~ ~ • 99 r~r-ref-r~r*t*w~tt*~r+~~r~~r+-r~~r,rt~r*~~r*~~*t,r,r+,r~r+*ft+ftt*~ff# ~ +f~.t~,~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA - ~~r et lc ~' COUNTY OF ORANGE "q,,._,.,_, ~~, , I ~ ~~h ~, ~~~ ,Notary Public of the aforesaid County and State. do hereby certify that DAR~IEAN G_ HAAS, DIVORCED personally appeared before me this day and __.,. _,, __ `_ acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument _ -_..__ -- Witness my hand and, seal, .this th.e L4`N7 day of r~- , C My commission expires: ~f,~.q~9oc~ ~ aav '~o `s: -kir•,i.tti•+tfif;k,ti~i•#~t~rt##!ri###,t•*f,4#~r•t•t,E,i~ft##4r ?c +t +c 'h 5rllrxckx~k~k•kf ~ ^tG~r~II~+F~yir+4 ~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA n °t,C'~ ~ j COUNTY OF ORANGE a;._ , `~ X , t~P.h.N,l.! s - ~~-~' ,Notary Fub.'.. he aforesaid County d State, da hereby certify that INGA K_ H.?~AS, SEPERATTsD personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument_ Witness my hand and seal,( the ((a~ day of ,:~~~.,Q,, 2002 , ~ ~ . !~ ~_ f NOT~6RY PUBLI av ~. My commission expires: ~~~ /aoAsr r° a o ~~-~ RE\HAAS.GWD ~ a ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ' r r • O~Iit1GE OIJNR'. NC Dg!il/2002 , " $bdD, t30 s= NpptUµa R~ ~.~'~. ~~" Reel Estate EXCI^s® T27C Gp ~~1 Fzi_~L i7 gEP 200, at 04:19:36pm 4~ 60~K~714 PAGE ~ Book 271•, Pa3e ? 45 - 148 son R „ ear iuyGP_ H. ' ~e^ inter of L~e_ds., . Crange County, N. C. 1 GENERAL ~i1ARRAN'I'Y DEED Prepared by: D . MICHAEL PARKER 1` •~~~ '~~~ Return to : Grantee : SE'u-L- lCYao `114 ate, ~ `'~-Z ~ 7G~1 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY _ TINS GENERAL WARRANTY DEED, .made grad.- --entered into this. the ~~'1 d3y of September, 2002, by and between, V. SRICH •EAAS P.ItD WIFE , CHRI STY L . 1fAAS , GARTH 8 . HAAS AND WIFE , KELLY S _ . HAAS , HAMS C_ HAAS AND WIFE, SHEILA C_ ERAS AND DARIEAN G. HAAS, DIVORCED AND INGA IC. HAAS, SSPERATED, Parties of th.e First Past, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTORS", and STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT IINION, Parties of the Second Part, hereinafter referred to as 'GRANTEES", W I T N E 5 S E T H That the said Grantors, for and in consideration of the - --,---.~um_of~.EN D~JLT,.ARS (_$lo . oo ~ to her i:n hand. aid and other ood and ~- ~ - _~•waluahle considerations, the receipt of ~ which _~is -~ hereb~r - acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the Grantees in fee simple all that certain tract or parcel of land located in 'Hillsborough Township,' Orange County,~~ North Ca=olina and being mare particularly described as follows: PIN #9863-97-5102 TM 4.44.8.24 BEING ALL of Lots 62, 63, 64, 65, 78A and 78B of Gray W. Lloyd Property according to surtrey and plat of FEM. Carlisle, C_E_, dated January 14, 1949 and recorded in Plat Sook 5, Page 110 of the orange County Registry to which plat reference is hereby made for a ntore~particular description of the same, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid tract or parcel o€ laced bOnK~"7ir~ FADE j.~~ ~~ TO HAVE AN75 TQ HOLD the. of oresaid tract or parcel of land cad all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee in fee simple. And the Grantors covenants with the Grantee that the Grantors is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey the same in Eee simple, that title is marketable and free cad clear o~ all encumbrances, and that the Grantor will warrant and defend. the title against the lawful• claims of all persons whomsoever except far the exceptions, if any, set forth above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors has ereun o se haz].ds -and seals, the day and ye r first ov itten. . ~ (SEAL) v. $RZCH SA85~ _ ~ 7L / 1 j..~ S I~jft ~ /. l..n:~ ,~_ c sue) (sew) GARTH 8~ H~.S t 1 Y S. • ~h ~ C . ~c~.!y (sue ) 5$SILA C _ FIAAS SAI~7'S C . Ti.AAS .-- - - ,_. _ _ -` - _ D g~ G. HAAS ~...._ ~ _."__.. ~~ IN R . HAAS #~t~t*#itlk*'k'A~4e~r'kifdr##~.^#*ii##f*#*alr#* •Atik•k'kitk*#~#####ir#f~l•#~Ir#####tk#+Tr+E### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, ~`l~Ylyl.l~1j, ~`.~,,,¢, ,Notary Public of the aforesaid CQUnty and State, do hereby certify that V. ERICH HAAS AND WIFE, CFRISTY L.. HAAS personally apgeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instr ent. Witness my hand and seal, tb.is theL'f+~t.-day of ~-. ~V'1"~'i.Ki rUtSL1 Q ~•0 My commission expires : y'~~ t ~d~ s~ .o~,, E • n ~d~ ~~ ~ ~, Kc (.O'BRIENIATKINS Associates, P.A. Architecture/Engineering Landscape Architecture/Planning Interior Design P.O. Box 12037 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 9191941-9000 TD: Larry Bennett-. LT Bennett Construction Robert -Bennett Landscape and Maintenance ~ . THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Parking Lot Expansion FIELD REPORT DATE; 10!29!03 JOB NO. 2001092 PROJECT Wake Farest Operations'Center -parking fot LOCATION 3110 Jake Forest Road CONTRACTOR OWNER LT Bennett SECU WEATHER TEMP TIME Fair 68 8:30 am Robert Bennett Jay Smith, O/A 1. Redbuds in middle parking aisle and southern edge flagged, follow up on condition in spring. Specimens requiring replacement to be finalized in spring at 1 yr inspection. - 2. Grass is 90-95% established in all disturbed areas, landscape crew has over~seeded where necessary. 3. Adjust rip-rap at entry of Bio-Retention Area to protect the left bank. 4. Relocate shrubs from outflow of emergency spillway. 5. Adjust rip-rap in spillway necessary to protect outflow point. ;- - 6 ~ uirg_ini~ M~nolia,_at north of parking lot is flagged, follow up condition in spring. ---- -=-7r -.Some=Qf_t6~_gLound cover at edges cftbe-beds appear to be killed. by overspray_ .from _ weed killer applied by grounds maintenance crew:. --~ - - -~- ~ ~ ~ _ ~ '~_` 8. Temporary irrigation system to be drained to protect during winter. System to be removed at end of 1yr warranty period. All punch list items were corrected from previous site inspection.. CC: all attending Bill O'Brien Jay Smith Robert Hall Patty Munns Signed: Town of ills S'.s,ce v: October 27, 2003 ~ °~ Re: State Employees' Credit Union 've-U Facili and Ex ansion/Renovation Dn P tY P 2313 Old NC 86 Water & Sewer Review APPROVED AS NOTED Mr. Elmaz D. Kapfer, PE TTTAN -ATLANTIC GROUP 5240 Green's Dairy Road ei~~1~ ~ Dear Mr. Kapfer: I have reviewed the water and sewer utilities plans for the State Employees' Credit Union Drive- Up Facility and Expansion/Renovation dated August 7, 2003, and they are hereby Approved as Noted. The following comments must be addressed prior to construction (all comments are in reference to Sheet LA-3}~: ~ .- . 1. Bacldlow Prevention: A DCVA backflow preventer must be installed immediately following the water meter, above-ground with an insulated box cover,. Annual testing will be required of the customer, with testing data submitted to the Town. - 2. Sanitary Sewer Profile: The length and percent grade of each section of gravity sewer - must be shown on the sanitary sewer profile. 3. Sewer Bore & Jack/Encasement Pipe: The encasement pipe must be a minimum of 12" to provide adequate clearance far the 8" DI sewer pipe joints: Also, DIP is noted for the __ - - -: ---- ------.--------encasemen$ pike, however; steel encasemgnt pips is acGe to e .~_P _-~ __:.: - -- -- 4. '4~Vater & Sewer Connection Fees: An invoice is attached, which details the fees required for connection to the Town water and sewer system. The Water Capital Facilities Fee is not assessed since the existing water service will be utilized. Further instructions on the Town requirements during and after construction can be found in the "Checklist for Approval and Acceptance of Utilities Projects", which is available from my office and on the Town website (www ci.hillsborough.nc.us). The permit application to NCDWQ for the sewer extension should be prepared for signature by the Town Manager, Eric J. Peterson. The fillsborough Utility Inspector (Russell Lloyd, 919-201-1432) should be notified prier to construction, and prior to any testing of the water and sewer facilities to be installed. As always, you may notify my office if you are unable to reach the inspector. - 101 East grange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 0~0_~2o,ioon. ~ ,-OJO.RAA,9?On `~ Town of 1.1~S ~. s~ ~,s, g 33 INVOICE To: STATE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT Ui`IION, .2313 Old NC 6, Iillsborough, NC 2727& From: Kenneth P. Keel, PE, Town Engineer/~ti"lities Director ~ 1,,, Subject: Water & Sewer Connection Fees - SECU DRIVE-UP FACII,ITY AND EXPANSION/RENOVATION, 2313 Oid NC 86, Hillsborough, NC The following is a list of water & sewer charges for the connection of the SECU Drive-Up Facility and Expansion/Renovation Project, at the southwest .quadrant of the traffic circle in Hampton Pointe development, in I~llsborough, NC (OUT-OF-TOWN}: Water Capital Facilifies Fee (E~7STING 3/."water service) N/C Sewer Capital Facilities Fee (IVew sewer service connection) $ 634.36 Water Lateral Fee (EXISTfNG 3/. "water service) - N/C Sewer Lateral Fee (to be installed by Developer) N/C New S/8" x 3/."Water Meter ~ _ $ 300.00 .f Water/Sewer Review Fees ~ 600.00 TOTAL = $ 1,534.36 An additional deposit will.be required far each account prior to=initiation of service. - > _ Please remit payment, payable, to the Town of Hillsborough, to 137 North Churton Street (PO Box 429), Hillsborough, NC 27278. Payment is required prior to connection to the Town Water & sewer system Quoted fees are valid through ]une 30, 2004, and are subject to change if not paid by that date. . Please notify the Town Engineer (Kenny Keel, 919-732=1270 x75) or Utilities Inspector (Russell Lloyd, 919-201-1432) prior to start of utilities construction. Cc: Sherry Carter, Finance Director File 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 2727$ oro_~~o_ r~~n . ~ ,- ero.~.r.r.~oun . 27616 ;y Town of j~ills gh ~ .. .... .. i 4. .~ r-..'d ~:EVISED TL~lVO-I~E To: STATE EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UI~IION, 2313 Old NC 86, sboro h, C 27278 From: Kenneth P. Keet,. PE, .Town Engineer/Utilities Direc_tor_ _ Date: October 28, 2003 EXPANSION/RENOVATION, 2313 Old NC 86, Hillsborough, NC **The oristinal irrvaice dated October 27, 2003 contained an error irr the description o the project location. This description has been corrected and the fees shown are unchanged *'~ The following is a list of water & sewer charges for: -the connection, of the SECU Drive-Up Facility and Expansion/Renovation Project, adjacent to the existing State Employees' Credit Union facility at 2313 Old NC 85, in H211sbarough, NC (OUT-OF-TOWN}: Water Capital Facilities Fee (EXIS?7NG 3/. "water service) Sewer Capital Facilities Fee (New sewer service connection) Water Lateral Fee (F.XIS77NG 3/+ "water service) Sewer Lateral Fee (to be installed by Developer) New S/8 " x 3/. "Water Meter Water/Sewer Review Fees N/C $ 634.36 N/C N/C $ 300.00 $ 600.00 _ _ :. ... . ~ 1, 34:35 , An additional deposit will be required for each account prior to initiation of service. Please remit payment, payable to the Tawn of Hillsborough, to 137 North Churton Street (PO Box 429), Hillsborough, NC 27278. Payment is required prior. to connection to the Tawrr Water 8c Sewer System. Quoted fees are valid through June 30, 2004, and are subject tv change if not paid by that date. Please notify the Tawn Engineer (Kenny Keel, 919-732-1270 x75} or Utilities Inspector (Russell Lloyd, 919-201-1432) prior to start of utilities construction. Cc: Sherry Carter, Finance Director Elmar D. Kapfer, PE, Titan Atlantic Group, 5240 Green's Dairy Road, Raleigh, NC 27616 Jay W. Smith, O'$rien Atkins Associates, PA, PO Box 12037, RTP, NC 27709 Eddie Kirk, Orange County Planning Dept. . File 1 DI East Orange Street • P.D. Box 429 -Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 n t n 749_ 7 97n . r+•nr o ~ o_~ee_ ~.zan ~~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT for STATE EMPLOYEE'S CREDIT iJNION HH,LSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA . .SUBMTI`i'ED TO:. - .. . O'Brien Atkins .Associates P.o. Boz 12037 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 FREPARED FOR - ~ NCDENR North Carolina Department of ' `~ ' Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh Regional Office Division of Land Resources Land Quality Section 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 SUBMITTED BY: -- TITAN ~~~~~i~t~{c ~~ii~~~i _ - _..~ .111~rracat Company 5240 GREEN'S DAIRY ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27602 ? ~ 26769 `'~t``'R ~~tt~r`' ~~~ August 8, 2003 ~,p~ ~~ FiiIlsborough State Employees Credit Union Stormwater Report //~ Project # 70994252 ~ Y~ Project Overview The State Employee's Gredit union intends to increase the size of its facility and parking area at the Hillsborough, North Carolina location at the corner of Old Hillsborough -Chapel HiII and Oakdale Roads. The project will involve converting a new piece of land into a pazking azea with a small building to service a new drive through teller system. Methodology Water Quantity . - Tliis hydraulio study was preformed using HydroC-Ai)®6.-This-is a software package by-Applied - -. _... _ _-. Microcomputer ~ Systems, which can be used to model a variety of watersheds, ponds and a erea Please refer to the attached summary (Appendix A) for the peak flows and water levels and to the attached calculations for details. - Water Quality For nitrogen runoff- analysis, the two lots were combined and treated as one large area. The nitrogen was calculated using method 1 from the Orange County Stormwater ordinance for lands - within the Neuse River Basin. Site Description The existing credit union is on 2.26 acres, consisting of a building and pazking area that takes up most of the site. A detention pond is located near Oakdale Road, which drains iota a culvert beneath Oakdale Road. The new property is to the south of the existing building, consisting of a few small buildings, driveways, fencing and a house. The new ]and will have a small building for new drive through tellers, and additional parking. Proposed Stormwater Management The existing pond and stormwater system will remain in place, with the addition of only one yazd inlet. ___~_~____-__..__-_____The_quantity of sto_ rmwator through the existing system will increase slightly with the addition of sonic -~ - - runoff from the new site. 'T'he pond- rs capable of handling-a-large-increase-in- quantitx while.~till.-do~3ni~_._. - ,-_:._.., ... - the runoff from the site. The current pipe system can accommodate the slight increase in flow, but would - not be able to -handle the runoff from the whole new property. Therefore a separate starmwater detention - . system for the new development was designed_ The new property will decrease runoff quantity to the predevelopment values through an underground detention system beneath the proposed parking area. •This underground detention system will consist o€ 400' of 36" HDPE piping. The outflow of the detention system will be controlled through the cap at the end of the pipes. A 5" pipe will restrict the outflow in the two year storm to the pre-construction levels, and the cap will be open at the top for free outflow is larger storm events. - Because the post-development Nitrogen values will be less than 10 pounds per acre per year, the owners plan to make a payment toward the wetland mitigation fund and. not implement any nutrient reduction practices. The nitrogen calculations can be seen in Appendix B. A small area will not be duected to the stormwater detention system because of the elevation differences. This water will be directed to the effluent pipe fmm the detention system, and the' water will be directed to - a rip-rap dissipater pad. The value of this flow has been taken into consideration in water quantity analysis. 08/08/03 Page 1 Hillsborough State Employees Credit Union Stormwater Report ~ -'] Project # 70994252 Computer Model Input for Watershed Areas Through the use of HydroCAD, many aspects of the effluent flow were analyzed. The program requires certain input regarding the characteristics of the land. The input required is:• 1. Design Storm Information a. Length of storm b. Depth of rainfall • e. Time increment for analysis (dt) 2. Time of Concentration 3. Composite Areas with Corresponding SCS Runoff Curve Numbers esien forms An SCS Type II 24 Hour rainfall distribution was assumed for the storm analysis, with 0.01-hour increments. A rainfall of 3.00 inches was used for the one-yeaz storm analysis. For the 10-year stomp,-5.38 inches of rainfall was used. Time. of Concentration The tune of concentration route was identified as the longest path that water would flow to reach the pond. Each route was broken into twa segments: sheet flow and shallow concentrated flow. TR55 methods wtre used to calculate the sheet and shallow concentrated flow times, through the HydroCAD program. • Composite Areas and Correspondin¢ SCS Runoff Curve Nurr-bers The composite areas were entered into HydroCAD using measurements taken from the design drawings. The corresponding SCS curve numbers were selected based on the surface composition, and can be seen in the HydroCAD reports included in Appendix A. • Summary After cazefuI consideration of the pre and post development conditions at the Hillsborough State .-...:. zp _ y - n; - with the Orange Gounty Inspections Department, Lan cape - --- ` -' - =- ".Hit is ees Credit Unio -discussions - _- .. •- - - ~_- ~ Arclutccts-`from--O'Brien- =Atkins, --aIId=after=ttaking _ _eoncexns~for.:_tha ~u~aunding _watershed into consideration, the proposed-stormwater plan was-.developed_ Tfus-p~ari`in`coiporates-the-•existing ---_-- stormwater structures and the addition of a new underground detention system. -. - nR/O8/03 Page 2 ~`J Appendix A HydroCAD results ;,, HilisSECU Type 1124-hr Rainfall= . ' Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 1 HydraCAD® 6.00 s/n 002026 C~ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type !I 24hr Rainfall=3.00" Reach routing by Stor-ind+Trans method -Pond routing by Stor--Ind method Subcatchment 1S: New Land Pre-Developed Tc=21.3 min CN=77 Area=60,267 sf Runoff= 1.53 cfs 0.123 of Subcatchment 2S: Runoff wlthout.bypassed land.. _ . .. ... _ Tc=5.0 min CN=87 Area=48,003 sf Runoff= 3.51 cfs 0.160 af. Pond 1 P: 400' 36" underground storage Peak Storage= 2,076 cf inflow= 3.51 cfs 0.160 of Primary= 0.91 cfs 0.159 of Outflow= 0.91 cfs 0.159 of Runoff Area = 2.486 ac Volume =0.282 of Average Depth =1.36" Hi11sSECU Type 1124-hr Rainfaf! ~ Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 2 HydroCAD®6 00 s/n 002026 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Subcatchment 1S: New Land Pre-Developed Runoff = 1.53 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.123 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr Rainfall=3.00" - Area (sf) CN Description - 8,7025 4~ m1 98 i,~mpervious ~~~~W ~ ~ , d -- 60,267 -~°~ - 77 Weighted Average - ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ftlsec) (cfs) _ 19.5 200 0.0315 0.2 Sheet FI ow, Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.60" 0.8 150 0.0413 3.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, - Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps . 0.2 50 0.0550 4.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, - Paved Kv= 20.3 fps - 0.8 90 0.0678 1.8 Shallow Concentrated Ftow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 21.3 490 Total • Subcatchment 1 S: New Land Pre-Developed Hydrograph Ptot x:63 c~.. 1 ..: _...... .. ._ .. ,:^. - v c 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) - Runoff ' ~~ HittsSECU Type !! 24 hr Rainfall- . 0" Prepared by Titan Atlantic ~ Page 3 HvdroCAOC~ 6.00 sln 002026 ®1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Subcatchment 2S: Runoff without bypassed land Runoff 3.51 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.160 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr Rainfall=3.00" . . __.. ..Area.(sf.)_ .._.._...... _ CN__Desc[iPtiorL.__._~_.._. - '~ 85.3 - gR Paver! narking & roofs cc;uuu yo 22,350 74 >75% Grass cover. Good, HSG C 48,003 87 Weighted Average Tc Length ~ Slope min) (feet) (ft/ft) 5.0 Capacity Description (cfsl Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2S: Runoff without bypassed land Hydrograph Plot N U O 1%. 2 1 . . ~... . ._:_. 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 B 9 10 11 i .. ...i.. .. , . .t.. .. 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 -Runoff Time (hours) ~a Hi!lsSECU Type 1124-hr Rainfall= . Prepared by~Titan Atlantic Page 4 H droCADO 6 00 sln 902026 ®1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Pond 1 P: 400' 36" underground storage Inflaw = 3.51 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.160 of Outflow = 0.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.159 af, Atten= 74%, Lag= 7.4 min Primary = 0.91 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.159 of Routing by Star-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 642.13' Storage= 2,076 cf ----Pi~g@Fle~v ~te,~;s ae in~leats#~d=feY^~ °.~f-~1-0C~%o#-ie #1aw~ - Storage and welted areas determined by Conic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic feet) (sq-ft) 640.00 0 0 0 0 640.25 663 55 55 663 640.50 895 194 249 896 640.75 1,038 241 491 1,042 641.00 1,130 271 762 1,139 641.25 1,182 289 1,051 1,199 641.50 1, 200 ~ 298 1,348 1.234 641.75 1,182 298 1,646 1,270 642.00 ~ 1,130 .289 1,935 1,330 642.25 1,038 271 2,206 1,426 642.50 895 241 2,447 1,572 642.75 663 194 2,641 1,805 643.00 0 55 2,697 2,468 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) ~1=Culvert ~2=Orifice/Grate 3=Sharp-Crested` Rectangular ~1Veir --- ~ _ ___ __ ... _ ... _. _._ .__ _.... _. # Routing Invert Outlet Devices _ _ 1 Primary 640.00' 18.0" x 105.0' long Culvert RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 637.00' S= 0.0286 'P n= 0.014 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 .640.00' 5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 3 Device 1 642.20' 2.6' long x 0.5' high Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Hii1sSECU Type 1124 hrRainfa11=3.00" Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 5 HydroCAOC~ 6.00 s!n 002026 ®1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Pond 1 P: 400' 36" underground storage Hydrograph Plat • ~,~:~.'{.. `Inflow Pnmary . . c u. . . ... ~.. . . . .~ . ~9~s --;-----~-- --,-- -.t.-.. 1 -~-• ----•=---°~---~--•• ~- ---~-•-- --v----.~ - -•- - --•• - - ---- ---- 0 ;.. .. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time {hours) -- '~T ~T Hi1IsSECU Type 11 24-hr Rainfall= . ~" Prepared by Titan A~antic Page 1 HvdroCAD® 6.00 sln 042026 C~ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type II 24-hr Rainfall=5.38" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method -Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1 S: New Land Pre-Developed Tc=21.3 min CN=77 Area=60.267 sf Runoff= 4.38 cfs 0.33$ of Subcatchment 2S: Runoff without bypassed land Tc=5.0 min CN=87 Area=48,003 sf Runoff= 7.59 cfs 0.360 of Pond 1P: 400' 36" underground storage Peak Storage= 2,691 cf Inflow= 7.59 cfs 0.360 of Primary= 7.57 cfs 0.359 of Outflow= 7.57 cfs 0.359 of Runoff Area = 2.486 ac Volume = 0.698 of Average Depth = 3.37" . ~-~ HiIIsSECU Type 1124-hr Rainfal - . 8" Prepared by Titan Atlantic ~ Page 2 HydroCAD®6 00 s/n 002026 ®1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3117/2003 Subcatchment 1 S: New Land Pre-Developed Runoff - 4.38 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.338 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type It 24-hr Rainfall=5.38" _ Area (sf) CN Description - 8,725 98 impervious J7,J YZ.-T'1---j.rci r~~u~ 60,267 77 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ~ - 19.5 200 0.0315 0.2 Sheet Flow, - ~ • Grass: Dense n= 0.240 P2= 3.60" 0.8 150 0.0413 3.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.2 50 0.0550 4.8 Shallow Goncentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.8 90 0.0678 1.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 21.3 490 Total Subcatchment 1 S: New Land Pre-Developed Hydrograph Plot w 0 1 ,_ ,. .. . r ..i.. cfs. ~~ r .... . _r... __,._ ~ r r .. .~.....T .... .. ~ .. ... ;.. . r .. ' ...` • • i ~l,.. ~.,. ••.,.. ..r.... r- -~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) - Runoff Hi1isSECU _ Type 1! 24-hrRainfall=5.38" Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 3 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 002026 O 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/17/2003 Subcatchment 2S: Runoff without bypassed land Runoff = 7.59 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.360 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=.0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type I{ 24-hr Rainfall=5.38" Area (sf) CN Description 3,653 98 Paved parking 8~ roofs 88---98r - - - - 22,350 ~ 74 >75°ro Grass cover, Good, HSG C 48,003 87 Weighted Average Tc 'Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ftlft) (ftJsec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2S: Runoff without bypassed land Hydrograph Plot N U O LL T .._.~ .....:.... : .. .: ~.....:..-- ......;..... ;--• • 7.59 cfs i -• ~ -- ...._. .. - -• -- ~ - .. :. 3 •- - - - -. _ .. 2 -- • - --. -- •-- - - . . . ~ 1 Tn . rsT. 0 1 2 3 4 5 ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ • • ~ 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ -Runoff Time (hours) ~"~ HillsSEGU Type !! 24-hr Rainfall=5.38" Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 4 HydroCAD® 6.00 s/n 002026 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3!17/2003 I Pond 1P: 400' 36" underground storage inflow = 7.59 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.360 of Outflow - 7.57 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volumes 0.359 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Primary = 7.57 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.359 of Routing by Stor-fnd method, Ti me Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt='0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 642.97' Storage= 2,69.1 cf i- °;tig-1=low-deteat~e nae=-- t~e~i-~Fr~r-A3 ~-~;=nn6 ~~ fln~nt) Storage and wetted areas determined by Gonic sections Elevation Surf.Area 1nc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) _ 640.00 0 0 0 0 640.25 663 55 55 663 640.50 895 194 249 896 640.75 1,038 241 491 1,042 _ 641.00 1,130 271 762 1,139 ~- 641.25 1,182 289 ~ 1,051 1,199 641.50 1,200 298 1,348 1,234 641.75 1,182 298 1,646 1,270 642.00 1,130 289 1,935 1;330 642.25 1,038 271 2,206 1,426 642.50 895 241 2,447 1,572 . 642.75 663 194 2,641 1,805 643.00 0 55 2,697 2,468 Primary Outl=low {Free Discharge) t-1 =Culvert _ . _ _ ___ _ .:. ~2=OrificelGrate _._- ~- -- ~ __: -- 3=Sharp-Crested Rect angular Weir - -~ _ -- .. # Routing Invert Outlet Devices ~ - _- 1 Primary 640.00' 18.0" x 105.0' long Culvert RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 637.00' S= 0.0286'/' n= 0.014 Cc= 0.900 2 Device 1 640.00' S.0" Vert. OrificelGrate C= 0.600 3 Device 1 642.20' 2.6' long x 0.5' high Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) ~~ Hi!lsSECU Type 1124-hr Rainfall= . Prepared by Titan Atlantic Page 5 HydroGAD® 6.00 s/n 002026 41986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 3/97/2003 Pond 1 P: 400' 36" underground storage • Hydrograph Ptot --- .. ...• • Inflow $ . ., ..: ..... .. :.. :.. 7.67 cfs • ~ -Primary g .. ~ ~ .. ... .. - - - ~- ~ -- - .. _ u. 3 . ._.... ..... __.._ .. _ _ ... _.. - -• -- -- ---- -------•- -- - -• -~- -- - -- p ~. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 Time {hours} ~~ Appendix B Nitrogen Calculations ~t~ , Hillsborough Gredit Union Project #6fi-20852 TN-Coeff. TN Export TN Export TN Exp. TN Exp. TN Exp. Combined Land Pre-Devel~e enf (~~a~ ~~ Pons) (Wenand) (R~P• Buffed Land Cover (acres) pbs-acNr) nbsNr) 0.6 0.9 1.52 1.3 Undisturbed open space 1 ~ 1 2 Managed open space 1.04 21.2 22.0 5A 4A 4.7 t~ervious 24.2 $1.694 $494 $1.294 Total 3.62 TN Export TN Export TN Exp. TN Exp. TN Exp. Combined Land Posf-Dev~e menf ~~~ff a N ~ Land Cover acres ~` 0.6 0.4 0.74 1.6 Undisturbed open space 1 32 1.2 Managed open space 21 2 33.1 6.8 1.56 35.1 7'3 5.8 3 808 Impervious .Total 3,62 $4,387 $2.~9 $ _.._ . I:\60\66 -Civil DePtlProjects\2002\6--•\D- Stormwater\Nitrogen X1:07 FAa 919 941 900ts O:rienJAtkins Associates, PA Architecture/Eng'meefing Landscape ArdutedurelPlanning Mterior Design ClBr~c~nAt~~ris i 1iI21Q3 va~a.....~... _____. Post C~Efioc Box 12D37 Research Triangle Park, NC 277D9 Durham 919/941 ~90DD Raleigh 919fF55-1032 Chapel HiA 8191966-4571 Si Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: State Employees Credit Union- Office Addition and Remote Teller Drive-Through V~*~. Kirk, Thank you for your time in reviewing this project We have reviewed the existing configuraxion, as approved in 1998 by Orange County, and shrived to maintain the same level of appearance in our proposed plans for expansion. We believe that our proposed site renovations, although moderate in scale, will have a minimal impact to the existing conditions of as found at this intersection. We, working directly with the Credit Union, have triad to actively address any possible ~•-~~er2"s that result from our plans as follows: t. Landscaping: We are proposing, with input from the Planning staff'', to add to the _ ..:, _ _ .._ _ appearance of both the existing building and new remote teller office. _. ... . ~a. ~V"e are~proposing large-beds of overgreen_sc>•~ening a1an~Old NC 86. . ' h. We are replacing all damaged landscape around the existing building, restaririg it to the original design intent, c, We are proposing the ~replaritirig of the existing slope located between the teller oflicx and the main building. . d. We are preserving several large trees that are found on the new site. e. We are continuing to press-eve the large existing trees found in $ont of t1~e main building at the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive. 2. Parking: Additional parking is being provided to better servo this branch office at peak hours. This parking is beneficial to the site because: a. This will help ret<over drive aisles lost to parallel parking by members and staff. b. Provide better emergency service access c. Allow for the future crass connection to function more effectively due to a better internal traffic circulation. nCtJmeht_ Daeign tdar~adon Npv1Z 2003.doc ^•^z~2of3 ?~-ted Wednesday, November 12, 2003 ~~ 3. Arrveway Modifications: With this addition we are proposing the redevelopment of the entrance and exits to the site in order to provide relief to Old NC 86. a_ Anew full service drive is pmpased approximately 4601E from the intersection of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive. } 'i'h~~ w-ould-]~e mite.~P in a„~ tvua ta-nes at,,t;_.~nn ri ht.~ncL.c~n~.~IPd - turning lane) - ii. This allows for a better stacking condition for those members that are wanting to make a Icft tum movement from Old NC $6 into the site while allowing the commuters that want to access Oakdale drive, to have a less impeded approach further down st the signalized intersection. . b. The existing full service drive is being converted to a limited access drive that will only allow a right in-right out movement along Old NC 86 4. Utilities: The minor increase to Sewer and Water needs has been reviewed and approved by the Town of Hillsborough. A copy of the approval letter was submitted with the application. 5. Propexty Value: The building value will increase substantially furtbez increasing the tax value of the property and. surrounding properties. Total estimated value of . building additions is to be approx. $350,000 and the remote teller of'Fice to be approx. $100,000 added to the existing property's current value. 6. Environmentally sound: The credit union as a financial institution, has a low impact on the environment in terms of pollution, noise, and waste. We are proposing to handle all new storm water impact by the use of an underground detention system. _. - : :.. _ _ This. system allows_for:our site-to meet county and state recluirennents whi e _. - - ~ preserving the visual appearance of the-Old'NC 8b i~orri~dor-Without tlis~system; we would have to utilize an above ground pond that wouldbe visible from the street. ']. appearance: All proposed work is to match the existing building in terms of materials and finishes. The remote teller office will utilize similar materials as well. _ ~ a+ Both the additions and the remote teller office will be below 30' tall. 3ectionJElevationshove been provided in the packets illustrating these heights. b. Continuation~of quality facility maintenance and landscape maintenance for the site. ~~ nQrp are only a few concerns that we are not able to meet fully with these additions and ask for relief from the Planning staff and County Commissioners given the Craiit Union's positive influence to the arcs and long standing relationship. These~issucs are reflected in our request for a change in zoning: • Doeumsnr Design Rarrat~an Nov12-2d03.doc - .-- ~* 11:07 FAB 819 941 9ooa Pagm 3 of 3 Pr+nted Wednesday, November 12, 2dd3 ~~ 1. .Maximum wilding Height: Although Wane of the proposed additions sxceed the 30' limitation as required in the zoning code, the existing building is 35'. We ask for this condition to be acGeptai as apre-existing coriditian in this case and not have it impact our current petition. 2:~n-f~fe~a~ -ac~u~r-emeai 'il-al#eP • existing facility to remain a conforming structure by relaxing"the buffer requirements to what is already provided, 50+' of heavily planted buffering. 3. Ma~mum $uilding Square Footage: The ordinance limits buildings to 5040 gsf an tracts of 2 acres in the EDD. We are proposing 2 additions and a remote _ - _ facility for a total of +/- 8000 gsf on 3.25 acres of land. We request that our larger site be used as a means to allow for the increase in building square footage. We are actively pursuing a work session with NCDOT arjd the County Transportation planner to discuss our driveway plans and request that we be kept on the agenda for the council meeting bymaking NCDOT -approval a,conditian-of-approval far the special use permit. - _ ~_ ._ . _ _ . We feel that we are presenting a plan that represents a positive impact to the Surrounding property owners and to this area of Hillsborough and Orange County- and hope to work with the Planning Department and Board of Carnmissioners on making this a rc,~lity. - _ ~__ _.. _ _.. i''~r^.IFN/A1'K1NS ASSOCIATES, PA Jonathan Parsons Iep Attachments: 3 pages following cc; JVUS. W1,0, Robert Hall, Tyreta LeGates, Randall Welborne. OBRIEN/ATgINS Document t3tsign Nan'attan_Nov12 26d3.doc ' 11:3/03 THU 11:08 FAX 919 941 9006 OBRIEN/A'I'gI1riS XYlt1!'LtlYS3 14:17 3'19-671-:3z32Z RAMEY KEMP & ASSOC Plate F9[fos .. ~ ~: ~~ x~ NLP 8~ NS=. 3onathsn Parsons OBricnlAtkins Associates, FA ~~? South Miami Boulevard ~UZl~am, NC 27703-$526 4928-A Windy Htll D ' ~-~ r~C.. Raleigh, North C~miina 2760 ^ ~ Phone: 414.672.5115 iii/ Fax: 919.878.5416 November 12, 2403 ?~.efetence: State F..mplayees' Credit IJnian SilLsboraugh, North Carolina Dear Mr. Parsons: _ _ _ _- _.- : -... __. ~:~~ey Kemp and Associates, roe. (RKA) has completed a preliminary review of the groposrd site plan for the expansion/rcnovstian of the existing State Employees' Credit Union ($ECtn in Hillsborough. Based on the site plan, the existing SECU includes a f 4,511 square foot (s.f.} building with Three drive-tkrongh windovv~ artd one drive-through I A7~'M. rt is our understanding the extstizag binding wi~11 be expanded on the north side sod sc ~` side lay a fatal of approximately 2,523 a,f to include storage space and a few new ofEiices_ In addition, the existing drive-thraug}ar lanes will be relocated to the south silo of ~ the property anal o~ae drive-tt~raugh lane will be added, bringing the fatal number of drive- } through Lanes to four service lames plus one ATM lame. The following comments are based • an a preliminary review of traffic operafions for the proposed ~expansianlreuavatious of the . .. n~AQ - _ .. 'T'he xrew •site plan indicates the ~ rxisting full-access driveway on Old 'k~C 86 will he restricted to right-in/right-out nnavexztGnts only, whale a new fi~il-access, driveway will be provided on Old NC $6 approximately 464 feet from the Old NC 85/4akdale Road intersection Increasing the spaciu~ between afull-access driveway and the 'Old NC ~610akdale Road intersection is expected to provide safer and mare efficient access to and from the site, p~arficulerly for lent turning vehicles from the s%tc driveway and left turning vehicles into the site driveway fmm Old NC 85. 't'hese vehicles would oat blocked by ~ northbound 4ueacs an Old NG 86 at the ininrsecbion with Oakdale Road. ;~ccaing the drive-through windows to the south side o€ the graperty removes the drive- u5rough vehicles circulating along the building, which improves safety for pedan traffic between the building and parking areas. RAl,triGH,NC RICH(yfbMi~,VA :__::3;aa THII 11.08 FAg 919 941 9006 ___.::~r sops t4: t ~ Y1J-872-3921 Page 2 Mr. Janatbati Parsons '_sovember 12, 2003 The site plan indicates a stub-nut will be provided along the southern boundary of the prapexty to provide interconnectivity for futiue development. When future development occurs, it~ is recommended to provide stop control on the future development coimtction and the SECU internal roadway such that the inbomxl. traffic ficaxn Old ATC 86 has the right- of-way. This should prevent inbound traffic from queuing back from the site driveway onto Old NC 86. ~~ A Traff c hnpact Analysis (TxA) report was prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. r~~...~~ in~pril 1997 for the e.X~tsting SECIJ. Based an the eapaCity anatvsis results L~ the :!.~~; :Js study in:Eeersections were expected to operate at acceptable levels of seavica under p.sn. peak hour build out (1948) conditions. Unless significant traffic growth has accutre<i in tt,e study area since 1998, all study intersections would be; expected to operate at ' ~eptable levels of service in 2003 with the expansionlrenovations to the existing site. Although it ie anticipated that the SECU expansion acid additional drive-through window • will increase ixaffic generated by the s9te, the increase in traffic is n_ of expected to be Sigl]L~CatYt. _ .. . Please note that these comments are based on a preliminary review of the site play and are • .*.,ot based on our analysis results. Amore detailed analysis of the trip gelleratian and >,:ztersectian operations would be neee~ssary to validate the preceding comments anal - - observations. If you have any questions, please contact me at {919) 872-OQ~80 x 110. Sincearely, RA112'EY1I'E~k & slssoerAT~:S, .fNc .. ~:. • 1 Itynal Cs. Stephenson, P.E. - UDilLS.l~r nau~.... RANEY . KEMP & ASSDC PAGE !73 ~ n y ~_! i'_;/OS YON 14:44 FAg 919 ia2 B990 $~&w-HILassoROCg Sw IdUWAhD PirRitY AND WALS"tUN ~:c•Jember ~ 7, zoo3 'r.2e: State Employee's Credit Union t 1~ \u itln`C. 5'TRFE'f 1.111_LSiSC)(:UUCd i, NC 2737iS U115. (914} 7:i3-61111 WT[ty1TF itptt.+-om .._ ,A.tt~:.Eddie Kirk PQ Box $181 Hillsbomugh, NC 2728 Tear Mr. Kick, i have beep a realtor in the Hillsborough area. with Howard Perry & Wa]ston since 1991 and ara familiar with the residcntial and commercial market Y/ith regard to the proposed addition to the existing State Employee's Credit Union, which has been in service at its current Iot~.tion since 1999, it is my opinion that this expansion would have na negative impact to the surratunding property values and would have a positive effect on the Ioea1 business community while increasing the ability of this braztch to serve its members with a Iugher tevei of quality and efFicieney. S%lxcerely, ~~ / ~~ ~. _ -.. ack Jo Un~wr,~6r4e Vxz,•;.: Each Olfice IS Independently Owned And Operated. ~"'"aA~ Goo,"`"'' x~dn• G°°ptr or e~ ~° ~ ,~ •~ u s m ~'~r6 Est°~~* ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 2727& Fire Marshal Hazardous Materials Team Disaster Response 9 -1=1 Communications During Normal Business Flousx 9I9-968-2.050 919-644-3030 24 Hour Warning Pomp 919-933-2600 ' 919-732-8161 ~~ TO: Eddie Kirk Orange County'P~lanning Department FROM: Mike Tapp N"~ Deputy Director/Fire Marshal RE: State Employees Credit Union Drive-Up Facility and Expansion/Renovation 2813 Old NC 86 . Hillsborough, NC DATE: November 5, 2003 We have completed the site plan review for the expansion and - renovation.project at the State Employees Credit Union, 2316 Old NC 86 and find the plans acceptable. Business FaxMachine.- 919-968-4066 24-NourFax Machine: 9I9-967-3426 DIRECTOR Nick Waters nwatersna,co.oranae.nc.us DEPUTY DIRECTOR/EMS C. Kent McKenzie kmckenzie(c~r~,co.orari e~ nC.US DEPUTY DTRECTOR/FTRE MARSHAL Mike Tapp mta co.oran e~nc.vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR/COMMiJMCATIONS Gwen Snowden sn_owden ~co.oran~e.nc.us ADMINfSTRATNE ASSISTANT Tammy Comar tcomar(i~co.oran e~ nc.us If you need further information, please contact us. 11/37/2003 15:27 9197326403 ORANGE CO St-IERIFF PAGE ai ~~ Office of the C~ran~e County She~`iff i_indp Pendergrass, Sheriff P.Q. E3ax 5481 - Margara~t Lama HIUSBbROUCiH Hi@abbe+o~ugh. NC 27278 . 948 732-Bi67/6~S4-2QS0 November 7, ?~3 Eddie iGrk, Pianner it s. ~~ . ~} ~•^~e {;csunty Punning ~~i. -; Revere Rd. HilEsborough, NC 27278 Request from: O'Brien Atkins Associates PA Address: P© Box 12[)37 Resear+~h 7riar~le Park NC 27709 Sete Name: Sfiste Employees credit Uniart Site Address: Oid NG ~ and GaEcdale ©rive ~uildlttg Additions: Remote '~elier Offioa to aacammadafe 2-3 st$ff members Drnre thru canopy to be replaced by several offices Etelocation of driveway er>tb-ance Eddie, l reoeiv~ a fatier€rom O'Bti~an Atkins, asking if we can provide !aw enforcement . services far the above-proposed additions. We routinely p$troi this area an a 2A-hour _ _ _ '~s.=,`s. these additioris~'~ ncrt requite additional personnel nor egufpment far us. ~:~ a~sq S~CiQti'1~ $1C3 i~~uest received by-me to you for your file.- _ s . ~ _ . Qesp~ctfully, ~Jl~ ~ ~"~ . - Lirtdy Pendergrass Orange County Sheriff CC: Jonathan Pars~,rts O`8rien Atkins ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~"~ Current Planning ~p ' ~ 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~z ~ ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) ,~ Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us ~"°<<~ ~.t~~~°' North Carolina, 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF DATE: October 27, 2003 SUBJECT: PD-1-03 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: State Employees Credit Union James C. Blaine 1000 Wade Avenue P.O. Box 27665 Raleigh, NC 27611-7665 STATUS OF APPLICANT: President REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning from an Economic Development District (ED-LO-1) to a Planned Development -Economic Development -Linear Office District (PD-ED-LNR) zoning designation and approval of a "Class A" Special Use Permit under Section 8.8.23 (Planned Developments) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. PURPOSE: To expand the existing building to 7,334 sq. ft., construct a 634 sq. ft. remote teller station with a new 2,000 sq. ft. canopy. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: NORTH - Oakdale Drive. SOUTH - Single Family Residence zoned ED-LO-1. EAST - Old NC 86. WEST - Single Family Residences zoned ED-LO-1. LAND USE PLAN: The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Economic Development. CCU\Current Planning Division\EDDIE\State Employees Credit Union\PD-1-03-SECU-Memo.doc FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~ PERTAINING TO STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION APPLICATION: James C. Blaine -President of State Employees Credit Union Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1- Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and. (bl Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4 and 6.29.2). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development Districts Design Manual. Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLE 8.6 AND 8.8 -APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.6 -Application submitted on _x_Yes No A complete application on Yes No forms providing full and appropriate forms has been accurate description of submitted. proposed use, including location, appearance and operational characteristics. 8.8 a) -Twenty-six (26) copies _x_Yes No Twenty-six (26) copies of the Yes No of the site plan prepared by a site plan, prepared by Obrien registered N.C. land surveyor, Atkins Architects have been architect, or engineer. submitted. 8.8 b) -Elevations of all x Yes No Elevations are shown on the Yes No proposed structures to be plans. The State Employees used in the development. Credit Union building and remote teller station are the only buildings proposed. 8.8 c) -A fee, as set by the _x Yes No The application fee has been Yes No Board of County paid. Commissioners. Co 1 ARTICLE 8.8.23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 -Planned Developments ARTICLE 7 -SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non-compliance) Ordinance Requirements PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Article 7.4 indicates the application must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 -Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected property at scale of not less than 1" =100' nor more than 1"=20'. *20.3.2 b- Legal description of property. 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment. 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. x Yes No Site plan provided at a scale of 1"=20'. x Yes No The legal description was provided. Yes No N/A - No error alleged. N!A x Yes No N/A -The property is zoned N/A x Economic Development District-LO-1. The proposed zone is PDED-LNR. A Planned Development Special Use Permit is required since several requirements can't be met. x Yes No The application indicates that Goal Six of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the promotion of economic development which emphasizes employment, meeting local needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. Goal Nine also encourages the provision of water and sewer lines. Yes No Yes No Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Yes No ~~ ARTICLE 7 -SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development-Economic Development designation. The criteria for .the Economic Development district are set forth in Article 4.2.19 and are as follows: a) The district is located adjacent to a Federal Interstate Highway or a major arterial road. b) The district is located outside of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Rural Buffer area as designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. _x_Yes No _x_Yes No The district is located adjacent to Old NC 86, a major arterial road. The district is located outside of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Rural Buffer. c) The district shall not be located within the critical area of a designated water supply watershed. d) Urban services, such as water and sewer mains, are desirable, but not required if acceptable alternatives are available. x Yes No _x_Yes No The district is not located in the critical area of a water supply watershed. Water and sewer lines are available at the site. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No l~ ARTICLE 7 -SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Developments. These include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to major streets and mass transit facilities and designed so as not to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts. 7.4.2 So located with respect to water, sewer and storm drainage facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost. and So located with respect to police, fire and rescue services, and schools and parks so as to have access iri the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning. 7.4.3 Site suitable for development within hazard from flooding, erosion, and soil subsidence of slipping. x Yes No x Yes No Access is provided via Oakdale Drive and to Old NC 86. No minor residential streets will be affected by this project as proposed. The proposed development has public water and sewer, therefore, no higher net public cost will result. x Yes No Letters regarding adequate service provision have been received from the Sheriff's Department, and fire and rescue services. x Yes No The site is not located in a flood hazard or poorly drained area. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) Ordinance Requirements 6.29.2 Design Review Process 1. Building elevation drawings for each proposed structure. 2. A minimum of two (2) drawings of sections through the site illustrating existing and proposed grade, as well as the relationship of different site features. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS x Yes No Building elevation drawings were submitted with the site plan. x Yes No Existing and . proposed grades, as well as the relationship of site features are indicated on the site plan. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Yes No Yes No 6.29.3a Standards in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual Standards generally a) Harmonious and efficient organization. The site plan shall be organized harmoniously and efficiently in relation to existing topography, the size and type of plot, the character of adjoining property, and the type and size of buildings. The site will be developed to facilitate orderly development of surrounding property and with minimal disturbance to the natural environment. _x_Yes No The site plan has been organized harmoniously and efficiently to indicate existing topography, size and type of lot, character of adjoining property, .type and size of buildings to provide for orderly development with. minimal disturbance. b) Preservation of natural state. Desirable vegetation or other unique natural features shall be preserved in their natural state when practical. The Environmental .Protection Plan shall include the locations of all existing trees 12" diameter four feet above the ground. c) Enhancement of residential privacy. The site plan shall provide reasonable visual, lighting, and sound privacy for all adjacent dwelling units. x Yes No Vegetation and natural features have been preserved when practical. The Plan includes the locations of all existing trees 12" in diameter. x Yes No The site plan provides reasonable privacy for adjacent dwelling units through plantings, topography and lighting that meets the Orange County lighting standards. Yes No Yes No Yes No CO ~ ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements d) Emergency access. _x_Yes No Emergency access is Structures and other site provided through the two features shall be arranged to entrances. One on Old NC 86 permit practical emergency and one on Oakdale Drive. vehicle access to all sides of buildings. e) Access to pub/ic ways. _x_Yes No Access is provided to Old NC Every structure and dwelling 86 and Oakdale Drive. unit shall have access to a public street, walkway or other area dedicated to common use. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Yes No Yes No f} Non-motorized circu/ation. x Yes No Walkways are existing A non-motorized circulation around the existing building system shall be provided and will be extended around which is direct, efficient, and the addition and along Old pleasant. The system shall be NC 86. complementary to, but independent of the vehicular circulation system. g) Design of access and egress drives. The location, size, and numbers of ingress and egress drives to a site will be strictly limited to minimize the negative impacts on public streets and on adjacent property. This shall include formal entryways and access to outparcels from inside the development only. h) Coordination with off-site circulation systems. The arrangement of rights-of-way or easements for circulation shall coordinate with the pattern of existing and planned streets, pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways and transit routes in the area. Connection to adjacent properties is encouraged where possible. _x_Yes No x Yes No Two access and egress drives exist now. The proposal is to provide one new entrance on Old NC 86 and change the old entrance to a right in, right out only however, NCDOT is recommending only one access on Old NC 86. The Planning Staff is recommending this access be a right in and right out only. The arrangement for circulation coordinates with the pattern of existing circulation and streets. Connection to adjacent properties is proposed when adjacent properties are. developed. Yes Yes Yes No No No ~~ ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements i) stormwater control. x Yes No Orange County Erosion Yes No Protective measures shall Control has reviewed ensure that removal of protective measures for stormwater runoff will not removal of stormwater adversely affect neighboring runoff. properties or the public storm drainage system. Provisions shall be made for construction of wastewater facilities including grading, gutters, and piping to direct stormwater and prevent erosion. Surface water on all paved areas shall be collected at intervals that do not obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic. j) Exterior /ighting. Location, _x_Yes No Exterior lighting meets all Yes No type, size and direction of requirements including glare, exterior lighting shall not glare direction and safety or direct illumination that requirements of the lighting interferes with adjacent standards in the Orange properties or safety of public County Zoning Ordinance. rights-of-way. k) Protection of property _x_Yes No Elements of the site plan Yes No va/ues. Elements of a site plan have been arranged to shall be arranged to have provide setbacks and buffers minimum negative impact on to have minimum negative values of adjoining property impact on adjoining and other on-site uses. properties. Specific standards The ED-LNR zone requires Unless otherwise indicated structures less than 5,000 here, the relevant standards square feet, no drive through for the specific Economic facilities and a building height Development Districts shall restricted to 30 feet. The apply. Where actions, applicant is requesting the designs, or solutions proposed Board make specific by the applicant are not modifications on these literally in accord with the requirements to allow the applicable regulations of this following: ordinance, but the Board of 1. Two structures on the County Commissioners makes site. The existing building will a finding in the particular case be expanded to 7,334 sq. ft. that public purposes are and the remote teller station satisfied to an equivalent or is 634 sq. ft. with a greater degree, the Board may proposed new canopy of make specific modification of approximately 2,000 sq. ft. the regulations in the 2. Relocate existing drive particular case. Any through lanes and add a fifth modification of regulations one. shall be explicitly indicated in 3. The existing building the approved permit. height is 35 feet. (o-T ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a) Relationship of buildings to site. 1. The site shall be planned to Yes No x Plantings, walkways and Yes No provide for adequate _ _ parking areas have been so planting, safe pedestrian designed to extend the movement, and parking existing development and areas. provide adequate facilities. 2. Parking areas shall be _x_Yes No Plantings, berms and the Yes No treated with decorative building will be used to elements, building wall ~ screen parking areas from extensions, plantings, view. berms, or other innovative means so as to screen parking areas from view from public ways and reduce heat generated by paved areas. 3. Without restricting the x_Yes No Building height in the ED-LNR Yes No permissible limits of the is restricted to 30 feet, applicable zoning district, however, the existing the height and scale of building is 35 feet. The each building shall be applicant is requesting the compatible with its site and Board make a finding that existing or anticipated public purposes are satisfied adjoining buildings. and make a specific modification to this requirement. 4. All utility services shall be _x_Yes No All utility services will be Yes No underground. underground. b1 Relationship of buildings and site to adjoining areas. 1. Attractive landscape x Yes No Attractive landscaping has Yes No transition to adjoining been provided around the properties shall be existing building and will be provided. extended with the addition. 2. Lighting intensity at the _x_Yes No Lighting intensity at the Yes No property line adjacent to property line adjacent to the residential uses shall not be residential uses do not greater than %: footcandle. exceed %: foot candle. ~~ ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements c) Building design. 1. Architectural style is not restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on its relationship to the surroundings. Primary and pedestrian facades are encouraged to complement and reflect the characteristics of downtown Hillsborough. 2. Specific building materials are not endorsed. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the relationship to surroundings. i. Materials and design shall be compatible with each other in multiple building projects. ii. Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. Utilitarian materials shall be limited to inconspicuous facades and non-public or service areas. Materials with unique or special character are encouraged. 3. Buildings and building components, such as walls, windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, shall have human proportions and relationships to one another. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS x Yes No Architectural style and Yes No appearance will match existing building facades. x Yes No Appearance of the project Yes No addition is based on existing surroundings. x Yes No Materials and design Yes No compatible with existing building. x Yes No Materials were selected to be Yes No compatible with existing building. x Yes No Building components have Yes No the same proportions as the existing building: ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ~~ ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 4. Mechanical equipment or _x_Yes No Existing mechanical Yes No other utility hardware on equipment is located behind the roof, ground, or the building. The additional buildings shall be screened mechanical equipment from public view with needed will be located beside materials harmonious with the existing equipment. the building, or they shall be so located as not to be visible from .any public ways. This provision does not apply to the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. 5. Exterior lighting shall be _x_Yes No Exterior lighting will be Yes No part of the architectural harmonious with existing concept. Fixtures, exterior lighting and will meet standards, and all exposed lighting standards in the accessories shall be Orange County Zoning harmonious with building Ordinance. design. 6. Recyc/ing and waste _x_Yes No Waste and recycling will be Yes No removal .areas, service handled as it is currently yards, storage yards, and handled. exterior work areas shall be located away from and screened from view from public ways, using materials as stated in criteria for equipment screening. Areas shall be sized to accommodate changes in technology and local refuse ordinances. 7. Variation of detail, form, x Yes No The proposed drive-thru will Yes No material, and siting may be separated from the be used to provide visual existing building with a interest. In multiple remote teller office. building projects, variable siting of individual buildings may be used to prevent a monotonous appearance. ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) Ordinance Requirements d) Landscaping and site t~eaiment. Landscape elements included in these criteria consist of all forms of planting and vegetation, ground forms, rock groupings, water patterns, and all visible construction except buildings and utility structures. New and existing vegetation shall be maintained in a flourishing manner. 1. Natural or existing topographic patterns contributing to the beauty and utility of a development shall be preserved and developed. Modification to topography will be permitted where it contributes to good appearance and does not adversely affect significant natural features and drainageways. 2. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall provide an inviting and stable appearance. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important visual corridors, and provide shade. 4. Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plan varieties and other materials and by correlation with adjacent developments. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS x Yes No Much of the existing landscaping will remain. New landscaping will be added around the addition consisting of plantings consistent with the existing vegetation. x Yes No Topography will only be modified as necessary to accomplish additions. x Yes No Grades of new walks and paved areas will be consistent with existing grades and provide a stable appearance. x Yes No Landscaping will enhance architectural features and the visual .corridor along Old NC 86. The larger remaining trees will also provide shade. x Yes No New landscaping will be added with varieties of plantings consistent with existing vegetation. ~1 ~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ~i ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 5. Plant material shall be x Yes No Plant material was selected Yes No selected for its structure, based on existing vegetation.. texture, and color for Native plants have been interest and for its ultimate selected that are harmonious growth. Use of native to the design. plants is encouraged; others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design, and of good appearance can be allowed. 6. Appropriate curbs, tree _x_Yes No Curbs are existing and will be Yes No guards or other devices extended to protect plants. shall be employed to protect plants susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic. 7. Parking areas and _x_Yes No Parking areas and trafficways Yes No trafficways shall be have been landscaped. enhanced with landscaped spaces containing trees or tree groupings. 8. Service yards and other _x_Yes No There are no service yards Yes No unsightly places shall be proposed. screened by use of walls, fencing and/or planting. e) Signs 1. Every sign shall have _x_Yes No Existing sign will not be Yes No appropriate scale and changed. No additional signs proportion in its design and are proposed. in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. A unified signage plan shall be submitted and approved with the Special Use Permit. 2. Every sign shall be _x_Yes No Existing sign will not be Yes No designed as an integral changed. No additional signs architectural element of the are proposed. building and the site to which it principally relates. 3. The colors, materials and x Yes No Existing sign will not be Yes No lighting of every sign shall changed. No additional signs be harmonious with the are proposed. building and site to which it principally relates. ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (EDI DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 4. The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the total area of the sign face. Plant material shall be selected for its structure, texture, and color for interest and for its ultimate growth. Use of native plants is encouraged; others that will be hardy, harmonious to the design, and of good appearance can be allowed. 5. Freestanding signs shall not be pole-mounted. f) Maintenance, planning and design factors. 1. Materials and finishes shall be selected for their durability and wear as well as for their beauty. Proper measures and devices shall be incorporated for protection against the elements, neglect, damage, and abuse. 2. Provisions for cleaning buildings and structures and control of dirt and refuse shall be included in the design. Configurations that tend to accumulate debris and dirt shall be avoided. ~a BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS x Yes No Existing sign will not be Yes No changed. No additional signs are proposed. x Yes No Existing sign is not pole- Yes No mounted. x Yes No Exterior materials consist of Yes No brick and stucco for durability, wear and appearance. x Yes No Configurations that tend to Yes No accumulate debris and dirt have been avoided. ~~ ARTICLE 6.29 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) DISTRICTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non -compliance) (continued) PLANNING BOARD BOARD OF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements g) Transportation Network Two access and egress Yes No Capacity drives exist now. NCDOT is recommending one entrance on Old NC 86 instead of the two that are proposed. The existing 4 drive through (apes will be relocated and a fifth one added. The ED-LNR zone does not allow drive through facilities, therefore the applicant is requesting the Board make a finding that public purposes are satisfied and make a specific modification to this requirement. ~~ ARTICLE 8.2.4 -SPECIFIC STANDARDS ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection. c) Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. BOARD OF COMMISSIONER FINDINGS x Yes No Applicant indicates water and Yes No sewer will be supplied by Hillsborough. x Yes No Fire protection will be Yes No provided by the Hillsborough Fire Department, rescue service by the Orange County Emergency Management, and police protection by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. x Yes No The property will have direct Yes No access onto Oakdale. Drive and Old NC 86. A traffic impact analysis has been requested. Changes may be made to the site plan to meet NCDOT and the Orange County Transportation Planner's recommendations. ~s ARTICLE 8 2 1 & 8 2 2 APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance• "No" indicates non -compliance) SUBMITTED INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED APPLICATION INFORMATION) Ordinance Requirements In accordance with Article 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance the Board of County Commissioners shall also consider the following general conditions before the appNcation for Special Use shall be approved: Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 1. The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Article 8.2.1 2. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use- is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous propertyl. Article 8.2.1 3. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. A description, narrative and site plan of the proposed addition have been submitted along with letters from EMS and the Sheriff's Office. A letter from Howard Perry and Walston has been received. The application will permit and expand an existing use.. The Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual calls for this area to be Linear Office. BOARD OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONER TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Will Will Not To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Will Is Will Not _Is Not NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS --~~a A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of~the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 24, 2003, at 7:30 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: A. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT 1. PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Request for rezoning of an Economic Development -- Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) district to a Planned Development Economic Development Linear Office (PD-ED- LNR) district with a Class A Special Use Permit. The proposal will add 2,523 square feet to-the existing building, a 634 square foot remote teller station with a 2,000 square foot canopy, and relocate the existing drive through lanes and add a fifth lane. The 3.25 acre tract is located 2313 Old NC 86, the southwest corner of Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive (PiN numbers 9863-97-4356 and 9863-97-5102) in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. Development projects such_as this site and building expansion in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District which requires a minor deviation from the standards specified in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a Planned Development with a Class A Special Use Permit. Pu ose: A public hearing on this request is needed because the proposed project is a special use permit modification and requests a minor deviation of the standards specified in the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Design Manual which would allow for administrative approval. =~ :--:_ ~-- -=BYE CONCURRENT TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE _.. _ ....__...::.~._..: AND~~ORANGE-COUNTY-SUBDIVISION-REGUL~TIONS--__:__._-.-~-------:-~------~~~.:~_:;~:_.-..~.:~_~.._~___ 1. Text amendments to require a subdivision located in more than one zoning district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in a non overlay distric# and an overlay district, to go through the planned development rezoning process. Purpose; To promote uniformity and consistency in design for subdivisions that cross zoning district boundaries and/or where densities may be inconsistent in the different districts. 2. ZONING ORDINANCE: Amend Article 22 (Definitions), Article 4.1 (Establishment of Use Regulations), 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), and 6.29.4 (Additional Requirements for Certain Subdivisions) to require subdivisions with more than 20 lots, in rural designated areas, to follow a planned developmentlspecial use permit/zoning atlas amendment process. Existing regulations require .subdivisions with more than 40 lots, in rural designated areas, to follow a planned d_ evelopment/special use permitlzoning atlas amendment process. The following amendments, a.-d, delete the ~ category of rural special use between 21 lots and 40 lots because the amendment replaces this lot range with a proposal of 21 lots and above as a planned developmentlspecial use. ~ ~ a. Article 22 (Definitions) -Delete the definition of a "Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated" and amend the definition. of a "Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated". b. Article 4.1 (Establishment of Use Regulations) -Delete the definition of a "Major Subdivision, Class A Speciai Use, Rural Designated" and amend the definition of a "Major Subdivision, Planned Development, Rural Designated." c. Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table) -Delete the "Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated" note and amend the "Major Subdivision, Planned Development! Special Use, Rural Designated" note.. d. Article 6.29.4 (Additional Requirements for Certain Subdivisions) -- Delete the definition of a "Major Subdivision, Class A Special Use, Rural Designated" and amend the definition of a "Major Subdivision, Pianned Development, Rural Designated". 3. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Amend Section 11 (Definitions) and Section III-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval) to the same definitions as those in the Zoning Ordinance referenced above. C. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 1. Amend Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table) and Artiste 8 (Special Uses) and the standards therein to allow "School, elementary, middle, and high," with the approval of a Class A special use pernnit and to apply special use permit standards that meet the general standards, zoning district requirements and the applicable - standards detailed in Section 8.8.29 and 8.8.30 of the Zoning Ordinance. Purpose: Schools are an essential public facility and are allowed in most zoning districts by right. However, they do pose certain impacts, most notably traffic. Addressing them as _i _ _ __ _ __ a special use in all the districts, besides the presentiy designated Economic Deveiopment zoning dish-ict, will make it~possible to~more-effectivEljc_mitigat~-impacts-and-be~consistent=-- :- throughout the county planning jurisdiction. ~ - _.. - 2. Telecommunication Towers: Amend Article 6.18 (Telecommunication .Towers and Equipment) and Artiste 8.8.17a (Telecommunication Towers) to require: a. At the annual telecommunications projection. meeting that the initial propagation studies begin with co-locations on existing structures. b. Photo simulations to be submitted at time of application. c. Balloon photos and panorama photos to be filed at time of application. d. Payment of $1,000.00 into the escrow account at pre-application meeting to cover fees incurred by consultant prior to format application submittal. e. Propagation studies, to scale, of entire network. f. Revise the intent, scope, and use of.the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) to create a planning tool for information purposes. g. Revise standards of evaluation in Section 8.8.17a.2 to establish a hierarchy of preferred locations and procedures. h. Other minor changes to improve process and clarity. . Pumose: During review of four Telecommunications Tower applications under the recently adopted amendments, a few minor inconsistencies have become apparent to ~~ applicants, the staff, the consultant and attorneys. These minor amendments are ~~ intended to clarify those inconsistencies to provide a better understanding of the various aspects of the review process. Also included in these amendments is a revision of the intent, scope and use of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) concept which was adopted as a placeholder in the ordinance pending future BOCC review and approval. D. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 1. Amend section IV-B-3. Streets, to consider requiring bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and common access points concurrent with development projects that abut or adjoin roadways with approved access management plans. Purpose: To more effectively address the transportation impacts and multi-modal aspects of development projects. 2, Amend section V-D. Final Plat. - - Pumose: To update certifications that are outdated, to add a certification and an endorsement for the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and to add statements__ for water and sewer endorsements; also minor changes related. to process and procedure and information to be shown on final plat. Changes .rnay -be made in the advertised proposals that reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing: .__ Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the appropriate number listed below. The full text of the changes may be obtained after November 19, 2003 from the Planning Department. Also, the text may be obtained at the - - -~ - ==~-_C~unty: website wu~n~.co.orat~ge.nc.us at they Agendas and Reports link prior to the ... ...meeting: _.... ._ - - - ~....:. -_. __ . - - -- .. -- - - - --- ..~.- Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306E Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 245-2575 (Hillsborough), 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) or 227-2031 (MebanelGraham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald Chapel Hill News November 12, 2003 November 12, 2003 November 12, 2003 November 19, 2003 November 19, 2003 November 19, 2003 I ~5 P F~~N"~~\QG~ SR 17 CLARENC~ WALT RS RQ ------ i .44A.19 4.40.A.23A 4.44Ai 4. A.15 A.18 -~ - - - ~ 4.45.2C 4.45.. 4.44.6.22 4. . 9A ~ • .44.6.20 4. B.i 4.45R..1 4. .B.1 C 4.44.8.24 4.45R..1 -- ~-_- . ' 4.44.6.25 4.45 .. 4.45R.28 . .44.6.20 4.44.6.2 .44.8.9 4. .B. E 4.45..2 .. ~ ._. 4 .B.1 D 4.44.6.2 ea. ~ ~n d ~S _- .... ..... . _. .._....;.. .. '`~- ~_ Q ~~~ tan sti.aror Ite.es eanuM ran rw,eehptaa 'r tail Wyret A.20 This nlap wrMins ponds prepared for the ireeMory of real pmpeq vritlrirt Orange Courtly, and is complad 6oKh recorded deed, p!alss, and OthM pub6e records and data. Users of >hic rtop are hereby r~Ri ed Ihat the advrctr~et~6oned P~ Pr~rY intorma~fon sources should ba eonsuRsd for vuigea6an of tl~ 6,fonnation carrbbed oa tlde map_ The county arra tts mapping oompanks assume no kpal responsibildy for the kdamatbn contairwd on this map; ..Oran ounty GIS 4 N 1:40 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ~~~' Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director G~rat[ 0/ ~' . Administration ~ v`` ,, '`. 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~ a P O Box 8181 (9'19) 644-3002 (FAX) ~ Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us ~"°rra ~.~°~`'~ -North Carolina, 27278 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING REZONING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT and CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Eddie Kirk, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 7, 2003, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the request for a RezoningPlanned Development and Class A Special Use Permit under Article 8.8.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to construct additions to the State Employees Credit Union facilities,, to each property owner as required by Article 2 Section 2.3.3.4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning variance request. WITNESS my hand, this the 7~' day of November 2003, - . _ EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER ~,`."~.,,~ 81 '~ ~.., ~~~ STATE of NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT GOVERNOR SECRETARY November 17, 2003 ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning ;06-F Revere Rd. P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Plan Review for Proposed Addition to the State Employees Credit Union Located on SR 1009 (S. Churton St.) in Hillsborough Per you request this office has reviewed the site plan submitted by O'Brien Atkins and has conducted a site visit during the PM peak hour. The proposed addition does not appear to significantly increase the trips generated by this site. The proposed new full access driveway located near the southern. property corner on Old NC 86 is too close to the existing Millstone Drive. This location would potentially result in,conflicts with • southbound left twin movements onto Millstone Drive. This office does not recommend a -`~ ~ ~~ =- ~ - -full~acc~ss-driveway-at-this-location:-~The-conversiv~.-ofthe-existing-drivewvay-on-01d-NC- ~ -- ~-~- - - - 86 to a right in right out would eliminate potential left turr~._conflicts, It should benoted, - - however, that during the peak hour field eisit, no functional problems were noted with this existing full access driveway and the nearby intersection of Oakdale Drive and Old NC 86. The proximity of existing neighboring driveways and intersections provide little opportunity for appreciable traffic flaw improvement~at this time. TIl' project R 2825 has been included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program. This project will include the widening of Old NC 86 from I-40 to U.S. 70 Business to a multilane facility. The current design is a divided facility with limited median cross over. It is anticipated that once this project is constructed that X11 access to this site on Old NC 86 would be limited to right in right out only. With this information in mind this office .makes the following recommendations: . P.O. Box 766 Graham, N.C. 27253 Telephone (336)-570-6833 2 1. The existing full access drive on OId NC 86 appears to function satisfactorily and may be retained. 2. The proposed new driveway is too close to Millstone Drive and should not be constzucted. No additional access to Old NC 86 should.be constructed. 3. A public right of way 50' from the existing center line of Old NC 86 and 40' from the centerline of Oakdale Drive should be dedicated to accommodate the proposed TIP project and future improvements if possible. 4. Connectivity to adjacent property is encouraged to ultimately provide an access across from Millstone Drive. S. On site flow should be managed bo prevent a traffic queue on to Old NC 8b. This can be mitigated by one- way internal flow. If I can be of further assistance, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, C. N. Edwards r., PE. District Engineer HILLSBOROUGH AREA EDD ~~ !-go/~id N.C.Nighway 8¢ District :'~ Other. than h40, only one road has been inc~ded on the Orange County and tiQi sborough Thoroughfare Plans -Old N.C.FGghway 86. Classified acs an arterial street, Oid N.C.K:ghway 86 is cx~rrentiy capable of handing t 0,000 vehicles per dair and had an average dally traffic vo~me of 8,300 vehicles per day in 1986. S!- the year 2005, traffic on the road is expected to reach t 9,600 vehicles per day. V,~th traffic volcanes expected to exceed the capacity of the _ road, the i~sborough Thoroughfare Plan caAs for the widet~g of Old N.C.Highway 86. The proposed cross section for widen~g is a four-lane fac~ty, with sidewalks and iwo travel . ones in either d~rectiott, plus a center turn lane. To accpmpash the uraiening. the right-of~way wauk! also have to be expanded from 6o feet to 9o feet. 100' ROW Tr~ave! lanes. Travel tares . 16' . 12' 12' i6' 1 ~ _s' Sidewalk„ ,~„6' Sidewalk 4' Bike lane X25' landscatte Medan 4' Bike tare Pro~aosrd~ra~-fare crosss~ce5tur hx- ~ Rather than ut'fize the five-lane faciftty proposed in the ~_-__~ Ok!/M.C. Kg~i way 8S, . ii'dlsborough Thoroughfare Plan, a different cross section is ~. rAd r- r7-sus ~ desired, To provide an attractive entranceway into H~sborough and to prevent the strip commerciallcrass-traffic . twnu:g movements associated with Churton Street, the crass ' section would be changed to provide a landscape median instead of a center turn bne. Turn lanes would only be aval{alote at desa~nated access points, These points were identified on the schematic plans presented in section 2.1, Development Areas. ~ addition to the landscape median, the outside lane would pe widened from t 2 feet to 15 feet to accommodate b~Ce lanes E'ea~rrac Devek~pmertt DisiYr'efs Des~grr A4arx~al Pie 3.3. ro 1 DRAFT 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 AND 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 Joint Public Hearing Agenda 7 November 24, 2003 8 9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met ZO in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. 11 Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. 12 13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Moses Carey, Alice M. 14 Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs 15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, 16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian 17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the 18 Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) / 19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield and 20 members Noah Ranells, Jay Bryan, Cranford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Ted 21 Triebel, Bryan Dobyns, 22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, Rachel 23 Preston, Maria Tadd, Renee Price 24 25 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO tN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE 26 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE 27 28 A. Opening Remarks from the Chair -Vice Chair Alice Gordon called the meeting 29 to order, in the absence of Chair Brown. --- -- 3 Q_-_-- .___.~_ 31 ~ _ B. Public Charge-.Vice Chair Alice Gordon_dispensed_with the reading~f.the p~a.blic _ __ _ ,_ . _ .:. 32 - charge.- 33 34 Commissioner Gordon said that she will open the meeting and call for the motions of 35 the BOCC and will close the meeting and Vice Chair Hunter Schofield will chair the public 36 hearing items.- 37 38 C. Public Hearing- Planning Board Vice Chair Hunter Schofield 39 40 1. Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendment - PD-'! -03 State Employees Credit 41 Union 42 a. Request for rezoning of an Economic Development -Limited Office 1 (ED-LO-1) 43 district to a Planned Development Economic Development Linear Office (PD-ED- 44 LNR) district with a Class A Special Use Permit. 45 46 Vice-Chair Schofield reviewed the procedure for this part of the agenda item: 47 48 Procedures for Re-Zoning and Special Use Permit- 49 - The Re-zoning will be legislative 2 DRAFT - The Special Use Permit is quasi-judicial and these are the procedures: 2 3 1. Call of Agenda item by Planning Board Vice Chair Hunter Schofield . 4 ~- Speaks to time limit for statements 5 6 2. Presentation by Staff: 7 8 Thank you,. Commissioner Gordon. Let's get started. . 9 ~~ 10 Agenda Item Number 1 -Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendment, PD-1-03 -State 11 Employees Credit Union. This is a request for a rezoning of an Economic Development 12 Limited Office 1. Procedures for a rezoning, this involves procedures for a rezoning and a 13 special use permit. The rezoning will be legislative. The Special Use Permit process is 14 quasi judicial and there will be, certain procedures will follow tonight. First and foremost, 15 there'll be a swearing in by Donna Baker. And, we'll do that en masse, and so she'll ask for 16 everyone who intends to testify at this quasi-judicial hearing stand and be sworn in. 17 Secondly, there'll be a presentation by staff. Thirdly, there'll be statements in support of the 18 proposal by the applicants. Fifth, there'll be an opportunity of opponents to the proposal to -19~ - -~~ speak, and, then, if necessary, there'll be rebuttals from both sides. With that, let me go 20 ahead and turn this over to Donna Baker for the swearing in.' - 21 22 3. Clerk to the Board Donna Baker asked for anyone that will be providing 23 testimony on this item -Special Use Permit- to please come forward in order 24 to give them an oath. She asked if anyone here that is going to testify-object 25 to be being sworn in? (f so, she will give them a separate oath. (No one did). 26 27 - The Clerk asked the 5 individuals that were being sworn in to place left 28 hand on the Bible: and she asked them, "Do you solemnly swear to tell 29 the truth, the whose truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" 30 - Robert Davis, Craig Benedict, Jonathan Parsons, Jay Smith and Rynal ..3.~._.-_. - - -- Stephensontooka:,e_oat ~; _ ;__ -.:: - _ _ __ _- 32 - - - 33 -The Clerk then asked to leave any materials that they were using in support 34 or opposition to this amendment with the Clerk and she will retain them in the Clerk's 3 5 office. 36 37 Vice-Chair Schofield OK. We're now ready to proceed with the presentation by staff. 38 Planning Director, Craig Benedict." 39 40 Craig Benedict Good evening. This item is both a rezoning and a special use permit. As 41 the Vice-Chair said, it is a process that involves two separate issues, one, being legislative, 42 one being quasi-judicial. There are, we are nestling those two together tonight because 43 there, atone point, there'll be a decision on the rezoning. Not at tonight's meeting. But that 44 would be a separate decision at some time in the future, whether it is appropriate to change 45 from its existing zoning district to this new zoning district. After that decision is made, at a 46 subsequent meeting to this, if that is found to be acceptable from a legislative standpoint, 47 then you will move into the second process, which is a Class A Special Use Permit. Both of 48 these issues will have eventual recommendations from the Planning Board, again, at a 49 meeting subsequent to this. And then a Special Use Permit is an opportunity to set a list of 3 DRAFT . 1 conditions on how the site plan would eventuai(y unfold. This site development plan, that, ~(o 2 which will be part of the Special Use Permit, is very close to a, a formal site plarr. 3 4 To go through the actual information to be submitted by staff, Robert Davis, the current 5 Planning Supervisor, will go through that item to explain the different aspects of the 6 proposal. And, then, we'll turn it over to the different parts of the process. So, I'll introduce 7 Robert Davis and he'll continue with this application. " 9 Technical Evaluation: 10 11 Robert Davis Thank you, Craig. As he said, this is a planned development request to 12 rezone property from the ED-Limited Office 1 to Planned Development Economic 13 Development Linear Office, which is the district that was designated for this portion of the 14 EDD (in the Hillsborough area EDD), back when you redid the Hillsborough EDD about, 15 close to two years ago, I guess. 16 17 This is the State Employees Credit Union. It's located there at the intersection of Oakdale 18 and NC 86. It's in the Hillsborough Township. It is adjacent to the Citgo, which is located 19 over to the east. You have the Hillsborough EDD to the northeast. Back to the western 20 side, you have single family, but that is also in the Orange County EDD. And on the south ' " `~ - ~~ 21 side of the property you have asingle-family house that's also in the ED-LO-1 district. 22 23 The building that is there now is a 5,000 square foot building. It was built back in '97 - 98 24 time period. They've run out of room. They've recently acquired the property to the south 25 and are looking to expand this from the 1.88-acre site---which is the current site---by adding 26 another 1.37 acres for a total of 3.25 acres. 27 28 The building itself has an ATM lane for the ATM machine, which is actually in the building. 29 So, that's one lane. And then there are three drive-thru lanes for conducting of business by 30 the people that go through. So, there's a four lane total, including the ATM lane. - 31.::_.:- _ - -:--. __.....: -- 32 The current zoning on the site is ED-LO=~ andon ttie rrotthern portion it has a special use 33 permit that you approved and that was not removed, so to speak---when you rezoned that 34 property to ED-LO-1. So the Special Use Permit, for at least the northern portion, is still in 35 place. 36 37 For the southern tract, that's general use zoning, ED-LO-1 for all of the uses that are 38 currently in the table of permitted uses of that district. What they're doing now, through the 39 planned development process, is a map amendment, which is the legislative part, to rezone 40 that whole tract to a planned development (PD-ED-LNR) classification with a Special Use 41 Permit, which is the quasi judicial part, that includes the site plan review. And if you would 42 go to the site plan right now. 43 44 What they're asking to add on is a little on the northern side of the property. [Mr. Davis 45 referred to a map] They are to put some office space there -and to convert the canopy 46 area that is the existing drive-thru lanes. That would also be converted to office with the 47 pavement around that portion to be taken up and re-sown with grass and landscaping. 48 4 DRAFT 1 You would also have a new building that would be built on the southern end of the property, 2 about 635 square feet, which would be a remote teller station for the employees to work 3 there, handling the new, relocated drive-through lanes. And here, they're requesting a total 4 of five drive-thru lanes -one ATM, and one of them would be an addition - so it would be a 5 25 percent expansion of what they have. And we'll get into that in just a couple of minutes. 6 Also, there would be a 2000 square foot canopy that would be built over those drive-thru 7 lanes. So, all told, it's about an additional 2334 sq. foot addition to the site. 8 9 The water and sewer currently are provided by Hillsborough and would continue to be 10 served by Hillsborough. They would work through the Hillsborough requirements to expand 11 the water and sewer within their site. 12 13 We have received agency comments from the Sheriffs Department. They've not had any - 14 issues with it.. Emergency Management, i.e. the Fire Marshall, has indicated that they would 15 not have any problems servicing the area. And NCDOT has provided some comments 16 relating to the access. Right now, you currently have a full service access on N.C. 86 and a 17 full service access on Oakdale. 18 - 19 What they (credit union) had-requested on-this plan was another full-service access to the 20 south. One of DOT's comments was that access would be too close to the business park 21 access - "Millstone" -and that they would recommend that that driveway be relocated 22 because the intersection is too close. 23 24 Staff also is recommending that that one [southern drive] be eliminated on this plan, and to 25 continue to use the driveway on the nor#hern side on the existing site. 26 27 There are some performance standards that they have not -well, first off, under your 28 ordinance: If a developer or an applicant cannot meet all of the requirements of the 29 particular district in which they're located, they can ask for minor deviations from the plan. 30 And the Board has the ability to approve those minor deviations if there is a .public purpose 31 =-.or..a public benefit.that-could be derived from making those deviations. _ _ -_. :: 32 - - -: __ 33 The first one is the maximum floor area in the ED-Limited Office-1--in the Linear Office 34 District. That district is set up for a minimum 20,000 square foot size lot. We have minimum 35 -maximum floor area ratios of 5,000 square feet for each building of that 20,000 square 36 feet. So, roughly 25 percent of the lot could be covered with the building(s). 37 38 This particular zoning lot, once you do the recombination for the two properties, will be 3.25 39 acres or 141,000± square feet. So, if you played out the 20,000 square foot lot, that would 40 be the equivalent of about seven 20,000 square foot lots that you could actually build on if 41 they were all individually subdivided and then brought back in with their 5,000 square foot 42 maximums each. Well, they're not proposing to do that. 43 44 The other thing that could've happened on this site is, had they not purchased the property, 45 that adjacent property could have been subdivided into 20,000 square foot lots and each. of 46 those could have come back with 5,000 square foot additions. So, roughly 10,000 square 47 feet could have been built if that adjacent property had been sold, if someone else had 48 purchased it, and they legally subdivided it and then brought back a request. 49 ~~ 5 DRAFT 1 So, you could've had up to 40,000 square feet on the same size lot, or, under the second ~~ 2 scenario, you could've had an additional 10,000 square feet on that adjacent lot. What 3 they're (SECU] asking for is 7,334 square feet total for the entire 3.25 acre-site. So, that's 4 up to this Board to decide and the Planning Board to look at also as to whether or not 5 there's some public benefit to allowing this request as it's proposed. 6 7 The second deviation that they're requesting will be an additional drive-thru lane. In the 8 Hillsborough Area EDD, which does not, and was approved by the BOCC, allow drive-thru 9 facilities. The three there now the four that are there now-are technically grandfathered. 10 They are existing legally. They are also under a Special Use Permit. They cannot be 11 deemed illegal under the Special Use Permit, if it [SUP] was in place when the new zoning 12 was put into effect, which it was. 13 14 The additional lane would be a request to deviate from the standards of no drive-thru 15 facilities. So, that 25 percent expansion would be a request to this Board. 16 17 We did a little checking to find out what they [SECU] may or may not be doing. This was by 18 no means a scientific way of going about it; but we did call down and ask. They are 19 promoting their internet banking. They're pushing.:that to try to get people to do more 20 business by the internet and so forth. And they're also thinking that perhaps they will be 21 able to reduce the amount of sit times for people looking to transact business at the drive- 22 through. They're looking to service their existing clients. I assume they would get more. But 23 there's a limitation as to what can be added to the Credit Union based on their criteria for 24 membership-government workers. I don't think just anyone can join the Credit Union. So 25 they're limited to at least to who would be able to join the Credit Unioh over the long term. 26 So, they're looking that this expansion to serve their existing client base, which they feel 27 could also reduce emissions because people are sitting for shorter amounts of time. That 28 was one way to look at it. 29 30 And, also, the third deviation in this is really not a deviation. The maximum building height -3i ~-~ in this proposed district is-30 feet. T~e,existtrlg_buildipg--is, in.a.couplq of places,_35 feet,..... 32 But what they_'re asking to add on is significantly less than the 30 feet So, anyaddition'that 33 they're looking to add on to this building meets the requirements of the district. But, if it's 34 rezoned to PD-ED-LNR, you have anon-conforming situation right there, so you would 35 need a deviation of five feet. 36 ~ . 37 There were conditions placed on this in '97. We've incorporated all of those related to 38 sewer and landscaping. NGDOT requirements then were to dedicate right-of-way, which 39 they did. For some reason it hasn't shown upon the Land Records system, but there was 40 right-of-way dedicated along 86 for 20 feet. And they requested an additional five feet along 41 Oakdale, which we're going to ask for that same amount again, and to verify that it actually 42 has been done. 43 44 Also, your Special Use Permit, if you were to approve this, would only last for one year. If 45 they have not started any construction within one year, it would expire. And that has to do 46 mainly with zoning. The actual recommendation by Staff is the Zoning Officer's 47 .recommendation. And we've not found anything in our investigation to indicate that this is 48 not a reasonable, good use in that particular area. 49 6 .DRAFT 1 If the County Commissioners and the Planning Board make any recommendation, and 2 could see that the deviations were reasonable, we could recommend for the site plan with a 3 couple of conditions that we felt would be an addition for safety purposes. 4 5 We're staying with the same ones that were on the previous plan. 6 7 The access that DOT is saying needs to be eliminated, we're staying with that. We agree 8 with the DOT, and it's their road, so we didn't have much a choice on that. 9 10 Also, for the northern driveway, Staff is recommending that it be converted to a right-in- 1 l right-out at this time, whereas, DOT's recommendation was to do it at some later date 12 when the cross-section for Old NC 86 was improved. They're calling for that to be a 100- 13 foot right of way, 16- and 14-foot travel lanes with sidewalks, and a 25-foot median, which 14 takes you. to a 100-foot cross-section. And they're saying, at that time, when that happens, 15 and where they're thinking roughly 2010, maybe, then that would become aright-in-right- 16 out. So, we're actually saying maybe it might be best to get used. to that now. That's one of 17 the Staff conditions. 18 _ 19 There's also [referring to map], for interconnectivity along the. front there, with the 20 undeveloped -with the house to the south should that property develop -- a request to 21 allow access between these two tracts, and, that, potentially, if that next tract develops, you 22 could have Millstone line up with this side of the road, which would allow properties up here 23 to come out at a potentially lighted intersection for safety purposes. In no event, would we 24 recommend the southern driveway as they propose. _. . 25._ _. _ _ _ _ _ 26 We have a traffic~study that was updated - not a lot of updating was done to it. They, 27 believe, have a presentation for you on the traffic patterns there. And then there was a 28 one-page update that shows the amount of traffic--how much drive-thru traffic -that they 29 have at certain times. 30 -':` ~3~ _ ~ The site plan itse{f that has been looked at ---they~are :proposing some _u.ndergrQUnd storage:. " -32. " Qf their stormwater. As you all know now there is an over ground storage area next to_` ~ ; 33 Oakdale, that has a fence around it, a chain link fence with brown tarp, plastic or something 34 around it. That would stay in place to handle the existing drainage on the existing site. 35 36 For the new addition, they're proposing an underground drainage storage tank that would 37 discharge at a rate---i'm not an engineer---that would not provide any storm water 38 problems. That would be located roughly underneath of, [Mr. Davis refers to map], 39 underneath of the parking there, next to teller station. And they can probably give you a few 40 more details on that. 41 42 They had looked into doing underground storage a few years back on this other one 43 [existing one] and nothing ever came to that. But there were a couple of folks that did 44 inquire about the potential of doing that. !t would have required that some of those trees be 45 removed up in the front portion to get in there right, because you would have to use this 46 area. You would have to build it [the new one} at another location. You couldn't tear this 47 one up until you got the other one in place. So, you would end up~with some trees gone. 48 So they dropped that. I don't know if How's the opportunity to do that, but you can check 49 with their engineer on that. I don't know that they're even interested in doing that anymore. 7 DRAFT 1 2 That's the Staff report. I'd be glad to answer any of your questions now or later. 3 4 Vice-Chair Schofield Questions for Staff by members of the Commission? 5 6 Commissioner Jacobs I'll wait until after we hear the other presentation. 7 8 Commissioner Gordon So, the area of the intersection of Oakdale and Old 86, that 9 green, that beautiful area with the large trees and everything, there's no intent at any point, 10 to disturb that, is that correct? lI 12 Robert Davis Not according to this plan; that's going to stay. For the most part the 13 existing site will stay the same with the exception of converting some of those spaces on 14 the north end to compact spaces because of the addition. And then the canopy area is 15 going to be enclosed for offices. But, other than that, the majority of the work will be on the 16 .new portion to the south. And there will be some enhancement on the landscaping along 17 the frontage there. 18- 1-9 - 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Vice-Chair Schofield Commissioner Halkiotis. Commissoner Halkiotis Could somebody just point out where DOT's 2010 sidewalk would eventually come out to? Robert Davis Where it would fall on this? It's on the, in the... Commissoner Halkiotis In the middle of.those trees? Robert Davis No sir. We've got the... Commissoner Halkiotis That's good. _ ._ .. . _. - _ - ~-32- ~-Robert Davis` We've got the 100-foot nghf of way up to the idewajk"included:at the.v_ ery :.:. 33 back portion bf the right-of--way. The way the profile looks, you would have asix-foot " - _-_~ : ~"- -~~ 34 walkway. You would have curb and gutter, you would have a 16-foot travel lane, a 14-foot 35 travel lane. It's a 14 -16-foot, it's 30 plus the six feet - 36. Same way on the other side - 36 would be 76. And they're calling fora 25-foot medium - it would really have to be 24. That's 37 the way it'd work. 38 39 Craig Benedict One comment about the alignment of the Oakdale and Oakdale Drive 40 Extension, you can see... we have discussions with DOT about how that would be made a 41 little more perpendicular through here. So the acquisition of additional right-of--way may be 42 on ... the other side, looks like has been accommodated on the Oakdale side. But a 100 43 foot cross section across that area there no sidewalk has been accounted for. This would 44 remain here. Even with this 100 foot cross section you would not have Landscaping right at 45 this intersection but would internally. But farther down Old 86 there would be a four-lane 46 divided highway. And that's what is approved in the Hillsborough Economic Development 47 District proper. We've also talked with NCDOT - it probably will have to be Hillsborough - 48 about possible right turn lane improvements here, whether it's through some small urban 49 money, you know, working with Hillsborough. There has been a need in this intersection for 8 DRAFT 1 some improvements. The important thing is that you have the right-of--way dedicated to do C 1 2 an expansion. 3 4 Vice-Chair Schofield Any other questions before we turn this over to the applicants for S presentation? OK. 6 7 Barry Katz I have a question about the lanes, the temporary exiting of the bank--the 8 Credit Union. The way it is now, you're proposing that it be right-in and right-out. And 9 what's been proposed for how people who were trying to drive, let's say north after they 10 leave the bank, how are they going to get to go north -for those people who come from the 11 south and driving north are going to get into the bank? 12 13 Robert Davis OK. You have .a full service access on Oakdale, which is a lighted 14 intersection. It's safer. Generally, DOT prefers people to use a lighted intersection rather 15 than have the turning movements across busy highways. If you wanted to enter the site 16 from the south, you would go up to the light, take a left, and come in that way. And the 17 same way, leaving, if you wanted to go right, you would take your right out and go towards 18 Interstate 40. If you wanted to come back into town, you'd go out on Oakdale and then take 19 a left there. 21 Vice-Chair Schofield Let me just mention to members of the Planning Board, there will 22 also be several opportunities as we go forward in this hearing to ask questions of different 23 presenters and some concluding questions, if you happen to have any. Robert. 24 25 Robert Davis I forgot one thing and it's important. I'm a little rusty. I don't getup here that _ 26 often. The zoning amendment - we would recommend approval of that -for the zoning to 27 PD-ED-LNR. For the site plan and Special Use Permit--Staff would recommend approval 28 of the site plan and SUP, provided you make the findings that the deviations would be 29 necessary. Administration recommends referring both items back to the Planning Board for 30 recommendation back to the BOCC. We would probably take it to the Planning Board in the -~=°' x.31-- :_first week iri~,.~angary, ; provided we don't have any weather- problems, and then .get it back to 32 the County,Commissioners in-January or early February. S~, l~needed to give thE~ ~ = - - _ - -- 33 recommendation. (forgot ail about it. But that's our recommendation. ~ - -_ - - 34 3S Statements in support of the proposal 36 37 Vice-Chair Schofield Very good. Ok, let's move forward. If we could hear from the 38 applicants. Please make sure you've been sworn in and please state your name as you 39 come forward. I have a list of speakers here, but I°m not sure if they overlap with the 40 applicants. I've got a Jonathan Parsons. Is that one of the applicants? Jonathan, please 41 come forward. Welcome. 42 43 Jonathan Parsons I appreciate your time this evening to go over this project, and 44 basically just to sum up what Mr. Davis has. already spoken to you about. We are an 4S existing bank site or credit union site. And, we're, quite literally, trying to do this 46 improvement to better serve our current customer base that is slightly expanding, but we're 47 just mainly out to give our clients the best possible facility they can have. As it was stated, 48 we are trying to minimize any impact to the existing site, We're helping preserve those 49 really large cedars and the hemlocks and the grasses. And, in fact, we're actually 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 _ ~ 3~ 32 33 34 35 36 DRAFT incorporating similar materials into all the expansion area to help make it a nice uniform, very visually-pleasing, appearance from the intersection, so when you're coming by you see one homogenous appearance. And, actually, if you go back to the landscape plan, you would see it in section showing a very similar character. With that, we have talked at length with the Planning Department and have agreed with .almost all the findings. And, we've talked with NCDOT and have gotten their input on this. We would like to move forward with the site plan with the exception of that we will accept their condition of removing the second proposed driveway. But, pending a presentation by my traffic engineer, Rynal Stephenson, we would like to keep the existing driveway a full access drive, as we understand in 2010 or so, that drive would be converted to a right-in and right-out. But, with the current facility being as it is, we can't foresee when the adjacent southern parcel would develop and give us that full access intersection with Millstone. And NCDOT has reviewed our stuff and they believe the intersection that is currently there, the existing driveway, is a functional driveway. !t's not an optimum, but it is functioning. There is enough queue space for people making alert-hand turn into our site and vice versa on Oakdale, so it seems to work right. With that, we are prepared to go forward with the right- of-way dedications. We've actually shown it on all of our plans that we submitted to the State. We have carried the additional right-of--way on 86, and it is in line with the entire sidewalk we're proposirig. We're planning on extending that to the edge of our property line. And the same with Oakdale. I believe that was actually already filed with the previous site plan, from everything I can find. I'm not 100 percent sure why it's not in the records, but we'll verify that. But, with that, I mean if there're any questions, you have of me specifically about the site plan, I'd be happy acid cover them now. Otherwise, I'll let our traffic engineer give you a quick analysis of what they found from an actual study of traffic count we've done in the past week, just to help justify why we think we're making a qualitative improvement, not pushing the quantity up too much." Vice-Chair Schofield If it's ok with the.Board, I_think we'll hear from all of_ the applicants and their consultants, and, then, perhaps, we`ll turn it -over to questions. Is that agreeable?-== ~= -_ ` OK. Then, I"ve got both J.W. Smith acid Rynal Stephenson and it can be in that order, or how you choose. And again, please make sure you've been sworn in and please state your name for the Clerk. 37 Rynal Stephenson Good evening. My name is Rynal Stephenson and I'm with Ramey 38 Kemp and Associates, a traffic engineering firm out of Raleigh, N.C. We went out on 39 Thursday of last week and conducted a traffic count in the morning from eight o'clock to ten 40 o'clock and also in the afternoon from four o'clock to six o'clock PM. This handout that 41 Jonathan is currently passing out -the first page gives you a summary of this brief study 42 that we have conducted and is followed by a couple of tables that show the trip generation 43 of the existing Credit Union and, also, if you add an additional drive-thru window, we have a 44 very conservative estimate, which is towards the high end of traffic that may be generated. 45 And, the second table is a summary of the level of service, which is the measure of how the 46 intersections will operate during the morning and afternoon peak periods. And, it's followed 47 by five figures that show the traffic volumes that we counted last Thursday and, also, the 48 existing Credit Union traffic followed by some of the percentages of where the traffic is 49 currently going and where we anticipate any additional traffic to go. ~a • 10 DRAFT i ~~ 2 We went out and did traffic counts on Thursday, and came back and looked at those traffic . 3 volumes and got an idea of where the traffic was going. We wanted to get an idea of how 4 .the intersections would operate if the expansion was to occur and an additional drive-thru 5 lane was added and same expansion of the office space. 6 7 !f I can refer to Table 1 on the second page, there was a traffic study for this development 8 in 1997, I believe. On the very first line of that table, which shows you the estimated traffic 9 numbers or trips that will be generated by the Credit Union. And, if you will look down on 10 the second row, where it says, "RKA Count," that is the traffic volumes that we counted. 11 12 I would like to point out that the 1997 traffic study based the trips on the square footage of 13 the development of the site. And, it appears that it's a little bit low in the morning, but it's a 14 little bit high in the evenings. So when the Credit Union was built, it accommodated these 15 traffic volumes and, you can see, in the afternoon the traffic volumes are not quite as high . 16 as the study was predicting. 17 18 But the very last row in that table will show you the traffic numbers that we believe could 19 potentially be generated with this expansion. And, like I said earlier, this is a very 20 conservative estimate, I feel, because you're adding one drive-thru window to an existing ~-- 21 bank that likely has their clientele base already built up. So these numbers should be 22 pretty conservative. And they woold also take into consideration that any expansion of the 23 actual buildings to a few of the offices that may be built. We took these numbers and 24 distributed them out across the intersections and performed an analysis of the 25 intersections. - - -- _ 26 27 If you'll look on Table 2, which is on the following page, it gives you a brief summary of the 28 results of that analysis. The first row is the Old 86 -Oakdale signalized intersection. You 29 can see that existing in the morning, it operates at a level of service B, which is, quite good. 30 _:._, 31 -- Now, understand that_the side streets are given.Iess green time because they have less 32 traffic on them, so they would experience a little bit more.-delay than the #raffic on Old 86,- ~-` -` -- 33 which is given more of the green time. But, as you can-see, it operates at a level of service ` - 34 Bin the morning and afternoon. And, when you add in the expansion, of the Credit Union, 35 you can see the levels of service all remain the same. And, the numerical values in 3b parentheses are the delay calculations -the average delay experienced by a vehicle in 37 seconds. And you can see, there is very little change there. You're taking a relatively small 38 increase in traffic and you're spreading it out over these two intersections, the two 39 driveways, and, as a result you're not increasing traffic a great deal there. 40 41 This analysis that we looked at here, does consider that there is one driveway, the existing 42 driveway, on Old 86 that is a full access. So, it remains allowing less in and less out in the 43 future. And, one thing I'd like to point out is if that is made into aright-in and right-out, what 44 you will have is -like the gentleman that asked about earlier, `How would the vehicles get in 45 and out?' The vehicles to exit wanting to go back north on Old 86 are going to have to use 46 the Oakdale driveway. And, you can see, if you look on Figure 1, which is on the following 47 page, that has the existing traffic volumes at the Oakdale -Old 86 intersection. If you'll look ~48 specifically.at the left turn from Oakdale onto northbound O!d 86, there are 140 cars in the 49 morning and 112 in the afternoon. That volume is going to increase, I know that I said 11 DRAFT q~~ 1 earlier that minor street movement is given less green time because the traffic on Old 86 is 2 heavier. And, if you force those cars to turn, to go out the old Oakdale Road driveway, 3 they're going to have to turn left from Oakdale onto Old 86 at the light where they're going 4 to have some delay, instead of going out onto Old 86. If you're going to increase that traffic, 5 and they're already given less green time there, it's going to, of course, increase that delay. 6 7 And, it's sort of the same for the vehicles coming from the south on Old 86 wanting to turn 8 left into the Credit Union. You're going force them to go up to the signal, make a left there, 9 where they're currently are not provided a protected movement, according to what I see on 10 the signal plans. They don't have a green arrow, so they're not going solely as an exclusive 11 movement. They're having to wait for gaps in the southbound traffic to try to make that !eft 12 turn movement. And that's not ideal for the left turns to do. So it's pretty much the same 13 situation you have down at the southern driveway. But, there is storage available in the turn 14 lane, in the middle turn lane there, for those cars to get out of thru traffic, which is a plus. 15 So, you wouldn't be forcing those cars to go up to the signal, make a left and then come in 16 off of Oakdale if we allowed the intersection to remain full access. 17 18 I also should point out, that when these improvements come in by DOT or the TIP Project is 19 built in the future, you're going. to have an improved cross section there that is able to carry 20 the traffic more efficiently. So, it won't be as big a deal for those cars to go out to Oakdale 21 at the intersection. You're going to have more through lanes there for the traffic on Old 86 22 to clear that intersection quicker. So, it wouldn't be as bad to send those cars out the 23 Oakdale driveway. 24 25 Vice-Chair Schofield OK. Great. Thank you. We've got one more member representing 26 the applicant, Jay W. Smith. If you'd like to approach the podium now. 27 28 Jay Smith stated that he does not have anything to add. 29 30 Vice-Chair Schofield Nothing to add. OK. Great. Thank you. We want to go ahead and t`~31___ -dir~pt.any_questions-to the..applicants.at ths.point.:before_we.turP.to anyone who_might wish 32, to_speak in opposition to this application. ~ - -~- ~ - ~ - ~- 34 Vice-Chair Schofield Other questions from the Planning Board? Yes, Barry. 35 36 Barry Katz stated that they were talking about traffic moving in and out of the Credit Union 37 but Old 86 is getting more traffic and you have cars that aren't trying to get into the credit 38 union and he knows that you are looking at a traffic increase. The recommendation is to 39 allow right turns only and the left turn may become an issue and he would support the 40 Planning Staff recommendation. 41 42 Rynal Stephenson One thing I would like to say about that is that when you have cars 43 turning left in or left out of the southern, existing driveway, the traffic signal up at Oakdale 44 wilt stop traffic in the southbound direction and northbound direction. And, when that 45 southbound traffic is stopped, that will allow gaps in that traffic for the cars to turn left out, 46 and, either get in the center turn lane, and, for the traffic coming up from the south, wanting 47 to turn left in, they'll have pretty much a clear shot into the Credit Union. That's not as a 48 critical a movement as the left turn out. But, one benefit of having a traffic signal at the 12 DRAFT CAS 1 location is that it will stop traffic in the southbound and northbound direction, which will 2 provide some gaps in that traffic stream for those cars to turn in and out. 3 4 Barry Katz How many feet is it between your entrance and exit ...at the traffic light? 5 6 Jonathan Parsons The existing distance is approximately 200 feet give or take. 7 8 Barry Katz...what..~.roughly ten cars or something? " 9 10 Rynal Stephenson It's usually about 20 to 25 feet per car. 11 12 Barry Katz . Ok, how many cars would that be? 13 14 Rynal Stephenson About eight. 15 16 Barry Katz If you're in the eighth car sitting at that traffic light, in traffic, and you couldn't 17 make a left turn onto there [Oakdale]? 18 19 Jonathan Parsons You would still be able to make a left turn if there are only eight cars 20 there. 21 22 Rynai Stephenson Yeah, you could. And, the analysis shows in the, and the print-outs 23 were - actually, I have some copies with me - i think they're actually in my car, but--the - 24 ~ analysis printouts are showing that the queues are going to back up about, I think it's .like a 25 190 feet (sic), something like that. - - ~~ 26 27 Barry Katz Is that right near the one car making alert-hand turn or two cars making a left 28 when sharing the traffic light when the traffic light is red? 29 -- 30 Jonathan_ Parsons That's assuming there's a full back up on Oakdale. 32 . Rynal Stephenson That number I quoted you, 19t7feet, is what they call a ~5~' percentile 33 queue, which is, which is the, it's not maybe the max, but it's sort of the worst case - - - 34 scenario during the heaviest 15 minutes of the heaviest hour. So, it's sort of a worst case, 35 and there still is room there. 36 37 Barry Katr I don't want to belabor it•at all, but !anticipate Hillsborough traffic -Old 86 38 traffic -will increase significantly, and that's my opinion. 39 40 Rynai Stephenson Yeah, (just wanted to point out about the signal. 41 42 Vice-Chair Schofield Ted. 43 44 Ted Triebel A couple of general questions on the traffic. You took cone-day look at this 45 on a Thursday. Is that standard procedure, to take aone-day traffic count and then to 46 generalize that to 365 days? 47 48 RYnal Stephenson Yes, sir. Well, it's just typically what the profession does, yes, sir. It's 49 that the traffic data collection is very expensive. You know to have someone sitting out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 . - ,-31 - ~ 32- 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 13 DRAFT ~~ . there counting all these intersections for days at a time, and that's accepted in the profession. Yes. Ted Treibel I understand why you wouldn't pick a peak day -the 15"' or the 30"' -but is there any reason why you pick a Thursday, and why didn't you pick a Friday, or some other day? Renal Stephenson Well, in a typical weekday, you can see, too, that the traffic numbers that we counted were higher in the morning than the study had predicted and pretty close in the afternoon, so, we feel that it was a pretty typical weekday. And, it may not be the 45~' or the 30"', but it's a typical weekday. Vice-Chair Schofield Sam Sam Lasris What advantage does the Credit Union get out of people using their cars for banking as opposed to going inside. Is there a definite advantage to the Credit Union to have people banking in their cars? Jonathan Parson There is a definite advantage, I mean, you can only have so many people inside the building at any one time. Whereas in the cars, I mean... - - --~- - ~- Sam Lasris You could expand your bank. I think the thing that bothers me is that we're always expanding to accommodate automobile traffic rather than to accommodate people. Jonathan Parsons The opposite way to look at that, the more people you put inside the. building, the larger parking lot you will need, vice versa. The more traffic you stall into the parking lot. You'd still have to have parking for those cars, though. You'd have 20 people to handle, or 30 people. A gentleman approaches the podium. _., ... ._ _ ... ~. _ _ I _Vice-Chair Schof~etd_ If you're going to speak, please state your name. _ - _ _ Jay Smith I will, thank you. My name is Jay Smith with O'Brien Atkins Associates, and I'm representing the applicant. The thing that I would like to add to that conversation, or that comment you made, is that the clientele of banking -you may be the exception -are wanting to have their transactions acquired quicker. And so that's why the advent of teller lanes and ATM lanes and all these. The car, the vehicle for getting your transactions done is becoming more popular. So, the Credit Union is not alone, and many banks are approaching their business in this manner. Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Jacobs I'll wait until we get to ask our. questions after they're finished. Vice-Chair Schofield Yes. Noah Ranell. Noah Ranell Was there any delay on the first day turning left onto 86 due to traffic? 14 DRAFT ~ .~ 1 Ryna( Stephenson I was not there counting the traffic, but our traffic counters didn't 2 notice any unusual delays or anything out of the ordinary. 3 4 Noah Ranell Is that requested information? S 6 Rynal Stephenson Yeah, they know to look for those things. They're trying to look for 7 those sort of things: I don't have an exact number of vehicles. They're not able to time the 8 delay for the cars but they do observe traffic patterns while they are out there. 9 10 Jav Smith One final point. In your packet is a letter from the North Carolina Department of 11 Transportation. It's a November letter. On page. two of that -essentially what the Credit 12 Union is asking is that you consider what the North Carolina Department of Transportation 13 is recommending. It's an acknowledgement that•86 is getting busier. However, it's not until 14 sometime later that the right-in and right-out would be needed. The Credit Union is simply 15 asking for that convenience for their customers, that the existing full service entrance that 16 they have now be maintained during that time. The Credit Union is completely willing to, at 17 some time later in the future, when those numbers have warranted such, that the right-in 18 right-out be imposed upon them. As stated earlier, it's also at that.time that the new i9 entrance opposite the Millstone facility may be in place and then further improve access to _ _ 20 those groups of properties. 21 22 Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, Noah. 23 24 Noah Ranell We are dealing with air quality issues in this County and it's having an 25 impact on everything we do. Opening up another lane with concern for idling vehicles and 26 wondering if of the development sites you have considered air pollution concerns in 27 developing whether there are any opportunities. 28 29 Jav Smith Quite honestly, the addition of the ATM lane will reduce that. The same 30 number of cars trying to get through fewer ATM lanes or teller lanes will be idling longer -~ - 31 tfTan-~nore throughways where they'll by processing themselves quicker, if that makes 32 sense. _ - _ - : -- -_ . _ _ . - _ . - 33 34 Noah Ranell It does. 35 36~ A gentleman in the back of the room said something. 37 38 Vice-Chair Schofield (Addressing the gentleman in the back of the room.) "Could you 39 approach the podium, please, sir? We need to swear you in for this public hearing. 40 _ 41 The gentlemen came forward. 42 43 Vice-Chair Schofield No problem. Donna Baker will conduct that process. 44 45 (The clerk swore in Randall Wellman.) 46 47 Vice-Chair Schofield Please state your name and welcome. 48 15 DRAFT ~'~ t 1 Randall Wellburn My name is Randall Wellburn and I work for the State Employees 2 Credit Union. 3 4 Vice-Chair Schofield Welcome. Ok, was there a comment that you wanted to respond to. 5 We're not sure we heard that. 6 7 Randall Wellburn How long would it be until the same wait time with 15 to 20 cars. I just 8 didn't want it to sound like there's 15 to 20 cars there. It's just on peak days. Teacher pay 9 days, 15"' and 30~' that were mentioned. 10 • 11 Vice-Chair Schofield Thank you. We'll take these questions. Just a note to the Planning 12 Board to keep in mind that this will be returning to us in the period of one to two months for 13 deliberation within the Planning Board as to the merits of this proposal. So this would not, 14 of course, be our only opportunity to weigh in on this application before us tonight. With that 15 being said, we're still open to questions. Yes. Mr. Katz. 16 17 Barry Katz Are there any sites around there that are available for commercial base of 18 food stores or anything else of that nature? 19 20 Robert Davis The ED-LO-1 is the bas~e•district in that area. It's mostly limited office. But 21 you do have undeveloped property down in the business park. You have down the road the 22 potential for the planned development through Hillsborough, the Waterstone Project. 23 24 Barry Katz So, if they have a lot more increase in residents, and with the possibility that 25 without a supermarket developed in there in that stretch or something or some kind of •26 center and that could dramatically increase the traffic here in this area. You're working in a 27 retail vacuum over there. Nothing in there, you know? And with the potential that the 28 customer base is there, you may well have an emergence of retail space there which will 29 dramatically change all your traffic patterns one day. 30 . .. 31. __ Robert. Davis Right. Plus, you also have the fact that this is not a funded improvement ~, . ~ .:- .. 32 through the NCDOT, so it could go quite-e~while'before-it~gets improved, and-the trafhc• ~. ~- 33 would increase. You know the delay normally when you get 125 percent capacity, you get a 34 road improvement maybe five years later. So, we're looking at that, too. It could be a long 35 time before you see an improvement. That's why we were recommending the restriction on 36 turning movements now. But that's the Board's choice. 37 38 Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, Commissioner Halkiotis. 39 40 Commissioner Halkiotis I just wanted to make a quick observation. I may be the only 41 member of this Board who does his banking at the Credit Union. This Board doesn't include 42 you, your Honor. I'm just talking about Commissioners with all due respect. And, I've got to 43 tell you guys, I never come in on the 86 side. I think the safe driving technique tells you to 44 .come in from Oakdale. And I exit out Oakdale whenever I can. I think that's been one of the 45 issues all along. I think the DOT's idea about right and_ right is right for right now and forget 46 about ten years from now. You guys may not like that, but i go in and out of there at least 47 once or twice a week. And when all the parking spaces are filled up in there, and they are, 48 and those people at the teller windows, they're inside conducting business -you people 49 are doing a big business down there. And it's my opinion, you don't have enough parking. • 16 DRAFT 1 spaces so people can turn their engines off and go inside. And when you're down and ~~ 2 you've got a couple of cars you're selling because people couldn't make their payments, 3 you lose a couple of parking spaces there, because you've got them in a lot with a For Sale 4 sign on them. You've got to look at what you're doing because we need every parking 5 space we can get so people can turn their engines off. But for somebody who uses it day in 6 and day out on this Board of Commissioners, Oakdale, in my opinion, is the way to go for 7 right now. It's the safest way in and the safest way out. 8 9 Vice-Chair Schofield Commissioner Jacobs. 10 11 Commissioner Jacobs I have questions for our Staff if we're done with the applicant. 12 13 Jonathan Parsons If I could make this one response to Mr. Halkiotis's comments, if that's 14 alright? 15 16 Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, quickly. Jonathan Parsons Actually you can pull - if someone could just grab that bottom board and put it back to the top? -quickly address the parking thing directly. With the plan that we are proposing right now with that middle parking bay, moving a!I 'the staff parking from the lower lot up into that area, we are trying to add as much parking as is possibly allowed by the existing Ordinance. Albeit limitations by impervious soil, stormwater, etc., so we are addressing the parking demands directly by at least getting all the staff and the one or two impounded cars out of that main stay and helping clear up the circulation, as well, from the entrance on 86. So, right now, there are currently some people that parallel park in that driveway. By doing the plan with the parking we're showing, we're anticipating eliminating all of that driveway congestion, which will also make that existing drive function much safer and cleaner, as well as helping the Oakdale drive. 30 Vice-Chair Schofield I have one quick question for the applicants. No one's discussed, -. _31 that,l've herd. about, incidents of_ traffic accidents at that 86_access. Can, anyone speak to 32 ~ : that?~ That may be in some of my materials, but-1 did not-`atisorb that ir~farmationyif it was. - - - - 33: .. _ _._ _ ._ _-. 34 Jonathan Parsons I spoke with Mr. Tapp, who's the Public Safety Reviewer for Orange 35 County. 36 37 Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, sir. 38 39 Jonathan Parsons He did not bring anything to our attention. He felt that the current site 40 plan and the new site plan both functioned, albeit not a perfect situation; there was nothing 4I he brought up specifically telling me that there are issues. And that's why we got their 42 approval straight out. He was happier to see our new traffic pattern with the four-way 43 access bypass lane on the far side as well. 44 45 Vice-Chair Scofield What about your own experience? Can you speak at all to that. 46 47 Jonathan Parsons 15 odd trips to Hillsborough. 48 17 DRAFT ~~` 1 Vice-Chair Schofield I didn't know if there was someone who was actually located - !'m 2 also a member of the Credit Union, but I was looking if there was someone who actually 3 works at the Credit Union at this particular location, if they in any way had any anecdotal 4 observations that might give us some insight in terms of the potential hazard or lack thereof 5 that access currently creates. 6 7 Mr. Wellman No. I don't think we have anything. There have been no accidents out front 8 that we're aware of at all. 9 10 Vice-Chair Schofield During what period of time? 11 12 Mr. Wellman Since we moved in June of '99. 13 14 Vice -Chair Schofield OK. Thank you. That was my question. 15 16 Rynal Stephenson The NCDOT also maintains the crash data. 17 18 Vice-Chair Schofield OK. 19 20 Rynal Stephenson We could get a report from them. It would probably take a week or so 21 to get that from them. 22 23 Vice-Chair Schofield I just thought that was germane, so I thought I'd ask the question. . 24 Any other questions before we let the applicants take their seats? 25 .. 26 Thank you, gentlemen. 27 28 4. Statements in opposition to the proposal. (Planning Board Chair will ask 29 each them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk 30 wilt swear them in.) Vice-Chair Schofield asked for any public comment that was ;,_ 3 l.:.:-_ •;= :_ ; . = _ ~ .-i.ri :opposition or in favor to this-item and there were none. 32 _ -__ .- :.. __ _ ~...~.:_ 33 5. Rebuttal statements by supporters.. (Planning Board Chair wiltask each 34 them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk will 35 swear them in.) 36 None. 37 38 6. Rebuttal statement by the opposition. (Planning Board Chair will ask 39 each them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk 40 will swear them in.) 41 None. 42 43 Vice-Chair Schofield Now would be an opportunity, if there were any members of the 44 public here who would like to speak in opposition to the proposal to come forward. 45 46 Commissioner Jacobs They can speak in favor, too. 47 48 Commissioner Halkiotis Orin favor, too. 49 18 DRAFT ,1 U ~ 1 Vice-Chair Schofield OK, well, according to more seasoned denizens of this process, 2 apparently, you can speak either in opposition or favor. Are there members of the audience 3 who are here tonight for either purpose? 4 5 OK. So, we'll proceed. I think that will do away with any necessary rebuttal statements. 6 7 Commissioner Jacobs But I have some questions. 8 9 Vice-Chair Schofield Yes, but we'd like to turn this back over to the Commissioners for 10 the questioning. 11 12 (End of side one of tape one) 13 14 (Typist's note: the following three comments are not on the tape but were taken down by 15 the Clerk at the meeting.) 16 17 Commissioner Jacobs He asked if there were cars for sale on the parking lot. 18. 19 Robert Davis (Typist's note: I believe it was Robert Davis's comment here.) If there:are, ,. 20 this is not in keeping with the zoning.... 21 22 Commissioner Jacobs said for them to look into it. . 23 24 Commissioner Jacobs Has staff looked into requiring a connection at the back of the site 25 for future connectivity? -~ 26 27 Robert Davis There is the prospect of doing more cutting on that site to do that. 28 Originally, Staff preferred the rear access for the interconnectivity back there. That wasn't 29 well received and the site work that would be involved, there was going to be a lot more dirt 30 to be moved, and, also, probably a loss of more trees, although it looks like they've got _ _ __ -~ 31 most of them on the beck, at least where _the driveuvay-is: -They stiN.own-some of that_ _ _ _- 32- property backup. [pointing to map] on the top of the map, back over to-the west. But, ~ --~_ 33 ideally, a road back there could serve this tract, the adjacent south tract, and also the 34 western tract. They are providing connectivity off of that first parking bay there, when you 35 come in off of (Eddie, could you point out that the access to the -- right there) -they're 36 allowing interconnectivity that way to their site. 37 38 Commissioner Jacobs To me this is an example of how we make anecdotal decisions 39 that destroy any comprehensive planning opportunities. Because, if, say there was a light 40 at Millhouse, and, then, somebody wanted to go over to Oakdale by not going on Old 86, it 41 would be so dangerous as to virtually be eliminated as a possibility to have to leave through 42 the middle of properties and through the traffic coming, even if there is a right turn in and a 43 right turn out, as opposed to going along the northern portion of the property -the western 44 portion, excuse me. 45 46 Robert Davis Right. We would have encouraged traffic that's already in there to have 47 different options to go out, but not someone to cut through Millstone and weave their way 48 through. You could stiff take that road across, but it would have to quickly move up to the 49 property line to get around over to service -that whole portion of property back there it is 19 DRAFT ~~ 1 owned, I think, by one individual, all the way down to Cornwallis Hills, down to where it 2 backs up to that. They would need access, if they wanted access, it could come through 3 from Millstone to tie into that, and there would be a possibility of something. But, it was 4 basically a grade issue. 5 6 We originally started out with all the connectivity in the back, but with the queuing up from 7 -the folks going through the ATM, they were backing up into yourtwo-way traffic. It didn't 8 function like we would have liked to have seen. You were having people sitting there 9 queued up to go into the ATM and into the drive-thrus backed up into the two-way traffic 10 lane in the back, so they proposed something upfront, which has its own drawbacks 11 because you have people leaving, sticking their money in their wallets, and what not, 12 pulling out, and you've got traffic coming across in front of them. 13 14 Commissioner Jacobs Well, I would hope that the Planning Board and the Staff and the 15 Commissioners would consider adding astub-out there, so that if we decided that was 16 more optimal in the future, we hadn't precluded that possibility. Now, one thing that was 17 mentioned, is there or is there not, right-of--way dedicated on Oakdale at the intersection 18 with Old 86. -19 20 Robert Davis .One of the previous DOT comments was to dedicate a site distance triangle 21 up at the corner there, which tells me that that was done -and there is aright-of-way offset 22 there. Land Records did not pick up the 86 right-of--way, but they've dedicated their portion 23 on their side, at least. 24 25 Commissioner Jacobs So, we're sure then that you could put a right turn, or, at least, a 26 taper in there at this time. 27 28 Robert Davis You might have to go curb and gutter for drainage purposes but the cross 29 section is wide enough for -it's generally 12-foot lanes. 12, 12, 12, turn lane, straight lane, 30 right lane---that's 36 feet. And you have a 65-foot right-of-way. 32 Commissioner Jacobs Because one-Qfthe. things that having a`righ~tu~n there would do - 33 would be to address some of the concerns that were raised about making a left turn at that= --- 34 light. Since there's no option but to sit there until you get to the light to make a right tum, it 35 queues the traffic way more than it has to. I spoke at the 1997 Public Hearing, and Orange 36 County's Transportation Planner, at that time, said it wasn't necessary. I think it's an 3'~ example of how, when we don't look ahead, the problems are created. Were there a right 38 turn lane there now, people wouldn't drive through the swale to make it anyway. I would 39 suggest that we talk with DOT about whether there will be -- we had mentioned this to them 40 -whether there would be money available under NC Moving ahead, if, in fact we do have 41 adequate right-of-way, to have that paved, without asking the applicant to pave. it. 42 43 t think that ought to be part of this process that we have that discussion, about how we're 44 going to require or acquire a right turn lane there, because 1 think that will address some of 45 those questions about if we're moving the traffic so that it goes out to the traffic light. I use 46 that intersection a lot. The way I look at that, the existing driveway on Old 86 lines up with 47 the existing driveway on the Citgo. Am I correct? There's no control of access there, so 48 you have people making opposite left turns going across traffic, one of the most highly ' 20 DRAFT ~Q 3 1 traveled road in this part of the County. And just because NCDOT does things in a stupid 2 way doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate it. 3 4 If that's their recommendation, fine. But, drive up Churton Street. There are all sorts of 5 examples of this. The taper for the left turn lane starts almost at that same point. So you 6 have people who think they're moving left, to get in the left #urn lane, people turning left, 7 and people coming this way. As Barry [Katz] said, as it gets more highly trafficked, it just 8 gets worse. To say that it's programmed without funding, is to say that we wish it will be 9 true, but there's no guarantee that that's going to happen. 10 11 And I think, that where it's within our purview - we saw this with the Super WalMart, which 12 was not within our purview -and we can see a way to make a traffic improvement, in 13~ advance of when DOT might get the funding five or ten or fifteen years from now, we ought' 14 to go ahead and do it. 15 16 There's a 2300 square foot house on the new lot, is that correct? What is to happen to it? 17 18 Robert Davis There's a small structure there right now. They had talked about moving it, 19 or. allowing it to be moved. There was some discussion; I don't know if they're still on that 20 track or not. They were, or at least one the gentlemen with the Credit Union was, open to 21 that, it seems to be in fairly good shape. It possibly could be moved. 22 23 Commissioner Halkiotis There are two different structures there. There is a house and a 24 workshop out back. So, which one are you talking about? 25 -- 26 Robert Davis The house is the one I'm speaking of. 27 28 Commissioner Jacobs I'm just asking what's on there. I thought I saw..." 29 30 Robert Davis Yes,~there's an existing structure. - _31' _. - - -_ ~. -- 32 - Commissioner Halkiotis There's a :good size..garage-workshop,- freestanding, _out back. 33 - - 34 Commissioner Jacobs I assume that we would require that it be deconstructed or 35 whatever if it wasn't moved. 36 37 Robert Davis We haven't addressed that. We can add that as a condition. 38 39 Commissioner Jacobs I would certainly want to add that. Just a couple more comments. 40 I was taking notes about the right-in and the right-out, which I also support. Those of you 41 who drive on Old 86, there's alert-turn lane into Cornwallis Hills -DOT did not require that, 42 They didn't think it was necessary when Cornwallis Hills was built. The Orange County 43 Planning Board thought that it was necessary. The County Commissioners agreed. And I 44 think anybody who drives through there, is very glad there's a left tum lane there for 45 Cornwallis Hills. The whole discussion that we had in working on the Economic 46 Development District, regarding the limitation on drive-thrus, was exactly what you said, 47 Sam. We are trying to change the way that people do business. For better or for worse, 48 we're in an air quality non-attainment area, and, to me, to build more drive-through lanes is 49 only to encourage people to stay in their cars, as opposed to, since the standards require a 21 DRAFT 1 certain amount of parking, meeting the square footage of the building. The idea is, 2 presumably, that you can accommodate business inside. That's why we have parking 3 standards. So I don't see a need to increase drive-through lanes. In fact, I think it's sending 4 a message that we're not very serious about the standards that we set if we're going to 5 actually expand the use. !'d just as soon see banks without the drive-through. I've forced 6 myself to get out of my car at the bank I use so that I don't contribute to the problem. And I 7 certainly wouldn't want to, as an elected official, vote to make the problem worse. 8 9 Hunter Schofield asked for any other comments from members of the Commission. 10 Hearing none, he asked for any comments from members of the Planning Board. 11 12 Sam Lasris Were the residents notified of this action? 13 14 Robert Davis Yes sir, it's in the packet. And there is a certification letter in there, too. 15 16 Sam Lasris asked if this was the only chance residents have to speak. 17 18 Robert Davis No, they get to go to the Planning Board. There is only one notification - 19 there was a public ad and also a sign posted on the property. They can still come to the 20 Planning Board, provided all comments are in writing after this meeting. 21 22 Hunter Schofield I think we're ready to proceed. Commissioner Gordon. 23 24 Commissioner Gordon I'm ready for a motion to accept the Planning Staff s 25 recommendation to-refer proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and proposed Class A 26 Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the 27 Commissioners no sooner than January 26th, 2004. 28 . 29 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Barry Jacobs 30 to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas _ 31 Amendment and proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for a ~- X32 recomm~ndation~to be returned to the B~OCC no sooner than January2b, 2003: 33 -_. -- _ 34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 35 36 Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield then explained next item. 37 38 2. Concurrent Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and 39 Orange County Subdivision Regulations 40 41 a. Text amendments to require a subdivision located in more than one zoning 42 district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a 43 subdivision located in anon-overlay district and an overlay district, to go through 44 the planned development rezoning process. 45 46 Craig Benedict said that this item (see blue handout) and has more specific language to 47 clarify requirements and identify thresholds. Every orange area on the map is an 48 intersection of different watersheds and zoning districts. He stated that University Lake 49 was a 5-acre density and Haw River Protected was 1 acre and this amendment was ~~ • a DRAFT ~ O MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 8, 2004 REGULAR MEETING 6:30-9:30 P.M. AGENDA ITEM #H: ITEMS TO BE HEARD AT NOVEMBER 24, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING A. Zoning Atlas Amendment 1. PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union Eddie Kirk: There was an original Class A Special Use Permit issued on the proposal. The conditions of the original Special Use Permit are listed on pages 030 and 031 of the agenda packet. The issues that were discussed at the Public Hearing are listed on page 031. A traffic assessment handout was reviewed. The applicant requested the entrance on NC 86 be a full access and our recommendation was it would be a right in/right out. A traffic crash information page on Oakdale and Old 86 was handed out from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). There were 7 incidents at the intersection since the Credit Union construction. There were 5 incidents with minor injuries. There was another traffic crash information page for the intersection of the entrance to 86. There were no reports of crashes at the intersection. A recommendation was made for approval of the proposal with a right in/right out only on NC 86 with the 10 conditions on page 032 of the agenda packet. Jonathan Parsons: Testified on behalf of OBrien/Atkins Associates, P.A. representing the State Employees Credit Union. The Credit Union is at the intersection of Oakdale and Old 86, which currently has currently 4 lanes, 1 ATM and 3 drive thru lanes and a bypass lane for fire access. It has been there since 1997. We addressed comments from the Public Hearing and re-evaluated the right of way dedications. The landscaping was kept as proposed. There was concern with the amount of trees moved on to the existing site that was taken into account. The concern was the intersection of 86 and Oakdale. There was a nice existing growth of hemlocks and Deodar cedars that were installed early in 1997. Regarding the Old 86, the large oaks and pecans that are within the street tree setup on 86 but will have to take out trees within the site but they will be replaced with large material that is connotative to the existing landscaping area. In terms of the right in/right out, we will keep a full access easement until the NCDOT completes the roadway permit and it will be re-evaluated. That was pending until access can be gained to the adjacent property to the South. Noah Ranells: Based on one of the plans presented at the Public Hearing, the new Storm Water Management is under the parking lot. Jonathan Parsons: It will be completely 100% underground and will be not be seen but will take care of the requirements in the County. Noah Ranells: What is the effectiveness of underground closed storm water management compared to open basins and to the effectiveness of either. Jonathan Parsons: This will not allow any additional water on top of what akeady floats off site come out after a storm. It will be slowly released at the same rate as the current system. nx~FT lob Noah Ranells: All those dark lines are inlets to the structure. Jonathan Parsons: The lines are the outlets. The property drains from the west to the east. All the water originally drains down that site so with the grading plan, draining as much as possible into that system. Noah Ranells: There is compensation for greater length of the storm water management underground system by not having evaporation off the pond? Jonathan Parsons: Evaporation is minimal until the middle of the summer. The pipe capacity is sized appropriately. Noah Ranells: The push for landscape in this County is to use natives whenever possible. There are several species that are not native. For example, the Cusa dogwood tree. There is a state tree that is similar that is not used. Jonathan Parsons: We avoided that species so we would not propagate the disease it has. There have been some used in the buffers and other areas that are native or native in character. Noah Ranells: Quoted a listed of some of the native species that maybe used. Craufurd Goodwin: Asked if there was a state rule about using state species. Noah Ranells: There is not a state rule but if we are interested in supporting native plantings we should use a state tree. Jonathan Parsons: We will be happy to re-evaluate this if we could get a list of species that we maybe able to incorporate. Craig Benedict: Which trees would remain? Why would those on site trees not be preserved? It seems that the underground drainage caused the removal of those trees. The Commissioners want more of an explanation as to why the drainage could not be moved to another area to preserve some of the existing trees. Examples are given of large existing trees and sizes. What needs to be answered by the applicant on behalf of this Board and the other Board is what can be done to accommodate that existing stand of trees. Noah Ranells: Could you consider putting it in the setback area? Jonathan Parsons: The bottom line is -the way the site exists grade wise, it drains from the rear being opposite 86 down to 86. We are trying to address the public outcry about visually evasive storm ponds. The reasoning behind the trees being removed would be that the grading being required to make the existing site inter-connectable as well in the future shared access and the storm drainage being what it is and where it can go, it would be a large system. It cannot be on 86 because it will kill the street trees. It cannot be at the top part of the site because it would have to be dug too deeply and would kill the root of the trees. The trees also grow up around the DRAFT ~ ~~ existing house, so it cannot be reused as it is commercial use land. (Reviewed the public record from the Public Hearing). Craufurd Goodwin: The main issue point seems to be the right in/right out Jonathan Parsons: We met with NCDOT earlier. This issue was discussed at length, and they feel the intersection is functioning as is -the situation is not perfect but it functions. Once the 86 expansion occurs, there will be a right in/right out or if the property to the South has developed the concept of interconnective driveways and the access to that will be removed totally. Jay Bryan: What was the need of another drive thru lane? Jonathan Parsons: This would be to better serve the existing client base. Hunter Schofield: We have discussed a number of issues. The credit union has tried to make this as tenable as possible. The interest is not diversion on the issue of native species. Barry Katz: We need to revisit the left/right issue (directing his comment to Jonathan Parsons). The initial site was approved to turn right or turn left. The site is expanding but the volume of business is not being expanded. Since you are not expanding the volume of your business what works now should work in the future. Jonathan Parsons: Even with the slight expansion, it is felt the driveway will continue to work until NCDOT comes in to change the traffic pattern. Barry Katz: Why does staff have the opinion that it should be right in/right out? Robert Davis: Our reservations are the timing issues. If you wait until the improvements on 86 are done you could akeady have a project approved down the road that has put the road at capacity but have lost the opportunity to go right in/right out so now is the time to do that or wait until NCDOT does the improvements. Barry Katz: During that interval would there be dangers? Robert Davis: Probably. This may be premature but it will not be premature if the Waterstone Project is approved. Ronald Stevenson testified on behalf of Randy Kemp and Associates (the traffic engineers): We have conducted traffic assessments for this site. The bottom line in regard to the comments about staff are - we will be okay restricting the entrance to a right in/right out if it becomes a safety issue. NCDOT has the authority to restrict it if it becomes a problem. We are willing to make that adjustment. We are asking for full access until NCDOT widens or until it becomes a safety or operational problem or until there is a cross access that comes out at Millstone. Renee Price: What happens if you want to go north on 86? ~o$ . DRAFT Ronald Stevenson: There are 2 options. The first is to circle around, go right, go to the light and turn left. The other is to turn right and make a "U turn" further down the road. Noah Ranells: What is NCDOT's criterion for requiring the right in/right out at a later date? Ronald Stevenson: They don't have a set number of accidents for a change. They observe the location and see if there is a problem. It is their judgment. There have not been any crashes in the last 3 years. Hunter Schofield: The cues from the Commissioners about this proposal are they are fairly certain about their inclination about the right in/right out. They are interested in restricting that to a right in/right out only. The most basic criteria for a dangerous intersection or exchange are accidents and there have been none at that intersection. This may be a situation, which despite out best efforts that accidents could not be ruled out. (Speaking to Ronald Stevenson). You had mentioned that any approval from this Board or the Commissioners to approve of full access and exit entrance would be predicated on a right in/right out only once the road expansion took place, is this correct? Ronald Stevenson: Yes. Craufurd Goodwin: It is not just safety but also convenience. If there were a right in/right out, there would be a wait for someone to turn left. There may not be accidents but a long line of cars. Ronald Stevenson: There is adequate storage for those cars. Noah Ranells: We are nearing ozone mitigation requirements from EPA and my concern is if we are causing greater idling, would we need to seek a design that would minimize idling and considering it requiring the right in/right out and the existing traffic coming out to Oakdale seems to be a place for cars to line up to turn on 86. For an ozone minimization effort or as an impact of minimization, should full access be out of the question considering what is reasonable at this time. Brian Dobyns: If someone does not feel safe turning left out of that exit has an option to go around. No one is being forced into the other lane. If someone wants to turn left and someone wants to turn right, they will slowly come out to see if they can look to see if they can take a left turn. Ronald Stevenson: In the worst-case scenario, they would sit idle but 90% of the day the turn lane is functioning. When NCDOT does their job and there can be a better, safer situation we will change it and I will get that in writing. We would Like to keep it a functioning entrance as it is now. Renee Price: Originally, there was a concern that because of the proximity, the driveway to Oakdale is short. As more traffic comes in pending development from Old 86 South, there will be more traffic and accidents. DRAFT i0~ Ronald Stevenson: The issue of the short leg was addressed with NCDOT and they replied that as it is a full access now, by moving the intersection you would have competing turn lanes. Theresa Nicole Graysmith: When the road expands, will there be a side walks there? Ronald Stevenson: Yes, there will still be sidewalk. Sam Lasris (to the staff): This is an economic development area, is there anything other than Waterstone project coming in the future? Craig Benedict: Besides the Waterstone project, 200-300 acres of non-residential areas and the remaining houses that are on the Old 86 frontage strip have been designated economic development district. This 100-foot right of way on 86 is an unfunded NCDOT project, which means that it is 10+ years away. Hunter Schofield: Why wasn't this traffic problem considered before? Craig Benedict: When Chuck Edwards evaluates each situation, technical considerations he makes deals with traffic at that time. That may be a consideration in the motion that might add a traffic volume that might click on in 4-5 years. Hunter Schofield: There is a concern about traffic volume increasing making the exchange more dangerous than it is now. Craufurd Goodwin: How can you continue track the volume when you don't what the traffic volume is. Craig Benedict: Traffic volume is registered for Old 86 now and the estimation is 8,000 or 9,000. Barry Katz: What is the trigger if you do not enforce a right in/right out? What traffic volume should it be triggered at? Hunter Schofield: 25% more traffic than there is now. Renee Price: You can determine volume but what if the design is not effective. Hunter Schofield (to Renee Price): Are you concerned about the stacking on Oakdale? Renee Price: Even getting in and out of the credit union onto 86. It may not be only the volume that should be the criteria because I'm not sure it is as much volume as design. Ronald Stevenson: Maybe instead of tying it into a daily traffic volume on 86, the trigger will be the level of service from intersection to intersection, which is based on traffic volume. It operates fine but in the future, with increased traffic volume on Old 86, the delay for the left turn DRAFT ~i~ y movement, in seconds is now 35 seconds is typical. When this delay comes to the point that you have stacking and operates at a poor level of operation, then there will be a problem. The level of service is satisfactory for the left turn movement; it is level service D, which is 34-35 seconds delay. Craig Benedict: Instead of percentages, level of service is the classic threshold used to make improvements or changes. Level of service D is still an acceptable of service as NCDOT standards go. You could say once that intersection exceeds level of service D, which is measurable; level of service E is not acceptable. Ronald Stevenson: There are dozens of intersections that operate at level D, probably F and still operate okay. Level F at an un-signalized intersection on a fairly busy road is common. MOTION was made by Ted Triebel to approve the Special Use Permit Class A with the recommendation #5 being activated once the Level of Service D is exceeded.. Craufurd Goodwin seconded. Ronald Stevenson: NCDOT should clarify that the letters have been setup and the ratios are correct. Craig Benedict: Staff agrees the level of services should be clarified. Noah Ranells: Is there a timeframe to build the right in/right out once the level of service is exceeded? Hunter Schofield: 6 months after level of service D is exceeded. VOTE: 9 ayes, 1 nay (Jay Bryan) Jay Bryan: I support Mr. Jacobs's position regarding not allowing another drive thru because there is adequate parking to help people. I am also not impressed with NCDOT's standards regarding what makes a road safe. .:~ ..~ ~,~.. ,, . ~ w W,. _ __ ~.:.~,., Eddie Kirk -Old NC 86 and NCSECU Crash .Statistics ~ ~~~ ~~-~~~~~~~~~~'~~~-~~ _____ Pa e 1 From: "Christopher J. Oliver" <coliver@dot.state.nc.us> To: <ekirk@co.orange.nc.us> Date: 12/16/03 9:45AM Subject: Old NC 86 and NCSECU Crash Statistics December 16, 2003 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning and Inspections Department 306E Revere Road Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk, Subject: Crash Listing for the Intersection of Secondary Route 1009 (Old NC 86) and the North Carolina State Employee's Credit Union Driveway in Orange County Enclosed you will find the requested information for the time period from June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2003 for the intersection described above. The crash statistics have been generated and are available through North Carolina's Crash Database. This database provides an inventory of reported crashes on record that have occurred at this location. Please note that many traffic crashes go unreported for a variety of reasons, and this report simply provides a listing of all crashes on record that occurred within 150 feet of the intersection described above. Please note that upon review of the crash reports, there were no reported crashes at the intersection described above for the time period indicated above. If you have any other questions, then feel free to contact me at (919} 715-0140. .___ _. _ _ _ ..__ _ __ __.. _ . _ _ Sincerely, Christopher J. Oliver, E.I. Traffic Safety Engineer CJO:co Attachment Page =ddie Kirk Old NC 86 and,NC8EClJ.,Driveway,, df „ ,._ ., ,,, , ~(a North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report Study Criteria Summary County: ORANGE City: Ad and Rural Date: O6I01N999 to 05/312003 Study: OLV200312083A LOeation: Secondary Route 1009 (Old NC B6) and NC Stale Employees Credit Union Driveway Report Details Study Criteria Study Name Log No. PN No. TIP No. WA Cf. BfC Cf. ADT ADT Route 1 312 3 1 Request Data Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No. 91 a County Municipality ame o e DW. ame o • Y-Line FL Begin Date _ End Date Years A and urdi 1 0 011 1 0 4. Location Text Requestor n harmer e poyeerys redil Union away Orange County Fiche Roads Name Code SR 1009 40001009 OLD NC BB 50022484 CHURTON 50006084 OLD CHAPEL HILL 50022033 Intersection Road Combinations _. _. _.. ame o e o e ame - -- SR 1008 40001009 50025287 RAMP -1- 12/1612005 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System ~ j 3 Intersection Analysis Report Stud~Criteria Summary County; ORANGE City: All and Rural Dat@: 6/1/1999 tO S/31/2003 Study: OLV200312083 Location' Secondary Route 1009 (Old NC 86) and Secondary Route 1133 (Oakdale Drive)-Secondary Route 1724 ' (Clarence Walters Road) Report Details Acc Total injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctl No Crash ID Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch Ci Dv Op 1 99161630 08/24/1999 LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY $ 4500 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 17:00 Unit 1 : 5 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 25 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 2 Alch1/Drgs: 0 Speed: l0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:6 Obj Strk: 2 100237649 11/23/2000 LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY $ 5500 0 0 0 0 1^ 5 1 1 0 3 1 20:34 Unit 1 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 3S MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 : 1 Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 2S MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:B Obj Strk: 3 100327832 ~ 04/02/2001 REAR END SLOW OR STOP $ 6300 0 0 0 1 1~ 1 1 1 0 14:15 Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 30 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:l Obj Strk: Unit 2' 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 ~ Speed: 30 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 3 S Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: 4 100460812 10/11/2002 LBFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY $ 7000 0 0 0 1 l~ 1 1 1 0 3 1 16:45 Unit 1 4 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 A1ch2/Drgs: 0 Speed: 2S MPH Dire N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:B Obj Strk: 5 100552507 02/05/2002 ANGLE ~ ~ $ 5000 0 0 0^ 3 1 S 1 1 0 3 1 18:20 Unit 1 S Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 3S MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 3S MPH Dir: S Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: 6 100677399 08/02/2002 FIXED OBJECT ~ $ 1150 0 0- 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 07:OS Unit 1 :2 A1ch1/Drgs:O Speed: 20 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: Unit 2 :1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 30 MPH Dir: N Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:4 Obj Strk: 59 7 100859283 03/27/2003 BACKING UP $ 2050 ~ 0 0 0 0 1~ 1 1 1 0 3 1 13:00 Unit 1 2 Alchl/Drgs:O Speed: 5 MPH Dir: W Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:10 Obj Strk: Unit 2 1 Alchl/Drgs: 0 Speed: 0 MPH Dir: E Veh Mnvr / Ped Actn:l Obj Strk: 12/09/2003 -~- North Carolina Department of Transportation ,(_ Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System ~ ~ `T Intersection Analysis Report Acc Total Injuries Condition Road Trfc Ctt No Crash ID Date Accident Type Damage F A B C R L W Ch CI Dv Op Legend for Acc No -Accident Number Report Details: Injuries: F - Fatal, A -Class A, B -Class B, C -Class C Condition: R -Road Surface, L -Ambient light, W -Weather Rd Ch -Road Character Rd Ci -Roadway Contributing Circumstances . Trfc CH -Traffic Control: Dv -Device, Op -Operating AIchUDrgs -Alcohol Drugs Suspected Veh MnvNPed Actn -Vehicle Maneuver/Pedestrian Action Obj Strk -object Struck 12I09I2003 -2- North Carolina Department of Transportation i I Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System • Intersection Analysis Report mmary Statistics ~c Number of Percent Crash Type Crashes of Total Total Crashes 7 100.00 Fatal Crashes 0 0.00 Non-Fatal Injury Crashes 3 42.86 Total injury Crashes 3 42.86 Property Damage Only Crashes 4 57.14 Night Crashes 2 28.57 Wet Crashes 0 0.00 Alcohol/Drugs involvement Crashes 0 0.00 rash Severity[ Su Number of Percent Crash Type Crashes of Total Total Crashes 7 100.00 Fatal.Crashes 0 0.00 Class A Crashes 0 0.00 Class B Crashes 0 0.00 Class C Crashes 3 42.86 Property Damage Only Crashes 4 57.14 1Lehicle Exposure Statistics Annual ADT =14400 Totai Vehicle Exposure =21.04 (MEV) Crash Rate Crashes Per 100 Million Vehicles Entered Total Crash Rate 33.27 Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 Non Fatal Crash Rate 14.26 Night Crash Rate 9.51 Wet Crash Rate 0.00 EPDO Rate 138.79 12/09(2003 -3- North Carolina Department of Transportation `` ` Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System '~1 Intersection Analysis Report Miscellaneous Statistics Severity Index 4.17 EPDO Crash Index = 29.20 Estimated Property Damage Total = $ 31500.00 Accident Tvoe Summ Accident Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total ANGLE 1 14.29 BACKING UP 1 14.29 FIXED OBJECT 1 24.29 LEFT TURN, SAME ROADWAY 3 42.86 REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 1 14.29. Injury Sum mary Number of Percent Injury Type Injuries of Total Fatal Injuries 0 0.00 Class A Injuries 0 0.00 Class B Injuries 0 0.00 Class C Injuries .. 5 100.00 Total Non-Fatal Injuries 5 100.00 Total Injuries 5 100.00 12/0912003 -4 North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report M Month onthly Summ Number of Crashes ary Percent of Total Jan 0 0.00 Feb 1 14.29 Mar 1 14.29 Apr 1 14.29 May 0 0.00 Jun 0 0.00 Jul 0 0.00 Aug 2 28.57 Sep 0 0.00 Oct 1 14.29 .Nov 1 14.29 Dec 0 0.00 Daily Summary Number of Percent Day Crashes of Total Mon 1 14.29 Tue 2 28.57 Wed 0 0.00 Thu 3 42.86 Fri 1 14.29 Sat 0 O.OD Sun 0 0.00 - 12/09/2003 ~ 'S' North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report Ho Hour urly Summary Number of Crashes Percent of Total 0000-0059 0 0.00 0100-0159 0 0.00 0200-0259 0 0.00 0300-0359 0 0.00 0400-0459 0 0.00 0500-0559 0 0.00 0600-0659 0 0.00 0700-0759 1 14.29 0800-0859 0 0.00 0900-0959 0 0.00 1000-1059 0 0.00 1100-1159 0 0.00 1200-1259 0 0.00 1300-1359 1 14.29 1400-1459 1 14.29 1500-1559 0 0.00 1600-1659 1 14.29 1700-1759 1 14.29 1800-1659 1 14.29 1900-1959 0 0.00 2000-2059 1 14.29 2100-2159 0 0.00 2200-2259 0 0.00 2300-2359 0 0.00 12/09/2003 - -g i North Carolina Department of Transportation ~ ~~ Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report i_iaht and Road Conditions Summary Condition Dry Wet Other Total Day 5 0 0 5 Dark 2 0 0 2 Other 0 0 0 0 Total 7 0 0 7 Object Struck Summary Times Percent Object Type Struck of Totai EMBANKMENT 1 100,00 Vehicle Tvoe Summary Number Percent Vehicle Type Involved of Total PASSENGER CAR 7 46.67 pICKUp 3 20.00 SPORT UTILITY 2 13.33 upT7 3 20.00 12/09/2003 -7- North Carolina Department of Transportation )~ ' Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System I Intersection Analysis Report Yea~v Totals Summary Total Accident Fatal Totals Injury Property Damage Year Accidents Accidents Accidents Only Accidents 1999 1 0 0 1 2000 1 0 0 1 2001 2 0 2 D zoo2 2 0 1 1 2003 1 D 0 1 Total 7 0 3 4 Iniurv Totals Class A, B, Year Fatal Injuries or C Injuries 1999 0 0 2000 0 0 2001 0 2 2002 0 3 2003 0 0 Total 0 5 Miscellaneous To tals, Year Property Damage EPDO Index 1999 $ 4500 1.00 2000 $ 5500 1.00 2001 $ 13300 16.80 2002 $ 6150 9.40 2003 $ 2050 1.00 Total $. 31500 29.20 Tvoe of Accident Totals Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other 1999 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12/09/2003 -8- ` North Carolina Department of Transportation ~ 01 Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report Tvne of Accident Totals Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End Run Off Road Angle Side Swipe Other Total 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 12/09/2003 ~ '9" North Carolina Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System Intersection Analysis Report Study Criteria Study Name Log No. PH No. TIP No. K/A Cf. B/C Cf. ADT ADT Route OLV200312083 200312083 76.8 8;4 14400 Request Date Courier Service Phone No. Ext. Fax No. 12/04/2003 919-245-2582 County Municipality Name Code Div. Name Code Y-Line Ft. Begin Date End Date Years ORANGE 67 7 All and Rural 150 6/1/1999 5/31/2003 4.00 Location Text Requestor Secondary Route 1009 (Old NC 66) and Secondary Route Eddie Kirk 1133 (Oakdale Drive)-Secondary Route 1724 (Clarence Planner Walters Road) Orange County Excluded Accidents 100522049 100471932 Fiche Roads Name Code SR 1009 40001009 OLD NC 86 50022484 CHURTON 50006084 OLD CHAPEL HILL 50022033 Intersection Road Combinations Name Code Code Name SR 1009 40001009 40001133 SR 1133 SR 1009 40001009 50021730 OAKDALE SR 1009 40001009 40001724 SR 1724 OLD NC 86 50022484 40001133 SR 1133 OLD NC 86 50022484 50021730 OAKDALE OLD NC B6 50022484 40001724 SR 1724 12109/2003 -10- • RAMEY KEMP & ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4928-A WIl1DY HILL DRIVE, RALEIGH, N. C. 27609 ~ ~ ?~ TELEPHONE 919-872-5115 FAX 919-878-5416 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO• Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ph: 919-245-2575 DATE: 12/30/03 RKA PROJECT # 03119 .ATTENTION: M~. ~GL~ZQ KZ~fi~ PAGE 1 OF 1 REFERENCE: SECU -Hillsborough Dear Mr. Kirk: Please find enclosed one (1) copy of a Traffic Assessment prepared for the SECU in Hillsborough that addresses traffic operations with the conversion of the full-access driveway on Old 86 to a right-in/right out driveway. If there are any questions, please call. Thanks. SIGNED: ~~~ `~ Rynal Stephenson, P.E. 4928-A Windy Hill Drive r RAMEY IMP & ASSOCIATES, ~NC. Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 ~! ~ ~ •_ !a ~ ~ •_ _ ~ Phone: 919.872.5115 ' Fax: 919.878.5416 l~~ December 30, 2003 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Reference: State Employees' Credit Union Hillsborough, North Carolina Dear Mr. Kirk: Ramey Kemp and Associates, Inc. (RKA) has completed a traffic assessment for the proposed expansion renovation of the existing State Employees' Credit Union (SECU) in Hillsborough for the scenario that converts the existing full access driveway on Old 86 to a right-in/right-out driveway. A traffic assessment was conducted by RKA in November 2003 for the proposed SECU expansion that assumed the existing site driveway on Old 86 would remain afull-access intersection. This assessment was completed following the Novemeber 24th. meeting with the Orange County Planning Board at which planning board members expressed interest in restricting the driveway on Old 86 to right-in/right-out movements due to safety concerns. This study analyzes traffic operations at the intersection of Old 86 and Oakdale Road as well as the two site driveways assuming the SECU Driveway on Old 86 is restricted to right-in/right- ~~ out movements. In addition, a request was made to NCIDOT for crash data at the study intersections over the most recent three-year period; however, the NCDOT has not completed the crash analysis report as of this date. Existing traffic counts were conducted during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods at the study intersections of Old 86 and Oakdale Road, Old 86 and the SECU Driveway, and Oakdale Road and the SECU Driveway. These existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 1. As discussed in the previous traffic assessment, a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips were generated for the SECU expansion and assigned to the study intersections. However, in this scenario with the right-in/right-out driveway on Old 86, all new SECU trips that would turn left from the SECU Driveway onto Old 86 were assigned to the SECU Driveway on Oakdale Road. Refer to Figure 2 for the new a.m. and p.m. peak hour SECU site trips. In addition, under this scenario, all existing traffic turning left from the SECU Driveway onto Old 86 was reassigned to the SECU Driveway at Oakdale Road. The future a.m. and p.m. RALEIGH, NC RICHMOND, VA ` Page 2 Mr. Eddie Kirk December 30, 2003 peak hour traffic volumes with the SECU expansion and with the right-in/right-out driveway on Old 86 are shown in Figure 3. Study intersections were analyzed during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under existing traffic conditions and future traffic conditions with the SECU expansion and right-in/right- out driveway on Old 86. Under existing traffic conditions, analysis indicates all intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. As indicated in the previous traffic assessment, all study intersections were expected to operate at acceptable levels of service under future traffic conditions with the expansion and the full-access SECU Driveway on Old 86. With the right-in/right-out driveway on Old 86, analysis indicates that all intersections will also operate at acceptable levels of service under future traffic conditions. Since a significant percentage of SECU traffic currently turns left from the SECU Driveway onto Old $6, a right-in/right-out driveway on Old 86 will cause these vehicles to turn right from the SECU Driveway onto Oakdale Road, increasing the traffic volumes on the eastbound approach of Oakdale Road at the intersection with Old 86. Queuing analysis indicates that this increased traffic on Oakdale Road could result in eastbound queues extending to or beyond the SECU Driveway on Oakdale Road during heavy traffic periods. Analysis printouts for future conditions are included with this letter. It is recommended to maintain full access at the SECU Driveway on Old 86 until such time that 1) a crash analysis indicates a safety problem at the intersection, 2) Old 86 is widened to a multi-lane facility, or 3) cross-access is provided between the SECU property and the adjacent property to the south that will provide afull-access intersection for SECU traffic on Old 86. Providing afull-access intersection for SECU traffic on Old 86 will relieve traffic on the SECU Driveway at Oakdale Road as well as Oakdale Road at Old 86. Further, if the NCDOT crash analysis report indicates that a safety problem does not exist at the full-access driveway, any increase in traffic due to the expansion is expected to be insignificant and should not impact safety at this location. If you have any questions, please contact me at (919) 872-0480 x 110. Sincerely, .RAMEYKEMP & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~( Rynal G. Stephenson, P.E. Attachments j~~ cc: Jonathan Parsons, OBrien/Atkins Associates, PA ~~~ FIGURES f ~~~ Oakdale Road 211/151 ---- 1/0 SECU Driveway #2 LEGEND ~--- 134/190 ,` 35/68 XX/YY-~ AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Signalized Intersection O Unsignalized Intersection 00 0 ~o 00 b O Scale: Not to Scale ~ Figure 1 ~ PROPOSED SECU EXPANSION HII,LSBOROUG NORTH CAROLINA Existing (2003) Peak Hour Traffic (November 20,2003) ~ ~~ Oakdale Road SECU Driveway #2 LEGEND XX/YY-~- AM/PM Peak Hour SECU Trips Q Urisignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection Q Right In/Right-Out Intersection 0 .o 00 O PROPOSED SECU EXPANSION HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA Future SECU ExpansionTrips Scale: Not to Scale Figure 2 f ~~ 00 O Oakdale Road 211/151 ---- 2/0 --i SECU Driveway #2 SECU BATIK. f-- 134/190 ,~ 62/116 o~ ~~ M LEGEND XX/YY- - AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Q Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection Q Right-In/Right-Out Intersection M O v1 N ~ ~ ~ 26/25 N ~ ; °` ~' N ~-- 13/3 ~~~. ,11/12 ! '' t 163/165 - ~ 21/17 -- 104/78 - ~ ~ \ ~ ~, ~^ i rn ~ Vy t*1 .--~ N ~k N ~ N N~ v 3 ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .. A 11/24 --} t 00 d- ~o 00 b O PROPOSED SECU EXPANSION HII,LSBOROUG NORTH CAROLINA Future Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With SECU Expansion Scale: Not to Scale Figure 3 ~o'•. 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 'V~TTH RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT DP;IVEWAY 4 . Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 i '31 12/23/ ~` ~ 1~ f- ~' ~ 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ c~ ~ ~, ~ ~, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 19.00 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 Lane W idth (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 3% -5% -2% 3% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peel Bike Factor Frt 0.951 0.929 0.998 0.975 Flt Protected 0.972 0.989 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1696 0 0 1754 0 1787 1878 0 1743 1789 0 Flt Permitted 0.804 0.915 0.345 0.480 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1403 0 0 1623 0 649 1878 0 881 1789 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes - ~ Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 21 29 1 17 Headway Factor 1,02 1.02 1.02 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.02 1.02 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 274 1392 259 656 Travel Time (s) 4.2 21.1 5.0 12.8 Volume (vph) 163 21 104 11. 13 26 91 356 5 28 469. . . 92 Confl. Peels, (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) . Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 .0.90 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100°/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Z% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0°/Q Adj. Flow (vph) 181 23 116 12 14 29 101 396 6 31 521 . 102 , Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 320 0 0 55 0 101 402 0 31 623 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 Total Split (s) 37.2 37.2 0.0 37.2 37.2 0.0 95.5 95.5 0.0 95.5 95.5 0.0 Total Split (%) 28% 28% 0% 28% 28% 0% 72% 72% 0% 72% 72% 0% Yellow Time (s) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 ~ 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 21.8 21.8 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) AM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window ~ Page 1 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ 3 ~' 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 12l Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 0.61 0.09 0.32 0.44 0.07 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 13.8 5.6 8.9 9.5 7.7 11.0 Delay 15.9 9.4 11.2 10.8 9.6 12.7 LOS B A B B A B Approach Delay 15.9 9.4 10.9 12.6 Approach LOS B A B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 5 19 83 5 150 Queue Length 95th (ft) 221 33 63 190 22 343 Internal Link Dist (ft) 194 1312 179 576 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) 13% 9% Tum Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time 95th Bay Block Time Queuing Penalty (veh) 21 18 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other _ Cycle Length: 132.7 Actuated Cycle Length: 59.5 Natural Cyde: 50 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.71 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2% ICU Level of Service C Solits and Phases: 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 ®2 m4 z m6 08 <_, SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) AM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 2 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 ' 3 ` HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ~ ~~ 6: SECU Driveway #1 & Old 86 12/23 ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~' ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 11 0 452 572 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flaw rate (veh/h) 0 12 0 502 636 13 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s} Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 259 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.74 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1144 642 649 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol -- vCu, unblocked vol 1194 520 529 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 154 414 773 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 502 649 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 12 0 13 cSH 414 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 ~ 0.30 0.38 Queue Length (ft) 2 0 0 - Control Delay (s) 14.0 0.0 0.0 .._._ -. Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s} 14.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ~ ICU Level of Service A SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) AM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 1 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ~ ~ ~ 8: Oakdale Road &SECU Driveway #2 12/ Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '~ ~' ~j'f Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 211 2 62 134 6 36 - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 234 2 69 149 7 40 Pedestrians Lane W idth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 274 pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 vC, conflicting volume 237 522 236 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vo! vCu, unblocked vol 237 520 236 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 99 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1330 487 803 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 237 218 47 Volume Left 0. 69 7 Volume Right 2 0 40 cSH 1700 1330 735 ' Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.05 0.06 Queue Length (ft) 0 4 5 - ~ - Control Delay (s) 0.0 2.8 10.2 _ - - Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.8 10.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 .intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of-Service A SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) AM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 1 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 L , ` ~ Lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ ~35 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 12/23 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ c~r ~ '~ '~ '~, Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 3% -5% -2% 3% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Leading Detector (ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Trailing Detector (ft} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.959 0.914 0.953 Flt Protected 0.969 0.9$5 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow {prot) 0 1705 0 0 1719 0 1787 1881 0 1743 1749 0 Flt Permitted 0.800 0.896 0.282 0.463 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1408 0 0 1564 0 531 1881 0 850 1749 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 16 28 40 Headway Factor 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.02 1.02 Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35 35 Link Distance (ft) 274 1392 259 656 Travel Time (s} 4.2 21.1 5.0 12.8 Volume (vph) 165 17 78 12 3 25 93 384 1 15 453 210 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.00% 100°k 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% - 0% ' 0°~`~ ~ -- Adj. Flow (vph) 183 19 87 13 3 28 103 427 1 17 503 233 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 289 0 0 44 0 103 428 0 17 736 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permifted Phases 4 8 2 6 Detector Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 Total Split (s) 37.2 37.2 0.0 37.2 37.2 0.0 95.5 .95.5 0.0 95.5 95.5 0.0 Total Split (%) 28% 28% 0% 28% 28% 0% 72% 72% 0% 72% 72% 0% Yellow Time (s) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 20.6 20.6 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) PM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 1 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 lanes, Volumes, Timings ~ ~G~ - , 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 12l "` Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR v/c Ratio 0.63 0.09 0.35 0.42 0.04 0,75 Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 5.4 7.8 8.1 6.4 10.0 Decay 20.1 11.4 10.3 9.4 8.1 11.8 LOS C B B A A B Approach Delay 20.1 11.4 9.5 11.7 Approach LOS C B A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 4 19 83 3 176 Queue Length 95th (ft) 239 32 68 199 13 432 Intemai Link Dist (ft) 194 1312 179 576 50th Up Block Time (%) 95th Up Block Time (%) 17% 9% Tum Bay Length (ft) 50th Bay Block Time 95th Bay Block Time Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 20 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other . " Cycle Length: 132.7 Actuated Cycle Length: 65.1 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75 Intersection Signal Delay: 12.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service C Splits and Phases: 3: Oakdale Road & Old 86 m2 ""'N' 04 ~; ~~~; ®6 ,, m8 r 5: .., .:, SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) PM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 2 RAM EYKRALE-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ~ ~~ 6: SECU Driveway #1 & Old 86 1212 3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ } '~ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 24 0 478 521 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 . Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 0 27 0 531 579 24 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 259 pX, platoon unblocked 0.73 0.73 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 1122 591 603 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1168 440 456 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 94 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 156 450 806 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 27 531 603 Volume Left 0 0 0 Volume Right 27 0 24 cSH 450 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.31 0.35 Queue Length (ft) 5- 0 _0 _ __ _ _ _ -_ _ ._ _ Control Delay (s) 13.5 ~ _ 0.0 0.0- _ Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 13.5 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) PM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 1 RAMEYKRALE-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ~ -3~ . 8. Oakdale Road &SECU Driveway #2 12/232 -- ~t ~ r-- ~ /~ Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '~ a' ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 151 0 116 190 10 109 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) 168 0 129 211 11 121 Pedestrians Lane W idth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 274 pX, platoon unblocked 1.00 vC, conflicting volume 168 637 168 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 168 635 168 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 91 97 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 1410 400 876 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 168 340 132 Volume Left 0 129 11 Volume Right 0 0 121 cSH 1700 1410 797 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.09 0.17 ' Queue Length (ft) D ~ 8 15 =- - Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.5 10.4 = Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) .0.0 3.5 10.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary _ _ Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity U tilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A SECU Expansion -Hillsborough 11/21/2003 Future (2003) PM Peak Hour Synchro 5 Report With One Additional Window Page 1 RAM EYKRALE-ST51