Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-07-1985
ORANGE COUNTY • • . BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • AGENDA • REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 1985 COMMISSIONERS ROOM • HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 7:30 P.M. • A. BOARD COMMENTS B.. AUDIENCE COMMENTS . 1. Matters on the Printed Agenda-Pk/ /'o 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda /Vote C. MINUTES -/¢'rpauee( . . D. APPOINTMENTS ., , Lee A5// �-PD N4.tb- p i �MCLwt, ' Cca r� iS PAGE # E. ITEMS FOR DECIJSION 003 1. Request to Continue the Public Hearing on Occoneechee Point II and Oakdale Park II to Receive Planning Board Recommendations Recommendations.40kovoeloe 004 2. Homestead Road Apartments -- Clarification of Conditions P€i6he /gym e 011 e .s 5/* 3. Occoneechee Point--Section I and II Preliminary Plan-,proum 016 4. Section Two North Dixie Preliminary Plan -,A0iro •• 027 5., C. Norman Walker and Peggy Walker Preliminary Plan -40rnruerd 032 6. Property of Mary Ruth Woods Preliminary Plan -/, meidoC 038 7. Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment -- I-40/01d N.C. 86 Area Study-Dee/eat 043 • 8. Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendments 054 9. Wildwood Section III Rezoning Request--/, ,0v4+aoL 059 10. Secondary Land Use Plan Amendments -4,44e#4-042401 065 11. Pxotectionof Duke Forrest Upper New Hope Creek Research Area 4r01pedede 071 12. Secondary Road Addition--Dry Creek Road Ore "Weer, a f' /4 ,.,4i4' 074 13. Resolution Establishing Just Compensation for Right-of-Way Acquisitions .. 077 ' 14. Animal Shelter Architectural Agreement- 441rrsve.r•L n �� C> ppr 085 rie ' 15. Handicapped Ramp Construction--Human Resource Building • 086 16. Lease Amendment--Old Chapel Hill Police Building 4,4froros,.pe[, • • • • • OPJ CE COUNTY 001 BOARD' OF CO.24ISS'M!'MS Akio t Agenda • ACTION AGR1TD ITEM i1BS�.�P CT Ito,tea_ c r E : G DATE JANUARY 7, 1981 Subject: MINUTES f i • • Dep nL: BOARD OF COMISSIONERS .1 Public Hearin. g: _ dyes x no Attachment(s) _ T forte Lion Contact= Beverly A. Blythe UNDER SEPARATE COVER Phone Number: 732-8181, ext. 505 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: 1. November 26, 198+ - SPECIAL MEETING 2. November 26, 198++ - JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 3. December 3, 198+ - REGULAR MEETING 4. December 18, 198+ - REGULAR MEETING • NEED: Approval of the minutes so they may be entered into the official minute book in 'the Clerk's office. • RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. • • 1 004 2 ORANGE COUNTY BOA OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agency ACTION AGE'ilN Tral ?ABSTRACT Item No. l MEEILNG DATE JAEDARY 7, / 4 Subject:APPOIR 'N • 1. Depaitrrent: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .1 Public Hearing: yes ._, x no • Attachment(s) : Information Contact: • Beverly A. Blythe . UNDER SEPARATE COVER Phone Nutter: 732.-8181, ext. '505 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. 1. The following vacancy is announced for the first time for information only. A- 5 - Economic Development Commission - 1 vacancy (resignation of Bill Hupman) 2. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the • status of securing candidates for possible appointment consideration. All vacancies have been duly advertised and agencies and persons contacted as requested by the Board. A-13 --RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - 1 vacancy - 2 resumes have been received. • A-l4 - SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 6 vacancies - no new resumes have been received. B- 6 -- HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE ADVISORY BOARD - 1 vacancy - 1 resume has been received. B-11 - SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE - no new resumes have been received. IMPACT: To maintain 100% membership on Commissioners' appointed Boards and Commissions. RECOMMENDATION: • As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. ,4"-I MEETING DATE _JANUARY 7, 198 r / v U¢, (� t SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON OCCONEECHEE POINT II AND OAKDALE PARK II TO RECEIVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 1 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING T �ES PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH NONE PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 686-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request by the Planning Board for continuation of the November 26, 1984 public hearing for the.purpose of receiving the Planning Board's recommendation on February 4, 1985. - NEED: The Board of Commissioners continued-the November 26, 1984 Oakdale Park II and Occoneechee Point Il to January 9 public hearing ith the on y 7 Planning Board' recommendations. , 1955 to bl receive The Planning Board did not consider these items at their regular December 17, 1984 meeting due to the length of the agenda. Therefore, no recommendation on either project will be available for January 7, 1985. • i IMPACT: Continuation of the public hearing until February 4, 1985 will delay the - receipt of the Planning Board recommendations and. consideration of the proposals for approval by the Board of Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION(S): That the Board of Commissioners continue the public hearing on the Oakdale Park II and Occoneechee Point II projects until February 4, 1985 to allow the Planning Board time to consider the projects for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The nurnose of the February 4. 1985 nublic hearinn will be to receive the Planninn Board's recommendations. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACT(ON AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEPI ABSTRACT ITEM NO. � MEETING DATE - JANUARY 7, 1985 (BLit SUBJECT: HOMESTEAD ROAD APARTMENTS -CLARIFICATION OF IMPOSED CONDITIONS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : MINUTES 11/20/84 INFORMATION CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH' PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION CHAPEL HILL RECOMMENDATIONS PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 . HILLSBOROUGH. - 732-9361 • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - -- 227-2031 �--,-- --�� DURHAM - 68S-7331 • • PURPOSE: To clarify the' conditions of approval attached to the .issuance of the Special Use Permit for Homestead Road Apartments Planned Development. This project was approved by the Board • of Commissioners on November 20, 1984. . Philip Post and Associates, representative of the developer, has requested that this matter be clarified by the Board of Congnissioners.' NEED: The Board of ,Commissioners approved the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Housing for Homestead Road Apartments on November. 20, 1984. The Board of Commissioners • approved the Special Use Permit with the 19 conditions recommended by the Planning Board, as revised by the Board of Commissioners; with four,.(4)additional conditions recommended by the Town of - Chapel Hill; and with one additional condition added by the Board of Commissioners. The result was approval with 24 conditions • 1 Two of the conditions, as written and adopted by the B6ard of Commissioners directly conflict. These conditions are the #1 condition'of the Town of Chapel Hill and the #5 condition of the Planning Board. The Town condition calls for a public street constrUbted:.to Town.'standards and the Planning Board condition calls for the street within the interior of the property to be private. . IMPACT: The Planning Staff cannot proceed with issuance of the Special use. Permit,nor the applicant with submittal of a revised site !plan which addresses all imposed conditions,without elarifi- . cation of the Board's intention. . Further,- if the Board requires that a public road constructed to Town standards be built , a question arises as. to who the 0U5 road is tobededicated to. Until the Town of Chapel Hill annexes the property and can accept dedication of the road, the road can only be dedicated to the State. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Commissioners clarify its intention regarding the status of the proposed interior street serving the Homestead Road Apartments project. MINI len Nal C.004.) 411/W/J5joy t'ertificateo of insurance Cram the Univ:srr;ity of i'locit Carollw, of 3 "6 170m5:: MWTMOUS 3. (3)/ANT_IMI;ATT::ilmT, 11. 1_,TfT Idfits Motion wo made by Commissioner narshall, seconded by Cmmissioner Whitted to accept the grant fro.tirA, and use it to reir:bursc expended County funds. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. MST clUrUTT TETIWISTON SYs-N"4 Motion was made by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Comaissioner Lloyd to award the bid to Gee's, of Slier City for the rearrangement and expansion of the Close Circuit Television System in the Jail. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. PEFLYPTIS DERMILEW UNIPOTms It^CFPT6T2 Motion was made by Comissioner Marshall, seconded by Cissioner Lloyd to acce;:Jt the bid from nib Uniform Comoany for the purchase of Sheriff's uniforms for $11,812.50. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. mairtwirrov loarmjr,PLzcE7mii? Motion was made by C=Idssioner Marshall, seconded by Coromissioner Lloyd to award a contract to Worth-Xeeter, Inc. for the purchase of a front-end loader Sanitation truck for $78,281.00. VOTE: UNANIMOUS F. XITU..1.0KOFCTSTO 4. RaITISTEAD ROT) APARTMENPS PO-6-84 NOTE: This item was continued from the 11/5/84 meting to receive additional comments. - Chair Willhoit noted that Chapel Hill had made reco=endations which should be incorporated into the conditions for approval. They included items 1, 2, 4 & 7. Also tll should be amended to meet the conditions as outlined by Chapel Hill. (all items arc fully explained in a resolution from the Town of Chapel Hill as contained in the permanent agenda file) Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Co:Tvisioncr Whittled to approve the Planning floard's recommendation, adding the Chapel Hill recommrsndzitions Olt 2, 4, and 7 and amending recomen:lation 11 as stated above and adding condition 020 requiring the site plaa to incor,:::orate the stipulated conditions are to be r,rcsentd prior to the issunnco of the Special Use Permit. VD? : -21F'rnartMenfisimanowassio----- rIANAllec kM4iRb RECCMMNDATZON: • 1. That the site plan be revised to delete the entrance onto NC 86. 2. That the site plan be revised to show the reservation of additional right-of-way along the property frontage along NC b6 to provide half of a 100 foot wide right--o#-way. 3. That the site plan be revised to show a second entrance on Homestead Road. 4, That the site plan be revised to show the reservation of additional right-of-way along the property frontage along Homestead Road to provide half of a 70 foot wide right-of-way. 5 That the site plan not include a public street within the interior of the property,. 6. That the site plan be revised to include a stub-out of the interior road to the western property line. 7. That roadways and parking areas within the site have curb and gutter. (Chapel Hill condition #3) 8. That a continuous sidewalk network be provided to connect the dwelling units, parking areas, and recreation facilities and that the internal sidewalk system be connected to sidewalks along Homestead Road, and N.C. 86 and that sidewalk connection to the public collector street suggested on the abutting property when vehicular access to that collector is constructed. (C.H. condition #6) 9. That water and sewer lines be installed to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority standards and that all electrical lines be placed underground and in location requiring no clearing or grading in addition to that required for streets and sewer lines. (Chapel Hill condition #9) 10. That the number.; location and installation of fire hydrants be approved by the Orange County Manager prior to issuance of any building permits. (Chapel Hill condition #10) i. That a fire flow report demonstrating compliance with the Town of Chapel Hill's resign Manual requirements be approved by the County Manager prior to issuance of any development permit and that an on-site test documenting an actual flow which meets Town standards be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (Chapel Hill condition #11) 12. That a drainage plan be submitted to and approved by the County Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. Improvements included in the drainage plan shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (Modified Chapel Hill condition #ti) 13. That development of the site be subject to submission and approval of an erosion control plan by the Orange County Erosion Control - Officer prior to the initiation of construction activity, 14. That a detailed landscaping plan which meets all applicable . requirements of Articles 6,7 and 12 be submitted for approval, prior to the initiation of construction activity. 15. -That the applicant provide screening details which satisfy articles 6, 7 and 12. 16. That the site plan show dumspter sites within 100, of all • buildings or provide for a centralized dumpster compactor location. In 'the latter case, special units for the handicapped or elderly should be indicated nearby. 17. That individual building details be submitted to determine compliance • with applicable building codes prior to issuance of any bUilding permits. • 18. That signage details be submitted to determine compliance with • • Article of Sims prior to the issuance of any sign per .ts, 19. That a phasing plan be approved by the Orange County Manager and that all site improverrents required for each phase be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any - ' unit within a given phase. ON NOVEMBER 5,:0.984 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADDED THE - ' FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: •20. THAT A REVISED SITE PLAN BE SUBMITTED WHICH MEETS • ALL'THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED ABOVE. • /OWN Col' - I4 MIL (J - " . A RESOLUTION CONVEYING COURTESY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED McCoy ` ',?s HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (84.R-Iei) 't. WHEREAS, the Board Commissioners has rer nested carrtmenta of the Town of Chapel Hill of on a County proposed Co developrnertt that would. be located in the Transition Zone of the. Joint Planning Area - EE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Cha ei Hitt respectfully recommends.r that the Board of County Commissioners . the following _ t4 conditions` to any approval of the proposed McCoy Housing Development: . • . . . 1. That.".the. • proposed public street. through the development be • • constructed to -Town- Standards for a Local Class S street whioit.•._ 'includes' a width. of;27'•from. back of curb to back of curb. . - 2. That within one'year after the public col rector'street suggested orr the abutting property. to the west is constructed, the southernmost parking aisle , along the site's western boundary be 'extended . - westward to. connect with.such abutting pub tic collector street and the westernmost • access "onto Homestead Road be removed and replaced with landscaping. . - 3-. That roadways and parking areas within the site have curb and gutter. - . 4. That the- Homestead- Road roadway be improkieed along the sitetg • frontage to half of a .41-foat••wide cross-section with curb and. tip gutter and sidewalk, measured from the centerline of the olds • roadway ' (before Duke Power's Improvements on the opposite side.)T and that additional right-of-way be dedicated to provide half of a .. . 70-foot-wide right-of-way. 5. That the NC 86 roadway be Improved along the site's frontage to - half a 65-foot-wide cross-section (which includes 4 travel lanes and 1 turning lane) with curb and gutter and sidewalk measured from the centerline of the existing roadway, and 'that additional - ' right--of-way be dedicated to provide half of a. 100-foot.-wide,. right-of-way. 6. That a continuous sidewalk network be provided to connect the dwelling units,. parking areas, and recreation facilities and that the internal sidewalk system be connected to sidewalks along ' Homestead Road, and N.C. 36 and that a sidewalk connection to the public collector street suggested on the abutting property when vehicular access to that collector is constructed. 7. That a bus stop with a concrete pad and bench to Town standards be provided adjacent to the recommended connection between the internal sidewalk system and the sidewalk along N.C. 86. 8. That a drainage plan be submitted to and approved by the County Manager in consultation with the Chapel Hill Town Manager ( - s prior to issuance of a building permit. Improvements included In the 1 drainage plan shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certifica(UO of Occupancy. - S. That water and sewer lines be installed to the Orange Water- and Sewer Authority standards and that ail electrical tines be placed underground and in location requiring no clearing or grading In addition to that required re:d for streets and sewer lines. 10. That the number, location and installation of fire hydrants be - approved by the Orange County Manager in•consultation with the Town Manager prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That a fire flow report demonstrating compliance with the Town of Chapel Hill's Design Manual - requirements be approved by the County Manages -Ip consultation with the Town Manager prior to- - issuance of any• development permit and that an on-site test documenting' an actual flow which meets Town standard be • completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. ' That as much significant planting as possible be retained and that such planting be protected during construction by appropriate- fencing or barriers. 13.- That a revised site plan incorporating all the above stipulations be approved by the County Manager in consultation with the Town Manager prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit. ' 14. , That a phasing plan be approved by the Orange County Manager - and that all site improvements required for each phase be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy Is issued for any unit within a given phase. • • This the 24th day of September, 1984. - • • • • • • • Ismarrad ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS U 1. AGTI,ON AGEND DA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. DATE ,JANUARY 7_19l.5 SUBJECT: OCCONEECHEE POINT - SECTION ONE AND TWO DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:SUSAN SUSAN SMITH • VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN DRAFT 12/17/84 P.B. MINUTES PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL. HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: • To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Occoneechee Point Section One and Two for Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough. To receive the Planning Board recommendation. . • NEED: The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township at the southwestern quadrant of the Interstate 85 and NC 86 Interchange., It is known as Lot 4 on Map 45. There are 7 lots proposed (5 lots in Section 1 and 2 lots In Section 2) out of 18.73 acres. The lot sizes are 1 .7, 5.15, 3.7, .92, .99, 2,.53 and 3.74 acres respectively. Section l was approved as a Planned Development- General Commercial IV (PD-GC4) on November 5, 1984. All lots are to be served by public water and sewer. Alexander Dickscn Road and Cheiftain Trail are to be public roads constructed to state standards and dedicated. The development of all the lots must be in compliance with the approved site plans and conditions attached to the special use permits. IMPACT: Subdivision of Occonnechee Point Sections One and Two would provide for the sale of individual tracts to be developed according to the site plans and Special Use Permits for both planned developments. RECOMMENDATION(S) : The Planning Board considered this item on December 17, 1984 and recommends approval . S ` tdAiM OF SUBDIiIISION � C ADS j�p, crJ� Own R OR DrvELOPER �a 6 TO1I1isuip �!!Si tzoe•r�C/ t1`A}i s 3f • FLOCK �RT HAMS OF SURVEYOR OR EIIGIMEER T�v y9 Rrbtal number of sots TYPical dwelling unite a �b }?a developed in �hasa(a) Total number n sores WATER SUPPLY, Public (Name)-%,;,A, or proposed SEWAGE.TREATMENT! PubliC • ruses-4 or SCHOOL DISTRICT �-�• .00 tY Individual la�a �„�..) . . . . individual.tank Access onto state Ra FIRE Du3TRIGT Lj�.,%,-ate,, Q /U�•�' �Road Standard: Public Y Existing oriticaI areas such as streams --.-�._ or 8rivate Class A Explain; ;re ( ' }� Flood prone areas ( ), Watershed =-----, B C Land uses in the t jr Historic Sites ( }, pt—' hex t j general area -��� muuni SKETC11 PLAN RECEIVED (Date) PRELTMINAAY PLAN PUNK P�f� Approved' RECEIVED (Da e) / ( j Recommended Changes { ' y Preliminary'Review by Ilaalth Departma t PLAH RECE REVISEb PRELIMINARY . IVED (pate) >aoard of Education Erosion Control OfficQr Other flWASA if Department of Transportation 8/24/64 .. ( possible) Mebane (if' possible) j Iiillsborough (if possible Preliminary Action by the Plannin Orange/Alamanee (if )9/25/8 RECOMMENDED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary Action b g )xoard.' '12/17/$'T RECOM ENDED APPROVAL possible) FINAL PLAT Y the County Commissioner RECEIVED (Date) { All lots were Approved by the Health Department ( } Lots -failing health Departments- ( ) Road Maintenance A approval are comb' or listed properly on the plat f ) ImProvemento have- b enment submitted (where applicable). Approved ( } Final OWASA a Provided fort completed] bonds letter of credit. cash. Date ( ) Final DOT a Poval o (where.applicable) oa•all plans & specifications, Date pproval on plat ' { ) Final action by the Plansiin g Board i U, 3 • • ■ 4 (---) ,. 1/4.. . .:._I . yf • •• ~� - ,....,NT.N. N..„,...............„...........„......................„„. [.. .,..... --.... • _ • \' t ..e.:, 7 •r • CP • - ti y` s :.4.-eit "`' A \ . 1• --...,,,,. c R N —--. iik \ ,..:.-e''',— ' , " - • . �•y ;: ;ate 5� i:�eCO NgeCr Thfikiar ------_-.0-...z, I.;'-",_;:c \ .; •tluAC,../;:t.c.i • I - WILM/00b . --- Lap. ,5l lA oN T yOkiz "11;14446117--64- --- _ i` _ . C. c &MAA 7 IN L pj,jd„ A tW- b-. . ;A./4'r _. _... , C.-P *Pit'Selb) .. "1:1Zg'SCE; i ,, 4100 t ;v.__- 0f 1 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Ditturig DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 9 Kizer inquired about the attorney's advice. Collins responded that since the phase had not been approved as a final , it was subject to the new provisions. Yuhasz inquired how lots of record would be treated under the new provisions. Collins responded that the lots of record would be reviewed on an individual basis and, if necessary, would be taken to the Board of Adjustment for approval of a variance. MOTION: Greenberg moved approval with the staff recommended conditions. Yuhasz asked that the developer have his options open on the combinations of lots to satisfy the setback requirements. [MOTION . Kizer moved that. the developer be allowed to use any alternative AMENDMENT: to satisfy the requirements for setback on lot 20. Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Wilson inquired about the- floodplain. Kizer-asked if buffer calculations, had been completed. Smith responded that the floodplain buffer designated on the plan exceeded that required and&'r the_buffer calculation method required by the Zoning Ordinance. VOTE: Unanimous (MAIN MOTION) AGENDA ITEM'42: APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' MOTION: Greenberg moved approval of the minutes as presented. Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM #4f OCCONEECHEE POINT SECTION 1 and 2 - PRELIMINARY The staff presentation was made by Smith. Smith noted that the agenda cover sheet should read Preliminary rather than Final . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Occoneechee Point Section 1 and 2 for Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough. The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township at the southwestern quadrant of the Interstae 85 and NC 86 interchange. It is known as Lot i+ on Map 45. There are 7 lots proposed (5 lots in Section 1 and 2. lots in Section 2) out of 18.73 acres. The lot . sizes 1.7, 5.15, 3.7, .92, .99, 2.53 and 3.74 respectively. Section 1 was approved as--a Planned Development- General Commercial IV (PD-GCS+) on November 5, 1984. Section 2 was submitted as a Planned Development-Industrial II (PD-I2) to public hearing on November 26, 1981+. All lots are to be served by public water and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 10 0�5 sewer. Alexander Dickson Road and Chieftain Trail are to be pub H roads constructed to state standards and dedicated. The development of all the lots must be in compliance with the approved site plans and conditions attached to the special use permits. Subdivision.ofOcconeechee Point Sections One and Two would provide for. the. sale of individual tracts to be developed according to the site plans and Special Use Permits for both planned developments. • The Planning Staff recommends approval. Pearson inquired if the lots. were. shown on the Planned Developments site plans. Yuhasz responded yes. Pilkey asked if the reed-shown crosses the railroad tract. Yuhasz responded yes. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Pearson seconded the motion. Kizer inquired- about turn- lanes. on NC E6. Smith responded that these improvements were required according to the Planned Development approvals. Pilkey asked if the two roads serving the site •looped. Smith responded that they do not according to the submitted site plans. Yuhasz responded that, future plans do show a loop road system serving the back property. Kizer inquired about a buffer along the road in Section Ii . Smith responded that that Would not be decided until the Special Use Permit-Planned Development site plan for that section was approved. • Pilkey asked about the motel site. Smith responded that the motel site was in Section I . Wilson asked about the utility easement shown. Smith responded it was the easement for water and sewer facilities crossing and serving the site. VOTE: 10 in favor. Yuhasz abstained. AGENDA ITEM #4g. MARY RUTH C. WOODS - PRELIMINARY The staff presentation was made by Kirk. The purpose of this agenda abstracts is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Mary Ruth C. Woods. The property in question is located at the intersection of SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) and SR 1562 -(Palmer's Grove Road) in Eno Township, The property is referenced as part of lot 17 of Tax Map 20. It is bordered by residential development and there is a mobile home park across the street (SR 1561) which is the reaminder of Lot 17. The tract is designated as Agric ultural-Residential on the Land Use Plan. There are six (6) lots proposed out of 10. 11 acre tract. The lot ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGY q� • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT' ITEM NO. J 4` MEETING DATE January 7. 1915 SUBJECT: SECTION TWO NORTH DIXIE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X �-----,...- NO ATTACHMENT(S) : Planning Staff comment INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk • Checklist Vicinity Map w —` DOT Letter PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Hillsborough Letters HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Staff Response CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 Draft 12/17/84 P.B. Minutes MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 686-7331 • PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Section Two North Dixie Subdivision. • NEED: The Property in question is located in Hillsborough Township on Harper Street (SR 1395) . It is known as part of ler 17. Block A, Tax Map 5. There are six (6) lots proposed out of approximately two acres. The average lot size is .25 acres. The property is zoned R-10 in the Town of Hillsborough jurisdiction. It will be served by Hillsborough water and sewer. The applicant is requesting a short cul-de-sac off Harper Street that wi.1-.l be public and constructed to state standards. The property in question is located in the Orange Rural Fire,District which is served by the Orange Fire Department in Hillsborough. Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. IMPACT: The property surrounding this g parcel in the Towns jurisdiction is zoned R-10 and institutional; therefore, impact will be minimal on the area. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends approval subject to the construction of Cleo Drive to state standards. MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST C NAME OF SUBDIVISION _ Section Two Nor h Dixie OWNER OR DEVEI,OPER�obert F R�rha1_Crhnia_r ADDRESS N. of Dixie A. nue, NnrtFPrn Fnirv'r w/S0171-h of H1gh7a d Woods, c..h,a TOWNSHIP Hillsborough TAX MAP : BLOCK A LOT 1/ NAME OF SURVEYOR OR.ENGINEER Surveyor/Seve Yuhae� FAO;nPPr/-ljclywaOd King Total number of lots ti- To be developed in 1 .phase(s) , Total number of acres 2± Typical dwelling units at present NsnA or proposed 6 WATER SUPPLY: Public (game) Hillchnraw Commnuity Individual SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public S' Community Individual Septic tank SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRE DISTRICT 1ch,,oiiQb Access onto State Road T#13Road Standard: Public X or Private Class A_ B C Existing critical areas such as streams { ) , Flood prone areas ( ) , Watershed { ) , Historic Sites [ ) , Other { ) Explain: None known Land uses in the general area Rpc 1 rant I 1/�la� In t SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 11/30/84 Approved [ } Recommended Changes ( } PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 11/30/84 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health-Department . Erosion Control Officer WF 12/3/114 Board of Education 12/4/84 Department of Transportationll 0 8� OWASA (if possible) other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) 11/25/84 1217/84 -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended approval 12. 17,84 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat [ ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) , Approved ( ) Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ( ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications, Date ( } Final DOT approval on plat { ) Final action by the Planning Board •6 e-g- ------,-.... - .....I i '. -. ,' ...,...... . \• \ -....,.... 66 • / .........._._.... 018 2 A. k 4. ----- c ; - . ,,__ __,._. .0 . --",■...-".------. ............ \ A , _ . —_,, z , --___ ',,s. . . \\ c-, / ,„, \ \ 4 . /7 1 , :.,, / / 1 1 . • if \ % . L-- .... / / -.. ../ z . 1, • ... .:. :-Ir '•':. /- .....b . ,..• . S_ECTkN TWO NolITEi LX LE sik,... MAP 5A i 'tel +, (HIGH LAND ‘ • , A P P 1_1 C A NT: . R 0 ELE;R T 4- R. •,‘ EL .SCHCW-A R WOODS ) 1 k . , . 1 % „A ZONA NG : R— 10 ' /' /\.-7‘ / • 1-UP vsiG NAT L0_14.:'. LO 'LEA S_T_Il - 1 ' ',c:s _ • L ^ A" ,I0 i(.17\ CI' .514-- CAL. • S_C A_ 1 E 1 =40.0_ __) • '.." ... _ 47 8 AC _. - .. .. 2 - 1 -■ 2 ---=',V -- •=5A. • • 3267 ' 1. '.z- 8242 [2, , . rdi , ..,..c: . :, • , ..-- vi .._ . . 7 } 0 1 64 . / / 41.75 AC- ., .41 2 9 21 N .. L____. f , ... ..1.c.D / / ...., ....... !7:..:.t.3 / I ....,„. --.... .......-. / . --... 1103 / 1660 / / . . ORANGE' couivrr 5584 0 7625 9.9 AC. 18.7AC. : / / .3417 i 6347 \\ M- ' .--1L24- EXEMPT Z:\ / 0 CIO • 6144 allek i 6 VW • \... . 27 '99•70 ' _....a...AC-- • \ 9055 2s-5.6o 1.24 ,,•,.:-ti 11 N.. ;.;•4 4 AC (D) ."--\ 3 820 \ ?) ft.7.,,•,\ '° . ..8 ,23A! N 2-5 ,.-0 7. • .....„7.L, -...,.\\ ,_, ,..._.- • - •;' • •• . 'Th ‘ 101--. • `-■ II 6;4) 2.57 AC. N.. '65-23 (6 ,..1) AC. • 1;••""C,'''' h ---4.59 AC. — 1 1: i 7AC 4.,,,,, -.. ---... - 0,1 • 4. . .9.174----- ------, 'Illir. t22 75.AC 20A. •I.5fiC ------1,---- 'a.° \...----74 ,45:1i \.\ . _ • ---.__ _ -- •S c-, • I h ■s '''',, . _. • —I . • • , - 162 .I . • t, • .-, .........- • : 0 13 • STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B.HUNT.JR. GOVERNOR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 / DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ( WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. November 30, 1984 SECRETARY t• Orange County Mr. Robert Scholar P. O. Box 22 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan - North Dixie Subdivision Dear Mr. Scholar: This is to advise that we have examined the preliminary plat for North Dixie Subdivision. ' The preliminary plan is satisfactory. We do call your attention to the fact the short cul-de-sacs must serve four (4) homes to be eligible for addition to the System. This will mean that the driveways for at least four (4) homes must enter the cul- de-sac. If you have .further questions, please advise. Yours very truly, yl i S. H' Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER SHJ:jbh - iJ I 02 Mayor 1G3/Othn of itIZbotaugj J Frank H.Sne1T eld.Jr. - CornPn&sio�;e,r HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Town c Lynwood J.Brown 27278 Agatha John Horace Srr.E Waxer W� H.Johnson • C.E.Rosemont ti Allen A.Lloyd Remus J.Smith 04-4:4p Sheet Suer, Rachel H.Stevens �ri-C)" ?� l..D.Wagoner C7uef of Police F 04 OA* W.Hamlett November 29, 1984 • Orange County Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Re: Robert Scholar - North Dixie Subdivision Dear Sir: This is to inform you that Mr. Scholar's proposed subdivision on North Dixie Street has been approved by the Town's Engineers and his plans pre- _ sently are with the Department of Natural Resources & Community Development for their review and approval. (See attached). • f► - - ,c�ifi+l-Gti Agatha Johnson, Town Clerk • -r. 021 • P°P , a ° forth Carolina Department of Natural . ,�_ Resources &Community Development �_ , James B.Hunt,Jr.,Governor James A.Summers,Secretary / pits No L OR'QL3LE f=Ri ,i H. SNEFF7 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT MJ4 'O � TO L3 ot� !�/L.4I3a/eCaU(7j-} 710e.30 of- pre SZo1zmc 4 �0. t30�t ��� Nolerh D/xr SuI3ProiSt o�t1 t/iLt- COR_Z eJaSriM F/. gy2 p 7 2.7 " , rSrrA-1 rz,11/0'5-/ c 0.v..T Y Dear tlA 'o . We a owledge receipt of the following documents: AMV/ '/yl. 6 19 S'-- permit application - APN 00 '1 00 lig 76 'engineering plans specifications other if 2 om Your project has been assigned to, A * . . 'or a detailed engineering review. . All project documents will be reviewed wit respect to the proposed wastewater facilities. This review will not commit this Division to approving any expansion of these treatment facilities or increase of flowrate in the future. • Prior to the issuance of the permit, you will be advised of the recommendations and comments of this Division. You will also be informed of any matter which needs to be resolved. Our reviews are scheduled based on receipt date of complete informations. The items checked below are needed before your project can be reviewed. permit application (copies enclosed) engineering plans (signed and sealed by N.C.P.E.) specifications (signed and sealed by N.C.P.E.) other additional information detailed on attachment The above checked information is needed by ?do,- If not received, your application package will be returned as incomplete- Please be aware that the Division's /`,( f j C H- Regional Office must provide RECOMMENDATIONS from the Regional Supervisor or a Procedure Four Evaluation for this project, prior to final action by the- Division. If you have any questions, please call the review engineer at this telephone number 919/733-5083. Sincerel , nn � cc: 2,4)4E--) aniAC. SUPT 0VI ALLEY wrL d Ar7S C14r7FN, 4 KIND WC. Me. 120 SCHcc-J ' O 3.)x�;.,_7 Dr.. :o r UDC/mcb An Caw,'OpportuMR 4$f,rm{ttsIr art)or 1•rrn:.•.:• olkyOr Zothn of 1Pitliborougb ,``.1. 0, Crank H.Sheffield.Jr. p- Carrrn:fssroners HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 pr. i �c o``, °� Lynwood J.Brown Supt. [pore, ..7. cc Horace H.Johnson a. • C.E.Ro N. Allen A.Uoyd StreerSu Remus J.Smith +"g— ' L..D.1Vagr,nal • Rachel H.Stevens c 9 Arnold 1V Polfce t Hamlett S4'■ • December 7, 1984 • To: Orange County Planning Department Fran:, Kay Maltbie, Zoning Officer 4.69 acres as surveyed by Robert Jones on June 7,• 1968, which are in the boa Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, which are part of a 47.28 parcel owned by R Robert and Rachel Scholar, Tax Map Reference 5, Block A, Lot 17, was rezoned by the Hillsboro Town Board on November 19, 1984 from Institutional to R-10. The must still me= the requirements of the-Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance which requaresdwater and sewer for lots 10,000 square feet. • The Town of Hillsborough is planning on allowing-water and sewer usage provided that all of the plans are approved by the State of North Carolina and the. 16 step process is completed by Mr. Scholar. o O' g,Sheffield.Jr. • Zothrt 91111313r.ougb Town Clerk °sue` s �rar xrEofiers HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Agatha pt W Johnson rrlvood J. Brown Supt_ Wetter Works Honra H.Johnson R , C.E.Rosemond .alien A.Lloyd _ Street Supt. Remus J.Smith ' `e ' L D.Wagoner o c Rachel H.Stevens " Chtero lice Arnold W.Ha Hamlett - 1 PSG' • December 7, 1984 " • To: Orange County Planning Board. Prom: Hillsborough Planning Board Coen on the Scholar subdivision on Harper St., Lots 4-9. Roads should be paved to state standards. There should be drainage easements. - There should be underground utilities. • • • • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 1::g101Fair PAAGE E 12 024 a 9.98 acre tract. The lot sizes are 3.32 acres, 2.76 acres and 3.90 acres. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section L$-8-1-a) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 sqaure feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. All lots will have State Road frontage (SR 1508) and the property is located in the Little River Fire District. With the large losts and drainage easement along the stream, this subdivision will have minimal impact. Greenberg expressed concerns about house sites in regard to the power line easement. Pearson responded that the power company. would likly move the lines of so requested. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Seconded by Pearson. VOTE: Unanimous. ,- AGENDA ITEM #4i: NORTH DIXIE SECTION 2-PRELIMINARY - The staff presentation was made by Kirk. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Section TWo North Dixie subdivision. The property is located in Hillsborough Township on Harper Street (SR 1395) ,- It is known as part of lot 17 Block A, Tax Map 5. There are six (6) lots proposed out of approximately two acres. The average lot size is .25 acres. The property is zoned R-10 in the Town of Hillsborough jurisdiction. It will be served by Hillsborough water and sewer. The applicant is requesting a short cul-de-sac off Harper Street that will be public and constructed to State standards. The property is located in the Orange Rural Fire District which is served by the Orange Fire Department in Hillsborough. Police protection will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's De- partment. The property surroudning this parcel in the Town 's jur- isdiction is zoned R-10 and institutional; therefore, impact will be minimal on the area. Planning staff recommends approval. Kirk reviewed the attached letters regarding the project. Wilson inquired about the correct road name: Harper Street, Larchwood or North Dixie Drive referenced in the letters and application materials. Kirk responded that the correct name was Harper Street. 0,45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 13 Pilkey inquired'about the Orange County property. Smith responded that the' Northern Fairview Community Development park property was adjacent to the tract: • The Board reviewed the comments of the Town of Hillsborough. Scholar indicated• that has has agreed to meet the three Town recommendations. • Kirke indicated that the .'Department of Transporatation has - informed the•appl•icant by letter that monies will be. available in 1985 following July for the paving of Harper Street under Participatory Paving Program. Smith asked Scholar if_ it was. his intention. to pave Harper • Street now.. Scholar responded- that -his intention is to pave Harper Street on a. cooperative basis with the State when funds are available on July 1, 1985. P i-1 key. inquired. about the. housing types in Highland Woods,and the.' hous.ing types:proposed. Scholar responded that stick-built and mobile homes were present in Highland Woods and that all units in his subdivision will be•stick-built. Piikey inquired about the property to the south. Yuhasz resonded it was the remainder of the tract. which is 47 acres in size. He notes that this portion was in the Town of Hillsborough's juris- diction. MOTION: Pearson moved-approval of the subdivision without the :Conditions recommended by the Town of Hillborough. Shanklin 'seconded the motion. The Board discussed the conditions. Pearson felt that the conditions recommended-by the Town were unfair and, in the. case of drainage easements, not applicable. Wilson noted that under the Need sect-ion of the abstract-_the road was specified as to be constructed as public. • Waiters felt that underground. utilities were not expensive. Shanklin noted that it would be different if run from Town to the street versus the along the street serving the lots. • Wilson asked whet the intention was regarding the street as public. Smith. responded that staff was simply' relaying the applicant's statement of intent regarding the proposal , but that staff did not find a public road to be necessary in the case of this subdivision. MOTION Wilson . amended the motion to include Cleo Drive to be. constructed AMENDMENT: to state standards and dedicated public. Greenberg seconded the motion. NNW PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 /' b PAGE 14 W Shanklin said that if the applicant does not pave the road he could not develop lots 6 and 7. Pearson countered that he could develop those lots in the absence of paving. VOTE ON MOTION 8 in favor. Pearson and Shanklin opposed. Yuhasz abstained. AMENDMENT: VOTE ON .. . - AMENDED 10 in favor. ' Yuhasz abstained; MOTION: AGENDA ITEM #4j: WILLIAM AND-FRANCES S. HOWARD - MINOR SUBDIVISION PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUEST. The staff presentation was made by Smith. The purpose of this agenda item' is to decide if property of William and Frances S.. Howard, Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 112 Lot 21 can have permission to have a 25 foot partial width right-of-way under Section IV-B-3--C-2. The Howards want to create two'-new lots for their sons. A twenty-five foot easement can be secured from David and Juanita McCauley. A minor subdivision could take place if partial width right-of- way is granted. Gordon asked staff- to clarify why a partial width was OK. Smith responded that though staff- had. concern regarding additional development off. the. road and would like. to see the full easement obtained at some time, -th applicants- could not obtain a full easement. Adjacent property- could- be developed at a later date at which time the full easement would be required. Walters inquired as to the status of the main road leading back to the lot of record. Yuhasz responded that it is a "public " road. Shanklin noted that the adjacent property owner was concerned about granting right-of-way given the possibility that the house that exists would end up in the right-of-way. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the granting of a partial width right-of-way. Shanklin seconded the motion. Walters inquired about the development of the rest of. lot 21 . Smith responded that the owner had no intentions to- further develop the lot at this time, but when he did he would again have to request a partial width right-of-way or obtain the full easement. VOTE: Unanimous. IMMEmmEmmir ORANGE COUNTY BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION0AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. ___ MEETING DATE January 7, 1985 SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF-C. NORMAN WALKER and PEGGY G. WALKER IDEPARTMENT:. PLANNING j PUBLIC HEARING:f YES x _ NO • ATTACHMENT(S) : Checklist INFORMATION CONTACT: - Vicinity Map Eddie Kirk Site Plan Draft 12/17/84 P.B. Minu s PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for C. Norman Walker and Peggy G. Walker. • NEED: The property in question is located in Little River Township at the northwest intersection of SR 1519 and SR 1508. It is known as Lot 2, Tax Map 16. There are three (3) lots proposed out of a 9.98 acre tract. The lot sizes are 3.32 acres, 2.76 acres, and 3.90 acres respectively. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. However, the Sub- division Regulations (Section IV-6_1_a) require a minimum lot size of , . 40,000 sq. ft. where the-lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. All lots will have State Road frontage (SR 1508) and the property is located in the Little River Fire District. IMPACT: With the large lots and drainage easement along the stream, this • subdivision will have minimal impact. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends approval. • MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION Property of C. Norman Walker & Peggy Walker OWNER OR DEVELOPER Norman Walker � ADDRESS Rt. Z Rou emont N. C. 27572 TOWNSHIP Little River TAX MAP 16 BLOCK LOT 2 NAME Or SURVEYOR OR•ENGINEER Alois Callem n Total number-of lots 3 To be developed in 1 phase(s) , Total number'of acres 9.97 ^ Typical dwelling units at present none or proposed WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Oranoe o'un y FIRE DISTRICT � i}}le River Access onto State Road #1508 &15,f9ad Standard. Public_ X or Private Class A B Existing critical areas such as streams C Explain: { X) , Flood prone areas ( ) , Watershed •{ }, Historic Sites ( } , Other See plat ( ) Land uses in the general area w Ilinas. farming SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 21/12/84 Approved ( X ) Recommended Changes { ). PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) /19/84 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 11/3x/84 Erosion Control Officer-HO—Ear wF _ Board of Education 11/20/84 Department of Transportation Other OWASA (if possible) -Mebane (if possible) Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamasce (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended a roval 12/17/84 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) { ) All lots were approved by the Health Department { } Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved { } Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date { ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat { } Final ,action by the Planning Hoard - 3 '.''''..3-' ' . 11;- ,- * +60 ..,Ai f '' _ A 60 R/W ..)\, / " -` C...t4.0... QR. N •• W A .. E. ,_�� ��++ ,�fi�rr`` �� .�' � 5' � - • r r ,....."4:' V.,,_Y WALL E .'t. - 1.74 AC• L U P l..0 S L,G- A T 1 d.11 LAG.A I C_U L..' �1RAL `SS ® s,•,.• 5•CALezz•I=400:::•-.-f,- - ,.-.., - , . . / .. u . .,,,t,.1„.....„.•.4. .- : .%...r.r.-1'1'_ •.• ..:st.t ' 10* ' .r �. - .-w'— 5 AC- 20 c� 9978• . ... -�� - ~sue• X Al .., ......, _..... . „,„ 0 6' App,,..7 r� - ---...Z.,......-71:-.....-.......-..=---.......---,...7.7----. . 8 t2N } ,5107.. . 14E3. I. 2D SAC- - _ 0901. 5.16 AC. . . . 0 .... • r a 15 , , I. t • ___8E3 ' 15.41 AC. . 8854 . 0 FU ,. 8719 .T 54.51 AC. 1457 . 0 i 9 7 .--f^ • ?.58 AC \7J 060 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 19$4 PAGE 1 11111 sizes are 1 .67 acres, .92 acres,1.0 acres, 2. 11 acres and 2 fa 194 acres excluding rights-of-way. The property is zoned A-R (Agricutural -Residential) . The tract is served by the Eno Rural Fire Department. This district is served by the Eno. Rural Fire Department. Law enforcement is provided by the Orang County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The planning staff recommends approval. of the Preliminary Plan. Greenberg inquired about floodplain on the property. Kirk responded that he had not received any comment regarding that from the Erosion Control Officer. Greenberg asked if the property floods. Pilkey responded once in 20 years. Shankiin asked if there was an erosion problem on the property. Perason responded that the front lots are in tended field. Walters inquired 'about Lot 2. Pearson indicated that there was a mobile home on both lots 1 and 2 and that the building on lot 4 is a barn. Pearson indicated that he thought a drainage easement was needed on the property. Pearson asked about the setback requirement for the corner lot. Collins responded that the ordinance specifies that the narrowest portion of the corner lot constitutes the front of the lot. Kirk clarified that the front of the property is adjacent to Palmers Grove Road. MOTION: Greenberg moved approval subject to the Sedimentation and Erosion Control officer review and recommendation, regarding an easement. Pearson seconded the motion. Smith clarified that the Erosion Control Officer would specify a drainage easement, while the planning staff would determine compliance with the floodplain ordinance. VOTE: "Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM kg. NORMAN AND PEGGY G. WALKER - PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Norman Walker and Peggy G. Walker. The property in question is located in Little River Township at the northwest intersection of SR 1519 and SR 1508. It is known as lot 2, Tax Map 16. There are three (3) lots proposed out of a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 12 046 • a 9.98 acre tract. The lot sizes are 3.32 acres, 2.76 acres and 3.90 acres. No zoning has been adopted in Little River Township. However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section L$-B-l--a) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 sqaure feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. All lots will have State Road frontage (SR 1505) and the property is located in the Little River Fire District, With the large losts and drainage easement along the stream, this subdivision will have minimal impact. Greenberg expressed concerns about house sites in regard to the . power line easement. Pearson responded that the power company would likly move the lines of so requested. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval. Seconded by Pearson. VOTE; Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #4i : NORTH DIXIE SECTION 2-PRELIMINARY The staff presentation was made by Kirk. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Section TWo North Dixie subdivision. The property is located in Hillsborough Township on Harper Street (SR 1395) ; It is known as part of lot 17 Block A, Tax Map 5. There are six (6) lots proposed out of approximately two acres. The average lot size is .25 acres. The property is zoned R-lO in the Town of Hillsborough jurisdiction. It will be served by Hillsborough water and sewer. The applicant is requesting a short cul-de-sac off Harper Street that will be public and constructed to State standards. The property is located in the Orange Rural Fire District which is served by the Orange Fire Department in Hillsborough. Police protection will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's De- partment. The property surroudning this parcel in the Town's jur- isdiction is zoned R-l0 and institutional ; therefore, impact will be minimal on the area. Planning staff recommends approval . Kirk reviewed the attached letters regarding the project. Wilson inquired about the correct road name: Harper Street, t Larchwood or North Dixie Drive referenced in the letters and application materials. Kirk responded that the correct name was Harper Street. ORANGE. COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AG t ACTION AGENDA ITEM- ABSTRACT ITEM NO. �p MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF NARY RUTH WOODS - PRELIMINARY IDEPARTMENT: PLANNING _ PUBLIC HEARING: y ES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: JANE A''WATEIZ CHECKLIST - VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY- PLAN PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANEE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Mary Ruth C. Woods. NEED: The property in question is located at the intersection of SR 1561 (Lawrence Road) and SR 1562 (Palmer 's Grove Road),/in. Eno Township. The property is referenced as aprt of lot_1_ 7 of_-Tax' Map 20. It is bordered by residential development and there is a mobile home park across the street (SR 1561) which is the remainder of Lot 17. The tract is deisgnated as Agricultural-Residential on the Land Use Plan. There are six (6) lots proposed out of a 10.11 acre tract. The lot sizes are 1. 67 acres, :92 acres,s 1.0 acres, 2.11 acres and 2 @ 1.94 acres excluding rights-of-way. The property is zoned A-R (Agricultural-Residential) . The tract is served by the Eno Rural Fire District; This district is served by the Eno Rural Fire-Department. Law enforcement is provided by the Orang County Sheriff's Department on a 24 hour basis. IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area if developed in accordance with the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan provided it meets those standards required by the Erosion Control Officer. The Erosion Control Officer reviewed the site and stipulated the following conditions : ot,3 RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) : 1) Survey and indicate the boundary lines of the flood- plain for each lot affected; 2) Designate a 15' drainage easement on each side of creek for Lot #3; 3) If it is determined from the survey that the mobile home on Lot #1 is in the floodplain, place a notation on the plat stating "j7pon removal of the existing mobile home, no other structure may be located .; within that area except upon compliance with the provisions of the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance" . MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECIMIST ,NAME OF SUBDIVISION 14RRY RU`1'II C. 0DR Ol'.mER OR DEVELOPER R. TE RRY WOODS _ ADDRESS Roil t C 732-773 • TOWNSHIP ' 'FAX W 2 0 >ZOCK HARE OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Alois Callemyn Total number of lots 6 2b be developed in 1 Typical dwelling units at phase{s}, 'fatal number of acres 10. 11 present 2 or proposed WATER SUPPLYz Public (Name) Commnui.ty Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT(man frP a�iri', FIRE DISTRICT� Ru Access onto State Road # 6 1 1 oad Standards Public x or Private Class A Existing critical areas suc reams --- r B r C Explain: f x), Flood prone areas ( x), Watershed (�}r Historic Sites Land Uses in the general area SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) _ 1 PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) - Approved { x) Recommended Changes { } Preliminary Review by Health Dear mentor REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) p I-I - I �I Erosion Control Officeri2 14 Board of Education 12-4-84 Ira Trollinpe r Department of Transportation conditions 7th Lancl ReCOrCIS 12-II-$ I OWASA (if possible) -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) preliminary Action by the Planning $card. "12-19-64 �tc1 'reliminary Action by the County Commi,ssianers �" 'INAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved ( ) Improvements have been provided fors completedi bend, letter of credit, cash. Date f } Final OWASA approval (iahere' applicable) on'all plans & specifications, Date f ) Final DOT approval on plat f ) Final action by the Planning Board C t;- 7 '•-:.,, ll,m ;1 • • ,•,1;•-,..-:. WOOD5 --- „`•�,� APYaeA+Ur:may tuna e. woop5 go TPiJy Woo 6 -%C. •3437 i. :1-17.• AcuJcu,J 2AL IZE5198l1JnAL I-JAP P (,JAr7GxJ : ,Aklalu44.41. 2ESincrmaL, !_ •�6- j'! 1-7 -i . 1.1 -i�a :+C. ;.r. i S I • � ,,•'•=,.. ......_.2-- ty1 ' m • ,' a ', .,. . .. . ... . __.... . . . . r,47,,,mitirof • :„ . . ......... . i • , . . . . , , • ,, •_ • ...._.... 6:3.81 %%!Ii' rA I -•• �'-• , r' 1 .'� yI ,'Y\.mil i"'_'\ i�'-... PA4j -' •'.�'�,S ^. .ate^ �\�� Sa;. `�_ ". ,` . :y --r1`�� -�. 1 • Y • • • _, 1. :� -- r�•`• ".,,,'%_ __.. - --.. - '-- —. _... _ _ . _ Luz: "• X00'-D" ;tr - y • • • • kiP PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 10 DRAFT 0 sewer. Alexander Dickson Road and Chieftain Trail are to be publi roads constructed- to state standards and dedicated. The development of all the lots must be in compliance with the approved site plans and conditions attached to the special use permits. Subdivision of'-Occoneechee Point Sections One and Two would provide for the- sale of individual tracts to be developed according to the site plans and Special Use Permits for both planned developments. The Planning Staff recommends approval . Pearson inquired if the lots were-shown on the Planned Developments site plans. Yuhasz responded yes. Pilkey asked if the road-shown crosses the railroad tract. Yuhasz responded yes. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval . Pearson seconded the motion. Kizer inquired- about turn lanes. on NC 86. Smith responded that these improvements were required 'according to the Planned Development approvals. • Pilkey asked if the two roads serving the site looped. Smith ..• responded that. they do not according to the submitted site plans. Yuhasz responded that future plans do show a loop road system serving the back property. Kizer inquired about a buffer along the road in Section II . Smith responded that that Would not be decided until the Special Use Permit-Planned Development site plan for that section was approved. • Pilkey asked about the motel site. Smith responded that the motel site was in Section I . Wilson asked about the utility easement shown. Smith responded it was the easement for water and sewer facilities crossing and serving the site. �i VOTE: 10 in favor. Yuhasz abstained. /K- AGENDA ITEM #4g. MARY 'RUTH C. WOODS - PRELIMINARY The staff presentation was made by Kirk. The purpose of this: agenda abstracts is to- consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for the property of Mary Ruth C. Woods. The property in question is located at the intersection of SR 1561 - (Lawrence Road) and SR 1562 (Palmer's. Grove Road) in Eno Township. The property is referenced as part of lot 17 of Tax Map 20. It is bordered by residential development and there is a mobile home park across the street (SR 1561) which is the reaminder of Lot 17. The tract is designated as Agric ultural-Residential on the Land Use Plan. There are six (6) lots proposed out of 10. 11 acre tract. The lot PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 11 sizes are 1 ,67. acres, .92 acres,l.0 acres, 2. 11 acres and 2 @ 194 acres excluding rights-of-way. The property is zoned A-R (Agricutural-Residential) . The tract is served by the Eno Rural Fire Department. This district is served by the Eno Rural Fire Department.. Law enforcement is provided by the Orang County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. Greenberg inquired about floodplain on the property. Kirk responded that he had not received any comment regarding that from the Erosion Control Officer. Greenberg asked if the property floods. Pilkey responded once in 20 years. Shanklin asked if there was an erosion problem on the property. Perason responded that the front lots are in tended field. Walters inquired about Lot 2. Pearson indicated that there was a mobile home on both lots 1 and 2 and that the building on lot 4 is a barn. Pearson indicated that he thought a drainage easement was needed on the property. Pearson asked about the setback requirement for the corner lot. Collins responded that the ordinance specifies that the narrowest portion of the corner lot constitutes the front of the lot. Kirk clarified that the front of the property is adjacent to Palmers Grove Road. MOTION: Greenberg Moved approval subject to the Sedimentation and Erosion Control officer review and recommendation, regarding an easement. Pearson seconded the motion. Smith clarified that the Erosion Control Officer would specify a drainage easement, while the planning staff would determine compliance with the floodplain ordinance. VOTE: -Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 4g. NORMAN AND PEGGY G. WALKER - PRELIMINARY The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Norman Walker and Peggy G. Walker. The property in question is located in Little River Township at the northwest intersection of SR 1519 and SR 1508. it is known as lot 2, Tax Map T6. There are three (3) lots proposed out of a mmommormmommr ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEND ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO / MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 SUBJECT: PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT- - 1-40/OLD NC 86 AREA STUDY - 1 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : - INFORMATION CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH SEE 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET DRAFT 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 DRAFT 12/17/84 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider the revised draft, 1-40/0ld NC 86 Area Study,hearing on November 26, 1984, for approval. y, presented to To receive the Planning Board recommendation. NEED: The I -40/0ld NC 86 Area Study will revise and update the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1981 and is the first of the four 1 -40 interchange area studies to be completed. The I -40/01d NC 86 Area Study was submitted to public hearing on August 27, 1984, The Area Study was revised and -recommended for approval by the Planning Board on September 17, 1984. On October 1 , 1984 the Board of Commissioners directed that it be resubmitted,as revised, for further public comment at public hearing. IMPACT: The revised area study designates approximately intersection as a blended Commercial and aRural aIndustrial activity note. RECOMMENDATION(S) : The Planning Board considered this item on December 17, 1984 and recommended that the proposed I-40/ Old NC 86 Area Plan and Map be approved. K ' - . Uti`.j M I N U T E S • 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF Ca'11ISSIONERS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOVF,iMER 26, 1984 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session on November 26, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom, .Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearing. Co missioner& Present: Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Richard Whitted, Norman Walker, and Ben Lloyd. Menraif ,ers present: Alice Gordon (Chair), Nancy Laszlo, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz. P1 I Tom Bacon, Ruth Burnette, Valerie Greenberg, Steve Kizer, John Wilson. 1. SEDCEWOOD APARTMENTS - CO TINUATION A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to continue the public hearing on Sedgewood Apartments, PD-2-8A until December 18, 1984 to allow the applicant to resolve design issues raised by the Town of Chapel Hill. 2. I-40/01D 86 AREA STUDY Staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on the revised draft I.40/Olcl N.C. 86 Area Study. The I-40/Old N.C. 85 Area Study will revise and update the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1981 and is the first of the four I-40 interchange area studies to be completed. The I-40/0ld 86 Area Study was submitted to public hearing on August 27, 1984. The Area Study was revised and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on September 17, 1984. On October 1, 1984 the Board of Commissioners directed that it be resubmitted, as revised, for further public comment at public hearing. The revised area study designates approximately 90 acres at the I-40/0ld N.C. 86 intersection as a. blended Commercial Transition and Rural Industrial activity node. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed I-40/0ld N.C. 86 area plan and map. Mr. Chuck Cavallito spoke in opposition to the proposed plan for the I-40/0ld N.C. 86 area. He felt the study and map as presented would destroy the complextion of the area. He noted that there are no public services to place for industrial uses. He continued that any venture drawing heavily on ground water will have a serious impact on the residential area. 2 U 0 There are also no public waste disposal facilities available. • Be also expressed concern with the type of commercial activities that would be allowed and'the traffic impact on Old N.C. 86. He asked for those opposed to the study to stand and ten (10) stood in opposition wile two (2) stood in favor of the proposal. Mr. Leland Phelps expressed concern with water supply capacity if industry comes in with a great demand for water. He had concern with "exceptions" and asked what kinds of industry or commercial uses would be . located in such a small area. He noted that only a mile down the road were uses that would probably just be duplicated. Smith responded that rural industrial uses proposed were "limited" and could not generate impacts beyond the building itself. The Commercial Transition activity node classification would allow any commercial use. Mrs. Gertrude Rippy expressed opposition to any commercial or industrial use in this area. She felt that the noise from 1-40 would be enough disturbance as her home is less that 600 feet from 1-40. (Smith identified Mrs. Rippy's property on the map). • Jim Hawks spoke in. favor of the study. His property will be split due to the relocation of New 86 and he felt. it was a total loss to him for the use for which he currently utilizes his property. He would preferto - have his entire property zoned commercial. Smith identified the Hawk property on the map. Mike Dodson, who lives southeast of the interchange would like for his property to be in the Commercial Transition activity node. He does not wish to live so near 1-40 and would prefer to move and have his property zoned commercial. 3. EM2Nmay_tata.usarp Smith made the presentation. The.purpose of this agenda item is-to receive public comment on three (3) Secondary Land Use Plan amendments as follows: LtJP-4-84 Khye Weng Ng & Guat Chang Hg • LUP-5-84 Bob and Rachael Scholar LUP-6-84 James L. Freeland All three amendment requests are located north of the `own of Hillsborough corporate limits territorial. and extra-territorial planning jurisdiction within Hillsborough TOwnship. All three request a redesignation from Agricultural-Residential to Ten year Transition. • 041 r PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 DRAFT PAGE 20 Laszlo expressed that she was more concerned about the inconsistency of the Town's comments with their endorsement of the Land Use Plan amendment.and area study. Wilson expressed concern about housing adjacent to the railroad tracks. Pearson questioned how this area was different from the homes existing in Wildwood subdivision. He asked if setbacks from the railroad track could be imposed through the subdivision' process. Collins responded yes. Kizer noted that there was already a setback from the railroad with the railroad right-of-way. He indicated that the railroad right-of-way made a logical: division between housing and commercial or industrial development. Gordon clarified that at issue was density. Yuhasz noted that the advantages of a Residential-4 district was that it allowed flexibility in lot width and design and that the resulting density would not necessarily reach four units to the acre. Shanklin felt that in the area there was no basis for requiring less density than that requested. Wilson felt that there was basis: in approving a less dense zoning district. Kizer called the question. VOTE: 7 in favor. Gordon, Pilkey and Wilson opposed. Yuhasz abstained. Burnette left at 10:05. 5f. I-40/OLD NC 86 AREA STUDY Smith made the staff presentation. Gordon reviewed the history of this item. Smith reviewed the changes made from the original submittal to the revised submittal to public hearing. She also reviewed the minutes of the public hearing. Walters noted that Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, and the EDC feel that the County is overlooking opportunities for commercial and industrial development. He noted that there was not enough support expressed by the business community to support the plan. Pilkey noted that Price was not at the public hearing to speak to the plan. Smith indicated that the EDC had reviewed the original submittal and had given there recommendation uf the proposal at one of their meetings. She added that the EDC recommendation_had been entered into the record of the original public hearing. Gordon asked if there were any other industrial sites proposed. Smith resonded none south of. 1-85 under. the current plan. Yuhasz asked if any were likely to be designated. Smith responded it would be considered under the New Hope Road interchange area 'PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 21, 1984 U4' study. Walters indicated that there was support for an industrial park in the New Hope Road area, but there was no support for it in this area. Pearson asked what makes the New Hope Road area better than this area given that both were interchanges. Walters responded that there were houses in this area. Pearson indicated that he had previously expressed support for additional area here designated for commercial/industrial development and that he felt this type of development should be split between the two interchanges and not concentrated at one.or the other. MOTION: - Pearson moved approval as submitted to public hearing. Wilson seconded the motion. Pilkey asked if the Planning Board could sit down with the EDC- regardisng their industrial sites preferences. Walters expressed concern with the EDC's failure to do its job. Collins indicated that Sylvia Price wants to come and speak to the Planning Board and give a presentation on the EDC activities, and status. Kizer responded that the Planning Board has invited her twice to come to the Planning Board so.that the Planning Board could express itself to her. Pilkey suggested that the Chairperson of the EDC also be invited. Pearson noted that the EDC was supposed to work within areas designated by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Kizer felt that this was not happening. Gordon suggested that_ the. Industrial Development Committee of the Planning Board prepare for such a meeting with the EDC. Greenberg asked staff to respond to the concern raised abbut groundwater. Smith responded that it was likely than any inten- sive use proposed would be served by public water. Greenberg asked staff to respond to the concern about similar uses between this interchange and the I-85/Hillsborough inter- change. Smith responded that the market would dictate the uses and that it was unlikely similar uses would occur. Kizer noted that this area was the ripe area in Orange County outside of the Watersheds suitable for these uses. VOTE: 9 in favor. Gordon opposed, The Planning Board was informed of the continuation of the 00i - ., .. t ::r; x:::• .i.. N E 1,L G7 L. T = R CD Pti/i f �.N Y "` d Subsidiary of Koppers Gompany,liu. P.. 0. BOX 113i DURHAM, N. C . U. S. A. 27702 OFFICE TEL: (919) 682-6191 •TELEX: 57-9446 December 6, 1984 Mr. B. B. Olive Ur t., 1 0 1984 Olive & Olive Attorneys at Law ;,r „ P. 0. Box 2049 , r � c Durham, N. C.. 27702 • • Dear Bill : In response to your recent correspondence with reference to our contract on Interstate 40, we wish to advise that we have not, as of this date, begun any construction operations. Our particular contract begins at Sunset Road on the Western terminus and proceeds across Erwin Road, Route 501 , Old Chapel Hill Road and continues in an easterly direction for approximately 1,500 feet . Our project does not cross Upper New Hope Creek, but in all probability, could be construed to lie within its watershed. We, too, are concerned with the preservation of the New Hope Creek Watershed and will, in accordance with corporate policy, . exert every effort to preserve its integrity. During - regularly scheduled management meetings, our project personnel are alerted to the necessity for compliance with environmental protection, pollution control , safety and other standard busi- ness practices . We appreciate your interest and wish to assure you of our commitment to, not only being a successful business entity, but in also being a true and loyal member of the community. Veryly yours, • "f"(P"'-'4" Homer L. Riley, P.E. President • HLR/jng cc : Terry Sanford, President, Duke University Billy Rose, State Highway Administrator Benjamin Jayne, Dean, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Richard M. Pearl , Vice President-Construction, Nello L. Teer Co. VOUNDED 1909 ORANGE. COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �fr�11 ACTION AQ�I�1fa ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 ITEM NO. • SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS fDEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : SEE 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEA' NG INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENDA PACKET SUSAN SMITH DRAFT 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING • .PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH MINUTES 732-8187 DRAFT 12/17/84 PLANNING BOARD HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 MINUTES CHAPEL HILL_ - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider five (5) Zoning Atlas amendrents for Cheeks Townshi to public hearing on November 26, 1984, for approval . P► presented To receive the Planning Board recommendation. NEED: The proposed Zoning Atlas amendments address property located in Cheeks Township which were not included in the list of non-residential uses whach was submitted to public hearing in November, 1983 and approved in October, 1984. Two amendments refer to non-residential uses which existed prior to the November, 1983 public hearing and which were erroneousi omitted from the proposed list of non-residential uses. y These include: Rocking "B!' Saddle Shop Griffin's General Services Three amendments refer to non-residential uses which came into existence following the November 1983 public hearing and were, therefore, not included on the list of non-residential uses submitted to public hearing. These include: Efland Hosiery Mill Orange Investors Corporation Orange Truss Company IMPACT: Consideration of these uses for non-residential designation in the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township would address concerns regarding the current non- conforming status of these uses. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board considered this item on December 17, 1984 an that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as folllowsa recommended • 044 RECOMMENDATION: (conti.nued) Rocking "B" Saddle Shop - Existing Commercial V for portion of lot dimensioned 100'-700'/400'-400' including structure Griffin's General Services - Existing Commercial-V for portion of lot dimensioned as 200'-450' including structure _ Efland Hosiery Mill- Industrial II ' Orange Investors Corporazjon - GC-4 for portion of lot associated with structure, septic system, parking and access totaling to 18.9 acres Orange Truss Company - Industrial II for portion of lot associated with the structures, access, storage, parking and signage. ztro,Fr 4z/84 haw_ Ite;ti /An (f4007-83 indicating staff felt that a larger area would be more appropriate 4 045 a amendment. Staff did not recommend approval of this Land Us Plan amendment. There was no public comment. 4• O TI S Pr�1 [' Presented by Collins The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on five (5) zoning atlas amendments for Cheeks Township. The proposed 'zoning atlas amendments address property located in Cheeks 'ibwnship which were not included in the list of nonresidential uses which was submitted to public hearing in November 1983 and approved in October 1984. . Two amendments refer to non-residential uses which existed prior to the November, 1983 public hearing and which was erroneously omitted from the proposed list of non-residential uses. These include; Rocking "B" Saddle Shop • Griffin's General Services Three amendments refer to non-residential uses which came into existence following the November; 1983 public hearing and were, therefore, not included on the list of non-residential,uses submitted to public hearing. These include: Efland Hosiery Mill Orange Investors Corporation Orange Truss Company Consideration of these uses for non-residential designation in the zoning atlas for Cheeks 'Tbnship would address concerns regarding the current non-conforming status of these uses. The Planning staff recommends that the zoning atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as follows: Rocking "B" Saddle Shop - Existing Con ecial for lot dimensioned 100'-700'/400'-400' including structure. 1rtzons of . Griffin's General Store - Existing Commercial-V for portions of lot dimensioned 200' by 450' including structure. Efland Hosiery - Industrial.-II Orange Investors Corporation GC-4 for associated with structure, septic system, parking of lot parking and access. Orange Truss Company -- non--conforming. Collins noted that the applicant was requesting a zoning atlas amendment due to an error in the atlas for Cheeks Township. Staff recognized? the error and recommends rezoning to EC-•5 (Existing Commercial-V). 04G Commissioner Marshall inquired if this property were under use value taxation and how such valuation affects the commercial use of the property. - Collins responded that he did not know. There was no public comment. GRUrET GENERAL SERVICES Collins noted that this item also represented an error in the zoning atlas for Cheeks Township. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern with use value taxation of the property. Smith responded that the Tax Office has recognized the commercial use and taxes it appropriately. EFL O y,,. 'rr r Collins noted that this property was not listed among the parcels in Cheeks Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for a commercial use at the time of the public hearing. The Building Permit was issued January of 1984. Collins cited a letter from Thomas D. Efland is support of the request for rezoning. Glen Everette, pastor of Efland Methodist Church, spoke in support of this request. ORANGE 11%3 fi CC72PORAT�n^� The presentation was made by Collins. The applicant desires that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township show this parcel as General Commercial-4 (GC-4) as opposed to Residential-1 zoning district. A building permit was issued for the use of the tract for a flea market after the November, 1.983 public bearing on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township and prior to the decision to zone Cheeks Township made by the Board of Commissioners in October, 1984. The property was not listed among the parcels in Cheeks Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for a commercial use at the time of the public hearing. The Planning staff recommends that only the portion of the property which includes the flea market structure, septic tank and nitrification field, parking and access be zoned GC-4. This recommendation reflects the designation of the area as Corn rcial-Industrial Transition activity node in the West Orange Area Plan amendment to the adopted Orange County Land Use Plan. Chair Willhoit inquired why staff felt the GC-4 designation was appropriate. Collins responded that this type of use fits best in this G 04 district given the types of uses permitted in a GC-4 district. He cited the use's location at a major interchange and along an industrial corridor. Chair wilihoit inquired Why only a property was y y portion of the ro designated by staff. Collins responded that it is not the policy of the County to prezone property and that a decision to include the whole property would require a zoning plan for the entire area. He noted that a less inclusive zone could be considered. Whitted asked if staff was equating the.flea market to retail sales. Collins responded yes. Whitted questioned this saying that retail sales traditionally occur within enclosed structures. Collins responded that that nay be traditional, but that it is not specified in the ordinance, citing the,example of a plant nursery. Chair Willhoit asked about an accessory use designation for the • latter. Collins responded that it is not an accessory use of it is an retail operation. Commissioner Whitted asked if the flea market is synonymous with retail sales. Collins responded yes, where goods are sold on a retail level it is appropriate to consider it as a permitted use under that zoning designation. Whitted felt the Zoning Ordinance should speak more • specifically to the flea market as opposed to an enclosed structure. Collins agreed that the Ordinance would be strengthened with more specific categories, otherwise interpretation must be made as to what fits in what categories. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern with the appropriateness in the GC-4 district than elsewhere for this use. Whitted concurred adding that he would prefer that the Ordinance prescribe the manner of development of a flea market in that same way as extractive uses are proscribed. Gordon inquired if the use were not allowed here under. a Specific zoning designation which permits it, then how would it be designated. Collins responded that it would be considered a non-conforming use until the Zoning Ordinance was amended to recognize it in some fashion. Lloyd inquired about the status of the use. Collins described the history of the issuance of building permits, construction of the structure and conduction of sales on the property. Charles Johnson suggested that the Board recognize the difference between the flea market and a yard sale, ORA!;E TRUSS CQiANY U48 • 7 The presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins. The applicant desires that the Zoning Atlas for Cheeks Township show this parcel as Light Industrial as opposed to Residential-1 zoning district. A building permit was issued for the use of the tract after the November, 1983 Public hearing on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township and prior to the decision to zone Cheeks Township made by the Board of Commissioners in October 1984. The property was not listed among the parcels in Cheeks Township to be zoned non-residential as it was not used for a commercial use at the time of the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends that the property be zoned non-conforming as it is inappropriate for this type of use to be conducted in this location under the policy of the County. Whiffed asked staff to locate the use on the map. reviewed the location of the operation on the map. P Collins Lloyd inquired how long the use had been in operation. Collins responded that a permit was issued in September, 1984. Dean Gast owner/operator clarified that a building permit was issued in February, 1984 for the operation building and a second permit was issued in October, 1984 for the storage structure/warehouse. He indicated he had begun operations in June, 1984. Steve Yuhasz, Planning Board member, inquired when the deed of the property was dated. Gast responded February, 1984. Lloyd asked why staff disapproved of an on-going use. Collins responded that it was an inappropriate use in that area. He noted it was located a substantial distance from the area designated for Comanercial/1nd-- dustrial activity node under the West Orange Area Study and that it was located north of the Transition Area under the same study. He continued that agricultural uses were clearly designated as appropriate in this area and he was concerned that the existence of this use would stimulate yet further requests for commercial and industrial uses in the area. Collins continued that staff would rather classify the use as non-conforming than open the door to similar requests. Lloyd asked what would happen to the use if the structure were destroyed by fire. Collins cited the Ordinance that specifies if 60% or more of the structure housing a non-conforming use was destroyed, that reconstruction could only occur in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. If this use were destroyed to that et:tent, it could not be rebuilt in that location under that provision. • • Walker indicated that as a nearby property owner he did not object to the use. Shanklin, Planning Board member, indicated he lives nearby and that neighbors polled have no objection to the operation as it is now, but are concerned about expansion of the operation in terms of additional noise, lights, and outdoor storage. He added that no one indicated that they want the operation to be prohibited from continuing to function and that they saw it as a desireable business for the area. An audience meirber asked if the use was in operation,, why was . staff blocking its rezoning. Gordon responded that this was a public hearing regarding the rezoning request and that staff had recommended that the use not be rezoned as it was located outside an area appropriate for such a use. Lloyd inquired if the use was simply overlooked. Collins responded no, that a survey had preceeded the compilation of the Zoning Atlas and that the building permits for the structures were not issued until after the public hearing held in November, 1983. Gast indicated that staff had informed him fully of the possibility of zoning when the permits were issued, but that he did not know he could not rebuild at this location if destroyed and that that was a concern for him. Carl Wilkins indicated he had no problem with the business as it is now, but was concerned with additional expansion and noise, traffic and lights. Carl Ashley recoruended that only a part of the lot be rezoned, but not the whole property. R. Banks £4cAdams felt that the use should be allowed to operate as there was no problem with noise and there was no industry on the north side of the Southern Railroad. 5. 1q3T lato sEcTION III REVILING RDi ST The staff presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public convent on a proposed rezoning request for Wildwood Corporation. The request was for higher density use for 12.97 acres of land located along the south side of the Southern Railroad and west of IIC 86. The property is part of Lot 4 of Orange County Tax Map 45, Hillsborough Township. The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential while the requested designation is R-4. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 16 DRAFT U 56 The Board discussed their concerns about the boundaries of the Transition Area and the objectives of that plan designation. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request with a staff directive to consider the feasibility of a larger area for similar amendment. Pearson seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 in favor. Wilson, Pilkey and Greenberg opposed. Yuhasz abstained. ITEM #5b ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1 . ROCKING "B" SADDLE SHOP The staff presentation was made by Smith. Kizer expressed concern that the EC5 designation was a generous zone. - MOTION: Pearson moved approval of the Existing Commercial V zoning district for the portion of the lot- dimensioned as 1001700' - 4001400' including the existing structures. Pilkey seconded the motion. Wilson was out of the room. VOTE: 10 in favor. 2.GRIFFIN'S GENERAL SERVICES The staff presentation was made by Smith. Kizer inquired about the use of the structure. Smith responded it was used for general repair of machinery and tools. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of the Existing Commercial V zoning district for the portion of the lot dimensioned as 200'450' including the structure. Pearson seconded the motion. - VOTE: Unanimous. 3.EFLAND HOSIERY MILL Smith made the staff presentation. Wilson inquired why the entire tract was to be designated. Smith responded that the entire property was associated with the use of the tract. Wilson felt that this designation rewarded the owner for "dragging his feet " on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township. Shanklin felt that this statement did not apply to the owner of this business. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Industrial Ii zoning district for the tract. Shanklin expressed concern about the traff.ic' hazard caused by the parking lot lighting, seconded the motion. VOTE: 10 in favor. Wilson opposed. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES bl DECEMBER 17, 1984 u PAGE 17 4. ORANGE INVESTORS CORPORATION Smith made the staff presentation. Greenberg inquired about the amount of land to be included in the portion. of-the lot recommended by the Planning Staff to be zoned, commercial , Collins responded 18.9 acres. Pilkey noted that more of the property was being timbered. Shanklin asked if a GC-4 designation was appropriate. Smith responded that this I's a retail operation and that staff had clarified its status with a planning document called the Standard Industrial Classification Index. Kizer questioned not zoning the property EC-5. Collins responded that this raised a problem with consistency of policy application. Smith clarified that this property was located in the area des- ignated in the plan as Industrial/Commercial and that uses such as the Rocking•"B" Saddle Shop were uses which pre-existed the ordinance and were located in areas outside of those designated in the plan for commercial operations. Shanklin inquired about the status of the remainder of the property. Kizer responded that a rezoning of the property was necessary. Yuhasz noted that under a GC-4 district the flea market property could be converted to another use. Smith clarified that uses permitted under the GC-4 district would be permitted, but that new use of the property would have to be developed according to the requirements of the ordinance,- including landscaping, setbacks, wastewater treatment, signage, access etc. MOTION: Pearson moved approval of General Commercial V zoning district for the portion of the property associated with the structures, septic ystem, parking lot and access, totaling 18.9 acres. Walters seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous 5. ORANGE TRUSS COMPANY The staff presentation was made by Smith. Kizer asked staff to review the history of the building permits. Smith reviewed the history of permit issuance noting that all permits were issued prior to the zoning of Cheeks Township,but after the public hearing on the zoning of Cheeks. • Walters suggested that an appropriate zoning designation be given to the structure that exists. Smith reviewed the impact of a non-conforming status of the use. ) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 18 • Kizer inquired why staff recommended that this use be non-conforming, unlike the other uses previously considered. Smith responded that the staff felt that this use was not consistent with County land use policies and was inappropriate in this location. Shanklin suggested an I-1 zoning district for the portion of the property associated with the structure. Kizer inquired when the business began operations. Pearson responded in May. The Board discussed legitimization of the use and the affect on the property of its destruction beyond 60%. Pilkey asked staff to review the difference between and Existing Industrial and Industrial-1 district. Smith reviewed the intent statements and application criteria, noting that the Industrial 1 district could not apply to this use. Shanklin suggested applying the industrial-2 designation. Gordon inquired about the intention of the Existing Industrial district. Smith responded that the Existing Industrial designation applied to uses in existence at the time zoning is extended to a township. Kizer expressed concern with the Industrial 2 designation as a permissive district. Yuhasz inquired what designation would have been applied to the use if it had existing 2-3 years before the extension of zoning to the township. Smith responded that the 1-2 district would likely have been applied. Yuhasz expressed concern that the owner/developer would not have known when the decision on zoning would be made •and, therefore, began Iris operation given that uncertainty. Kizer noted that past actions have been generous with the use of the non-conforming designation. Gordon noted that the key to the decision was that the use is existing, not the legnth of time that the use existed. She also noted that the use was out ofi sync with the Land Use Plan, She clarified that the question was is it detrimental enough to warrant a non-conforming status. Kizer noted that if the zoning lot was restricted, the risk would be relatively small . Gordon clarified that the zoning lot would be restricted to the structures, septic tank, parking and sign. Smith noted that there is currently outside storage of materials. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of a zoning lot applicable to the portion of the property associated with the use and designated Industr. iai-2. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 19$4 PAGE 19 (� Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 in favor. Greenberg, Wilson, Gordon, and Pearson opposed. The Board discussed consideration of the rest of the agenda. Since Board members did not bring their public hearing packets and did not have the findings of fact checklist to review, the Board tabled consideration of the Occoneechee Point- iI and Oakdale Park Two planned development/special use permits. Collins asked the Board if they wished to set a special Meeting to hear these items in order. to meet the January 7, 1985 date of the continuation of the public hearing to receive the Planning Board recommendations set by the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board indicated by consensus that they did not wish to set a special meeting for this purpose. 5c.• WiLDWOOD SECTION iII REZONING REQUEST The staff presentation was made by Smith. . Smith clarified that the request was for a straight rezoning • to Residential-4,and that specific design requirements would be satisfied through the subdivision design, review.and approval process Pilkey inquired why an R-4 designation was requested. Smith responded that the R-4+ designation corresponded with Section 1 of Wildwood. Pearson added that the R-4 designation gave some flexibility in lot design. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Residentia1-4 zoning request. Pearson seconded the motion. Wilson reviewed the Town of Hillsborough concerns. Pearson felt that the Town concerns were inconsistent, particularly #2. Kizer asked about requiring a planned development on the property. Smith responded that there would be only limited gains to be derived from this process. Smith expressed concern about the Town's endorsement of the Land Use Plan amendment, the Central Orange Area Study, and the densities appropriate for this area and their later opposition to specific proposals for developments at these densities. Shanklin expressed concern about the limited number of Planning Board members involved in the preparation of the comments from the Town. of Hillsborough. He indicated that he tended to discount these comments as unrepresentative of the feelings of the people of Hillsborough. ORANGE COUNTY rr`` 44 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEMR# ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. Jc MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Z-6-84 (Rezoning Request) WILDW00D SECTION Iii DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES ._.�. X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:SUSAN SMITH SEE 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACKET DRAFT 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - DRAFT 12/17/84 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES CHAPEL HILL - 732-9361 MEBANE �b7`9251 - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE:. To consider a proposed rezoning. November 26, 1984, for _appraval > Presented at public hearing on To receive the Planning Board recommendation. NEED: Wildwood Corporation has requested a rezoning for 12.9 located along the south side of Southern Railroad and west rof NC Highway 86. The purpose of the request is to permit higher density residential development than is presently allowed. The property in question is part of lot 4 of Orange County Tax Map 45 Hillsborough Township. The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential , while the requested designation is R-4. The property is located within the HB-4 Central Orange activity node which is designated Commercial/Industrial Transition. The area is also designated as Ten Year Transition. IMPACT: ;approval of the request would allow a density of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit instead of the 40,000 square feet that is presently allowed. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board considered this item on December 17, 1984 and recommended that the request for rezoning from R-1 to R-4 be approved. 055 Walker indicated that as a nearb y property pro 8 oomer he did not object to the use. Shanklin, Planning Board member, indicated he lives nearby and that neighbors polled have no objection to the operation as it is now, but are concerned about expansion of the operation in terms of additional noise, lights, and outdoor storage. He added that no one indicated that they want the operation to be prohibited from continuing to function and that they'saw it as a desireable business for the area. An audience marcher asked if the use' was in operation, why was staff blocking its rezoning. Gordon responded that this was a public hearing regarding the rezoning request and that staff had recommended that the use not be rezoned as it was located outside an area appropriate for such a use. Lloyd inquired if the use 'vas simply overlooked. Collins responded no, that a survey had preceeded the compilation of the Zoning Atlas and that the building permits for the structures were not issued until after the public hearing held in November, 1983. • Gast indicated that staff had informed him fully of the possibility of zoning when the permits were issued, but that he did not know he could not rebuild at this location if destroyed and that that was a concern for him. Carl Wilkins indicated he had no problem with the business as it is now, but was concerned with additional expansion and noise, traffic and lights. Carl Ashley recommended that only a part of the lot be rezoned, but not the whole property. R. Banks McAdams felt that the use should be allowed to operate as there was no problem with noise and there was no industry on the north side of the Southern Railroad. 5. IA r �ojjr _ ; • III RPZONIppt; REGUEST The staff presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed rezoning request for Plildwood Corporation. The request was for higher density use for 12.97 acres of land located along the south side of the Southern Railroad and west of VC 86. The property is part of Lot 4 of Orange County Tax Map 45 Township. The present zoning classification is R-1 Residential y�While othe requested designation is R-4. • • .____._____,,,...i..ii!- 9 (:6■I The property is located within the HD-4 Central Orange activity nodL� which is designated Commercial/Industrial Transition. The area is also designated as 10 year Transition. - Approval of the .request would allow a density of 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit instead of the 40,000 square feet that is presently allowed. Planning staff recommended approval of this request. Commissioner Flitted clarified that the abstract should read Planning staff recommendation, not the Planning Board. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern that she has in the past requested that staff indicate cumulative impacts of development proposals along NC 86 and that these traffic generation figures were not available. Evelyn Poole, Mown of Hillsborough Planning Board, spoke on behalf of the Town Planning Board. She indicated that the Planning Board was concerned about a single access to a major road from the site and the location of the residential proposal next to railroad tracks and across from a proposed industrial developrrent. The Town Board recommended an R-1 or R-2 zoning district only. She continued that the Town Planning Board was concerned • • about the slope of the property toward the railroad tracks and the impact of this proposal on existing residential uses. She also indicated that they were concerned about chemical spills along the railroad line. 6. ." 1,4T AP?LI 7„�.,'LO - MS: Sworn in: Susan Smith and Tbmry Stone The staff presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. This agenda item is to receive public comment on a proposed Planned Development/Special • Use Permit and rezoning application from R-1 to PD-12. Hallmark Woodcraft Company has requested a Planned Development designation for 6.27 acres of land located off MC 86 west of Occoneechee Point and north of the Southern Railway. The purpose of the request is to permit the construction of four industrial buildings to be used by Hallmark Woodcraft Company for their business. The property in question is part of lot #4 of Orange County Tax Map 45 in Hillsborough Township. The present zoning classification of the property is R-1 Residential, while the requested designation is PD (I-1 to I-2) Industrial-2. The property is located in a Commercial Industrial Activity Node as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan and Central Orange Area Study. J That designation permits a range of commercial and industrial zoning P11)1!NG BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 Lf:yi A ^- PAGE 19 Vie!:.- a f Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 in favor. Greenberg, Wilson, Gordon, and Pearson opposed. The Board discussed consideration of the rest of the agenda. Since Board members did not bring their public hearing packets and did not have the findings of fact checklist to review, the Board, tabled consideration of the Occoneechee Point' Il and Oakdale Park Two planned development/special use permits. Collins asked the Board if they wished to set a special meeting to hear these items in order to meet the January 7, 1985 date of the continuation of the public hearing to receive the Planning Board recommendations set by the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board indicated by consensus that they did not wish to set a special meeting for this purpose. 5c.• WILDWOOD SECTION III REZONING REQUEST The staff presentation was made by Smith. Smith clarified that the request was for a straight rezoning to Residential-4,and that specific design requirements would be satisfied through the subdivision design, review and approval process Pilkey inquired why an R-4 designation was requested. Smith responded that the R-4 designation corresponded with Section 1 of Wildws,od. Pearson added that the R-4 designation gave some flexibility in lot design. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Residential-4 zoning request. Pearson seconded the motion. Wilson reviewed the Town of Hillsborough concerns. Pearson felt that the Town concerns were inconsistent, particularly #2. Kizer asked about requiring a planned development on the property. Smith responded that there would be only limited gains to be derived from this process. Smith expressed concern about the Town's endorsement of the Land Use Plan amendment, the Central Orange Area Study, and the densities appropriate for this area and their later opposition to specific proposals for developments at these densities. Shanklin expressed concern about the limited number of Planning Board members involved in the preparation of the comments from the Town of Hillsborough. He indicated that he tended to discount these comments as unrepresentative of the feelings. of the people of Hillsborough. ° PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 0 b 6 DECEMBER 17, 1984 V PAGE 20 Laszlo expressed that she was more concerned about the inconsistency of the Town's comments with their endorsement of the Land Use Plan amendment,and area study. Wilson expressed concern about housing adjacent to the railroad tracks. Pearson questioned how this area was different from the homes existing in Wildwood subdivision. He asked if setbacks from the railroad track could be imposed through the subdivision' process. Collins responded yes. Kizer noted that there -was already a setback from'the railroad with the railroad right-of-way. He indicated that the railroad. right-of-way made a logical: division between housing and commercial or industrial development. Gordon clarified that at issue was density. Yuhasz noted that the advantages of a Residential-4 district was that it allowed flexibility in lot width and design and that the resulting density would not necessarily reach four units to the acre. Shanklin felt that in the area there was no basis for requiring less density than that requested. Wilson felt that there was basis in approving a less dense zoning district. Kizer called the question. VOTE; 7 in favor. Gordon, Pilkey and Wilson opposed. Yuhasz abstained. Burnette left at 10:05. 5f. I-40/0LD NC 86 AREA STUDY Smith made the staff presentation. Gordon reviewed the history of this item. Smith reviewed the-.:changes made from the original submittal to the revised submittal to public hearing. She also reviewed the minutes of the public hearing. Walters noted that Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, and the EDC feel that the County is overlooking opportunities for commercial and industrial development. He noted that there was not enough support expressed by the business community to support the plan. Pilkey noted that Price was not at the. public hearing to speak to the plan. Smith indicated that the EDC had reviewed the original submittal and had given there recommendation of the proposal at one of their meetings. She added that the EDC recommendation had been entered into the record of the original public hearing. Gordon asked if there were any other industrial sites proposed. Smith resonded none south of 1-85 under, the current plan. Yuhasz asked if any were likely to be designated. Smith responded it would be considered under the New Hope Road interchange area ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGE ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT . ITEM NO. --------.255-7 MEETING DATE JANUARY 7s 198 • • • SUBJECT: . SECONDARY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS • • DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES __ � NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH SEE 11/26/84 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA PACK T DRAFT 11/26/81: PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12/17/84 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - HILLSBOROUGH- - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967--9251 MEBANE - - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE To ccnsider three 13) secondary rand Use Plan amendments;prese.nted at public Hearing on November Z6, 1984,-for approval.. • To receive the Planning Board recommendation. • NEED: Three secondary Y Land Use Plan amendments have been submitted for property located north of the Town of Hiilsbornunh cnrnr►rate limits .and extra- territorial planning jurisdiction within Hillsborough Township. The proposed secondary Land Use Plan amendments include: LUP-4-84 Khye Weng Ng and Guat Chang Ng • LUP-5-84 Bob and Rachael Scholoar LUP-6 .04 James L. Freeland All three amendments request a redesignation from Agricultural-Residential to Ten Year Transition: IMPACT: Amendment of the Land Use Plan as requested would extend the Trnsition Area for the Town of Hillsborough north of the current extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Designation of a Ten Year Transition Area provides for the full range of residential densities permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Planning Board considered this item on December 17 1 9 recommended that the Land Use Plan be amended to designate the Weng and and Scholar tracts as Ten Year Transition, and that the Land Use Plan be amended to,designate the Freeland tract as Ten Year Transition with a directive to staff to consider the feasibility of designating a larger • area around the tract as Ten Year Transition. 0 6 0 oRafr �E4 but 014 1�r� 2 There are also no public waste disposal facilities available. He also expressed concern with the type of commercial . activities that would be allowed and the traffic impact on Old PI.C. 86. He asked for those opposed to the study to stand and ten (10) stood in opposition while two (2). stood in favor of the proposal. Mr. Leland Phelps expressed concern with water supply capacity if industry comes in with a great demand for water. He had concern with "exceptions" and asked what kinds of industry or commercial uses would be located in such a small area. He noted that only a mile down the road were uses that would probably just be duplicated. Smith responded that rural industrial uses proposed were "limited" and could not generate impacts beyond the building itself. The Commercial Transition activity node classification would allow any commercial use. • Mrs. Gertrude Rippy expressed opposition to any commercial or • industrial use in this area. She felt that the noise from 1-40 would be enough disturbance as her home is less that 600 feet from 1-40. (Smith identified Mrs. Rippy's property on the map). Jim Hawks spoke in favor of the study. His property will be split due to the relocation of New 86 and he felt it was a total loss to him for the use for which he currently utilizes his property. He would prefer to - have his entire property zoned commercial. Smith identified the Hawk property on the map. Mike Dodson, who lives southeast of the interchange would like for his property to be in the Commercial Transition activity node. He does not wish to live so near 1-40 and would prefer to nave and have his property zoned commercial. 3. a Lia T 5E 17T.AN w Er+ir Smith made the presentation. The purpose of this agenda item is-to receive public' comment on three (3) Secondary Land Use Plan amendments as follows: LUP-4--84 Khye Weng Ng & Guat Chang rIg LL7P-5-84 Bob and Rachael Scholar LUP-6-84 James L. Freeland All three amendment requests are located north of the . Town of Hillsborough corporate limits territorial- and extra-territorial planning -• jurisdiction within Hillsborough Township. All three request a redesignation from Agricultural-Residential to Ten Year Transition. Amendment of the Land Use Plan as requested would extend the Transition Area for the Town of Hillsbrorough north of the current extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. Designation of a Ten Year Transition Area provides for the full range of residential densities permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Staff recommends that the Land Use Plan be amended to designate the Wang and Scholar tracts as Ten Year Transition. Planning Staff recommends that a larger area, which includes the Freeland tract, be considered for redesignation as Ten Year Transition, after further study. Smith explained the difference between the Agricultural- Residential and the Ten Year Transition designations. She gave descriptions and locations of the properties in question and reviewed the applicable locational criteria. Commissioner whitted inquired if this property had already been rezoned. Smith responded that it was the adjacent property that was previously rezoned POI. Commissioner Marshall asked what is intended by the Ten Year and Twenty Year Transition plan categories. Smith responded the designation Ten and Twenty is not a fixed time period, but a policy guideline. Commissioner Marshall expressed concern about the Towns input on planning decisions in their areas. Commissioner Marshall also noted that the Plan calls for a complete review of the Land Use.Plan every two years. Smith noted that the Town Planning Board had received information on all the projects and that comprehensive review of the Land Use Plan was presented to both Boards in January of this year. There was no public comment. SCHOL t PP:J .LDP-5-84 - Rick Cannity, representing the Scholars, stated that they were basically in agreement with staff's presentation of the request. He noted that the criteria listed in the adopted Land Use Plan showed this amendment as appropriate for the area. He indicated that the applicants were also aware that this was just the first step in the process. There was no other comments. FRRETZYD RF,OVERr, UP-6-$4 Smith noted that staff was concerned about the size of the tract Ut indicating staff felt that a larger area would be more appropriate for a plan amendment. Staff did not reconnd approval of this land Use Plan amendment. There was no public comment. 4. ZONING ATLAS ANEP ME'fS Presented by Collins • The purpose of this agenda item is to receive public comment on five (5) zoning atlas amendments for Cheeks Township. The proposed zoning atlas amendments address property located in Cheeks Township which were not included in the list of nonresidential uses which was submitted to public hearing in November 1983 and approved in October 1984. Two amendments refer to non-residential uses which existed prior to the November, 1983 public hearing and which was erroneously omitted from the proposed list of non-residential uses. These include: Rocking "W' Saddle Shop Griffin's General Services Three amendments refer to non-residential uses which came into existence following the November; 1983 public hearing and were, therefore, not included on the list of non-residential uses submitted to public hearing. These include: Efland Hosiery Mill Orange Investors Corporation Orange Truss Company Consideration of these uses for non-residential designation in the zoning atlas for Cheeks Zbwnship would address concerns regarding the current non-conforming status of these uses. The Planning staff recommends that the zoning atlas for Cheeks Township be amended as follows: Rocking "B" Saddle Shop - Existing Commecial for portions of lot dimensioned 100'-700'/400'-400' including structure. Griffin's General Store - Existing Commercial-NI for portions of lot dimensioned 200' by 450' including structure. Efland Hosiery - Industrial-II Orange Investors Corporation GC-4 for portion of lot associated with structure, septic system, parking and access. Orange Truss Company - non-conforming. ROCKING B SADDLE. .SHOP Collins noted that the applicant was requesting a zoning atlas amendment due to an error in the atlas for Cheeks Township. Staff recognized the error and recommends rezoning to EC-5 (Existing Commercial--V), ' PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ' ` DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 15 DRAFT ' 063 AGENDA ITEM #5 MATTERS HEARD AT NOVEMBER 26, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #5a SECONDARY LAND-USE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1 . KHYE WENG NG AND WIFE The ,staff presentation was made by Smith. Wilson and Kizer asked where the Ten Year Transition existed at this time. Smith. revieweda map showing the plan category areas and existing development in the area. Kizer asked:-staff to review the reason for. the. request. Smith reviewed the-application narrative and noted that the area was significantly developed already and that remaining undeveloped lots were not developed because of the inability of the soil to accept septic systems. Smith noted that the applicants. wished to provide reasonably priced 'units for middle-income families. Wilson- questioned the cost. of the lots. Pearson responded that the lots would be priced less than- Cornwallis H-ills although both would be. served by public water and sewer. He noted that the cost of the lots would reflect the cost of extending water and sewer to the property. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request. Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: 10 in favor. Pearson abstained. 2. ,BOB AND RACHAEL SCHOLAR The staff presentation was made by Smith. Smith reviewed the location of this property relative to the Weng tract and the existing Transit ion Area. She also reviewed existing development patterns in the area. MOTION: Greenberg moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request. Laszlo seconded the motion. VOTE: 10 in favor. Yuhasz abstained. 3.LANNIE FREELAND The staff presentation was made by Smith. Pearson expressed concern that it was unfair of staff to have not addressed the size of the property being submitted to amendment and to not have included a larger area to justify approval of the request. Shanklin also that the area to be amended should be expanded. • Kizer suggested that the options were to approve or deny the request or to approve the request with a recommendation to include an expanded area. He expressed concern about penalizing the applicant. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1984 PAGE 16 t.)64 The Board discussed their concerns about the boundaries of the Transition Area and the objectives of that plan designation. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the Land Use Plan amendment request with a staff directive to consider the feasibility of a larger area for similar amendment. Pearson seconded the motion. VOTE: 7 in favor. Wilson, Pilkey and Greenberg opposed. Yuhasz abstained. ' ITEM #5b ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. ROCKING "B" SADDLE SHOP The staff presentation was made by Smith. Kizer expressed concern that the EC5 designation was a generous zone. MOTION: Pearson moved approval of the Existing Commercial V zoning district for the portion of the lot_ dimensioned as 10017Q0' - 4001400' including the existing structures. Pilkey seconded the motion. Wilson was out of the room. VOTE: IO in favor. 2.GRIFFIN'S GENERAL SERVICES The staff presentation was made by Smith. Kizer inquired about the use of the structure. Smith responded it was used for general repair of machinery and tools. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of the Existing Commercial V zoning district for the portion of the lot dimensioned as 200'450' including the structure. Pearson seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous. 3.EFLAND HOSIERY MILL Smith made the staff presentation. Wilson inquired why the entire tract was to be designated. Smith responded that the entire property was associated with the use of the tract. Wilson felt that this designation rewarded the owner for "dragging his feet " on the extension of zoning to Cheeks Township. Shanklin felt that this statement did not apply to the owner of this business. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of the Industrial II zoning district for the tract. Shanklin expressed -concern about. the' traff.ic hazard caused by the parking lot lighting. seconded the motion. VOTE: 10 in favor. Wilson opposed. - • - . ORANGE COUNTY' .. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS U b ACTION AGENDA ACTION. AGENDA ITEM'.ABSTRACT ITEM NO. Ell MEETING` DATE January 7, 1985 • • SUBJECT: PROTECTION OF DUKE FOREST UPPER NEW HOPE CREEK RESEARCH AREA DEPARTMENT: PLANNING [PUBLIC HEARING: YES y NO. ATTACHMENTS) : (1) B.B. Olive 12/10/84 INFORMATION CONTACT; Letter to. Chairman Willhoif Marvin Collins (2) B.B. Olive 12/4/84 Letter to Mr. Homer Riley-Nello Teer- Co. (3) Mr. Homer .Riley 12/6/84 Letter to PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Mr. B.B. Olive HILLSBOROUGH - .732-9361 (4) Location map-Upper New Hope Creek CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 asin MEBANE - 227-2031 5) Resolution DURHAM - 688.7331 PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a resolution requesting the N.C. Department of . Tra nsportation to take special precautions to protect and prevent damage to the Upper New Hope Creek during and after the construction of I-40. NEED: The Upper New Hope Creek basin has served as a vital and critically-needed research area for Duke .University, the University of North Carolina and N.C. State University for approximately 35 years. The special status of this basin was recognized by the N.C. Board of Water and Air Resources through the passage of a. resolution aimed at preserving the basin's research integrity. A special statute was also passed recognizing the need to preserve streams for scientific purposes. The I-40' routing through Orange County provides a crossing of the Upper New Hope Creek approximately 2,000 ft. north-northeast of Blackwood Station. Other crossings of Upper New Hope tributaries by I-40 occur north of New Hope Church Road and north-northeast of the NC 86/Whitfield Road intersection. As runoff at each of these crossings drains directly through the Duke Forest Research Area, special precautions are necessary to protect and prevent damage to the Upper New Hope Creek from erosion and oil/chemical spills both during and after construction of 1-40. IMPACT: Adoption of the resolution would bring to the attention of the N.C. Depart- ment of Transportation the need to take special precautions to protect and prevent damage to the Upper New Hope Creek during and after construction of Interstate 40. Adoption would also place the Board of Commissioners on record in support of protecting critically-needed research locations for area universities. RECOMMENDATION(S): Recommend adoption of attached resolution. • r ' • A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT AND PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE UPPER NEW HOPE CREEK WHEREAS, the Upper New Hope Creek basin has served as a vital and critically-needed research area for Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and N. C. State University for approximately 35 years; and WHEREAS, hundreds of masters and doctoral level theses have been written based on studies centered on the Upper New Hope Creek; and WHEREAS, the N. C. Board of Water and Air Resources passed a special resolution at the request of the Duke University faculty to preserve the research integrity of the Upper New Hope Creek; and WHEREAS, a special statute was passed recognizing the statewide need to preserve streams for scientific purposes; and WHEREAS, the Interstate 40 routing through Orange County provides for crossings of both the main branch of the Upper New Hope Creek and its tributaries; and WHEREAS, the construction of Interstate 40 provides the potential for erosion and sedimentation being carried to the Upper New Hope Creek; and WHEREAS, spills of oil and other chemicals could occur during the construction of Interstate 40 and as a result of traffic accidents on the Interstate following its construction; and WHEREAS, said erosion and the resulting sedimentation, and spills of oil and other chemicals could do irreparable damage to the research integrity of the Upper New Hope Creek; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners urge the North Carolina Department of Transportation to install catch basins, sediment traps and other such devices below the Interstate 40 crossings of the Upper New Hope Creek and its tributaries to both protect and prevent damage to the Upper New Hope Creek basin to the maximum extent possible both during and following construction of Interstate 40. r L, Date 7 PS- Don Don Willhoit, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Date /7-1<5 Beverly Blyt p', C erk to the :oard Date OLIVE & OLIVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 MEMORIAL STREET DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA B.H.OLIVE SUSAN FREYA OLIVE MAILING ADDRESS: • POST OFFICE BOX 2049 LICENSED U.S.PATENT 6 TRADEMARK OFFICE DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 27702 CABLE ADDRESS: OLI V ELAW TELEPHONE 19191 653-5514 January 16, 1985 Mr. Don Willhoit Chairman, Board of Commissioners Orange County Courthouse Building Hillsborough, North -Carolina 27278 Dear Don: I have received and appreciate very much the Resolution passed concerning protecting the Upper New Hope Creek. This action, I believe, could be extremely important for the future and also as setting a statewide precedent for this kind of needed protection. With many thanks, I remain Sincerely, . B. Olive BBO:anm cc: Ms. Beverly A. Blythe ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 REXL.CYD January 14, 1985 SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WII1.17OIT • • Mr. B. B. Olive, Attorney P.O. Box 2049 Durham, NC 27702 Dear Mr. Olive: • At the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting last Monday, January 7, 1985, the enclosed resolution supporting special precautions to protect and prevent damage to the upper New Hope Creek was.unanimously approved. The protection of the Upper New Hope Creek basin is crucial and will certainly have far reaching consequences if certain precautions are not taken. =1,> • Your:'support-,of this resolution will-be.greatly appreciated. Thank'ryctii ' _�___ _ — __ • :- _ Sineer e1y;' -_ Bev }Y 4 Blythe•� Clerk /bab ,�—wi"=_� ��._ = __�: �_ .,•.: -•enclosure • a • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAR.EY January 114, 1985 BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHOrr Mr. Billy Rose, State Highway Administrator Board of Transportation N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 21611 Dear Mr. Rose: At the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting last Monday, January 7, 1985, the enclosed resolution supporting special precautions to protect and prevent damage to the upper New Hope Creek was unanimously approved. The protection of the Upper New Hope Creek basin is crucial and will certainly have far reaching consequencesif certain precautions are not taken. Your ::support'of-this_._resoluti'on°•will.be..:greatly appreciated. Thank::'you':- - : - - Since r er` - - = ky y' = _ _ _ _ _ _ .•'._' ``te eny-A -Blyithe— Clerk /bab enclosure 066 ouvE & OLIVE • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 MEMORIAL,STREET DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 5.0.OLIVE n MAILING ADDRESS; SUSAN FREVA OLIVE POST OFFICE BOX 2045 • LICENG[O U E VnT[I�T 5 TFADEM a5K QFFICF DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 27702 CABLE ADDRESS December 10, 1984 5PHONAW TELEPHONI: ISIS) Etta-5514 Mr. Don Wilhoit, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners County Courthouse Building Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Protection of Upper New Hope Creek Watershed Dear Mr. Wilhoit: I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Riley, President of the Nello Tear Company and Mr. Riley' s response. It would be helpful if you would circulate copies of this correspondence to members of the Board and to all individuals, departments and agencies in Orange County concerned with watershed protection. It is extremely important that the Upper New Hope Creek be protected along with Seven Mile Creek and other water basins. Appropriate action and attention is needed now before the I-40 construction gets underway. A motion by the Board requesting the Department of Transportation to take special precautions and build a catch basin for spills, at cetera, where I-40 crosses Upper New Hope Creek would seem appropriate. Sincerely, W. B. Olive BBO:mrk cc: Terry Sanford, President, Duke University Benjamin Jayne, Dean, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies - OLIVE & OLIVE U ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 MEMORIAL STREET DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA B.EL OLIVE• - MAILING ADDRESS: • SUSAN FREYA OLIVE POST OFFICE 1302 2043 i L.CENSED u s..-VENT F TRADEMK oFFIcE wi DURHAM.NORTH CAROLINA 27702 CAULE ADDRESS: OLIV FLAW December 4, 1984 TELEPHONE 191D1 6B3-5514 Mr. Homer Riley President, Nello L. Tear Company . ' P. O. Box 1131 .Durham, North Carolina 27702 . Re: Protection of Duke Forest Upper •New- Hope Creek Research Area Dear Homer: . When the 1-40. project through Orange County was first announced, a major concern was potential damage to Duke Forest and to the Upper New Hope Creek basin. This very deep concern arose because the Upper New Hope Creek basin has served as a vital and critically-needed research area for Duke University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and N. C. State University for about- thirty-five .years. Literally hundreds of theses at master and doctoral levels have been written based on studies centered on the Upper New Hope Creek. The Board. of Water and Air Resources several years ago passed a special resolution at the request of Duke faculty and myself aimed at preserving the research integrity of the Upper New hope Creek. A special statute was also passed recognizing the statewide need to preserve streams for scientific purposes . . As you undoubtedly- know, the 1-40 routing through Orange County went through many changes after many public hearings. A commitment was made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to install a catch basin below the 1-40 crossing of the Upper New hope Creek and to take special precautions to both protect and prevent damage to the Upper New Hope Creek basin to the maximum extent. I know of the personal, very high regard of the Nello Tear family and business for Duke University and its research. Therefore, I would ask that since your company is clearing the . related 1-40 right-of-way that you give special instructions to your personnel to protect this invaluable asset. Sincerely, • B. B. Olive BBO:canm - .... cc: Terry Sanford, President, Duke University Billy Hose, State Highway Administrator Benjamin Jayne, Dean, School of Forestry 4 Environmental Studies • I„ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' RALEIGH 27611 JAMES G.MARTIN January 16, 1985 GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Orange County Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Reference: Precautions to Protect Upper New Hope Creek Dear Ms. Blythe: I have received the resolution of the Orange County Commissioners transmitted by your letter of January 14, 1985. Our Department under- stands and shares in your concerns for the protection of Upper New Hope Creek. Our designs for the I-40 routing have features incorporated to protect environmentally sensitive waterways such as Upper New Hope Creek from highway construction activities. Our contracts for these projects will contain very stringent requirements to prevent the types of damages referred to in your resolution. Let me assure you our Department will exert every effort to protect Upper New Hope Creek as well as any other such environmentally sensitive area. By copy of this letter and your resolution to my staff, I am asking their special attention be given to the Upper New Hope Creek area in our activities. Thank you for your interest in this matter. You very rely, BGJ:ahg i Ro e State Highway Administrator . CC: Sec. James Harrington Mr. R. F. Coleman Mr. G. E. Wells Mr. B. G. Jenkins Mr. C. C. Painter Mr. J. W. Watkins An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE This is to certify that on this day personally appeared - before me .G/eA.0 //Jirf , with -whom I am personally acquainted, who being by me duly sworn says that is the Chairman of the Boar of Commissioners for the County of Orange and that she,- , is the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the ount of Orange, .a body politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing Lease; that she knows the common seal of said County of Orange; and the seal affixed to said instrument is said common seal; - that the name of the County of -Orange was subscribed thereto by the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange and that the said Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the -County of Orange, subscribed their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by and that said instrument is the act and deed of said County of Orange: WITNESS my do notarial seal this the 7& 1984. :.. �•r,r,.. ' - day of • � p;3s�4C Mary Public My commis STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE. This is to certify that on this day personally appeared before me Nancy: 3• 147: 3, with whom I am personally acquainted, who being by me duly sworn says that Joseph L. Nassif is the Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hi l l and that -•:she-, :Nancy X,_Wa1L.aj - is the Town Clerk, a body politic and corporate, described in and which executed the foregoing Lease; that he knows the common seal of said Town of Chapel Hill; that the seal affixed to said instrument is said Common seal; that the name of the Town of Chapel Hill was subscribed thereto by the said Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hill and that the said Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hi l l and said Town Clerk subscribed - their names thereto and said common seal was affixed, all by and that said instrument is the act and deed of said Town of Chapel Hi l 1. - • my hand and notarial seal, this the _ rirrS day of - Notary Public My -commission expires: - t1 `X3-$9 • • Lease Amendment This Lease Amendment (the "Second Amendment") to that certain Lease Agreement, dated August 6, 1982, as amended by an Amendment dated August 11 , 1982, April 1.1 , 1983 and November 22, 1983, (together, the "Lease"), by and between the Town of Chapel Hill, as Lessor (the "Town")• and the County of Orange, as Lessee (the "County"). I n consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, the Town and the County agree as follows: 1 . The Town also leases to the County, pursuant -to he Lease and as additional Leased Premises thereunder, in addition to the premises described in Paragraph -1 (a) of the Lease and the August 11 , 1982 Amendment, the following additional premises: The western half of the second floor, containing 1450 square feet. . 2. The lease of the additional premises described . in Paragraph t of this Amendment shal I commence on October 1 , 1984, and shall extend through July 12, 1985. On and after October 1 , 1984 all the terms of the Lease shall apply to the lease of such additional premises and "such premises shall thereafter be deemed "Leased Premises." The rent therefor shall be as provided in Paragraph 2(b) of the Lease. This the ,,4" day of 19840. • ATTE T - ØI&1ALL By: To' n C erk ..seph L. Nassif yor • ATTESST� COGTY OF O ANGE BY: 1 Clerk to th- Orange Cou Chairman, Donald Willhoit Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local • Government- Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Orange County Fin nee Officer • :am e-1 T• of Chapel Hill Finance Officer ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATI T,SBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 -�.p ( ,4 1,01 rrb co' MEMORANDUM TO: BEVERLY BLYTHE, CLERK TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 10, 1985 RE: UPPER NEW HOPE CREEK RESOLUTION THE ABOVE MENTIONED RESOLUTION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING: MR. BILLY ROSE, STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION N.C. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH, N.C. 27611 MR. B.B. OLIVE, ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 2049 DURHAM, N.C. 27702 IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW, MARVIN COLLINS PLANNING DIRECTOR i Y ff y^ 1 I 1110114t4.,1111iikte .:Z.,:,,,,T107 .1,::.41aki::.'-44,i,,,,,se,...*,....., 1 .._.. _4. ,....,..„....,....,„,,,,,„,,... Ill . 1 IP'Ill II p .--..41,,F., R �f{f�ty; j �1, ua c,k '.-,.'.!'"...■;.J7":•':•11''..:.'",..•:-.".: '.::'::!:::,0,'":0&?,.:1-1,-•%......;'....:•*:i..,.-:-....!,,iic.,,,"iiif$.g.::5M.,:::::,..'",..,.%:•:::::0,v,.;^..ftar0:`,,,,v:.15;;W,,,O.:-1,.:M"*., ,,,.'i,•i,1*, p 11,40) H Y k 4r _ . ( II Li b 111 M ti) lillittsjillkitogo•;, r ---m ,z �, -3.-- ,m U }�£ '�. 1- as '- En-. co 111 $@ {3. ',`` .:+1,(+h:'> y,.h A 3k '.f�-r�`S_ ..:• II .gar ( x pro: 3:.. . "7 ' {4 „.,,e,,wf,,,,,,,.II ..,_ . ..:.....,.......:.-z.-3,E.W.r.::':%:;.i.i'S,W1-7,.... 1."'”52w 1 1 :.,...„.„:„.:„, ,,,.,,,..„..,....„:„. ..: -...., ..... *:M• i i::; �:.::{l' .- :. : { :*j:: rr} I ;.P.,,,Iii. .,:--,. ,-.,-,,,---„ . ;. .II lIPPPr 'T I T T` :trF% It A w7 Li - - J.• ::..:.:,1:.:::....:::::E.,::,..:!' . F`[ I H . i p JF • 'y7. l6+ 'G• �v 'fin^• •+\5 :?F: `t l `�� .r i ......... .,.,„ :r_ .... . ,,,,,...:,. .. ..: i $ 1' 1 1. w u r _ a, ,,,,,,....,.. ,-,,. 1 ."maiiii,,,,,,,,,... •, :,.!:. '..,...,,s...,;,,42&&.:.-------- --- --'- -44.--, .... ..:.— -', Otv-Irk.,,i4 .. 1 ii:::::j1::f1::::Fg$Xt‹::'...:.:::*. „.,........ I. _.--:'.' -:`,:,'•".7 .•___=:.::-:-_•-::::::_---"1--;777-, - ';',..;•___.-- a 0 ......i.0414-, . SY t. iy�. -_ __.Nape; • 6 x I• .,..._ ...... ___ . •. ,:__ .______. _ . . T'L.:::,: TY 1. _ if. 'ti• __ _ _— I. 'i?H='sri ii.IaF :mirmsC.� ,�i _ _— .. _ __ _ g w ,L • „,,.. m i^ r .j.,..:is s.,, r• ! ,:,. -- --4-.7`T.— •,..1:.: • .., ih•••••,,, L (.9 1 - .•'::'' „, 4:......?;0:1011tw,i':,:-......,.•:,- , , .,,,.:..._,,.,,_, . . _,.1.::... i,.......,-•:.•.....*•:.:.:::::::: . .r, 3 Z OM . . . IfOr ;L:i..,!:•,'1:.0. i.iiWT,...•...,.:',........,',..:......'.':..::::...1'1 I I: < CI ..t., „ , .,Itii i '' l Ti , $ r 0 : 11411N4 :. ;i3 9 =:ekti.,i;•},';2y••f:`.: : - :i '= fi �T s r ..� 1 4 16M } �4i. �� sue ► 4 *:$: �y' Y. OP r 4 * 4. " � y t s �F t o-f t S i e • ORANGE COUNTY O BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. Imo, MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 SUBJECT: ADDITION OP DRY CREEK ROAD TO THE STATE MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM DEPARTMENT: pLAr7NING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT SUSAN SMITH a) Letter from Sam Jones to Manager dated 12/.9/84 b) Secondary Road Addition In- vestigation Report PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 c) Location Map HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Petition from NCDOT for approval of the addition of Dry ,Creek Road to the state-maintained secondary road system. • NEED: Addition of unpaved road to the state-maintained Secondary Road System. • • IMPACT: Dry Creek Road is . 25 miles in length and serves nine (9) homes. The cost of upgrading the road for state takeover and maintenance at minimal standards is $16,000. 00. The Board's decision will be forwarded to the N.C. Board of Transporation for their deliberation on accepatance of the road to the State-maintained secondary road system. RECOMMENDATION(S) : NCDOT recommends disapproval of the petition for addition due to the excessive cost relative to the number of homes to benefit: Sraff recommends that the Board not forward a recommendation for addition. R C DEO2o '1984 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES OVRERNOT,JR Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM R.ROBERSON,JR. December 19, 1984 SECRETARY Orange County Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson, County Manager Orange County 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Subject: Petition for Addition - Dry Creek Road Dear Mr. Thompson.: Attached is Form SR-4, Secondary Road Addition In- . vestigation. Report, for Dry Creek Road. This is being forward to you for review by your Board of Commissioners. Yours svery , truly, S. , Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER /jbh Atta, cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U 1 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECONDARY ROAD ADDITION INVESTIGATION REPORT (aunty nranze Co. File No. Date Township Chapel_ Hill Div. File No. Local Name Dry _Creek Road Subdivision Name N/A Length 4.25 Width 20' D. to D. Type B Condition Fair Is this a subdivision street subject to the construction requirements for such streets? yes Recorded 04-21-72 Book 19 Page 191 Is this a subdivision street subject to participation paving? Yas Number of homes having entrances into road Nixie (9) Other uses having entrances into road Does right-of-way obtained meet present Division Highways requirement? Dedicated If not, why? Is petition (SR-1) attached? Yps Is the County Commissioners' Approval (SR-2) attached? If not, why? Does the road meet present minimum Division of Highways construction requirements? jao If not, state what is needed to place the road in an acceptable maintenance condition under Remarks and Recommendations. Is a map attached indicating information for reference in locating road by the Planning Department;. Yes Cost to place in acceptable maintenance condition: Total Cost $ 15,000.00 Grade, drain, stabilize $ 15,000.00 Drainage $ 1000.00 , Other $ 0.00 Remarks and Recommendations Road will require gradizrg and stabilization.. The cost is too excessive for the number of houses served therefore recommend do not add. Reviewed and approved Board of Transportation Member Alf Reviewed and approved J. W. Watkins S. H.S. H, DIVISION ENGINEER Jones DIS 'ICT ENGINEER uae �; . ' �, o � �� i (Do not write in this space - i1, �\ For use of Secondary Roads Dept. ) _-1� ` � 3 �� ` Petition No. �. ■\` (Do not write in this space - ,\ \\ i For use of Planning Dept. ) l-.4 \\ f .1 \ 1 ORANGE COUNTY 0 7 4 BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. kt,3 MEETING DATE Januat7 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Just Compensation for Acquisitions IDLPARTMCNT: Housing/Community Development PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Kittrell Resolution PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Recommended Values HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider establishing just compensation for the acquisition of one right-of-way and one dilapidated dwelling in the Northern Fairview Community Development Area. NEED: Right-of-way In 1982 right-of-ways were acquired for road improvements. Road Improvements were completed in 1983. After the completion of road improvements the N.C. Department of Transportation determined one right-of-way acquisition had been omitted. The right-of-way has been surveyed and appraised by Fred Ruffin, George Meyer and Kathleen Buck. Dilapidated Dwelling The subject dwelling is infeasible for housing rehabilitation. The appraised value of the unit is lower than the estimated cost of rehabilitation. Under federal regulations, the County must acquire the unit and assist the family in relocating into a standard dwelling. The unit was appraised by Fred Ruffin. Review appraisal was conducted by Kathleen Buck. The County will not acquire the land. This property was scheduled for assistance in 1983, however, the homeowner and Housing and Community Development Staff could not agree on the most appropriate means of relocation. IMPACT: Certification of just compensation and the actual acquisition of these properties represent the last acquisition activities for this project. • RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve recommended values. 075 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR ACQUISITION IN THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, HUD PROJECT NO, B-GO-DS- 37-0023 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED: THAT, The Orange County Board of Commissioners has obtained apprai_;.t[s and a review appraisal for each parcel proposed to be acquired in the Oran&;o County Community Development Program as required by the Uniform Reloc.ition Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and HUD's implementing at 24 CFR 42.101-127. THAT, Just Compensation is hereby established for each of the parcels as follows: "See Attachment" I hereby Certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners on the day of , 19 • Square Feet of Area First Appraisal Secoond Appraisal Third Appraisal to be Acquired Mr. Ruffin _ George Meyer Recommended Value Location Tax Office Ms. Buck Corner of 1003 Hill Street (Right-of-way) $2,860.00 $6,087.00 and U.S. $6,674.00 (1) Highway 70 Harper Street 10,030 (Dwelling) $9,666.00 $9,450.00 (2) (1) The three appraisers met with Housing and Community Development Staff to discuss their values. It was concluded the fair market value is $6,674.00. (2) The two appraisers met with Housing and Community Development Staff. It was concluded $9,450.00 is the fair market value. Only two appraisals were necessary for this acquisition. vnnivuG ..VUN I BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM N0.4�*1 MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 077. • SUBJECT: -ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR ANIMAL SHELTER EXPANSION DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S OFFICE • PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO - t1 • ATTACHMENT(S): YES INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE • - PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181. HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 . DURHAM - 688-7331 - PURPOSE: • . 'To consider approving attached contract with Dail Dixon & Associates, • . • • Architects.- • '. • --NEED: Authorization to:develop an agreement with this firm was given' • • at the December'18, 1984 Regular Meeting. ' Terms include payment ' to the Architect of'e: 1) $3,500 'as a fixed, not-to-exceed fee ' for preparation:of• plans and specification; 2Y $200 in expense allowance for attendance at meetings; 3) 'printing cost to be - billed at $. 5-per sheet for blueprints and $.10 per copies. IMPACT: Payment of the architectural services would,come from the $60,000 Animal Shelter-Expansion Budget,- established per action of the - • November-20., 1984-Commissioners meeting. • • RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the contract. • • • 0 7'S THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS two • • AlA Document 8151 Abbreviated Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect For Construction Projects of Limited Scope 1978 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES;CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION • AGREEMENT • made as of the seventh day of January in the year of Nineteen Hundred and eight-five BETWEEN the Owner; orange County, North Carolina • and the Architect: Dail Dixon & Associates; Architects Chapel Hill, North Carolina For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope.) Plans and specifications for a 730 square foot expansion together with 7 runs -for the Animal Shelter located at Airport Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. • The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1974,Q 1978 by The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W„ Washington, D.C. 20006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT B151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • /UNE 1978 ®1876• THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B151-1978 1 • 079 Terms and Conditions of Agreement Between Owner and Architect • ARTICLE 1 • 1.4.4 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appro- ARCHITECT'S SERVICES priate to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed AND RESPONSIBILITIES by the Architect in writing to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the Work and to deter- ' The Architect's Basic Services are as described un- mine in general if the Work is proceeding in accordance der the four Phases identified below and in Article with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect 10, and unless otherwise provided in Article 10, shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous include normal structural, mechanical and lec10, on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the cal engineering services. Work. On the basis of such on-site observations as an architect,the Architect shall keep the Owner informed of 1.1 DESIGN PHASE the progress and quality of the Work, and shall endeavor 1.1.1 The Architect shall review with the Owner alterna- to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor. five approaches to design and construction of the Project. , 1.1.2 Based on the mutually accepted program and Proj- 7.4.5 The Architect shall not have control or charge of ect budget requirements, the Architect shall prepare, for and shall not be responsible for construction means, approval by the Owner, Design Documents consisting of methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for drawings and other documents appropriate for the Pro'- safety precautions and programs in connection with the ect, and shall submit to the Owner a tatement of Proba- Work, for the acts or omissions of the Contractor, Sub- ble Construction Cost, contractors ar any other persons performing any of the Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the 1.2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE Work in accordance with the Contract.Documents. 1.2.1 Based on the approved Design Documents,the Ar- 1.4.6 The Architect shall at all times have access to the chitect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Con- Work wherever it is in preparation and progress. struction Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifi- cations_ setting forth in detail the requirements for the 1 4•7 The Architect shall determine the amounts owing construction of the Project and shall advise the Owner to the Contractor based on observations at the site and on evaluations of the Contractor's Applications for Pay- of any adjustments to previous Statements of Probable Construction Cost. ment, and shall issue Certificates for Payment in such 1.2.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection amounts. with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents re- 1.4.8 The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall con- ,for the approval of governmental authorities haw- stitute a representation by the Architect to the Owner, ing jurisdiction over the Project, based on the Architects observations at the site as pro- 7.3 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE vided in Subparagraph 1.4,4 and on the data comprising 1.3.1 Unless provided in Article 10, the Architect, fol- of the Architect's knowledge, information tand belief,the lowing the Owner's approval of the Construction Docu- Work has progressed to the point indicated;the quality of ments and of the most recent Statement of Probable Con- the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents struction Cost,shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids or (subject to an evaluation of the Work for conformance negotiated proposals and in awarding contracts for con- with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Comple- struction, tion,to the results of any subsequent tests required by or . 1.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE--ADMINISTRATION OF THE performed under the Contract Documents, to minor CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT deviations from the Contract Documents correctable prior to completion,and to any specific qualifications stated in 1.4.1 The Construction Phase will commence with the award of the Contract for Construction and will terminate entitled Certificate for Payment);thamount and that the Contractor wer,the when final payment to the Contractor is due, or in the entitled to payment in the amount certified.However,the absence of a final Certificate for Payment or of such due sent t n hatCthe lArchitect has made anly examination rto date, sixty days after the Date of Substantial Completion ascertain how and for what purpose the Contractor has of the Work, whichever occurs first. used the moneys paid on account of the Contract Sum. 1.4.2 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement and 1.4.9 The Architect shall be the interpreter of the re- incorporated in the Contract Documents, the Architect shall provide administration of the Contract for Construe- he quirements performance the thereunder Documents the the judge d tion as set forth below and in the edition of AIA Docu- the Contractor, thereunder by both the Owner and ment A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Con- Coims, is, aes shall render written decisions beon tween an struction, current as of the date of this Agreement. the Owner disputes and other Contractor. in capacity io of inter- 1.4.3 The Architect shall be a representative of the preter and rjudge the Architect shall endeavor tofs cure Owner during the Construction Phase. Instructions to the faithful performance by both the Owner and the Con- Contractor shall be forwarded through the Architect, tractor,shall not show partiality to either,and shall not be AtA DOCUMENT 6151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT ©1970•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N,W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20006 0757-7978 2 • p 080 liable for the result of any interpretation or decision ports as required by law or the Contract Documents. rendered in good faith in such capacity, 2.4 The Owner shall furnish all legal, accounting and 1.4.10 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work insurance counseling services as may be necessary at any which does not conform to the Contract Documents,and time for the Project, including such auditing services as will have authority to require special inspection or testing the Owner may require to verify the Contractor's Applica- of the Work whenever,in the Architect's reasonable opin- - Lions for Payment or to ascertain how or for what pur- ion, it is necessary or advisable for the implementation of poses the Contractor uses the moneys paid by the Owner. the intent of the Contract Documents. 2.5 The services, information, surveys and reports re- 1.4,11 The Architect shall review and approve or take- quired by Paragraphs 2.2 through 2.4 inclusive shall be other appropriate action upon the Contractor's submittals furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness only for conformance with the design concept of the thereof. Work and with the information given in the Contract 2.6 If the Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware Documents. Such action shall be taken with reasonable • of any fault or defect in the Project or nonconformance promptness so as to cause no delay. The Architect's ap- with the Contract Documents, prompt written notice proval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an thereof shall be given by the Owner to the Architect. assembly of which the item is a component. 2.7 The Owner shall furnish required information and 1.4.12 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders for the shall render approvals and decisions as expeditiously as Owner's approval and execution,and shall have authority necessary for the orderly progress of the Architect's serv- to order minor changes in the Work not involving an ices and of the Work. adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time. 1.4.13 The Architect shall conduct inspections to deter- ARTICLE mine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final com- CONSTRUCTION COST pletion, and shall issue a final Certificate for Payment. 81 DEFINITION 1.4.14 The extent of the duties,responsibilities and limita- 3,1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or Lions o a authority yo of the Arc sht not as the Owner's ed r Pee- estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project tended without written consent of the Owner, the Con- designed or specified by the Architect. tractor and the Architect. 3.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include at current mar- ket rates, including a reasonable allowance for overhead •1.5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES and profit, the cost of labor and materials furnished by 1.5.1 Additional Services shall be provided if authorized the Owner and any equipment which has been designed, or confirmed in writing by the Owner or if included in specified,selected or specially provided for by the Archi- Article 10, and they shall be paid for by the Owner as tect. provided in this Agreement. 3.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensa- 1.5.2 If the Owner and the Architect agree that more tion of the Architect and the Architect's consultants, the extensive representation at the site than is described in cost of the land, rights-of-way, or other costs which are Paragraph 1.4 shall be provided, such additional project the responsibility of the Owner as provided in Article 2, representation shall be provided and paid for as set forth 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST in Article 10, 3.2.1 It is recognized that neither the Architect nor the 1,5 TIME Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or 1.6,1 The Architect shall perform services as expediti- equipment,over the Contractor's methods of determining ously as is consistent with professional skill and care and bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market or nego- the orderly progress of the Work. tiating conditions. Accordingly, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated ARTICLE 2 prices will not vary from any Statement of Probable Con- THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES struction Cost or other cost estimate or evaluation pre- pared by the Architect. The following services and responsibilities, and 3.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be estab- any others so indicated in Article 10, shall be un- fished as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing, dertaken by the Owner, proposal or establishment of a Project budget,unless such 2,1 The Owner shall provide full information including fixed limit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by a program, which shall set forth the Owner's design the parties hereto. If such a fixed limit has been estab- objectives, constraints and criteria. lisped, the Architect shall be permitted to include con- 2.2 The Owner shall furnish a legal description and a tingencies for design, bidding and price escalation,to de- certified ]and survey of the site and the services of soil termine what materials, equipment, component systems engineers or other consultants when such services are and types of construction are to be included in the Con- deemed necessary by the Architect, tract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the scope 2.3 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, uments Alternate Bids to adjust the Construction Cosstoto chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- the fixed limit. Any such fixed limit shall be Increased in 3 B151-1978 AIA DOCUMENT 6151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JUNE 1978 EDITION • MA® ®1978• THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON,D.C. 20006 • • 081 the amount of any increase in the Contract Sum occurring , carried by the Architect and the Architect's con- after execution of the Contract for Construction. sultants. 3.2.3 Any Project budget or fixed limit of Construction 45 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Cost shall be adjusted to reflect any change in the general Services and for Reimbursable Expenses as defined in level of prices in the construction.industry between the Paragraph 4.4 shall be made monthly upon presentation date of submission of the Construction Documents to the of the Architect's statement of services rendered or ex- Owner and the date on which proposals are sought, penses incurred. 3.2.4 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as 4.6 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's . provided in Subparagraph 3.2.3) is exceeded by the low- compensation on account of sums withheld from gay- est bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall ments to contractors. (1) give written approval of an increase in such fixed limit, 4.7 If the Project is suspended or abandoned in whole (2) authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project or in part for more than three months, the Architect shall within a reasonable time, (3) if the Project is abandoned, be compensated for all services performed prior to receipt terminate in accordance with Paragraph 7.2, or (4) coop- of written notice from the Owner of such suspension or erate in revising the Project scope and quality as required abandonment, together with Reimbursable Expenses then to reduce the Construction Cost. in the case of (4), pro- due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph vided a fixed limit of Construction Cost has been estab- 7.4. if the Project is resumed after being suspended for fished as a condition of this Agreement, the Architect, - more than three months, the Architect's compensation without additional charge,shall modify the Drawings and shall be equitably adjusted. Specifications as necessary to comply with the fixed limit. The providing of such service shall be the limit of the ARTICLE 5 Architect's responsibility arising from the establishment of such fixed limit, and having done so, the Architect shall OWNERSHIP AND USE OF DOCUMENTS be entitled to compensation for all services performed, in 5.1 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of sew- accordance with this Agreement,whether or not the Con- ice are and shall remain the property of the Architect struction Phase is commenced, whether the Project for which they are made is executed or not.The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, in- cluding reproducible copies, of Drawings and Specifica- ARTICLE 4 tions for information and reference in connection with PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT the Owner's use and occupancy of the Project.The Draw- 4.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 9.1 is otherr and for Specifications shall ns to be this Project,hor for ncorn- the minimum payment under this Agreement, pletion of this Project by others provided the Architect is 4.2 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be not in default under this Agreement,except by agreement made monthly and shall be in proportion to services per- in writing and with appropriate compensation to the formed within each Phase, Architect, 4.3 When compensation is based on a percentage of 5.2 Submission or distribution to meet official regula- Construction Cost, and any portions of the Project are tory requirements or for other purposes in connection deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for with the Project is not to be construed as publication in such portions of the Project shall be payable to the extent derogation of the Architect's rights. services are performed on such portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Subparagraph 9,2.2, based ARTICLE 6 on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal,or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent ARBITRATION Statement of Probable Construction Cost. 6.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question 4.4 Reimbursable Expenses include actual expenditures between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or made by the Architect in the interest of the Project for: . relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof,shall be .1 expense of transportation and living expenses in decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construe- connection with out-of-town travel, authorized by tion Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitra- the Owner, tion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutu- .2 long distance communications, ally agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of or re- .3 fees paid for securing approval of authorities hav- lacing to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, ing jurisdiction over the Project, joinder or in any other manner, any additional person 4 reproductions, not a party to this Agreement except by written consent 5 postage and handling of Drawings and Specifica containing a specific reference to this Agreement and tions, signed by the Architect,the Owner,and any other person .6 renderings and models requested by the Owner, sought to be joined, Any consent to arbitration involving q y an additional person or persons shall not constitute con- .7 expense of overtime work requiring higher than sent to arbitration of any dispute not described therein. regular rates, if authorized by the Owner, This Agreement to arbitrate and any agreement to arbi- .8 expense of any additional insurance coverage or trate with an additional person or persons duly consented limits, including professional liability insurance, to by the parties to this Agreement shall be specifically requested by the Owner in excess of that normally enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law, Ala DOCUMENT 8151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JUNE 1978 EDITION • ARe Uc 1978• THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20006 8151-1978 4 082 6,2 In no event shall the demand for arbitration be .2 10 percent if termination occurs during the Con- made after the date when institution of legal or equitable struction Documents Phase,or proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter .3 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- in question would be barred by the applicable statute of quent phase, limitations. 6.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be ARTICLE 8 final,and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 8.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of business of the Architect. ARTICLE 7 8.2 As between the parties to this Agreement:as to all acts or failures to act by either party to this Agreement, TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to 7.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to upon seven days' written notice should the other party have relevant D accrued in any and al! mp ets not the later than the fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms as to acts or Substantial act occurring c Completion after er Work,and through no fault of the party initiating the termination, as to of ubst n iallCompletion,to act not later atha the relevant of 7.2 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner Date c Substantial nl Certificate for r P ment. the date of g Y Y issuance of the final Certificate for Payment. upon at least seven days' written notice to the Architect 8.3 The Owner and the Architect, respectively, bind in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned, themselves, their partners,,successors, assigns and legal 7.3 In the event of termination not the fault of the representatives to the other party to this Agreement and Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for all to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representa- services performed to termination date, together with Re- tives of such party with respect to all covenants of this imbursable Expenses then due and all Termination Ex- Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall penses as defined in Paragraph 7.4. assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement 7.4 Termination Expenses include expenses directly at- without the written consent of the other. tributable to termination for which the Architect is not 8.4 This Agreement represents the entire and inte- otherwise compensated, plus an amount computed as a grated agreement between the Owner and the Architect percentage of the total compensation earned to the time and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or of termination, as follows: agreements,either written or oral.This Agreement may be .1 20 percent if termination occurs during the Design amended only by written instrument signed by both Phase, or Owner and Architect. • 5 8157-1878 AIA DOCUMENT B1S1 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JUNE 1978 EDITION • AIA® ®1978• THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.G. 200D6 • ART[CLE 9 - .- BASIS OF COMPENSATION • The Owner shall compensate the Architect for the Services provided, in accordance with Article 4, Payments to a :.• Architect,and the other Terms and Conditions of this Agreement,as follows: 9.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF dollars ($ shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the Owner's account as follows: 9.2 BASIC COMPENSATION — A fixed, not—to—exceed amount of $;1,500 for engineering services for preparation of detailed plans, specifications and Yid documents and for inspections while the project is under construction. 9.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.4 or identified as such In Article 10,Basic Corn- - pensation shall be computed as follows: (Here insert basis of compensation,including fixed amounts,multiples or percentages, and identify Phases to whidt particular methods of com- pensation apply,if necessary.) 9.2.2 Where compensation is based on a Stipulated Sum or Percentage of Construction Cost, payments for Basic Ser- vices shall be made as provided in Subparagraph 4.2 so that Basic Compensation for each Phase shall equal the following percentages of the total Compensation payable: • (include any additional phases as appropriate.) • • Design Phase: thirty—five percent.[35%) Construction Documents Phase: • forty percent(10%) Bidding br Negotiation Phase; percent( %) Construction Phase: .� —twenty—five percent 5%► 9.3 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES provided under Paragraph 1.5 or identified as such in Article 10, compensation shall be computed as follows: Two hundred dollars in expense allowance for attendance at meetings; and printing and photocopy cost to be billed the County at a rate of $.65 per sheet for blueprints and $.l0 per page on all copies. See Article 10. • (Here insert basis of compensation,including rates and/or multiples of Direct Personnel Expense for Principals, consultants and employees. Iden- tify specific types of consultants in Article 10,if required.) 9.4 Payments due the Architect and unpaid under this Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of busk ness of the Architect. (Here insert any rate of interest agreed upon.) - (Usury laws and requirements under the federal Truth in tending Act,similar state and local corsumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Architect's principal places of business, the location of the Project'and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletion, modification, or other requirements such as written disclosures °-- �.._ - 4- -- or waivers.) 9.5 The Owner and the Architect agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that: Plans specifications and bid documents shall be completed within 45 calendar days of the signing of this agreement. Delay beyond 45 days caused by the Architect will result in Architect's compensation being reduced by a sum of $50 per calendar day--after the forty-five day limit--that the final plans, specifications and contract documents are not completed and submitted for approval to the County. 9.5.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or of the Architect's Services is changed materially,the amounts of compensation shall be equitably adjusted. 9.5.2 IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, the amounts of compensation, rates and(multiples nset s forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. MA DOCUMENT 6151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMEN 0 7978• THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.,,IUNE WASHINGTON, D.C. 00(IS B151-1978 6 • ARTICLE 10 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES (Describe any services not included above which are to be performed by the Architect or Owner. State whether ser- vices to be provided by the Architect are Sasic Services or Additional Services.) • A maximum of $250.00 (two hundred and fifty dollars) shall be paid to Dail Dixon & Associates to cover costs of blueprint and specification copies. The Architect will rely on the Assistant Orange,CL--anty Manager to provide a final definition of expansion requirements and t.. :solve questions arising during the planning and constructions phases. Principal $35.00 Architectural Associates $25.00 Drafter $20.00 • _ Clerical Staff $15.00 Engineering consultants at our cost. • • • • • • • • This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER 1 ARCHITECT • ' CA/J . 7 B151-1978 MA DOCUMENT 8151 • ABBREVIATED OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JUNE 1978 EDITION • AIM, ©1978•THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 v,'r l'ui. ..V MY i [ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS • . ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.' .E. � : MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 . u SUBJECT: .HANDICAPPED. ACCESS--HUMAN RESOURCES BUILDING, ' t. DEPARTMENT: MANAGER'S FFICE ' I` i PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO . ATTACHMENT(S): - INFORMATION CONTACT: BILL LAWS, EXT. 503 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-8181. ' HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 • . MEBANE - 227-2031 DURHAM - 688-7331 • PURPOSE: . For the Board to.-authorize the expenditure 'of funds for''_the-.construction of -a handicapped ramp at the front entrance of the Human Services Building on Tryon Street. • • NEED: At its October 16, 1984 meeting the Board asked to be kept informed of all expenditures to be made in making buildings accessible to • ' the handicapped. While most .of'these improvements will be implemented at the .same time later'in the budget year the ramp at the Human - Services Building needs to be done in conjunction with curb installa-. tion. • • • • • • IMPACT: Access of the ramp would allow -access to both elevators in the building and consequently to all agencies located in the building. - The Handicap Accessibility Report submitted to the Board on October 16, 1984 estimated a cost for the paving of parking spaces and .construction of.a ramp at $3,000.00. The cost of construction of the ramp will be $414.00. The work will be performed by ' Mr. J. H. Smith of Hillsborough who is already on-site pouring . curb and gutter on Tryon Street under contract with the Town of Hillsborough An additional expenditure will be required for the - welding of hand rails for the ramp. A firm price has yet to be - received for this work. RECOMMENDATION.' Authorize construction of the ramp from the Handicapped Access Account of the 1984-85 capital fund. • • vnnivui. 4Vur41 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA •ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. l_ MEETING DATE JANUARY 7, 1985 . Ob b • SUBJECT: -LEASE AMENDMENT-TOLD POLICE BUILDING--CHAPEL HILL DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES • PUBLIC HEARING: YES x NO • ATTACHMENT(S): YES_ . • INFORMATION CONTACT: BILL LAWS.•EXT.-503 • PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 • - • - HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 • ' . CHAPEL HILL - 957-9261 • • • MEBANE - 227-2031 • - - DURHAM 688-7331 PURPOSE: . . • • • Tor the Board to consider renewing an amendment to its lease with • • the.Town •of Chapel Hill for the rental of space•at the Old Police - Buil'ding'on Rosemary Street in Chapel- sill., - • • • • NEED. • 'The original lease for space.at the Old Police Building ' commenced - • on July 12, 1982 and shall run until.- July 12, 1985. - • • This lease was amended in the fall of 1983 to increase the amount of spade -available to the County by 1,450 square feet (the western . half of the second •floor) . This lease amendment expired on' September- 30, 1984. • The lease.amendment fbr•the additional 1,450 square feet needs to be renewed'for the'period.October 1, 1984 through July 12, 1985, the date when the lease agreement expires. • • • IMPACT: The cost for rental of the space shall remain at $4.00 per square foot. Funds are budgeted in FY 84-85 to cover this expense. • -- • • • • RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the lease amendment. • • • A\01 V HLINN t i i 'f11 �r+�r�ta13`d � j i ' � f