The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 06-11-1985 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA QUARTERLY JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, June 11, 1985 Chapel Hill High School Cultural Arts Auditorium Chapel Hill, North Carolina 7:30 P.M. PAGE # A. BOARD COMMENTS 001 1. Public Hearing Procedures B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1 . PD-2-85 Chandler's Green (Rezoning from Residential-1 to Planned Development Residential-2 with Class A Special Use Permit) D. WORK SESSIONS 1. Joint Planning Area Plan Status Report (Orange County/Chapel Hill) 2. 1985-86 Planning Work Program Priorities (Orange County) E. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A map showing the location of the High School and Cultural Arts Auditorium is provided with agenda item A-1. • • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JUNE 11, 1985 • Action Agenda Item # A-1 SUBJECT: JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) JUNE 6, 1985 MEMORANDUM Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR TO COUNTY MANAGER. Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 • Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill. - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To identify the procedures to be followed in conducting joint public hearings involving the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board, and the Chapel Hill Town Council. NEED: • The Joint Planning Agreement adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners • . and the Chapel Hill Town Council requires joint public hearings on development proposals. Two governing boards and one advisory body (the Orange County Planning Board) will be present at the hearings to receive testimony/hear presentations regarding such proposals. With the participation of the Chapel.Hill Town Council and the existence of different procedures for conducting public hearings, a standard procedure for the joint hearings is necessary. IMPACT: The attached memorandum identifies a: set of procedures for conducting public hearings involving the two governing boards and one advisory body. The procedures represent a consolidation of features employed by both jurisdictions-and have been recommended for use by the Orange County Planning Board. Minor refinements have also been made to reflect Chapel Hill procedures through discussions between the Planning Directors of both jurisdictions. Use of the procedures will provide a consistent method of conducting joint public hearings., — . • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 :04:1 1.11 '14 Mito MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 1985 SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES ORANGE COUNTY - CHAPEL HILL Background The Joint Planning Agreement adopted by Orange County and Chapel Hill requires Scant public hearings on development proposals. The first of these is scheduled for June 11, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at Chapel Hill High School. Two governing boards (the Board of Commissioners and the Town Council) and one advisory body (the Orange . County Planning Board) will be present to hear presentations/receive testimony regarding a Planned Development application - Chandler's Green. With the participation of the Chapel Hill Town Council and the existence of different methods of conducting public hearings in the two jurisdictions, a uniform method for conducting such hearings is necessary. The following recommended procedures have been approved by the Planning Board and discussed with the Chapel Hill Planning Director. Minor revisions have been made to reflect Chapel Hill practices,since Planning Board approval. Conduct of Hearings Current Orange.County practice is for the Planning Board Chair to conduct hearings reagrding zoning ordinance text and atlas amendments, while the Chair to the Board of Commissioners conducts hearings involving special use permits and land use plan amendments. The Chapel Hill Mayor conducts all hearings before the.: Town Council. To provide consistency at public hearings, it is recommended that the Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners conduct all Joint County/Town Public Hearings and that the following procedures be utilized in carrying out such hearings. The procedures represent a consolidation of current Orange County and Chapel Hill procedures. County Manager June 6, 1985 Page 2 JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Step 1 Swearing in of all persons to speak/give testimony at public hearing (Applicable only in case of special use permits) Step 2 •Introduction of application and presentation of "joint" staff report a. Presentation by Orange County Planning Staff b. Presentation of Chapel Hill Town Manager's Report Step 3 Presentation by applicant Step 4 Presentation of Advisory Board recommendations (This would include recommendations of the Chapel Hill Planning Board, Appearance Commission, Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission and/or Transportation Board as well as the appropriate Orange County Township Advisory Council where applicable, OWASA, NCDOT, etc.) Step 5 Presentation of citizen concerns/comments (Where large groups of people are present to speak regarding a particular issue, a spokesperson for the group may be designated to speak on behalf of the group. Time limits may also be established for speakers and opportunities for rebuttal provided, depending upon the number of people desiring to speak and the issue involved. In any case, speakers must identify themselves by name and address.) Step 6 Close hearing and refer request to Town Manager (in the case of Chapel Hill) and the Orange County Planning Board (for recommendation). Announce subsequent meeting/decision dates. Questions by County Commissioners, Town Council members and the Planning Board would be entertained at the end of each step in Steps 2-5. Meeting Space/Arrangement The meeting space reserved for the joint public hearings is the Cultural Arts Auditorium at the Chapel Hill High School. The facility is quite large • and will seat many more than will be present at most hearings. The auditorium contains a raised stage and an effort will be made to accomodate the County' : Commissioners, Planning Board and Town Council thereon. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the Commissioners and Town Council be seated on the stage, along with the Planning Board Chairs of both the County and Chapel Hill. Seating for the remaining members of the County Planning Board will be provided immediately in front of the stage. County Manager June 6, 1985 Page 3 Space will also be provided on the stage for a display board and a micro- phone for use by the staff in making presentations. A podium will be provided in, front of the stage and near the display board for advisory boards and citizens to speak from. The applicant may speak from:the stage in order to be near visual displays of the project. Name tags will be prepared for all governing board members and for the Orange County Planning Board. These will be distributed at the hearing. Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, is assuming responsibility for setting up the microphone and recording systems. Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary for the Planning Department, will be present to record the minutes. Staff will assume responsibility for setting up tables and chairs as well as other equipment prior to the meeting. A custodian at the High. School will also be present to assist. A sketch of the auditorium and the proposed arrangement is provided on the accompanying page. A location map is also provided. Marvin E. Collins Planning Director CC: Beverly Blythe, Clerk' to the Board Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director Susan Smith, Planner III - Current • Gene Bell, Planner III - Comprehensive • . ' _--' e J I I ,.,, ypu'�� ;.Sow .. �, _, J` Blackwood,tv/ Station migiiiii o..�r^,1 ,Irl; L i ALEXANDER......\-- ...• a.� / s Fis KREST,m. ' :'':,% t o{A 1212 �,j i.=i--, "1 rLLJIA -- ,, �1� +� yT• V-- ',=::::;::: '`,.1;�'"", _,Ire ' "� �+ \ ALBEg� i5.'- iJ0 vi?.? ` R0. %',?'Y' , \ — ` 'WEAVER DAI' North •od /Jj fit; + .16 'RU. .. RD. +n m P- z ALLEN 1 Il Ar 4Q 1777 t 61'.11], &IDE °a , HULL 1 LAKE �' HOGAN ....1 ,,�� xw ' F••��,y� 111$114sta DA1RYlAkD N R �/� pj�� P, RO • all y /ice 4e, !yonder "v7 5 r ,_ _ Y� �,-�OP° ; nos .. ... G / 1 �� nl iiiit„... ....iii0.--„,,,,0,o � I` /ao ° ,,' . / !. LA,„,„N oza7, , ,/ !! / 304. ,F • '; , , - SCHEMATIC SEATING ARRANGEMENT - JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CULTURAL ARTS AUDITORIUM CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL H . ., 4 Seat ing Seat ing • _.----- , . --------------- --- -.------7:-.--------"--1. --...._ ..--_ • ------------ v---St..atf.,_ • '* .. . Electrical lil Citizen Lectern Outlet Alternate • -------------"t. Planning i4 "t - Board • Staff --,a,, 4 •Seating 0 • Cc. r...............„. ---ST-A—G-E------------ Lecter-I-:i.lig i Microphone Area Jack A. C. %%If .0 j. C.... Boards & Commissioners , ... • D1DP 1 aY • A.I.„11/4" ./.,A...PCA...0'1/4-,/,.."....A...A.,A".•1'.-.A-40‘44.4,v4.".•"•-•/• 1.4.• ,\I'1/4-/ ...... • PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS/SPECIAL USE PERMITS Only those uses authorized in the zoning district to which the Planned Development request corresponds shall be permitted. No planned development shall be permitted except pursuant to the issuance of a special use permit. A $pecial Use Permit is issued where a particular land use is permitted in a district under specific provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. These provisions authorize the Board of Commissioners to issue the permit when it makes the general and specific findings stipulated for the specific request. The Board is also authorized to attach conditions to the special use permit, conditions which may require the installation of certain improvements, place time limitations on the permit, etc. •! 4 , • a , 4 - 41 evidence will be taken. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at the hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners to decide if the evidence presented enables the Boards to make the required findings. - * 4P - 4 •.torts the * 1 . : , - 7 • -• B•t • • • VIM . * 01 - * use permit. The applicant has the burden of establishing by evidence the facts and conditions required to support approval of the application. flowevezi_theburAen_la_on_tboae_gpaglins_the • - -.b - • • Li •- • Ilt t * t aXiClengar_thssp_ecifdg_manaer in_sghigh_the pmmoDegl, use does nOt_satigtytha_gengE41AtandiLdaPn grounds that the use: - will not promote the public health, safety and welfare - will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property - is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county. Evidence must be factual and may require the testimony of an expert in such matters as impacts on the public health, safety and welfare and property values. The above procedures responsibilities are provided in Article 8 Opecial Use Permits, Section 8.2 General Standards of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 k7 60117-111 1. "4 aso ( MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 15, 1985 SUBJECT: PD-2-85 CHANDLER'S GREEN GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS: Allenton Realty and Insurance Company 119 Orange Street Mall P.O. Box 731 Durham, N.C. 27702 LOCATION: Contiguous to the northeast corporate boundaries of the Town of Chapel Hill between Sunrise Road (SR 1732) , 1-40 and Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) . REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Planned Development-Housing- Residential-2 rezoning and Special Use Permit PURPOSE: To allow a planned single-family housing development on 108 lots containing. a minimum of 20,000 square feet. LOT SIZE: 99.44 acres of which 80.24 acres is in Orange County's jurisdiction and 19.2 acres in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant, wooded tract mmilimmw PD-2-85 CHANDLER'S GREEN PAGE 2 May 15, 1985 SURROUNDING LAND USE: NORTH - Unnamed 60' dedicated public right-of- way; a single family residence; the Potted Plant Greenhouse; a future church site; and 1-40. EAST - 1-40; undeveloped land SOUTH - Undeveloped, recently timbered land held • in trust WEST - Carol Woods retirement community and • Sunrise Road LAND USE PLAN: Designated Ten Year Transition Area in the Land Use Plan. ZONING: The property is zoned Residential-1. The Ten Year Transition Area plan category allows a range of residential zoning districts from R-1 to R-13. ��- iRGQA7TiELT E031MSR7 l.Mtl..H,N N A.-4.•.1 .1 e jCF i y A f ~•4(" aar.ems�� die a r• ��{ t ` .Jiw 'tl'n � CI-� I 1 `i i 'A.4 L..�_. 3• '', 't 0 owN.•w.1 �WuM A "'� + `a!•r i :��-f { � t ` � { ��, v ` \ °ate:°i boa• �\y . \,.��\ L y�f ilr 9M• ' {" y 1 Q � " , 1 t ♦+ sky r t \ \\ y y t a,� ' "a°4• r } *flan- `�♦ y � 'J `y''•! y y a� ``'� 1 \ `` ~r � 's1 �. 0 � ...— -7�+ r �:•t� rT� j. i bay'y + Y Ili + t a4. { Vdt � r •',Z • 1 `� e w i `y`} .� y ,• � "''�. -' a.! to r! ` la 04 \\ �.n»w►f�� i y ! f 1 r ��Y r / N�, rU(.�� _�"c� ti, y `t{` '� y ti` y 4a �4 1 J� ti I y`�`4.�y`. 'J YAC • " � 7"•�'•MM, ` l�t�eF�� ,' Y �` �t/M` •' ��` n `a�,��j:bA,ow+rn. .. " � •. .•!'.•..�, .?"'•'.a.. `�. ; +mot ; ••' r _ �� n� xKK cwvrs.r Left.ewo a..R `• - ♦�?W�nshn�u eer. s..,u.T ItMN.104.1i N. :- :• +� ( �'•'•.,�+.W�itl:' yurf�•'r'...^ �. �• � ° � �� t ' , n�. .i.,.r..•.ei.r wa a«.ur+r. " ! ,i' ;- f -+d... J.. 1• a �` `}•,s.... �.w:aav a�iYp. ■.(.1..1#vamt�® '. ..,:is�;;:.-.r,� ��t'RR r 1w.. V!P"'- \\ 1 :ill.O.eM JM YILL MM � •f�.JR4�e.en�.V.Y.h�,bi..•lb.t / •• .'e l •4•',:N� 'S'iti:''�y''`,+•'e Y a, � — \ (l�, f'd1 ss.nl.r r.rs.ec aoww i t..t.:tan.{.s.r.tre w o.;1.wya� �'�"( •{;7.'. .. . -t• r �•._ — �-"` . - - - - "'w K :,•PbirlS�'�"., °f. :,d,;;< iit t �.��r '; '.'}_' tt ' ,• ama• ,'' :•4'r"•, •; -lr.,>'h/l-;,ilA;. = � lbY` 1-�- . •? •.t'.;.,:" +.�1 `;y��• if1R t e.l I;S.i,ry: fjY w 41 :�� r• •i 'iY�} 't! 1 r:..:. PHILIP POST _ .� � ,. �.�;,',';^4T�1«ti x :�,." •%h;\.,�:, qw :•.:; ;...: . s :�:.' �.�.«.a,,at.l.,h �'�• 1 wig -_j ndus g.coulter a _ -. 8'H.E E T . �,� i'pRt IM1Ai�i�Y PLi�N trot..._°.'.w.m' l i�i�UZIRi[ 11L1Y• Its.^; LAH4ECAPE ARCHITECT .-w�fiims se.a •r,�„•��.:- •1 OURNANI.NORTH CAROLINA 3Bm �• - • .. �r•r V..,N W •. j�(¢+�. ``•:��' +f5°rff a--!'7� / r \,�\ \ x•.6.1 -q,.��r►•Fsa�brit'i N,� .� .. �� e• 1 .}-'y y �T ! �U- .h .. c'Am-Ric, .wvuf"m,t"Rr f ua it l :' '•' °. ti tpo I ' :f 1 tt� It i o`' _ }5 �,1�•' �� \, ��Ir ti. l F:2 C.Mft " 1.. a,.• U I 1 1 , 1i ¢f�, ° �`�i„ f" > IJOrK•ion.aam.•a' two fi+!ust�''. � ..�• .� t ' I t \ i; i G •' .� ='4•,,� s•f...• It r.i1 i tf sf+}v ��=ty' � � -� ;'` \.:a.: j ¢e.- � a •j�~ .' '". 't'. � r / .. - , `l�J t"7 r�•` +'if r'f 7 � A•! ! � � }� i i j �t r��t i!'.t�'� \ .,' \ .• �r � ',',1 ,d 7 J � i% _� I ti�s•'//:' f l f./ •,'Y Y e.e+1°.� ��M- _. .... -�` m tsu�'R r ,� '../ ...�-�,��///•� � \ `� '� ¢ � ,�., + :, : s- � . �� • >\ `\ PHILIP POST &ASSOCIATES. : -�wra.�of,_'e�m��..lnf„frrol.ufrmf - -' J• ` 'Y -- , , rLlfus g.coult£P• 8.&Le. e`ei"° � 11LLENTON REALM d� INS,.tt�0.i 8 H E E T �f PRELIMINARY PLAN fa nt8t�gi° � gHANO_ILEi�S CaREEN 1 •�•*•a»•fm..r '. !, NOSCAPB An DURNAt,GT f '-. cMc �tM39L 1 a:P•xa.xu •u+u•a.a a .i fweaun rnm•mna i a t. DURNAryy NORTN C1tRDl(Nai �— FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION PD-2-$5 CHANDLER"S GREEN Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as tho set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Articie 8.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8,8,23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) . (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning 'Department regarding the application to question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Bgar,d Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application c� atiion Evidence Submitted to Support-Fiddlrigs ReLommondedlFindings 8.6 - Application submitted on Y Yes No Application, narrative and legal description Yes No forms providing full and accurate - provided. Submittal indludes preliminary plan; ..._ description of proposed use, sign and buffer plan; streets, drailuage and erosion including location, appearance control plan; -and utility plan. and operational characteristics 8.8 a) - Twa ty six copies of the X Yes No 20. copies of the site plan were provided. Site Yes No site plan prepared by a registered plan was prepared by Philip Post Associates, P.E. N.C, land surveyor or engineer containing: 1. North point, scale and date X Yes _Na SHiown on the site plan. " ' Yes _No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on the site plan. Yes ' No 3. Location and width of all ease- '- ments and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site X Yes No Shown on the site plan. Yes No ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) ' Planning Staff Findings Based on Panning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Recommended Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No Development is proposed for single-family Yes posed structures on the site housing; Typical lot layout details are —Na Provided. Structures proposed for the recreation area are indicated. S. location of all areas on the site X Yes No There are no flood prone areas on the site Yes No subject to flood hazard or inunda- according to �the Flood Insurance Rate Map tion as shown on flood maps or soil maps {FEMA-FIA) and soils maps. 6. Location of all water courses X Yes No All water courses and direction of flow are on the site, including the �"— indicated on the site plan. -'- Yes No direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography at five foot contours is shown interval of five (5) feet based on the site plan: Yes No on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, dyes No screening, gates, parkin g' -- Parking area for recreation facilities is Yes No indicated. No other fencing,service and storage areas g, gates, screen#;rrg service and/or storage areas are proposed. 9• Access .to•.site' includtng.� sight Yes 2No Access to site from Weaver Dair and Sunrise distances on all roads used for _.._ y Yes No access . Roads is shown. Visibility triangles are provided. Sight distances are not indicated on 0. Elevations of all structures the site plan. proposed to be used in the X Yes No Development sumroary specifies maximum . ,..Yes No development. building height, of 251. Individual building details not available for single-family development, 1 . Names and addresses of owners X Yes No and applicants Provided in application, Yes No 2. A fee, as set by the Board of X Yes � County Commissioners —" '—No $x+90.00 application fee paid. Yes No NINE ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes ' Indicates com liance• "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Based on Recommended Findin - Submit=ted Aeolic-tionEvidence Submitted to Support Findings Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision X Yes No p Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, APPlicant indicates that the development is to be served by extension of public solid waste and water service. utilities to the site as provided in the narrative and on the utilities plan. OWASA's preliminary approval of submitted plans has been given with the condition that gravity service connections be utilized. . wherever possible. Solid waste collection' will be by private contractor. b) Method and adequacy of police, X Yes Yo Applicant indicates that fire protection whl L._Yes _ fire and rescue squad protec- be provided by the New Hope Volunteer Fire No tion Company;P y; rescue service by the South Orange ' Rescue Squad; and police protection by the Orange County Sheriff's Department (See attached correspondence). c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No Applicant provides a traffic impact re ort access to the site and traffic p p Yes No conditions around the site prepared by Phil Post Associates, P.E. Applicant proposes improvements to both heaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Road. NCDOT approval of the entranceways and proposed road improvements has been obtained. Applicant proposes that the site be served by public roads. Applicant's narrative indicates the roads will be constructed to Town Standards; however, the site plan indicates construction to NC DOT standards. Applicant ' is willing to construct roads to either standard at Boards' direction. Mill— ARTICLE 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Development ARTICLE 7 -.SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" 'indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncom liance Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application "Recommended Findings _ Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Article 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site plan provided at a scale of 1"'=100' . property at scale of not less _ — Yes No than 1" = 100' nor more than 1" = 2O' . 20:3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Legal description provided in narrative. property Yes —No 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected No error alleged. Yes No by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if Yes Yo Changes! conditions not alleged, Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- ably necessary to promote public ....� health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Property is located in an area designated . . . Yes No amendment will carry out purpose Ten Year Transition which allows single- Plan —" and intent of adopted Comprehensive f Ten Ye development at the P proposed density following rezoning and, for planned development, , issuance of a Special Use Permit. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Su ;'Recommended Findings Support Findings, Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a Zoning district designation. The applicant has applied fora Planned Development-Housing Residential-2 designation, The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. 3 and are as follows: a)Designated by the adopted Land Use X Yes No The property is located i,n an area Plan as a Transition Area, which designated' l0 Year Transition and is Yes No can reasonably expected to be contiguous to the corporate limits of the annexed by a municipality in the T ensuing 10-20 years. own of Chapel Hill. b)Water and .sewer lines should exist at the site or be assured of Yes No Water and sewer lines are to be installed by '`Yes No installation as aprt of the development the applicant in compliance with OWASA standards process. and final plan approvals. c)Vehicular access must consist of X Yes No Access to the site is provided via Weaver Yes No direct access to a street classified' as either an arterial or collector Dairy Road (SR 1733) designated in the Land by the adopted Land Use Plan. Use'Plan as an arterial. road and via Sunrise Road (SR 1732), ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Contlnued) Planning Staff :Recommnd,a.tions..Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings 1 Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These include: 7.4.1 so located with respect to X Yes —No Direct access is provided via proposed major streets and mass transit Sweeten Creek Road to weaver Dairy Road, Yes No facilities and designed so as not an arterial , and Sunrise Road. No minor to create traffic on minor streets residential streets will be affected by this in residential districts project as designed. 7.4.2 so located with respect to Yes No Applicant Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage '—- PP proposes to extend public water ____ facilities that enlargement or and sewer facilities to the site and install stormwater management facilities on-site to extension will net result in serve the development. Cost of installation is higher net public cost or earlier to be borne by the applicant. incursion of public cost . and So located with respect to Yes _ No Letters re Yes No police:fire and rescue services, '-" ggrding adequate service provision and schools and parks so as to have been received from police, fire and rescue services. The service level necessitated by this have access in the. same manner development is compatible with other developments as permitted under the existing zoning in the vicinity. 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No Soil surveys/ topographic/f166d maps indicate_Yes No' meat without hazard from flooding, stream crossing site in southeasterly direction.' erosion, and soil subsidence or slipping Applicant proposes drainage easements along stream and other draina ewe s. Site slo e_ s g Y p gentle to moderate. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARdS FOR-EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS {Continued} Planning Staff Ordinance Requirements Recommendations Based on Planning Board .Ubmit d Aaplication Evidence Submitted To Supeort Findin s Recommended Findings Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: Two access points are propsed via a public a)l. Access points X Yes No ropd, Sjegte Creek Road, to Weaver Dairy Road encourage smooth trafficded to '-- flow with controlled turn- improvements tod both Prroads. Sight di Yes No ing movements and minimum Sight distances at points of access are acceptable to NCDOT. No minor streets are hazard to vehicular or affected by this proposed development. pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. a)2, Safe and convenient routes X Yes No Applicant has provided provided for pedestrians. `-- P pedestrian ways Yes No Crossings are throughout site to points of ingress to ' safely marked, located and site. Applicant also provides 30' greenway controlled, pedestrian easement within the Duke Power easement. a}3. Visibility provided at inter- X Yes No sections (pedestrian and vehicular) Visibility at intersections complies with Yes No in accordance with Article 6.8. Section 6.8. . Signage details indicatedsign a)4, 100-foot open space provided Yes No located at edge of 25'x25' visibility triangle.. along per:i,meter of PD-H district. — -'�'' Applicant has requested waiver of 100' open Yes No Recreational use and off-street space requirement as provided in the narrative. parking set back at least 75 feet Applicant proposes a 100' buffer along the 1-40 of district boundary. right-of-way and vegetated buffers of 30' and 50'Hill .a)5. Yards, fences, walks or X Yes No alongcSunrise andhWeaverlDairy Roadsrrespectively. vegetation provided to screen off undesirable views, tight Appli-cant provides 1001 buffer along proposeG Yes No ing, noise, etc. Parking/ 1-40jeffectively screening the residential units, loading areas and refuse coliec- Staff recommends that the recreation parking facility tion/storage areas screened. be relocated and screened from Sweeten Creek Road. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS -(Conti.nued) Planning Staff Recommendations Baseddon Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application "fvidence'Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 7.14.3 standards continued: a)6. Maximum building X Yes No Maximum building height in R-2 district Yes No height complies with is 251 . Development summary indicates standards set forth dimensional standard, individual units' in Article 6.12,3 and Article 5.1 ,1 compliance to be determined upon issuance of a building permit. a)7. Signs to be erected in Yes No accordance with Article 9. '— Applicant indicates sign details and Yes No location which comply with the provisions Standards regarding "internal of Article 9 which specifies a maximum sign relationships" are as follows: area of 16 square feet. b)l . Streets, drives and parking Yes No areas provide safe and con- "" Applicant proposes a 33' public road, Yes No .venient access for dwellings Sweeten Creek Road, as the primary road and emergency vehicles, serving the development. Two cul-de-sacs and do not create small and two sbub-outs are also proposed. As block sizes. designed, the proposed public streets provide safe and convenient access to dwelling units. b)2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or Yes No Yes ' ' No less dwellings provide The -proposed cul-de-sacs and stub-outs direct access to parking/ provide access to lots served by private service areas, drives as proposed in the typical lot details. b)2, b) Streets serving greater " ' X Yes 1No Sweeten Creek Road provides access to Yes ' No than 50 dwellings provide lots served by private drives as proposed access to parking areas so in the typical lot details. Staff recommends located, designed and that the parking area serving the recreation controlled as to channel traffic and accessed by this road be redesigned ffic without interruption, to minimize traffic interruption on Sweeten b)3. Walkways form safe, con- X Yes No Creek Road. Yes No venient system of access to ._.._ —" Pedestrian walkways are provided which dwellings, facilities and satisfy this requirment. off-site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet. Mini ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Su Recommended Findings — Support Findings 9 Article 7.14.3 standards continued: Walkways used as play X Yes No Public streets are areas or schonl routes proposed and Yes No by children are so located a continuous network of pedestrian —' and designed to minimI walkways provided. School bus routes contact with vehicular could be established through the development. traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. bA. Protection of visibility- See a}3, and b)3. above. b)5. Open space and spacing between buildings - See Article b standards. OEM 1 ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (` Yes" indicates com liance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Planning Board Evidence Submitted :To Support Findings Recommended findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-1i-R=2 designation, The standards for that district are set forth in'Article 5.1. 1 .and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Applicant dwelling unit - 20,000 provides a minimum lot area of Yes No sq.ft. 20,000 square feet per lot, b) Minimum lot width - Yes No Dimensional requirements are not applicable Yes No NA sq, ft. to a planned development. Requirements will C) Required front setback Yes No be applied to the subdivision requiredi o altow Yes No _ NA ft. — individual ' lot sales. ---. d) Required side and rear Yes No setbacks - _f t, '-" � Yes No e) Maximum building height - Yes No Yes No 2_'- ft. Applicant indicates.minimum building height ,.... in development summary. Building height requirements would be satisfied at the time Compliance with lot coverage of issuance of the building permit for the and development intensity structure(s) proposed on an individual lot. standards is addressed in, Article 6, ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (' Yes"' in'dicates comp]tance; "No" indicates noncom Hance) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards .which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUi) system. and references Article 5. 1. 1 Table of Dimen- sional Requirements. a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Applicant's site contains X10.2 acres. Yes No area - 45,000 sq. ft. Minimum gross land area provided is approximately 80.699 acres or 35.15,248.4 b) Maximum gross land _yes No square feet. Yes No area - NA sq. ft. Not applicable to this zoning district. c) Maximum floor area ratio - Yes X No Applicant proposes a maximum floor area of Yes No .076 2,661 square feet per lot or 2$7,389 square Maximum floor area feet for the planned development permitted - typical lot layout) . This Oxceeds the maximum 267, 158.87 sq. ft. permitted by 20,229.13 square feet or 3%, d) Required minimum open Yes No Applicant indicates provision on 65.777 acres Yes No space ratio - ,$2 _ or 2,865,246. 1 square feet of open space; however, Required ruinum o applicant provides 3,205,624 ' square feet or 73.6 space - 2,882,50�en ft. acres of open space rased on the uncovered open space proposed, exceeding the open space requirement by e) Required minimum. pedestrian Yes No landscape ratio - tU i Not applicable to this zoning district. Required minimum pedestrian landscape area - square feet. ON ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements. Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 6.12 standards (continued) f) Required minimum live- Yes No abiiity'space ratio - Yes No Applicant proposes 2,51$,$51.3 square feet .70 Required satlafying the liveability space requirement. minimum liveability space - 2460,673.8 sq. -ft. g) Required minimum recreation X Yes No Applicant Yes No space ratio - .022 PP proposes $0,5$6 square feet satis fying the minimum reccreation space requirement. Required minimum recreation Recreation facilities are proposed. Staff Space - 77,335.464 sq. ft. recommends design revisions to the facilities proposed. h) Required minimum open Yes _No Not applicable in case of detached, single- Yes No space adjacent to family uses. building walls Primary walls ft. Secondary walls ft. Tertiary walls ft. gill 111!1! ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS .(Continued) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements S.Jjbmitted_Applicat.i-on Evidence Submitted.To Support Findings Recommended Findin Article 6.25 contains those standards applicable in the MTC-Major Transportation Corridor district. these standards include the following: a) Minimum of 25 0% of total . , Yes• No - lot Proposed s-i te contains: 3,494,252.5 s uare feet.' Yes No area shall remain q, uncovered. 25% of the site -is 873,563:12 square feet.* Applicant . proposes that 233,822: sgaure feet 6r ,..06j% of the maximum permitted shall. be covered with structures b) 100-foot buffer Yes No {resi dent ial/recr'eationa.l-) acid parking Osp./d.u. and 2 spaces/basketball court). Yes No required adjacent to � - • edge of Interstate Applicant provides 100' buffer to be retained in its highway right-of-way. natural state along -the property frontage with the Kept in natural state i-40 right-pf-way. This buffer cbrresponds. with the or landscaped in 300' open space requirement for a1:1 planned development- accordance with approved hqusing districts and with buffer requirements provilfled landscape plan. n. the Subdivision Regulations. c) Front, rear, and Yes" No ' Yes NO side yard setbacks �'' ' These requirements bre not applicable to single- required as follows: family developments. ' 106' setback from the. interstate right-of-way corresponds -with 100'open space' requirement 1. 100 feet adjacent for PD-H districts. to Interstate right- :. of-way. 2. 50 feet adjacent _ to 'other property lines, ' ARTICLE - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Recommended Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Article 6.24 standards (continued) dj Off-street parking and loading shall conform w i th the req u i remen is o f Article 10. The off- X Yes ,No Applicant proposes sale acid development of Yes No street parking standard the lots for single-family housing with individual — for the proposed use is off-street parking as provided in 'typical as follows : details. Two parking spaces are proposed lot layout 1 space/dwelling unit the recreation area. Staff recommends sthat tthe eparking facilities be redesigned so as to be relocated outside 2 spaces/basketball court of the drainage easement and screened from the street. Application of the standard results in a regui rement of 88 4 spaces. The off-street loading --Yes NO standard is: '- — Not applicable to this zoning district. _ Yes No Application of.- the standard results in a requirement of spaces. e) Signage shall conform Yes ^No with the requirements of Applicant's signage details conform with the Yes No Article 9. requirements of Article 9. ' Applicant proposes a sixteen square foot sign, the maximum permitted. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Btmff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 6.24 Standards (continued) e) 3. No more than 10 Yes No Not applicable. Yes No parking spaces — — allowed in a con- tinuous row without division by land- scaped median strip. Every fourth row of Yes No Not applicable. Yes No parking separated by _ 8-foot median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. 4. Type screen is Yes No required. Standards Not applicable. No screening requirement -is Yes NO for that type include established for this zoning district in relation the following: to the zoniag.•districts applicable to adjacent properties. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) . Planning .Staff Recommendations Based on Submit'fed Application Planning Board Ordinance Requirements pp Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 6.24 standards (Continued) 'f) The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1. Street frontage land- Yes No Not applicable to single-family, detached scaping must include Yes No a 10-foot landscaped developments at. R-2 densities. Applicant has proposed area planted with one 301 and 501 vegetated buffers along Sunrise Road and tree per 40 feet, a Weaver Dairy Road frontages respectively. Buffers will hedge or other durable be provided in accordance with Chapel Hill Design Manual. landscape material at Applicant proposes 100' buffer for the property fronting least 3 feet in height, and on 1-40, . This, buffer is to be retained in its natural state: and grass or ground co ve r. 2. Peripheral landscaping Yes "No must include a 10-foot �'- —" E Yes _Na landscaping area planted {` with one tree per 60 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet in height, and grass of ground cover. 3. Interior landscaping must Yes No „ „ Yes provide coverage of at _No least 5% of any other vehicular use area. • I ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date June 11, 1985 Action Agenda Item # C-1 SUBJECT: PD--2-85 CHANDLER'S GREEN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING K Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH SITE PLAN SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFORMATION SHEET FINDINGS VICINITY MAP NARRATIVE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BYLAWS 6/4/85 CHAPEL HILL PLANNING BOARD MEMORANDUM 6/5/85 CHAPEL HILL PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION 5/16/85 LETTER FROM NCDOT 5/23/85 LETTER FROM ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT 6/6/85 MEMORANDUM FROM EROSION CONTROL OFFICER Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Planned Development/ Rezoning/Special Use Permit application for Chandler's Green. NEED: The applicant, Allenton Realty, has requested a Planned Development-Housing (PD-H) and Residential-2 (R-2) rezoning designation for 80.2 acres out of a 99.44 acre tract located contiguous to the Town of Chapel Hill's northeast corporate boundaries and situated between Sunrise Road (SR 1732) , 1-40 and Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) . The purpose of the request is to allow development of a planned single-family residential community composed of 108 lots. The 19.2 acres located in the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction is zoned R-2 and the applicant is presently pursuing subdivision approval for this parcel for an additional 26 lots. The property is known as Lot 17 of Tax Map 17 and Lots 7 and 11 - on Tax Map 25 in Chapel Hill Township. The properties located within an area designated Ten Year Transition on the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation allows the consideration of application for rezonings to any of the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-13) . The present zoning classification of the property is Residential-1. The requested designation is PD-H-R-2, Residential-2. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained by the development to proceed. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of the property for single family residences on lots containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that: 1. The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contigous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received which would establish grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations with the exception of the provision of sight distances at points of access; and the provision of the 100' open space perimeter requirement requested by the applicant to be waived; and the satisfaction of the maximum floor area ratio requirement. Staff recommends approval of the request. The Planning Staff does, however, recommend the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabili- zation of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and landscaping. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provid- er franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Hill to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the develo pment and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Final utility plans shall be approved by the Town Manager, County Manager and/or appliciable utility company prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. All lines shall be underground. 4. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites and landscaping shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 5. The grantee shall promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry of Deeds. 6. Provide temporary turn-arounds to Town standards at all stub- out streets, and provide a sign at the end of the road stating tis street is subject to "future extension." 7. Dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way and construct to Town standards a street from Sweeten Creek Road to the eastern property line at the Carroll property to the east of this subdivision. Plans for this street shall be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager prior to the approval of the Final Plat. This street shall be aligned with the proposed stub-out shown on the site plan providing access to property to the west. B. That Weaver Dairy Road be improved to 1/2 of a 65' cross section with curb and gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of 1/2 of a 90' right-of-way along the site's frontage, to include a left turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road. 9. That Sunrise Road be improved to 1/2 of a 41' cross-section, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of 1/2 of a 70' right-of-way, along the site's frontage. 10. That final plans for all, proposed streets be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and that final plans for Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive improvements be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager and NCDOT before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 11. That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. 12. All roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County and/or Chapel Hill. Road name signs constructed to Orange County and/or Chapel Hill standards shall be erected at all intersections. Street names shall be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance permit. 13. That water and sewer lines shall be installed and easements provided to the standards of Orange Water and Sewer Authority. All easements shall include easements to adjoining properties. Be it further provided that easement documents as required by OWASA be recorded before final plat approval, and that the property owner bear the cost of any assessments required by OWASA for maintenance of fire hydrants until such time as this responsibility is assumed by a homeowners association or a public entity. 14. The recreation areas shall be constructed as provided in the application and submitted site plan except as follows: . The pedestrian paths serving the recreation area shall be extended in a continuous manner, shall be constructed to a minimum width of 72" and be composed of surface materials as recommended by the Orange County Recreation Department. The parking facilities serving the recreation area shall be relocated so as to be located outside of the drainage easement and screened from the Sweeten Creek Road. The recreation area shall be screened from the adjacent properties by a suitable hedge screen and vegetation.. Plans shall be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager prior to approval of the Final Plat. A total of 3.21 acres of open space shall be shown on the final plat; or, at the applicant's option, a payment in lieu of open space reservation be made for the difference between open space required and provided. 15. That all signs be erected in compliance , with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. • 16. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 17. All plans for storm drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control, including hydrologic calculations, be approved by the County Manager and/or Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 18. That all structures be erected on compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 19. That a phasing plan be submitted to and approved by the County Manager and/or Town Manager prior to the issuance of any grading and construction permits 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. 20. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 21. The final site plan and narrative of the project, incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and narrative are to remain on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be .issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 22. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 23. That a 10-foot non-access easement be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining the 60-foot public right-of-way at the northwest property line. This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto the 60 foot right-of-way. 24. That the final plat show boundaries of the Resource Conservation District, and that all lots on the final plat contain (1) a buildable area outside the Resource Conservation District, and (2) access from the buildable area to a street without crossing the Resource Conservation District. 25. That drainage easements be provided through Lots 13, 14, and 18, as shown on the preliminary plat. I . I . \ -1 -1 - 1-7... . .. 1* . , • • , ,..„..: • . . • ,: . . . . . •.• . . ..• -:.• ••••• 1 . • .„... : ....- . •-1 . . .. . . \„. ... a e •1L. • . : . . 1 (1.46,4 • t ' t3,g S i C i■l■AE9AC 9 1 AC •' . p ft c ' AG �• • • •r /% • f'• . '• "•• . W • .• • p i S • I•_• //!!��1 . ._ ,7 .ores .••. • . • •.:1' M1 i• - .._..._• 4$44pcts ...... . „,,,„ror•••...•" ... a N , 0 I . • (') ill 141 .k.--- ,/, /„..... • • ,.. •'`I�C. i t :.......`,,1`•--- -- 13 \, '•. 1 : G''`PQE'Y 1 1 •,• 1..•••1{ 4 i/!Niue - C ,'°••w t nu,' AG• s •„Cr 1 %- ppo "�q. I . Ges7 Lost; .....,, luLtomq 14.19 AZ 1 .- .—•j li.... I ..N.: — 1' 11 Lollar L271 4,I I -18AP21 -Mt - 1 1 -411" ' 01 1 — FYI � I � 1 IE u�s1w4 \ r 1 r.3 I \++.// *--\\.,r1 I�' - '!"•"`'z41 `i.e'er/ .%) I: RM. /! •/ �4Oie as G I u.. I ! i \ . C� 1 I I 1— 4it I . •11 i I ' .CHANDLER'S GREEN I` . • .. I. , • lCApplicant: ,�`. .° Y pplicant: Allenton Realty ,.. �� ° >r>_of Zoning: I. Pp-H-R-2 for '—(' t . - `-$ L M Requested Zoning: _ , - ' .+� 80.24 acres 'r '.♦}.L•-.*�•. N. I ,aAV ala 1 iii rur 41 ` Y r LUP Designation: 10 yr transition LAAE ,--,; •,:.4,,.. 111 - �OOi .._•_1 A.", & 1;i • - .- t II' ■ Scale: ,••• , Ia 1•�` I hi it. I ` `'� , ' ' ' 1 1 ' I 1 , /r,�♦ 1 / afi •• t t a-----...‘ 1 ' 1]] NAp-,E rI " \1 \' t1�KI.: I(:I:Sr,SE(' ••l ,/i mfxr«c ; I .•.', ‘ A/./ • p6• . Ll eOsitt.'c' %ON. MP f. (ppd.frz') . I • I i , CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION A Single Family Residential Development Chapel Hill, Orange County, N.C. Allenton Realty & Insurance Company, Inc. 11 119 Orange Street Mall P. 0. Box 731 . Durham, N. C. 27702 (919) 683-1410 • N0 TABLE OF CONTENTS N� Project Overview/Approval Process 0� Statement of Justification N0 Requested Waivers m� Development Summary - PD-H Traffic Impact Report N� North Weaver Partnership Letter Letters from Public Service Agencies 0� Legal Descriptions Plat Maps 01N Location Map m Special Use Permit Application N� Adjacent Property Owners List m� Zone Change Application Rezoning Request Checklist | I Filing Fee Copy 0� I N� N0 N� N� I PROJECT OVERVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS @I Chandler's Green is a 99. acre tract of land located in Orange County, I to th rth t oi I�mit Iino of the Town of Chapel Hill. contiguous is the northeast between 1-40, Sunrise Drive, and Weaver Dairy Road,, '''� project 0I This tract o f land will be used for medium density, single-family executive housing conveniently located to major regional transportation corridors and vo employment centers. . I The site is situated in two planning jurisdictions. First, is the Joint PIannimg Area for Chapel Hill and Orange County. This area encompasses 80.24 acres. The current zone is R-1 , Rural Residential District, with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, as defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. I Tha opplicant ioroqu�at�ng a rezoning end wpeo�aI use permit on BD.24 oores.Density Real- , The requested zone is PD H R 2 (Planned Density-Housing-Medium �no - �� _ _ _ ' ''— - ------ - '� ' i 19 2 of the tract is located in the Town of dential). The remaining . acres o o | 0� Chapel Hill zoning jurisdiction. This acreage is zoned R-2, Medium Density �� Reo±dontial. The °plicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for this area. No rezoning or special use permit is needed. \ �� 0 The two zoning jurisdictions require two different processes for approval. These - m approval processes should be handled concurrently because of the implementation,interrelationship of street patterns, public utility and the I overall cohesiveness of the proposed neighborhood. I i� N • � � � { il 0I I I I I I -1- � ` . 0� NI � � � � ' , ' . � `�' � �� __ II � NI STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION IIThe Applicant believes that the plans, drawings, maps, data, and filing fees presented as part of this application indicate compliance in every y respect NI with the letter and spirit of the general standard and specific rules for a Special Use Permit - Planned Development, Housing, as contained in Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 20 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the Applicant offers the following evidence regarding the find- ings I of fact to support the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Finding #1: That the development will promote public health, safety and I general welfare. LOCATION 0I . The `h= �o"^80.24 acre site is located east of Sunrise Road (SR 1733) and north of Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1732) contiguous to the northeastern city limit line of I Chopel HilI Adjocant propnrty to the north ls a megmont of Interntote 4O presently under construction, the PottedPlantGreeohouon° a single-family and residence d e future building site for a church at the corner of Sunrise d 60 foot dedicated public right-of-way. The tract is bounded I I Roadandanh unnama~y —'deveIopad Iond in a Trust ocoountfor N. S. Amdereon thot on timb d P orty tn the east is aloo undovaloped ond primariIy wooUeg. e Carp oou ho� reoently been Th are ^I Nropm development ie *eot of thla propmrty aoroas Sunrise Drive. II TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ' The site has 723 feet of frontage on Sunrise Drive. This roadway is currently -I strip paved to a width of 20 feet. The road will be improved along the site's te'o frontage to one-half of a 41-foot-wide roadway section including curb and gutter. Such improvements will incorporate a l ft turn lane with tapers as re ~ II quired by the N. C. Department of Transportation. An additional 5 feet of right - of-way will be dedicated along the site's frontage to accommodate these improve- ments. This will expend the current 60 foot right-of-way to 65 feet in width. Town plans ultimately require a 70 foot wide right-of-way. IThe site also has 211 feet of frontage on Weaver Dairy Road. This roadway is also strip paved to a width of 20 feet. The road will be improved along the site's I frontage to one-helf of a 41-foot-wide roe4way incIuding curb andgutter, aidewalk �nd d�d�o�tion of 15 feet of additionaI ri ht_of-way. n�e /� eat of o ediootov sidewalk, This f - right-of-way extends along the entire southern boundary of the project d t the future realignment of Weaver Dairy Road eastward. This addi- tional accommodate e ioionwilI expand the current 60 foot right-of-way to 75 feet in width. Town p Ito l--unu ultimately require a 90 Foot wide right-of-way.uI�� Traffic circulation within the project will consist of public streets. The pro- posed N� o�od �woetan Creek Road will serve as a residential subcollector street. This roadway -- oodway wiII be built to Class A street standards as defined by the Town Hill. All cul-de-sacs will be built to Class C local street standards.e. l A�/ I Chapel stubbed out to adjacent properties will be constructed to Class 8 local . I -2- . � ^ . ' H ,'� . . 10 street standards. The entire project will have curb and gutter streets and -- sidewalks on both sides of all streets. A more detailed Traffic Impact Statement is included in a later section of II this report. . I PU8LIC SERVICEG � � I All public services are available or will be made available to the site. ' _ The utility plan provides B" water and sewer lines to the lots within the e development. These will be extended in accordance with OWASA extension poll- !'!' cias and specifications. The 16" water main at Cedar Fork Trail and Weaver Dairy Road will be extended the lntezaeotion of Sunrioe Drive ond Neovor Doiry Road. t is point, 12" water m�in wilI be extmnded up Sunrise Rood to the e�trgnto to Bryor Ito a From this 12" termination, a 8" line will be extended incrementally down Sweeten Creek Subdivision. S rom Creek Road. This '8" line will terminate at the intersection of Sweeten Creek Road and Weaver Dairy Road. \ =~ - . - - Sewer to the project will be provided by the nxtn noion' of the e 8 m line at t the -' ----- intersection o f Cedar Fork Trail and Weaver Dairy Road. It is our intent to negotiate a public easement with the Carol Woods, developers to take advantage of a drainage swale that runs from Drive- to Weaver Dairy Road. A 11 I portion of this swale already .has a private line in place serving' Caro l Woods. \ We will try to include utilizing this private line, upgradi ng it to OWASA standards, if �eoeooary' 'and dedicating it for public use as a par t of our sewer plan. If a cross-country easement cannot be obtained, the route of the IIproposed water line extension will also be utilized for sewer. It is necessary, as a part of the sewer scheme, to install a pump station and I force main. This facility will be installed approximately twelve to eighteen months into the project as a part of Phase 2. Phase I, off Sunrise Drive con- taining approximately 20 lots, can be served by gravity. flow toward Countryside e NI Subdivision. The pump station will be in operation serving approximately 60 units a until Phases 3 & 4 are At that time, twenty-four to thirty-si x months into the project, a public off-site sewer easement across the Sweeney property ~ that is successful, the pump station ti be eliminated will be negotiated. If tho w on non to relocate the pump station to the first drainage in Phase 2. The plans are of re ooer Dairy Road. The relocated station will then serve 110 lots in Phases I swale on the northeast side o 2nmav thru 4.4 A force main will be installed to direct outfall line placed within the public right-of-way Iwhich will conneot iqto the e xier th� w�otewmter into �n »^ ouzing aewer line at Sedgefinld Drive and Nem«er Diary Road at Booker Creek Subdivision. ' The extension of water and sewer lines will not only serve this d . e elopmentv bu NI will also provide o�rvice to portlon� of obutti�g propar�y mn the nu�th end south sides of the development.II . ' ' I -3- _ N� mm |a= . • i . _ N� � � N "= ' I . DRAINAGE & TOPOGRAPHY I ` The site contains a por ti on o f two drainage basins. Approximately ximately 10 acres, of the 99.44 acre tract, drains southwest toward Sunrise Drive. The topography p hy I ' of this knoll is very moderate by Orange County standards. Grades vary from 3% to 8%. There is no creek on this portion of the property. I The remaining 89.44 acres drains east and southeast toward Weaver Dairy Road and nd Erwin Road. The topography on this acreage is moderate. Grades vary from 3%to 20% with the majority o f the parca l containing 5% to 10% slopes. There is II one unnamed creek that crosses the property in a southeasterly direction. This i s creek drains approximately 146 acres. In a dditi on to this creek are two other intermittent drainage awaIae. These cross the property in an easterly direction draining 24 and 37 acres respectively. Drainage easements are provided along these major creeks and swales. I All storm drains and pipes under the roadways are designed to carry the expected peak rate of runoff calculated on the basis of adjoining property being developed. ' This will prevent water from backing up behind these pipes when future develop- ment occurs on adjacent property. Velocity controls will be provided at all on site pipe outlets to minimize erosion to the drainageways. NI FLOODWAY I No part of the project that is to be rezoned contains a designated floodway or floodway fringe. ' IISEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL | I Included in the plans is a preliminary sedimentation and erosion control plan. This shows the location of necessary sediment pits in the drainage swales to contain soil that may erode during the roadway and utility line construction process. In addition to these pits will be the construction of diversion I - ditches and placement of silt fences to either divert or trap sediment that - ' may be transported into the existing channel. The combination of these • methods will help to.insure that damage to any major drainage ways or the. creek wilI be minimal. These measures will also prevent any damage to off- site,eito, down-atream areas. . I NI . • - - . . • N� 0� ' -- -4- i ' ' � � ' '� ° �� ' - I . ' .� mow ^ —~-- | _ ' I ' . I' Finding #2: That the development will maintain or enhance the value of bom- tiguous property. mm ZONING I �e �� io m� zoned R-1 (��l Re�d�� Di��ct). The pu�oae of ��zone site is provide locations for rural, very low density, residential develop- !! ment is areas where long-term solutions to water supply and sewage disposal 0� is provided by individual wells and septic systems. Under current zoning ona mw a minimal amount of planning is necessary to subdivide the property into - re �mocts place individual wells and septic systems on the lot, strip pave acre tracts, into the site, and provide above-ground telephone and electrical �� roadways : ' service to the development. Development-Housing-Medium lntenaity Reoidontial) I The proposed PD-H-R2 (Planned development will provide a planned, executive housing o uai"g naighborhood on one- half public acre Iota. Public water and sewer lines will be extended, � suburban type streets with curb, gutter and sidewalks will b� = constructed, recreational facilities will be provided, existing vegetation will be main- tained, buffers will be provided along major thoroughfares, and all other I public utilities will be underground. ' S Cuormmro eurnodiianlg).zoning consists of R-5 (High igh Inteneity Residential, Carol Woods), R-1 (Rural Residential), R-2 (Medium Intensity Residential), and NC (Neighborhood d I ' ORANGE 0N COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 0� The proposed design conforms to all known standards and regulations in letter I and in spirit. ' ' RECREATION SPACE Active and passive recreation space is provided for the 2.3 acres I land centrally located within the site. Within this area is a tot lot of 2,400 � � square feet containing a swing set, climbing apparatus; and sand box; a basketball court 42' x 74' , and a picnic shelter with tables, grills and benches of approxi- mately I 7 �OO square feet. Existing trees will be maintained outside of the power path easement for a to meander' *" th f - t� the picnic area. No significant clearing - I recreation t for placement �of the basketball court and sewer will occur in this area e»oep «rp ac �c area exceeds the required minimum o outPell line. The proposed space by .45 acres. I BUFFER5 The proposed single-family development provides buffers along all major thorough- I fares. 100 Foot buffer is delineated parallel to the I-40 right-of-way as required iced . ' ' -5- ' � � �= . '. . ~_ ~ I � III by the MTC overlay district in the Orange Ordinance. This area will ll II be left undisturbed. Project frontage abutting Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise e Drive will be buffered by a vegetative screen as per Section 9.B Buffer Ro- .q4irpmonto and figure 9.1 Buffer Types of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. I ' The' width of the buffer is 30 feet along Sunrise Drive and 50 feet adjacent to Weaver Dairy Road. Sheet 3 of the plans details the plant material to be placed within these buffers. N� ACCESS & CIRCULATION =" 00 Access into the site will be provided by a 33-Foot wide public street built to Town standards for a Class A local street. This street will filter local l from traffic to aubcommunity areas fr the collector streets of Weaver Dairy -~ i Road and Sunrise Drive. In conjunction with the internal public street con- struction n- o�zuotion p�ooeo ding of Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive along the project's frontage. All improvements will be approved b y the NC II Department of Transportation. Left turn lanes will be provided for safe ingress n greos .and eg rdon to the site. All sight distances are. o dequa te as mho=n on the site plan. Street stubs are provided for Convenient, orderly access into NI adjacent properties. • Finding #3: 'Thot the use is in compliance with the general plans for the Comnty. I I LO ON Ten Year The area in which the Transition in the Orange County Land Use Plan. permitted category is associated with the full range of residential densities p�^ 0 erall I in the Orange County Zoning Ordiance. The proposed plan conforms to the x Land d Uso Plan. Single Family housing will be conveniently located to the Durham/Chapel Hill . I area, the Research Triangle Park, and I-40. • . IIPROPOSED USE ' � The proposed use as a pIonned, medium density, single-family development is moro f multi- family for providing community housing needs than the preponderance o mu - I family unit� now undmr oonwtruction in the areu. The low density residential compatible with the existing a use will be com�� m adjoining uses of woodlands: a future w church; the Carol Woods development; and other �residential development occurring Ialong the Weaver Dairy Road corrider. 11 . I _6~ N� �� . � ~_ , � � � � .~~~ � � | � mm SITE DESIGN \ �� - The site is wooded in mature pines and hardwoods. The only open area is ' thin the 68 foot Duke Power line right-of-way. The overall site design anti- cipates' a minimum of clearing necessary for development. Street patterns are �� ~~ o�gned to minimize earthwork operations, thus retaining as much existing' designed vegetation as possible. A 100-foot buffer is provided along the I-40 corridor with natural vegetative as well as supplemental plantings proposed along Sun- rise Drive and Weaver Dairy Road. The existing wooded site as seen from Weaver � er Ueiry Road, Sunrise Drive, and 1-40 will be��roeervad by the vegetative buffers and retention of as many trees on the individual loto as possible. 0� Homes to be constructed within this development will be sited among the trees. Natural drainage patterns will not be rerouted or altered. The storm sewer 0� system necessary as part of the road construction process will be provided °= with outlet velocity control measures to prevent erosion of downstream areas. t of A Neighborhood reormatimmaI. area is provided for the use and nnjoymen o the residents. This facility will complement the Cedar Fork Park located off Weaver Dairy Road. A homeowner's association will be established to maintain and improve the recreation area. "= ACCESS 0� Access will be provided by public streets. Proposed street stubs to adjoining properties are provided for futu�e development. The applicant believes that the new street pattern and improvements to tt d � ' t t exiotingetreotsmiIl provide safe and convenient access to and from the development. II 00 N� N� | 0� ~7- N� N� ` m� ` ^ N� ' • - _ II . I ' 0I REQUESTED WAIVERS AIV[R5 The applicant ' ' lic requests following waiver o f regulations based on the following information: II WAIVE Article 7.14.3, Site Planning, item a.4, perimeter buffer requirements mont o of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. | ' u 9 8 B �fe� �� and Figure 9-1, Buffer Types, of the I SUBSTITUTE Section . �'xp , Chapel Hill Design Manual. I . The 100 foot perimeter buffer requirement for all PD-H zones did not an ti- cipate oipato the traditional fee-simple subdivi ion of property being placed in this category. Because of the site being located in the joint planning ~I jurisdiction, a conventi hal rezoning request could not be pursued. The purpose of the 100 foot buffer is to visually obscure and specially separate ' one land use from another. This buffer requirempnt is traditionally used in\\ multi-family situations, not single-family cases. All adjoining land is currently zoned for low density residential use. The exception w to this is Carol Woods, zoned R-5. There is a possibility that the adjoining land could be rezone d to a more intense use. The applicant feels that if this 11 occura° the provision for a perimeter buffer should be required for denser II development. , ' ' . || I . Th e site plan submitted conforms to the MTC 100-fout buffer requirement- II for property adjoining the I-4uright-of-way. In edditinn* property that fronts Sunrise Drive is screened with u 30 foot vegetative buffer. Property rty abutting Weaver Dairy Road has a vegetative buffer of 50 feet. Both buffers Iconform to the buffer requirements o f the Chapel Hill Design Manual. WAIVE Article 7.7.4° Subdivision of Land, Access to Streets, of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. �� Town standards prohibit the creation of double- lots and require of proposed - appropriate coordination or Prqpoe streets with existing streets. A m Sunrise Driva abutting a portion of the Ifoot widm right-of-way mxtende frum ��6U �e�t Thi� mtrip of land site's northern boundary for a distance of feet. � M I has not been previously plotted. The right-of-way was nonveyed b y ale aI description f rom th e tract of land the applicant is proposing to develop. . This right-of-way is currently used t o provide access to three parcels of Io n d ^ One tract is undeveloped (2.2 acres), a single family house is constructed on ' Ianother (2.2 acres), and the Potted Plant Greenhouse occupies the third tract (6.9 acres). The access road to these parcels is one-lane gravel and dirt. The requests that this development not utilize the existing right- Iof_wc�, The present pomm�rc e land e app c Ii��nt i l la uue of the Potted Plant as well as the exibte�oe of an abandoned dilapidated house on one parcel of land is not moh� It is also I tibIe with the oingle fom�ly imoge of tho new Uova op .oompathet tho e��eting right-of-way looation io not optimalIy Ionoted with respmot to thio deveIopoz felt 'a ro�t t n f land nor is it orientated in such a I . I -B . manner to enhance development of other undeveloped parcels north of the site. A street stub has been provided (Bradley Drive) to provide future access II from Sweeten Creek Road to the parcels of land which do not have frontage on Sunrise Drive. This street stub can be extended northwest to provide a subcollector loop to all undeveloped property located in the southeast quadrant of Sunrise Drive and 1-40. The site plan shows the location of this street stub. 11 I I • 11 I 11 11 1 . -9- II I .` ' . I U[VELOPMENT SUMNARY - PO-H � �Land Area 80.699 Acres � Gross Lsnre� - 80.217 Acres Reoidantial Land Area 8O~ ' I LUI Rating 2% . ° /Lot F G61 � Max. Floor/Area Ratio (.081) 2, 7�7 Acres Min. Open Space Ratio (.82) 65~ I Min. Liveability Space Ratio (.72) 57.756 Acres Min. Recreation Space Ratio (,023) 1.85 Acres I PD-Zoning H-R-2 I Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Width 20,000 S.F. 100 Feet Front Yard Setback ^ 30 Feet 11 Side and Rear Yard Setback 65 Feet Max. Building Height 25 Feet Number of Lots 107 Total Street Length 7,350 L. F. II ! II _- . ' ~~ I ~ II i �1O- � I � � . � � ----- I PHILIP POST S H. I . 6- ASSOCIATES . . ENGINEERS i PLANNERS.'SURVEYORS . #51509 - II II11 April 1985 II TRANSPORTATION IMPACT REPORT CHANDLER'S GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT II • APPLICANT: Allenton Realty & Insurance Company, Inc. 119 Orange Street II . P.O. Box 731 Durham, N.C. 27701 This report estimates the traffic impact of this proposed single II family residential development that will produce traffic for Sunrise Drive, N.C. 1732 and Weaver Dairy Road. • II The entrance and exit flow will be at two locations. This traffic will flow to the two exits as to the general location and driving habits of the people in this area. These roads will feed into major intersections II at Weaver Dairy, N.C. 86, Erwin Road and N.C. 15-501. A. Trip Generation: The institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Report for II 1 II single family housing predicts an average daily trip rate of 10.0. i - II The Chandler's Green single family residential development has 133 units which will generate approximately 1330 total average .. trips per day. The peak a.m. and p.m. trips(Per the Institute II of Traffic Engineers)—are as follows: Peak a.m.(7-9 a.m.) . . # Trips Sunrise # Trips Weaver Dairy II IN BOUND 27 OUT BOUND 54 13 26 _ .......* I TOTAL 81 • 39 • . 1 1 . . , 5 • 1 (919)929-1173•10Q EASTOWNE DRIVE et POST OFFICE BOX 2134•CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27514 • . . . / f:II . PHILIP POST II ^ + � � v �� - | . ` ` �� ' ��,��.� . �� . ,w,NEyo.nAm*mu "w="vO° } #51509 Transportation Impact Report April 11, I985 IIPage Two Peak /4 p m. ~� p,m.\ ` ` ' # Trips Sunrise # Trips Weaver Dairy !z 0� IN-BOUND 63 30 • �� OUT-BOUND 36 • 17 II ___- __-_ 47 99 TOTAL The traffic tree shows the distribution of the in-bound, out-bound and the average daily traffic (ADT). See Appendix A. B. Existing and Projected Traffic: ' • I ' Sunrise Or - `--^ 1732) is a romJ between Weaver ar Oajry Road and • \ Whitfield Road. This road carries a small amount of existing traffic mainly because the area has not been developed. The traffic increase can easily be handled by this drive especially with the road im- provements II -- that are being made on the property frontage. | ' Weaver Dairy Road is s a connector road between N.C. 86 and Erwin in \ 0I Road. _ The 1984 aberage number of ADT on Weaver Dairy Raod is 4187 p er counts taken by the Town of Chapel Hill. This is.well below . the 10,000 vehicl capacity that the road can handle. � II C The tr�ff�� ree in 8pp� dix 8 �h0W$ �he incr�a$as in �r�ffiu from ` the p.m. peak of 4 to 6 p.m. (The tree is also reduced from the ^ ° h0 volume which is �pproxi�� GA� gf 2 hour peak to a 0o�� ur v$ u�� y ' ti between 4 to p m traffic and �� the two hour volume, per ratio � o�n . ^ �� 5 to 6 p.m. traffic) • TwV Hour Peak One Hour Peak II In�buund �ut�hnund Im~bound Out-bound Sunrise ' � -^ Northbound. H 5 6 3 NI �outhbound S4 3I 32 l8 Weaver Dairy Westbound 61 35 37 20 N� Eastbound 23 13 14 7 I '� N �~ 8� � ` ' ^ l3 7 8 4 Northbound Southbound 48 28 29 17 IIErwin Road . Northbound 4 1 2 1 Southbound 19 6 11 4 ^ ' , � � \ / m� ` NI . • �% � ` ~ I - . I PHILIP POST .�� ASSOCIATES m�� ° • ".s I #515v= Transportation Impact Report ' . April 11, 1985 Page Three 00 The Town of Chapel Hill has made a traffic analysis on the number of movements on the three intersections that are being studied. The following IInumbers show the increased impact. . ' Weaver Dairy and N.C. 86 Level A Service II CurreDt MoV�mont� Chandler's Green ' 58 movements 5% increase II 1142-movements - ' Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Level A Service . 620 movements �l mov�men�� - 3% increase N.C. 15-50I and Erwin Road LeYe( .0 Service . 286 movements 15 movements - �� increase I The ADT for Weaver Dairy Road, Sunrise Drive and Erwin Road has in, 1 NI creased slightly by the new volume conimg out of Chandler's Green. Weaver v ar Dairy Road will increase f rom th e current 4187 ADT to 5377 ADT, whereas the approximate capacity of Weaver Dairy Road i s over 10,000 Aw Tvs. The total capacities for Sunrise Drive and Erwin Road are not significantly Iaffected by thm -�dditiunal ADT's form this project. \ II D. Conclusion: . This report has studied the affects of the traffic.generated ted bv Chandler's Green on Weaver Dairy Road, Sunrise Drive, Erwin Road \ and the intersections that would be affected by these roads. I _ � . . The roads are ` capable of handling-much greater volumes than -- are generated by thi project. Weaver Dairy Road would have to carry twice as much traffic as it is currently before it would I be at its approximate capacity. - - The major intersections have been analyzed and the amount of increase ' I generated by Chandler's Green at the peak p.m. hour will not reduce the level of service at these intersections. ' � t l Sunrise - I The imprnvement of the prnparty ron aQo a ong u r�se Oriv e and N r D�Weaver Rpad will �llow fqr left turn lanes which will facilitate turning traffic entering the new development. II I ' NI _ | N� •~~II � � � \�: � ' � � � � . | . I • , . , . . .. .: . . . . • . . _ 'tato son'goo-Ai tai.atv/fiats:MN • I ; I ' I ; . ! i ; ! I , ! • ! . ; ,. I I - I - • i ! !• ;• I I • • ; ; ; . ; i • 1 • ,; , • 1— 1 I ; . • • , H.,; ; • •: ; i : . ! • •• I I I * ' : 1 - • • *i^:- . . : I. ; ' • ; . ' ! ! ' * ; C)I. ': •* • ___;; • ; 0—: • . . ; • N... ; ; I • - CI Z"-' • ; .. .e.i_.. ,.. . , _ CV . , * * . . orl c,$) ; N':'- Tc1-----5------ • ‘7'..tn. ".--- 11/ i • • • •• ....34 ' 1-- • ...i--.-.L...._. .. . . .1--;•‘---- I c\,,, .. to Z;* ''•***Al.. ....--....?.. ---27.-1:,-. 0! --- •z .-z- , 0 , . • . • ' , lit•0-, k,,• (2•2•• - III .......) Lu • • • - • • ■AN ,..„0 t • • • • 0 3 4:5* t` 0: '''' '.• —- '1".5.."-' ' Z 0 (3 • 0 .'Z. .. t0 .• • _ . . c N) . ....... ....„ .. .. . ... ..... . • , . .. . .. .. ... .. . . . ... . . . . . . ..._.. .... ,.. . . . • Lii . • • N• ,.... . ' . • • --- z. ,,f), i( :3- •..... ,z..) - ori------ ' .---- . ." . . . : ' :' ' .... . • <2' •-t. ' ' ...:„..--`1 I I S. - i : tivi c—a. . • .. • . . . 2 • 4z:.. .... ..... .. .z ...:;..,1,,,......_._..1.........;.,. ...,.... . . ...... .. ... . __.._ , . c,0 ! - :.: •• : ;. : : . %J. • .> -- 1/4-4• :3 : • • . 1 : • (1 -.- i---l• t • • 3 • , tu . . : v.) ; ,. .. . -1: . . : ; 3 -7-...t- : , ••• : L..; • o ‘A . ,. - ••,,,a. c.I1 . . ..!-' : , . i • • , , ; , '6-- w. : D (-4: : 1 •r . • ; r ..,,; ; r I : . . ',t2, ' • • ; 'I, i ; • r • , ; ; , . • . : i -1•;• -r••- , ; \) I ,. • .., i r; ■ i i 1 i.,Q ; r r ' ' 1 I , : I . , • • • \or,... . • , r I,. . .. • I ; ; . i 6 V): en; " .. '• ... • 1-- : -i:-.'"" .7 : :-:- .: — - Ili to cei• r--: : • : '; - io. i ....). •.- 4 • • - , . i.--: '-; , ; , .....; i-; 1... 1-.; • • : . -,. ; ... .4.. • - 2 :o• .a. .-/Q*. z '3. .,C3i_._ ' , . . . '' i .1 ! C14 ..."' O': 41 ' • 2 .-'.'' (:), 41-;; ; , • : ; r : i i ; . ; : : i ; i. ":” r • -: ' • . • • ; : ; ; ; 1 ; ; • ; ' • . k.\- -4 ..., ; ; -, .....,- .3.-.4.3- ; _;..... • : ; : . . • , ; ; , : --,-- i. 1 1 i 47_ ; ,33 ;, ...,s2 F .* •,. i ; -i ; ; , 1 •• -,- ..-; I-- , , ; • i ; ; •-i- ; .. ; ; v.) _.Z 1 : • '-c-5-5,,. to: , : -.. .. ' 4- ' • i • • - 11:1 ;.' ; i : -; , . --4": • '. ' . q , 1. : . i •. i , • 0. . ' • • , ..,... - - -•-• ' ' ',... : rc) 0 • • ' • ' . •. ' ; ; . * r * • Z 0 a ; • .,. . . . .. .k. .. 1.. .... ...., , * • 111 0 2 Q • : • •• . , _ .• . . 0 ""' 6 • . . • . • . . 3 • ::-77 . . . : . • . , . . . . • . . . . . • . • i • . . 91VDS • • • -.., 31 : A9 OBNO3H0 17 I G,4,Z°°V9NIZI 1.E06:tt JO° CIVH0 HEIL8I ot'N6 Z16.1(1 H6 T163) ....s8Q1_1.7 31110 5,,-/..„ As aalvinotvo f19?al!nS °Alla eum01sej 001 slortatunSisaauueld/saaau!Bu3 — T --.1"-'1795. . c;; ,...4-' A i c;, ,_,„:cid,.6 'ON 1334S .3N1 `S31VIDOSSV '8 ISOd dfllHd . • , . . r'. . INC. 2.SHEET NO.-•-�-• 1.7-� DATE.-..-.-•-_ ASSOCIATES, CALCULATED BY� DATEr-`�- ---^� PMIUP POST Planners/Surveyors Engineers/ CHECKED BY 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 4 CHAPEL HILL. NOR 493 2 SCALE (91,9)929-1173 or T4 t Q Z. ., , / . ..1.' . • CF•1 . 1 1‘ Z. C2 ci rn r W m , ; .1 1.» , .b , b _. N i Q o ,. ..... ..... _-.,...rm _».... � Cr `— Z N i2 -- . r..) .6-'' _ _ .. . ....... PROW720114 C: ilot.„fittat Va.0101. .. II ' I . N� ,� ^ | N� North Weaver Partnership |r -- P. O. Box 231 Chapel Hill, N. C Chap , ^ ^ 27514 Orange County Board of Adjustment Orange County, North Carolina • Dear Board Members: f this letter is to serve notice that Allenton Realty The purpo�a�o Company has een granted permission to apply for a and Insurance d b the Zoning Ordinance for Orange Special Use Permit as required y t for rezoning. These requests County in conjunotion w1t� u roquaa ~ d by North Weaver Partnership, further encompass the property owned yMe 17-1-17,or 17 1 17 25 O-7 and ' daocrib�d on Orange County o� Maps � - - 25-0-11" Chapel Hill Township, consisting of 99.44 acres. d � 0�KV`4w` O / ~�P��7�� North Partners ! �� 0K � • w= I ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH I NORTH CAROLINA j 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE II '1: ORANGE Established 1752 LINTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIFROM: BOBBY BAKER, EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR .,.29 DATE: JANUARY 15, 1984 II _ SUBJECT: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE COVERAGE 11 Orange County E.M.S. jointly with Sou provides continuous emergency South Orange Rescue Squad Orange County. This service would cancud the area a areas or southern along Sunrise Road. 1 • • New Hope Volunteer Fire Department of Orange County, Inc. StationNo.1 Route 2 Station No.2 • J Whitfield Road Chapel Hill,N.C.27514 Hwy.86 Noah January 16, 1985 Eddie Kirk Orange Co. Planning Dept. 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Ref: Bryer Creek Subdivision Sunrise Road and Weaver Dairy Road 140 Unit Project, 99 acres Orange County, Ngrth Carolina Dear Mr. Kirk, Mr. Randy Smith of Allenton Realty of Chapel Hill has requested that I forward a letter to you indicating fire protection to this project by the New Hope Fire Department.' Since this project is located within the New Hope Fire Protection 1 District, the New Hope Fire Department will provide fire protection. Sincerely, \'3111P I 6--iLq Mike Tapp, Chief New Hope Fire Department cc: Board of Directors, New Hope Fire Department Mr. Randy Smith, Allenton. Realtors i • II LINDY PENDERGRASS *:r-FItF:1'FMNE Sheriff of Orange County :iAr Et,HILL :42 IMO HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA RES.rFUvF;929.s53:; I I II TO: Orange County Planning Department IFROM: Lindy Pendergrass, Sheriff 12 IIDATE: January 10, 1985 RE: Sub-division on Sunrise Road, Weaver Dairy Road II The Orange County Sheriff's Department can provide Law Enforcement services for the new new sub-division on.Weaver Dairy Road, Sunrise Road, the , .I sub-division being Bryer Creek, without any forseeable problems. We would S; not have to request any additional personnel or equipment to provide routine service requests. • LP/jc • II • • I I I ---:-.,F:'''.n.,---• Orange Water and Sewer Authority -'"1 .' -'''''' 406 Jones Ferry Road r!. .P O. Box 366 OWASA.. : I c. . , 171,:rm.,...y Carrboro, NC 27510 4.Z- 5;" (919)968-4421 11 11 .. II II ' March 14, 1985 II II Mr. Randy Smith Development Administrator II P.O. Box 731-119 Orange Street Durham, NC 27702 Dear Mr. Smith: II ' , SUBJECT: BRITER CREEK SUBDIVISION . With reference to our conference of February 20, 1985 and to your letter of February 21, 1985, the preliminary layout for water and sewer extensions are acceptable. However, as discussed, a legitimate effort must be made to utilize gravity sewer service. By copy of this letter, I am notifying the planning departments of this preliminary approval and also requesting that the developer be allowed to utilize the open spaces to locate sewers with critical grades. These sewers may be rather shallow and/or exposed across these open spaces in order to provide gravity sewer service and to eliminate the proposed pump station. However, if gravity service is not feasible, then a pumping arrangement in accordance with OWASA extension policies and specifications will be acceptable. • If additional information and/or clarification is needed concerning public water and sewer service for this subdivision, please advise. i With best regards, ) .., • / f Wayie Munden, P.E. Chief Engineer er IIIF cc: Mr. Mel Rashkis Chapel Hill Planning Department IIOrange County Planning Department An Equal Opportunity Employer • r----- 0� ' ' N ALLENTON REALTORV P/�Box731 ' 1 190sngeStrcetDurhmm.MprthCanukna27702 / <9190G83l41D February 21, 1985 Mr. Wayne Munden, Chief Engineer Orange water & Sewer Authority P. O. Box 366 N0 Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Dear Wayne: � N0 I am submitting a recap of what was discussed concerning the Bryer Creek Subdivi- sion located northeast of Sunrise Road and Weaver Dairy Road, and south of pro- posed v to posed Interstate 40. The purpose of this letter is to qualify and quantify the Orange County Planning staff and the Town of Chapel Hill Planning staff that Allenton Realty, as the developer of this subdivision, has at least a preliminary workable water and sewer scheme fl providing pub services to II this development; \ _ The plan that was reviewed yesterday provides 8" water and sewer lines to the lots within the development. The 16" water main Cedar Fork Trail and Weaver Dairy Road will be extended to the intersection of Sunrise Road and Weaver Dairy Road. At this point, a 12" water main will be extended up Sunrise Road to the entrance to Bryer Creek Subdivision. From this 12" termination, a 8"^ line will be extended incrementally down Sweeten Creek Road. This 8', line will terminate ' at the intersection ofSweeten Creek Road and Weaver Dairy Road. 0N Sewer to the project will be provided by the extension of the 8" line at the mm intersection of Cedar Fork Trail and Weaver Dairy Road. It is our intent to negotiate a public easement with the Carol Woods developers to take advantage of a drainage swale that runs from Sunrise Road to Weaver Dairy Road. From our dis- cussion yesterday, you indicated that a portion of thid swale already has a private line in place serving Carol Woods. We will try to include utilizing this private - line, upgrading it to OWASA standards, if necessary, and dedicating it for public | H use as a part of our sewer plan. If we are unsuccessful in obtaining this cross-country easement, we will utilize the route of the proposed water line extension. It is necessary, as part of our sewer scheme, to install a pump station and force - main. This facility will be installed approximately twelve eighteen months into the project as a part of Phase 2. Phase I, off Sunrise Road containing approximate- ly 20 lots, can be served by gravity flow toward Countryside Subdivision. The pump station will be in operation serving approximately 60 units until Phases 3 & 4 - are undertaken. At that time, twenty-four to thirty-six months into the project, we will attempt to neontiatw a public ofF-site sewer easement across the Sweeney oorperty. If we are successful, the pump station can be eliminated in Phase 2. Our current plans are to relocate the pump station to the first drainage swale on the northeast side of Weaver Dairy Road. The relocated station will then serve REAVOR. - Mr. Wayne Munden -2- February 21, 1985 II . II 110 lots in Phases 2 thru 4. A force main will be installed to direct the into a 8" outfall line placed within the public right-of-way which will connect into the existing sewer line at Sedgefield Drive and Weaver Dairy Road at Booker Creek Subdivision. II II You suggested that our engineer investigate the possibility of redesigning the sewer line to parallel the eastern boundary of our project. If this can be accom- 11 plished to provide gravity flow, the necessity of the relocated pump station will be eliminated. Our ideal goal is to negotiate off-site public sewer service to the entire project. There are two factors which are major impediments to II accomplishing this. First, is the fact that we are a private entity trying to acquire public outfalls. Second, is OWASA's policy of not exercising the police power of condemnation to acquire needed outfalls for gravity flow sewer service. With these two limiting factors in mind, the current plan shows pump stations being II utilized to sewer the project. i 11 To my knowledge, this recaps our meeting of Wednesday afternoon, February 20, 1985. II We would greatly appreciate your review and comment of the above mentioned items. Our next submission deadline is April 12, 1985 for a rezoning request before the joint Planning Board of Orange County and Chapel Hill. Prior to this submission, the respective planning staffs of each governing body would like to receive in writing your support of the preliminary plan outlined. If you have any questions or I can assist you in any further, please call me at 683-1410. Sincerelyz 4 f 0 A 1 671\ Randy S ith Development Administrator RS:eau • • 11 ._ | � ` . . . ` | . / N� II Form 02191 (R6-83) DUKE POWER COMPANY • TRANSMISSION LINE DIVISION II-- '^ RIGHT OF WAY RESTRICTIONS 1~ i us about the transmission rights of way. The Thank you for contacting uumost often asked questions, is not intended to following list answers the , I cnver all situations: l^ Structures,ture$" buildings, mobile homey and trailers, human graves, n � k billboards, signs, wells, septic tanks, absorption pits, storage �n s above and below ground), garbage, trash, rubble" flammable material , building material , junk, (both i l ' un� and wrecked or disabled vehicles are 11 � not allowed within the right of way limits. \ 2 Fences shall not be attached to poles or towers. d 8 ~ Fences shall be u c installed lled at least 10 feet from poles or towers and shall not exceed feet in height. If a fence crosses the right of way, a gate will be installed so that free access is maintained~ 3 6rading 'or filling will not be allowed on the right of way at any point ^ h the fill will''bring the ground clearance down to less than � an o feet w �� 44KV lines, 27 1/2 feet under 100KV lines, 35 feet under 230KV under ' 4 525KV lines. Any grading within the right of way lines and 45 feet under ^ or near a structure, which will prevent free access w ill not be permitted. . 4. Grading shall be at least 20 feet from a pole or tower leg, and slope shall not exceed 3:I on the right of way. 5 Streets, roads, driveways, sewer lines or any underground facilities ^ shall not parallel the center line on the right of way, but may cross at an angle not less than 30 degrees e$ with the center line and cross no closer than 20 feet to any structures, �. Any drainage ditch that allows water to pond or to cause erosion around a . structure is prohibited. 7 i r to the construction of lakes or ponds on d ~ Contact the power company pr o the right of way. Dams should not be const within the right of way the right of way limits. limits. Swimming pools are no t permitted within ruce t�m" 8. Duke Power Company shall not relinquish any of its rights conveyed by the right of way agreements. 0I , Form 02191 (R6-83) 9. Duke Power Company does not recommend the practice of using the area under transmission lines for parking, but will not object if the following restrictions are followed: a. A barrier adequate to protect the pole or tower shall be erected by the party constructing the parking area, and erected in such a manner as to restrict parking to at least 5 feet from the structure. b. Any access areas, entrances, or exits shall cross the right of way at or near right angles to the center line, and shall not pass within 20 feet of any structure. c. Lighting facilities are not to be installed within the right'of way 11 limits. d. Signs and other attachments to Duke Power Company structures are prohibited. 10. a. Duke Power Company will not object to certain beautification programs, such as planting grass, flowers, low growing shrubs, gardens, etc. , as long as they do not interfere with the existing structures, or interfere with access to structures. b. Any plants within the right of way, such as fruit trees, flowering shrubs, bushes, hedges, or low growing evergreens, must not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. Any plants allowed to exceed this height are subject to being cleared from the right of way by Duke Power Company. c. Tall growing species of trees are not allowed within the right of way limits. Duke Power Company may exercise the right to cut danger trees outside the right of way limits as granted by the right of way agreement and as required to .properly maintain and operate the trans- mission line. We trust this furnishes the desired information; however, if additional questions arise, or if you plan anything not mentioned; please contact (3UPC..q.Prilf•- at telephone number 7,..-49L-2_108 PURE POWER P. R.(JOE)BURCHAM AREA SUPERINTENDENT TRANSMISSION LINE DIVISION P.O.BOX 131 DUKEPOWERCOMPANY BURLINGTON.N.C.27215 (9191223-2i0B LEGAL DESCRIPTION .� ^� N� Beginning take on the eastern R/W line of S.R. 1732, said stake being ` 650 feet ± north of the northern R/W line of Weaver Dairy Road, thence with ~~ the eastern R/W line of S. R. 1732 north 080 27'07» west 166,20 feet to a stake, thence along the eastern R/W line of 5.R. 1732 in a curve having 0� a radius of 1261.04 feet, a length of 250.28 feet to a stake, thence con- tinuing along said R/W line north 02o58' east 306.98 feet to a stake on the southern side of an existing 60 foot R/W, thence with said R/W south 83»40'30" east 236.41 feet to a stake, thence with said R/W south 83° 11 42/OO" east 330.83 feet to a stake, thence with said R/W south 84o53'35" east 1193.99 feet to a stake, the southeast corner of said 60 foot R/W. thence north O4-53`56" east 60 feet to a stake, the southeast corner of the Clark property as recorded in Deed Book 238, Page 1419, thence with the _r Clark property north 04°53'56" east 434.53 feet to a stake,thence north 04o 12`1O`^ east 362.30 feet to a stake in the southern R/W line of Inter- state 40, thence along and with the southern R/W line of Interstate 40 @� the following courses and distances, south 62043/54/` east 216.03 feet, south 55°43'43" east 490.20 feet, south 54°10'54" east 512.58 feet, south h 34o 34/39' eust 181.16 feet, south 48°58'01" east 412.81 feet to a new stake, thence along a new line south 16o35`35/ ' west 3�G.]1 feet to a new stake, thence south 74°58/03, west 212.66 feet to a new stake, thence south 40° 26'21" west 125.79 feet to a new stake in the line of the Sweeney property | I ao ronordedinoDoed 800k 138, Page 245, themoa with tha said Swemnoy -ro-perty north 84°35'16" west 129.45 feet to a stake, thence north 79°58'05" west 251.55 to a cedar stake in a rock pile, thence north 74°32'12" west 237.10 feet to a stake, thence north 77°26'23" west 888 �7 feet to a stake, q . thence south O5 ��'1�o west 261.82 feet to a stokn° thence north 84p28'11^ west 1347.22 feet to a stake, the point and place of beginning, and oun- �| I taming 80.417 acres more or less as per plat by S. D. Puckett & Assoc. , Inc. entitled "North Weaver Partnership", dated 12-84~ I ' mm � - =� ~ 0� N� 0� m� 111m11M m� ' \ � 0� LEGAL DESCRIPTION N� 00 �� Beginning at a point in the eastern line of the Sweaney property as described in Deed Book 138, Page 245, said point being the intersection of the Chapel Hill Zon District line and running thence with said Sweeney line north 05o35'58" east 833 feet t to a stake thence north 06o16/11" east 446.80 feet to a stake, the northeast corner of said Sweeney property, thence continuing with said S N� weeney property north 84009'24" west 399.79 feet to a stake, . thence north.84o25"36" west 117.93 feet to a stake,. thence north » 84035.16" west 124.85 feet to a new stake in the Sweeney line^ thence N� with a new line north 40o26'210 east 125.79 feet to a new stake, thence north 74o58`03/' east 212.66 feet to a new stake, thence north 16o35'35" east 356.31 feet to a new stake in the southern R/N line of Interstate I 4D, thenoe aIong and with thm southern R/N lina oy Intarmtote 4O the following courses and distances, south 48o58'02n east 339.46 feet, . south 77"25'26o east 386.94 feet, south 42o08`38" east 435.06 feet to a concrete monument in the northern line of Carrol property as recorded in Deed Book 268 Page 600, thence with said Carrol property north 83° 37/06/` west 183.73 feet to a stake, the northwest corner of said Carrol property, thence with the western line of said Carrol property south 00 06"28`26 west 940 feet to a point in the Chapel Hill Zoning District | w= line, thence with said zoning line south 54n35`38" west 653 feet to the point and place of beginning and containing 19.8 acres more or less | as per plat by S. D. Puckett & Assoc., Inc. entitled '`Nnrth Weaver I Partnership" dated 12-84. � II| � | @� N� � _ 1 . 1 - 1 • I / . • • . Iprt J to 111°µt1F 1 Q. 0 Py `Ia W • :t 0. a t\ uk 11•a441 109 N III. 4 • N re m v t- 14'4;4 t19a t■i , e k% W 6 tl w i. W.. , , cl c 0,. 0..ra Ott m ,3,k.. r., 1. I mo//,/ ".'r, .=.,..:::,,,.:.. IsZ J Q I ^ l t ` v Yf ' :ax , a W Al ,}( µ17 o ^19' a° mtn yt y 4 ti yj P..:1 G Cy 9: ^' 1 •z °max' i F a- oeRoa' ' mv,v :G90 a•, '!� tN Wt : �ui4o I • �o " µ�p)' � W#W •,fiItl wYYy Z•1. N"E„....4,,,..1.19i .m r O W :, W W I :1111 JF h 1 ,;,` fly N i I Y4 /i F y ■ m ",,,t., t . • 9 O _ i H �•* w. W ,. 4 Gn r..,;f.," . S a k„ ^mm. 8 ",1, tism " o zda gi1m.oG %,-.% 11..1\t 9 I P� I i�o s is ° �'"� _,- 4.• i {mss i, e9a,s 5 i' '."� e• a ,l'. ,ti If!tE4•=_ i i }721,% q:),v., I cay. .1:2: ,..,...............,...,. ..s.,.. .. .,..vt.„, .:„;III a g;'y'r A --$ E y _ i Ii;; i19•6wa. le,V4 ,,./..• ;1112:' iR� 40 9:W 1 1 I a t 1 4 I a`V' 7' . >%j'. 2 k 4 2 C N y t6 O P O \\ ` 3 a K F W C ii hh h O 1 •1•� • Q ba as a �� oS �.bgo' a p 4Qhy 'd r,* a . I \ - i` I h 'µms�ti�.. i/ Pv y +b oas.6ui N ti :43v,aa 'wrrsi _ i `off 1 Vim' 4� C C I. , \� 1 , a Q w1 l00 bNh \I\:. — 14{`� io.ew'19,: ti4 9.e d09 w.w4.3 is N rA 1 (U $ fg% C" y q •n IQ r >r � N +d' . 4�oe eN a cN • a. F ,, W w ;is 17,. *`.o� 4@, W,n i�N -s�. d 'a 4 4 S12: 111 tra r\` h ma �a7w N. is$ v r q {'"s 1 r 1 9 4q+ ,...,,,,,::,.. ,;1;„.,;,,14..,., Q O `Vic' ]• 6 w i e `, a 4 1 I _-. w nlw vi • s iF`fr e55_ G a _ aa� .'ia 1a. 'a , a w Flzq =uz iii ii c. 3 e m • x s;t1a; ..J eta` E"ca�B tali g6yt Dili•�l a FEl L`x m x ,y, E s % 'a€ ; $ 4 ,,,,A- 1:11 )e , w Malaillaar --- I . • . . . • . . NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR REQUEST II - • SPECIAL USE PERMIT . I Notice is hereby given the Board of Adjustment and the Zoning Officer of an appeal from the ruling of the zoning Officer on the day of , 19 r which ordered that • . II • . or I request a Special Use Permit as provided for in Section 7.2.5 & 8.8.23 IIfor Single famil lots in a F4-, .1- . premises located • • ' .........................................- East of Sunrise.Road & North of Weaver Dairy Road , T.M. 17-4)-17 • - II 25-0-11 said premises being within the area of jursidiction of a zoning Ordinance for Orange -..e, IICounty as applied to Chapel Hill and Eno Townships, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Title for this property is in the name of North , . II .... . ..Weaver Partnership. - . . _ . II The grounds for this appeal are as follows: To rezone the property, consisting . - of 80.24 acres containing 107 lots to PD-H-R-2 for, single family homes. (See attached II II narrative.) _ ..... I • . . I . • January 1,0, 1985 Date - II . I • Signature of Appell-A II ' Allenton Realty, and Insurance Company P. 0. Box '731, Durham, NC 27702 Address . II * - . If title to above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant and appeal Iis on' behalf of such property, attach a letter from the owner signifying his approval. II Appeal must be acoompanied by a small scale vicinity map, showing exact location of of property with respect to existing streets, street numbers and size of lots, nature of adjacent property uses, and other important features, within and contiguous to the property. The names of the owners of all lots within 4Cgrfeet in all directions from the property will be shown. S'oo • I . • INII — | NI CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP � ORANGE CNTY � | I OWNER & ADDRESU 17-0-16 Chapel Hill Residential Retirement Center, Inc. Weaver Diary Rd, Chapel Hill 27514 I . 17-O-16A Mitchell Newton '�. 3741 Bentley Dr, Durham 27707 I 17-O-16C Marjorie Newton . 650 Weaver Dairy Rd, Chapel Hill 27514 11 17-O-16E Dan Deacon ^ N� 314 Weaver Dairy Rd, Chapel Hill 27514 17-0-19 Randall C. Smith 3704 Parkwood Dr, Greensboro 27403 I 17-O-Y9A 17-0-20 Ellen B. Clark I Sunrieo Rd, Rt. 8, Box 1, Chapel Hill 27514 17~0-21 Wilbur S. Kutz ( P. U. Box 2087 Chapel Hill 27514 II 17-0-21A Ellen B. Clark 17-0-22 Thelma T. Clark I 5289 Rosser Road, Stone Mountain, GA 30087 17-0-22A Caroline Abbott IRt. 8, Box 5 Chapel Hill 27514 17-0-23 Wilbur S. Kutz ICHAPEL HILL TAX MAP 25~0-07 North Weaver Partnership N� P. D. Box 231 Chapel Hill 27514 0� 25~0-08 William B. Young \ ' 301 23rd St, Butner, NC 27509 II 25-0-088 DOT - P. O. Box 15580 Duzhom.27704 25-0-12 Jesse M. Tillman, Jr. I 3631 Stoneybrook Dr. , Durham 27705 25-0-13 NCNB Trust For M. S. Anderson P. D. Box 27287 Raleigh, NC 27611 25-0-14 Baity Family Partnership 1503 Mason Farm Rd, Chapel Hill 27154 0I CH TAX MAP 28-0-01 Lanie N. Crabtree 0I Rt. 7, Box 165 Durham 27707 ammossaarr ` ' \ m� ITAX MAP OWNER & ADDRESS I 26.-0-02 Clyde H. Carroll, at al 26-0-03 Rt. 7, Box 167, Durham 27707 Oscar B. Young Rt. 7, Box 174-F Durham 27707 26-0-.26 Claude W. Davis, Jr. 508 Gaskin Dr., Virginia Beach, VA 23454 I26-0-278 B. N. Birtchett, Jr. Rt. 7, Box 149-A, Durham 27707 CH TAX MAP 28-0-31 Bernice L. Tillman Rt. 7, Box 153, Durham 27707 I28-0-31A Charles H. Horne, Jr. Rt. 7, Box 152, Durham 27707 I _CH TAX MAP 410-A-188 I . 1 ' APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION il II • DATE January 10, 1985 _ IIThe Honorable Board of County Commissioners . . . . . Orange County, North Carolina . • IC 0 M M I S S I 0 N E R S: . 17 II The undersigned request that property located on Tax Map Number 25 0 17 Block number o , Lot numberport. of 1 Shown orrthe accompanying plat, 0 portion of fl IIwhich is presently in a R-1 District be rezoned to PD-H - R2 for the following reasons: . IIThis property is located within the ten year transitional land use area as I ..ieAgDjtedby..tb20rang2SpuatxLandaeeaant.__It is the intent of the developer to provide executive, single family housing conveniently located to the Durham/ IIChapel Hill area, the Research Triangle Park, and 1-40. The developer will pro- I ' vide curb and gutter streets with.concrete sidewalks and public water and sewerliries I * ' to lots containing approximately 20,000 square feet. Lot prices are anticipated at I • II $35,000 with home'orices in the $150,000 range. II . . . . . _. Address: ............_ Signed: I • ..• _ - . / 67/0• _.,, .......6... ..411. •--- • 411. I -. re :-_ -no . -$1 - go,' 119 Orange Street Mall--------__ IIP. O. Box 731 — II . Durham, N. C. 27702 I . 1 . IIIIIIIIMONOW REZONING.REQUEST CHECKLIST APPLICANT: Allenton Realty and Insurance Company OWNER'S NAME North Weaver Partnership ADDRESS P. 0. Box 239, Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Current zoning R-I Total number of acres 80.24 Current land.use undeveloped (wooded) Type of rezoning taquested PD-H - R-2 Proposed land use Single family residential Tax map #17 & 25Block # Number of lots 107 'Proposed Water Supply: Public X Community Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public X Community Individual septic tank 1732 1732 not available Access onto state road # 1733_ Average daily traffic count on-the state road Describe existing 1733 - 4,187 ADT critical areas: Flood prone areas None Poorly drained areas None Streams Unnamed creek Other sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area Residential (single & multi family), undeveloped (wooded) Adjacent parcels of land North - proposed I-40, South - Undeveloped, .East - Undeveloped West - Residential (Carol Woods) I . . ••1 ' . . . . I .• , . I • • I RECEIPT 115.°61 ORANGE COUNTY • PLANNING DEPARTMENT No. 6984 ... VOUCHER .., I $ 4 90.CA. HILLSBOROUGH,N..C., 1-11' .,, 198,. ... RECEIVED OF. W.-St.cx-kr•31-"„ C .,-)c....,„A......,\ I ,_ \t-\ 1,‘, ...Q 1itAA.,4 ) tSt---fv:-/-c:%; - --... . - . DoLLARS IFOR Cw‘..niv.i2(;)(i2)A-t-i-). •. . I , . BY 4111114,41,Millh.4.-110PAI‘. .. .1,11!■ 1 ,„, . , 1 , . I - •, .. . . .,.. .., . .. ... ..., . ..,,., . , II • . ... , ,,.. . , . .... , . .,., , . . . ,.. . , . , . .• , - ' 1 .. ,. . I . . .. . ,...., ::-.....-::•,:., * . . .. . , .., . „ ... . . . , ..... . ..„ . I , . • . . .. ... . • I . . . . . ,, ..., I .. • I . . . . ...... , .,,,..;•,::•,:. I . . . ...., I . . . . . . , *,•.,..-„:".::: 11 . • - ....,.., • • . Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the members may be called at any time by .the President or by the Board of Directors, or upon written request of the members who are entitled to vote one-fourth (1/4) of all of the votes of the Class A membership. Section 3 . Notice of Meetings. Written notice - of each meeting of the members shall be given by, or at the direc- tion of, the Secretary or person authorized to call the meeting, by mailing a copy of such notice, postage prepaid, at least 15 days before such meeting to each member entitled to vote thereat, addressed to the member's address last appearing on the books of the Association, or supplied by such member to the Association for the purpose of notice. Such notice shall specify the place, day and hour of the meeting, and, in the case of a. special meeting, the purpose of the meeting. Section 4. Quorum. The presence at the meeting of members entitled to cast, or of proxies entitled to cast, one- tenth (1/10) of the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum for any action except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, the Declaration, or these By-Laws. if, however, such quorum shall not be present or repre- sented at any meeting, the members entitled to vote thereat shall have power to adjourn the meeting from time to time, without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum as aforesaid shall be present or be represented. Section 5. Proxies. At all meetings of members, each member may vote in person or by proxy. All proxies shall be in -3- Elliallisamommv writing and filed with the Secretary. Every proxy shall be revocable and shall automatically cease upon conveyance by the member of his Lot.. ARTICLE IV • - BOARD OF DIRECTORS: SELECTION: TERM OF OFFICE Section 1. Number. The affairs of this Association shall be managed by a Board of five (5) directors, who need not be members of the Association. ' Section 2. Term of Office. At the first annual meeting the members shall elect five (5) directors for a term of one (1) year, and at each annual meeting thereafter the members shall elect five (5) directors for a term of one (1) year. Section 3. Removal. Any director may be removed from I ' the Board:, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the members of the Association. In the event of death, resignation or removal of a director, his successor shall be selected by the remaining members of the Board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his predecessor. Section 4. Compensation. No director shall receive compensation for any service he may render to the Association. However; any director may be reimbursed for his actual expenses incurred in the performance of his duties'.' Section 5. Action Taken Without a Meeting. The directors shall have the right to take 'any action in the absence of a meeting which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written approval of all the directors. Any action so approved - - , shall have 'the same effect as though taken at a. meeting of the directors'. -4- • Emirmalimalsom""°""' ARTICLE V NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Nomination. Nomination for election to the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nominating Committee. . Nominations may also be made from the floor at the annual meet- ing. The Nominating Committee shall consist of a Chairman, who shall be a member of the Board of Directors, and two or more members of the Association. The Nominating Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Directors prior to each annual meeting of the members, to serve from the close of such annual meeting until the close of the next annual meeting and such appointment shall be announced at each annual meeting. The Nominating Committee shall make as many nominations for election to the Board of-tirectors as it shall in its discretion determine, but -- - no less than the number of vacancies that are to be filled. Such nominations may be made from among members or non-members. Section 2. Election. Election to the Board of Direc- tors shall be by secret written ballot. At such election the members or their proxies may cast, in respect to each vacancy, • as many votes as they are entitled to exercise under the provi- sions of the Declaration. The persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected. Cumulative voting is not permitted. ARTICLE VI MEETINGS OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held monthly without notice, at such , -5- 1 place and hour as may be fixed from time to time by resolution of the Board. Should said meeting fall upon a legal holiday, then that meeting shall be held at the same time on the next day which is not a legal holiday. „. • Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held when called by the President of the Association, or by any two (2) directors, after not less than three (3) days notice to each director. Section 3. quorum. A majority of the number of directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the directors present at a duly held meeting at which a quorum is present shall be regarded as the act of the Board. ARTICLE VII POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Powers. The Board of Directors shall have power to: (a) adopt and publish rules and regulations governing the use of the Common Area and facilities, and the personal conduct of the members and their • guests thereon, and to establish penalties for the infraction thereof; (b) suspend the voting rights and right to use of the recreational facilities of a member during any period in which such member shall be in default in the payment of any assessment levied by the Association. • Such rights may also be suspended after notice and -6- 11111111111111momm"""`""'"."--- hearing, for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, • for infraction of published rules and regulations; (c) exercise for the Association all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to this Association and not reserved to the membership by other provisions of these By-Laws, the Articles of • Incorporation, or the Declaration; (d) declare the office of a member of the Board of Directors to be vacant in the event such member shall be absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board of Directors; and • (e) employ a manager, an independent contractor, or such other employees as they deem necessary, and to • presCribe their duties. Section 2. Duties.. It shall be the duty of the Board of Directors to: (a) cause to be kept a complete record of all its acts and corporate affairs and to present a state- ment thereof to the members at the annual meeting of • the members, or at any special meeting when such . statement is requested in writing by one-fourth (1/4) of the Class A members who are entitled to vote; • (b) supervise all officers, agents and employees of this Association, and to see that their duties are properly performed; • (c) as more' fully provided in the Declaration, to: -7- • (1) fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual assess- ment period; (2) send written notice of each assess- ,. ment to every Owner subject thereto at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual • assessment period; and (3) foreclose the lien against any property for which assessments are not paid within thirty (30) days after due date or to bring an action at law against the owner personally obligated to pay the same; (d) issue, or to cause an appropriate officer to issue, upon demand by any person, a certificate set- .ting forth whether or not any assessment has been • paid. A reasonable charge may be made by the Board for the issuance of these certificates. • If a certifi- cate states an assessment has been paid, such certifi- cate shall be conclusive evidence of such payment; (e) procure and maintain adequate liability and hazard insurance on property owned by the Association; (f) cause all officers or employees having fiscal responsiblities to be bonded, as it may deem appropriate; • (g) cause the Common Area to be maintained. • • -8- • MIMI ARTICLE VIII ' OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES Section 1. Enumeration of Offices. The officers of this Association shall be a President and Vice President, who shall at all times be members of the Board of Directors, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, and such other offices as the Board may from time to time by resolution create. Section 2. Election of Officers. The election of officers shall take place at the first meeting of the Board of Directors following each annual meeting of the members. Section 3. Term. The officers of this Association shall be elected annually by the Board and each shall hold office for one (1) year unless he shall sooner resign, or shall be removed; or otherwise disqualified to serve. Section 4. Special Appointments. The Board may elect such other officers as the affairs of the Association may re- quire, each of whom shall hold office for such period, have such authority, and perform such duties as the Board may, from time to time, determine. Section 5. Resignation and Removal. Any officer may be removed from office with or without cause by the Board. Any officer may resign at any time giving written notice to the Board, the President or the Secretary. Such resignation shall take effect on the date of receipt of such notice or at any later time specified therein, and unless otherwise specified • therein, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be neces- • sary to make it effective. -9- • Section 6. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office may be filled by appointment by the Board. The officer appointed to such vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term of the officer he replaces. Section 7. Multiple Offices.. The offices of Secre- tary and Treasurer may be held by the same person. No person shall simultaneously hold more than one of any of the other offices except in the case of special offices created pursuant to Section 4 of this Article. Section 8. Duties. The duties of the officers are as follows: (a) President: The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors; shall see that orders and resolutions of the Board are carried out; shall, sign all leases, mortgages, deeds and other written instruments, and shall co-sign all checks and promissory notes. (b) Vice President:. The Vice President shall act in the place and stead of the President in the event of his absence, inability or refusal to act, and shall exercise and discharge such other duties as may be required of him by the Board. (c) Secretary: The Secretary shall record the votes and keep the minutes of all meetings and proceed- ings of the Board and of the members; keep the corpo- rate seal of the Association and affix it on all papers requiring said seal; serve notice of meetings -10- MMIIMMOMMommumw of the Board and of the members; keep appropriate current records showing the members of the Association together with their, addresses, and shall perform such other duties as required by the Board. (d) Treasurer: The Treasurer shall receive and deposit in apppropriate bank accounts all monies of the Association and shall disburse such funds as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors; • shall sign all checks and promissory notes of the Association; keep proper books of account; cause an annual audit of the Association's books to be made by a public accountant at the completion of each fiscal year; and shall prepare an annual budget and statement. of income and expenditures to be presented to the membership at its regular annual meeting, and deliver a copy of each to the members. ARTICLE IX COMMITTEES The Association shall appoint an Architectural Control Committee, as provided in the Declaration, and a Nominating COmmittee, as provided in these By-Laws. In addition, the Board of Directors shall appoint other committees as deemed appropri- ate in carrying out its purpose. 4 ARTICLE X BOOKS AND RECORDS The books, records and papers of the Association. shall, at all times during reasonable business hours, be subject -11- to inspection by any member. The Declaration, the Articles of • Incorporation and the By-Laws of the Association shall be avail- able for inspection by any member at the princpal office of the • Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. ARTICLE XI ASSESSMENTS As more fully provided in the Declaration, each member is obligated to pay to the Association annual and special assess- ' ments which are secured by a continuing lien upon the property against which the assessment is made. Any assessments which are not paid when due shall be delinquent. If the assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date, the assessment shall bear interest from the date of delinquency at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, and the Association may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same or foreclose the lien against the property, and interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action shall be added to the amount of such assessment. No Owner may waiver or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by nonuse of the Common Area or abandonment of his Lot. ARTICLE XII • CORPORATE SEAL The Association shall have a seal in circular form having, its circumference the words: Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. -12- ARTICLE XIII AMENDMENTS Section 1. These By-Laws may be amended, at a regular or special meeting of the members, by a vote of a majority of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy, except that the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration shall have the right to veto amendments while there is Class B membership. Section 2. In the case of any conflict between the Articles of Incorporation and these By-Laws, - the Articles shall control; and in the case of any conflict between the Declaration and these By-Laws, the Declaration shall control. ARTICLE XIV MISCELLANEOUS The fiscal year of the Association shall begin on the 1st day of January and end on the 31st day of December of every year, except that the first fiscal year shall begin on the date of incorporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, being all of the directors of Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. , have hereunto set our hands this day of April, 1985. Allen D. Aldridge C. Ralph Cochran Arnold R. Spell -13- CERTIFICATION • I, the undersigned, do hereby certify: THAT I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of the Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. , a North Carolina corporation; and, THAT the foregoing By-Laws constitute the original By-Laws of said corporation, as duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors hereto, held on the day of April, 1985. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said corporation, this day of April, 1985. Secretary -14- • • • MEMORANDUM To: Chapel Hill Planning Board From: Roger Weldon, Planning Director Subject: Chandler's Green - Application for Subdivision Approval (SD-25-O-11) Date: June 4, 1985 This memorandum provides description and analysis of an application for approval of a major subdivision proposed on Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive (SR 1732). Attached are the applicant's project fact sheet, state- ment of justification, transportation impact statement, vicinity map and preliminary plat. The owner of the property is Allenton Realtors of Durham, N. C. Background on Joint Planning The proposed subdivision straddles the line between Chapel Hill's extra- territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and Orange County's jurisdiction, with the majority of the acreage lying in the County's jurisdiction. The Town may approve or disapprove the section within its ETJ, with a courtesy review by the County. The County may act on the portion in its jurisdiction, with courtesy review by the Town. The portion of the proposal in Orange County's jurisdiction lies within the Joint Planning Area. In 1984 the Town Council and Board of County Commis- sioners adopted the Joint Planning agreement which set up procedures for review and approval by both jurisdictions of development proposals in the area surrounding Chapel Hill's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The intent is for both jurisdictions to agree on a land use plan for the area and for the County to then adopt the appropriate zoning in the area. The County zoning and development standards would be identical to those of Chapel Hill. We are now in an interim period during which the staff of both jurisdictions are working together to produce a land use plan proposal. On June 11 there will be a Joint Public Hearing to allow both the Board of. Commissioners and the Town Council to consider this proposal. Recommenda- tions from the Chapel Hill Planning Board will be heard at that time as well as preliminary recommendations from both the Town and County Managers. The County Planning Board will participate in the hearing and make its recommendation to the County Commissioners at a later date. The Town Council will consider evidence heard at the Public Hearing and make its recommendation at its meeting of June 24. Because of the spirit of Joint Planning and because two separate reviews of parts of a single subdivision is not logical, we will discuss the proposal as an integral whole. 11211• . The site is located on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road between its intersections with Sunrise Road and Sedgefield Drive, and is identified as Chapel Rill Township Tax Map 25, part of Lot 11. The subdivision contains 100 accres of land, 19 of which are in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction and are zoned R-2. The County zoning is Residential-2. The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography of the site can be classified as gently-rolling hilleides. Natural site drainage flows toward Weaver Dairy Road, with a small portion of the site draining toward Sunrise Drive. A portion of the site's northeastern boundary abuts Interstate 40. Revelentl___,22.E.S-r-i2,11--'" , The applicant proposes to subdivide the land into 133 lots (26 in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction) for the purpose of building' single family residences. Plans call for a primary vehicular access from Sunrise Drive to Weaver Dairy Road with several cul-de-sacs and road abut-outs to adjoining undeveloped properties. The applicant proposes to provide public water by connecting to the existing 16" water main along Weaver Dairy Road. Sewer i to the project would be provided by extending the 8" line from Weaver Dairy Road at Cedar Fork Trail. An easement through Carol Woods would be necessary. Since a major portion of this property lies withinthe New Hope basin, pump stations are proposed to service the site. The extension of water and sewer lines by the developer will also provide service to portions of abutting properties on the north and south of the development. We believe that development of additional pump stations should not be encouraged, and strongly recommend that as much area as possible be served by gravity sewer. The applicant proposes garbage collection by private contractor Buffers The applicant proposes to meet all Town buffer standards and provide a 100-foot buffer along the property line abutting 1-40. 1 . , Evaluation ------_--- General Site Arran,....erfejA.. The proposed subdivision locates the majority of TOESETnTrr---igonthemain collector street running through the development. The cul-de-sacs are located in the flatter areas of the site, thereby minimizing site grading. AccessedCi . i. As per our thoroughfare plan, we recommend that the applicant widen Sunrise Drive and Weaver Dairy Road along the site's frontage, to half of the ultimate cross-sections. Internal circulation is collected by Sweeten Creek Road and distributed to Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive. As no access is provided to the large tract to the east, we recommend that at least one "stubout" street be provided and that a sidewalk be provided on one side of all "stub-out" streets. -2- With respect to external circulation, according to the applicant's Transportation Impact Report (attached), the traffic volume projected to be generated by the development is 1,330 vehicles per day (133 lots, 10 trips per day). 1984 vehicle counts mark the Average Daily Traffic on Weaver Dairy Road at 4,187 vehicles. Weaver Dairy Road's capacity is 10,000 ADT. The applicant's report does not account for developments that have been approved but not yet constructed. These approvals will represent a signif- icant increase in traffic volumes in the Weaver Dairy Road corridor. List- ed below are projects recently approved in this area. (Please see attached map.) Development Size Kensington.Trace 135 du Coventry 43 du Timberlyne Village 144 du Cambridge Place 171 du Steeple Chase 16 du Booker Creek IV 30 du Kirkwood 108 du Highlands 91 du Booker Creek Village 30 du Summerfield Crossing 140 du Timberlyne Shopping 130,850 du Timberlyne Offices 23,903 du Totals: 908 dwelling units 154,753 square feet of commercial/office space A ,recent Chapel Hill Planning Department study of this corridor considered peck hour traffic impacts of these developments at critical intersections: NC 86 and Weaver Dairy Road, Weaver Dairy Road and Erwin Road, Erwin Road and US 15-501. The analysis concluded that the first two of these inter- sections are functioning and will continue to function well, accounting for approved developments. The Erwin Road/15-501 intersection, however, will be over-capacity once all these developments are constructed. The applicant estimates that the proposed subdivision would generate an additional 15 peak hour movements through the Erwin Road/15-501 intersec- tion. Staff Recommendation We recommend that the Planning Board recommend to Council approval of Preliminary Plat for Chandler's Green subject to the conditions on Resolution A. Two remaining concerns are the need of serving part of the subdivision with pump stations, and the potential traffic impacts of the subdivision. Resolution B would deny the application on these grounds. -3- Resolution A • A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION (SD-25-0-11) BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Prelimilnary Plan dated March 19, 1985, for Chandler's Green Subdivision, located on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lot 11, subject to the following: 1. Provide temporary turn-arounds to Town standards at all stub-out streets, and provide a sign at the end of the road stating "future extension." 2. Dedicate a public street and construct to Town standards to access the eastern property line at the D.B. Carroll property. Plans for this street shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the approval of the Final Plat. i 3. That plans for water and sewer service be approved by OWASA and the 1 Town Manager prior to the approval of the Final Plat. 4. That the recreation area be screened from adjacent properties by a suitable hedge screen and vegetation. Plans shall be aprpoved by the Town Manager prior to approval of the Final Plat. 5. That utility easements as required by OWASA be shown on the Final Plat. These easements shall include easements to adjoining properties. 6. That a 10 foot landscape easement be provided along the rear of the i lots adjoining the 60 foot public right-of-way at the northwest property line. This easement should be labled so as to prohibit driveway access onto the 60 foot right-of-way. 7. That final plans for . all proposed streets be approved by the Town I Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and that final plans for Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive improvements be approved by the Town Manager and NCDOT before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 8. That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitaty sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. 9. That easement documents as required by OWASA be recorded before final plat approval, and that the property owner bear the cost of any assessments required by OWASA for maintenance of fire hydrants until such time as this responsibility is assumed by a homeowners associa- tion or a public entity or until such time as OWASA policy may change. 10. That plans for phasing the development be approved by the Town Manager 1 I prior to the approval of a Final Plat. This the day of , 1985. --...............---...........rsmaisenso e , l I e 4,z, • 1%Iv•1 .._ 1.4tarli. . it° '-''D 67') 1 Otr':26:s" 1■201 It 1 : , to , s:.6 11 .. , . . i - . ...... .d, ..,,, „.. .. (ft of 4 ail 6 g 1 N,,„,,, 6 , , Att.:, ,, la .r a Oa W !i►; 1, st it et '7 4 ce •gl **7 simoisiagrovivi It 01 i, i, f 300 • r p 1 0 -5, ii‘f - ..,.... - rt-3)E SI UWE irkleginalLt-:J Ars .oje .7411111 rim■■•■••-, --quAwigro. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION May 16,1985 JAMES G.MARTIN GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Ms. Susan J. Smith, Planner Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough N.C. 27278 Dear Ms. Smith, This is in reference to the Chandler' s Green Development bordering onSR1732 (Sunrise Drive ) and ST1733 (Weaver Dairy Road) in Orange Co unty. Our letter of May 13,1985 said that minimum sight distance on Sunrise Drive should be 550' . We have reviewed this proposed drive and now feel that 450' will be acceptable. It will be necessary for the proposed drive to be relocated 50' to the north to satify the 450' sight distance. If we can be of any further assistance please advise. 4722 Sincerel J.C atkins DIVISION ENGINEER JWW/DBK/mm CC: Mr. Phil Post • Mr. Dwight Kelly An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • cc1/40 N - c (orange atuuntu liturtation and forks Eleparnuent Ase Ilk** 300 West Tryon Street r9.7 HILLSBOROUGH,N.C.27278 lieBeFit. MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Smith, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director lrY6 DATE: May 23, 1985 RE: Development Projects -- Review of Planned Recreation/Open Space Areas As indicated by your memo dated May 3rd the following four (4) development projects are subject to courtesy review and comment by the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council: • Scotswood (A. H. and J. Graham) - rezoning from Residential - 1 to Residential - 2 and Residential - 4. - James L. Freeland - rezoning from Residential - 1 to Residential - 4. - Chandler's Green - planned development/rezoning from Residential - 1 to Residential - 2. - West Ten Mobile Home Park - planned development - housing (Residential - 1) Also indicated in your memo, recreational requirements for straight re-zonings (the Scotswood and Freeland projects) are applicable at densities of five (5) or more units per acre. These two (2) projects are thus not subject to requirements providing for recreational space facilities. I also understand that Chandler's Green and West Ten Mobile Home Park are planned developments (housing) and are subject to recreational requirements for recreational space. I feel it is important that the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council be apprised of these proposed developments and their plans for provision of recreational space facilities. The Council, however, does not hold its next monthly meeting until Tuesday, June 4th, one week after the May 28th public hearing. As I have only recently begun my position as Director of Orange County Recreation and Parks Department, staff comments concerning the recreational concerns of these two (2) proposed developments are limited: Chandler's Green - Accessibility Developer seems to have considered appropriate central location of the recreation area and has proposed adequate pedestrian pathways to recreation facilities. These pathways should be compacted, "rock dust" material, laid 4-6", approximately 72" in width with no more than the maximum slope requirement for handicapped purposes/ access. Staff also recommends extension of the proposed pathway, Hillsborough, 732-9361 • Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 to entwine throughout the recreation site providing for leisure pursuits supplemental to just entrance/access walkways (i.e. nature/ jogging/bicycle trail loop, extending beyond picnic shelter area). - Other Amenities Park benches located at tot lot area and strategically placed along the pathway should be considered. West Ten Mobile Home Park - Accessibility Developer seems to have considered appropriate location of the recreation area and has proposed adequate pedestrian pathways to the rec facilities. Pathways should be of material, width and slope as noted above. - Other amenities Park benches strategically located along jogging/nature path should be considered. Please be advised that these two proposed developments will be addressed at the next Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council meeting, June 4th. I would request that any specific concerns/comments of the . Council be considered as conditions of final approval by the Planning Board. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine H. Parker, Chair, Advisory Council Brian E. Cox, Supervisor, Southern Service District D. Lynn Toreson, Supervisor, Western Service District ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 It * (two. MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Smith, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officed/OF SUBJECT: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan for Chandler's Green Subdivision. DATE: June 6, 1985 I have reviewed the Preliminary Erosion Control Plan for this site and find that it is acceptable. Prior to the start of construction a final plan must be submitted, approved and the appropriate fees paid. • 11111 ..2 , AGENDA It MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Chandler's Green - Application for Subdivision Approval (SD-25-0-11) DATE: June 11, 1985 This memorandum provides description and analysis of an application for approval of a major subdivision proposed on Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive (SR 1732) . Attached are the applicant's Project Fact Sheet, Statement of Justification, Transportation Impact Statement, Vicinity Map and Preliminary Plat. The owner of the property is Allenton Realtors of Durham, N. C. Background on Joint Planning The proposed subdivision straddles the line between Chapel Hill's extra- territorial jurisdiction and Orange County's jurisdiction, with the majority of the acreage lying in the County's jurisdiction. The portion of the proposal in Orange County's jurisdiction lies within the Joint Planning Area. In 1984 the Town Council and Board of County Commissioners adopted the Joint Planning agreement which set up proced- ures for review and approval by both jurisdictions of development pro- posals in the area surrounding Chapel Hill's extraterritorial jurisdiction. The intent is for both jurisdictions to agree on a land use plan for the area and for the County to then adopt the appropriate zoning in the area. The County zoning and development standards would be identical to those of Chapel Hill. We are now in an interim period during which the staff of both jurisdictions are working together to produce a land use plan proposal . On June 11 there will be a Joint Public Hearing to allow both the. Board of Commissioners and the Town Council to consider this proposal. Recom- mendations from the Chapel Hill Planning Board will be heard at that time as well as preliminary recommendations, from both the Town and County Managers. The County Planning Board will participate in the hearing and make its recommendation to the County Commissioners at a later date. The Town Council will consider evidence heard at the Public Hearing and make its recommendation at its meeting of July 1. Because of the spirit of Joint Planning and because two separate reviews of parts of a single subdivision is not logical , we will discuss the proposal as an integral whole. k . ,.. 2 Site Description The site is located on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road between its intersections with Sunrise Road and Sedgefield Drive, and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, part of Lot 11 . The subdivision contains 100 acres of land, 19 of which are in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction and are zoned R-2. The County zoning is Residential-2. The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography of the site can be classified as gently rolling hillsides. Natural site drainage flows toward Weaver Dairy Road, with a small portion of the site draining toward Sunrise Drive. A portion of the site's northeastern boundary abuts Interstate 40. It appears that a portion of the subdivision lies within the Resource Conservation District. Development Description The applicant proposes to subdivide the land into 133 lots (26 in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction) for the purpose of building single-family residences. Plans call for a primary vehicular access from Sunrise Drive to Weaver Dairy Road with several cul-de-sacs and road stub-outs to adjoining undeveloped properties. The applicant proposes to provide public water by connecting to the existing 16" water main along Weaver Dairy Road. Sewer to the project would be provided by extending the 8" line from Weaver Dairy Road at Cedar Fork Trail. An easement through Carol Woods, which abuts Sunrise Road, would be necessary. Since a major portion of this property lies within the unsewered New Hope basin, pump stations are proposed to service the site. The extension of water and sewer lines by the developer will also provide service to portions of abutting properties on the north and south of the development. • We believe that development of additional pump stations should not be encouraged, and strongly recommend that as much area as possible be served by gravity sewer. However, the undeveloped land between Weaver Dairy Road and Interstate 40 is an attractive and appropriate location for new development, and discussions are underway with OWASA about means of providing sewer service to that entire area. The applicant proposes garbage collection by private contractor. Buffers The applicant proposes to meet all Town buffer standards and provide a 100-foot buffer along the property line abutting Interstate 40. Evaluation General Site Arrangement: The proposed subdivision locates the majority of lots fronting on the main collector street running through the develop- ment. The cul-de-sacs are located in the flatter areas of the site, thereby minimizing site grading. Twelve lots front on an unnamed public road along the northern property line, in addition to their frontage on streets mumumallImalogowal"1""'"------, 3 in the proposed subdivision. We recommend that non-access easements be recorded for these lots, so that access is limited to internal streets only. Resource Conservation District: Maps indicate that there may be a peren- nial stream in the southern portion of the proposed subdivision. If the presence of a stream is confirmed, it appears that the Resource Conservation District would overlay parts of Lots 12, 13, 14, 40, 41 , 42, and 43. We recommend that, if this preliminary plat is approved, the applicant show the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District on the final plat; and that the lot lines on the final plat be adjusted to show buildable area on all lots outside of the Resource Conservation District, and access to all lots without crossing the Resource Conservation District. We also recommend that a note be added to the plat explaining that development within the Resource Conservation District is strictly limited by the Town of Chapel Hill. Open Space: Combining Orange County Open Space Requirements (applied to that portion of the subdivision in Orange County's jurisdiction) and Chapel Hill's requirements (applied to the Chapel, Hill portion), a total of 3.21 acres of open space is required. The preliminary plan shows 2.3 acres. We recommend that a condition of approval be the adding of .91 acres of open space to the subdivision, or allowing a payment in lieu of reservation. Drainage: The preliminary plan shows drainage easements along critical drainageways. In the southern portion of the subdivision, such easements are shown on the east side of Sweeten Creek Road, but not on the west side. We recommend that a conditon of approval be recording of these additional easements on a final plat, and that a stormwater management plan be approved prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit. Access and Circulation: As per our Thoroughfare Plan, we recommend that the applicant widen Sunrise Drive and Weaver Dairy Road along the site's frontage, to half of the ultimate cross-section. Internal circulation is collected by Sweeten Creek Road and distributed to Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive. As no access is provided to the large tract to the east, we recommend that at least one "stub-out" street be provided and that a sidewalk be provided on one side of all "stub-out" streets. The Chapel Hill Thoroughfare Plan calls for extension of Weaver Dairy Road to U.S. 15-501 . The proposed new alignment of Weaver Dairy Road would begin at the point of this subdivision's frontage on Weaver Dairy Road. The location of proposed Sweeten Creek Road takes this new align- ment into account. A 15' right-of-way needed for the new alignment is proposed to be dedicated. With respect to external circulation, according to the applicant's Trans- portation Impact Report (attached) , the traffic volume projected to be generated by the development is 1,330 vehicles per day (133 lots, 10 trips per day). The 1984 vehicle counts mark the Average Daily Traffic on Weaver Dairy Road at 4,187 vehicles. Weaver Dairy Road's capacity is 10,000 ADT. I . ,. . " 4 The applicant's report does not account for developments that have been approved but not yet constructed. These approvals would represent a . 1 significant increase in traffic volumes in the Weaver Dairy Road corridor. Listed below are projects recently approved in this area. (Please see attached map.) Development Size . Sedgewood 224 du Kensington Trace 135 du Coventry 43 du Timberlyne Village 144 du Cambridge Place 171 du Steeple Chase 16 du Booker Creek IV 30 du Kirkwood 108 du Highlands 91 du Booker Creek Village 30 du Summerfield Crossing 140 du Timberlyne Shopping 130,850 sf Timberlyne Offices 23,903 sf Totals: 1 ,132 dwelling units . 154,753 sq. ft. of commercial/office space I 1 A recent Chapel Hill Planning Department study of this corridor consid- ered peak hour traffic impacts of these developments at critical inter- sections: N.C. 86 and Weaver Dairy Road, Weaver Dairy Road and Erwin Road, Erwin Road and U.S. 15-501 . The analysis concluded that the first two of these intersections are functioning and will continue to function well, accounting for approved development. The Erwin Road/15-501 intersection, however, will be over-capacity once all these developments are constructed. A copy of that analysis is attached. The applicant estimates that the proposed subdivision would generate an additional 15 peak hour movements through the Erwin Road/15-501 intersection. We find the applicant's estimate of traffic generation and distribution of trips to be reasonable. Planning Board's Recommendation: That Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Chandler's Green, subject to the conditions included in Resolu- tion A. Vote on June 4, 1985: 6-3. (Dissenting votes objecting to condition #2, requiring an additional stub-out.) Manager's Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend, that Council approve the Preliminary Plat, in spite of our concern about pump stations and potential traffic impact at 15-501 and Erwin Road, for Chandler's Green subject to the conditions on Resolution A (same as Planning Board's recommendation). Resolution B would deny the application. i • • RESOLUTION A A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR CHAND- LER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION (5D-25-0-11) (85-R- a) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby• approves the Preliminary Plat dated March 19, 1985 for Chandler's Green Subdivision, located on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lot 11, subject to the following: 1. Provide temporary turn-arounds to Town standards at all stub-out streets, and provide a sign at the end of the road stating this street is subject to "future extension." 2. Dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way and construct to Town standards a street from Sweeten Creek Road to the eastern property line at the Carroll property to the east of this subdivision. Plans for this street shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the approval of the Final Plat. This street shall be aligned with the proposed stub-out shown on the site plan providing access to property to the west. 3. That the recreation area be screened from adjacent properties by a suitable hedge screen and vegetation. Plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to approval of the Final Plat. 4. That utility easements as required by OWASA be shown on the Final Plat. These easements shall include easements to adjoining proper- ties. 5. That a 10-foot non-access easement be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining the 60-foot public right-of-way at the northwest property line. This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto the 60-foot right-of-way. 6. That Weaver Dairy Road be improved to of a 65' cross-section with curb and gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of of a 90' right-of-way along the site's frontage, to include a left turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road. 7. That Sunrise Road be improved to of a 41 ' cross-section, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of of a 70' right-of-way, along the site's frontage. 8. That final plans for all proposed streets be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and that final plans for Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Drive improvements be approved by the Town Manager and NCDOT before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 9. That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground. 2 10. That easement documents as required by OWASA be recorded before final plat approval, and that the property owner bear the cost of any assessments required by OWASA for maintenance of fire hydrants until such time as this responsibility is assumed by a homeowners association or a public entity. 11. That plans for phasing the development be approved by the Town Manager prior to the approval of a Final Plat. 12. That a stormwater management plan with hydrologic calculations be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 13. That final utility plans be approved by the Town Manager, OWASA, Duke Power, Southern Bell, and Village Cable before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. All lines shall be underground. 14. That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 15. That the. names of the development and its streets be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 16. That the final plat show boundaries of the Resource Conservation District, and that all lots on the final plat contain (1) a buildable area outside the Resource Conservation District, and (2) access from the buildable area to a street without crossing the Resource Conservation District. 17. That a total of 3.21 acres of open space be shown on the final plat; or, at the applicant's option, a payment in lieu of open space reservation be made for the difference between open space required and provided. 18. That drainage easements be provided through Lots 13, 14 and 18, as shown on the preliminary plat. This the 1st day of July, 1985. RESOLUTION B A RESOLUTION DENYING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION (SD-25-0--11) (85-R- b) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby fails to find that the Preliminary Plat for Chandler's Green Subdivision located on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lot 0-11, proposed by Allenton Realty Company, dated May 29, 1985: 1) Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare (Sec. 7.1 of the Development Ordinance); 2) Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Article 7.6.1 .2, and with all other applicable regulations. The reasons for Council's failure to make these findings are that: 1) the public traffic safety would not be maintained or promoted on Weaver Dairy Road and Erwin Road in the vicinity of the proposed development; and 2) the public health, safety, and general welfare would not be maintained or promoted by the location and utilization of sewer pump stations in the New Hope drainage basin. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the preliminary subdivision plat required for said development. This the 1st day of July, 1985. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WEAVER DAIRY ROAD/ERWIN ROAD CORRIDOR Town of Chapel Hill , North Carolina prepared by The Chapel Hill Planning Department March 1985 INTRODUCTION This report evaluates the transportation impacts of new developments both approved and proposed along Weaver Dairy Road and Erwin Road in the northeastern section of Chapel Hill . Weaver Dairy Road serves as a loop road around the northeastern perimeter of the town. It connects Airport Road (NC 86) with Erwin Road. Erwin Road runs from US 15-501 roughly northeasterly to the Durham County line. Figure 1 shows the location of the corridor. * Development along this corridor has increased rapidly during the last two years. Approximately 737 new dwelling units have been approved for the area. Most of the approved units currently are under construction. In addition, 23,903 square feet of office space and • 130,850 square feet of retail space has been approved. Timberlyne Shopping Center recently opened near the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and NC 86. Much of the proposed office space also is occupied. Figure 2 illustrates the location of new developments along the corridor. We used several steps to analyze the impact of new development on traffic flows in the corridor. First we assessed existing traffic conditions at three intersections: NC $6 at Weaver Dairy Road, Weaver Dairy Road at Erwin Road, and Erwin Road at US 15-501 . We then estimated the number of cars that would enter and exit new projects during the typically busiest hour. In the next step we estimated how the added vehicles would use major streets and intersections along the corridor. We then added the vehicles generated by the new developments to traffic already using the streets. The assignment of added vehicles to the street system allowed us to determine how the new projects would affect major intersections. We focused our analysis primarily on the peak travel period at these major intersections in order to evaluate the 'worst case" impact . The last part of the report includes recommendations on how to ameliorate negative impacts that would stem from occupancy of the new projects. • PROPOSED PROJECTS Two proposed developments are pending approval by the Chapel Hill Town Council . The first project, Windy Hill , includes 91 condominium e 4 I e 4 .t , .e It ...cap, %.iE-s �. � � o y S' t N i i 4 c« 0 Y J . , 1 ® 2 s j 1 11(9 es c,, ..s. W .t a 2 a- at g LL o Z 41' Y itib O' 4' n units. If approved, it would be taeErwin Road across'from Road. Roads into the project w u Old Oxford Road and north of Weaver Dairy Road. The second project, Cambridge Place, would be located offTofs pstmintt r is D wee d ina Timberlyne Village Shopping Center. sustained care facility and would include 171 units for senior citizens. EXISTING CONDIT_I_O_NS Two of the three intersections that peak allutedggenerally operate peratevat high levels of service during PM pea periods. Dairy Road intersection andlihelWeav oaErwin is free intersection operated flowing during the peak period. The intersection of US 15-501 and Erwin Road still maintains a stable flow. However, ome congst ion could be observed.. The weekday peak f area generally occurs between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Figure 3 shows existing peak hour traffic movements on the streets and major intersections. We used a critical movement summatiom technique to determis tec level of service at which the intersections were operating. defines critical movement volumes as: "The volume traletthrough represented by the highest lane volumes of opposing and left turns) from both north-south t and i ea t-we et cdr i to ct i onsvthat occurs during the peak hour. A to summation for the three intersections is shown in Figures 4.1 , 4.2, and 4.3. The critical he WeaaVeernDairy/Erwinshows Road intersections operrateeatelevel Dairy of Road and the We service A during the peak hour . This is c onsideredtihthe highest level of service and features generally level designations include six service level ratings ranging from A to F. Attachment A describes these service levels. The US 15-501 and Erwin Road intersection hiurrently#eperrtessaturban service level C. We generally consider arterial streets. The most recently adopted Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan was based on maintaining service level D systemwide. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation, for the purposes of this analysis, is defined as the number of vehicle-trips that a particular land use creates. In Table 1 , we listed below new developments along othe herccr idorothat aiegeither under construction, approved for future generation approval . The size of each development, its peak trip rate, and the number of vehicles expected to be generated by the development also are listed. • •.- -- 4( ....44, x 1 dh■■•• It . --2 .Z9 111V 4P. .C. li e -w.t- • tie.0 i • 00.1„ og db;t4i ., k g . 10 Ilt s 1 ii VS. 2 a 4 0 $ z 10 1 ..e ..r„ 41. "Kr, 414 ,.. ' elk IC a at'? s*,,,,, 1 i i*44%--al, o At1/4,,„ 6 ii, N 4k0- * • ,.0 ibi -vee, 0 ..., : 38 'I il ce = gap 1 ri: ,A 1 ti ar,vtanitaan-rno I A' * . 4 a 7.1 ell g d e a , • .15 ,i...il.....-. 1 4' a 7 .*11# FIGURE 4.1 TOWN OF. CHAPEL... H I L.L. -- PLANN I IvG C3E PT 4 i CIR I T I CAL.. 1OtJEt 1ENT ANAL_Y'E I S US 1 5-5O 1 DATE FEBRUARY 964POAO ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE C SATURATION 45 CRITICAL N/S VOL 1 '9.3 CRITICAL E/W VOL 9'.42 CRITICAL SUM 1 3. 0 . ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY • NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND H WESTBOU H . LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 1 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 T. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 T. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 3 0011 OW 2 L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 • • . • • . • • OW 4 • • • • • o e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TRAFFIC VOLUMES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 9 111 37 268 32 1201 1049 THRU 47 RIGHT 20 87 9 1i6 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES 2/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND flUND 10 SOUTHBOUND 1 10 2 EASTBOUND 10 0 1 UTHBOUND WESTBOUND i0 2 1 PHASING N/S :3. E/W :3. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 -- 99 (NPEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 702 UND WESTB 673 THRU —RIGHT 81 135 240 0 LEFT 0 58 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 111 26$ s INPUT VOLUME 9 260 0 ADJUSTED VOL 0 58 0 0 CAPACITY 0 0 N/A MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A i I FIGURE 4.2 1 ' TOWN OF"' CHAPEL HILL PLANNING DEPT . CRITICAL M O'v EM ENT ANA L'Y'S I S ERW I N ROAD AT WEAVER DAIRY ROAD DATE FEBRUARY 1984 ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE A SATURATION 1 CRITICAL N/S VOL 2 S45). CRITICAL E/W VOL O CRITICAL SUM 2306 LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH LANE MOV DTH . 1 RTL 10.0 RTL 10.0 RL. 10.0 . . . 2 . . . " O . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRAFFIC VOLUMES •NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 LEFT RIG 2681 40 47 0 0 40 148 0 - RIGHT TRUCKS (X) LOCAL BUSES (ON/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 EASTBOUND 0 1 • WESTBOUND • 5 0 1 PHASING EE//WW :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 •- 99 (NPEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND UN B THRU -RIGHT 236 4 0 0 LEFT 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOU'T'HBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 284 0 0 ADJUSTED VOL 172 0 0 CAPACITY 152 0 0 0 MOVEMENT NO OK OK OK • • • FIGURE 4.3 T OR AN! 0 IF I T I CA L.L_N Oleo EM ENT RANA L_Y E I a ID E P T . C R NC E6 AT 1JE/W.JER DPI I R'Y• ROAC7 DATE FEBRUARY 1994 ' *********************•***•**********• LEVEL OF SERVICE A SATURATION .42 CRITICAL N/S VOL s es'9 • CRITICAL E/W VOL 1 .61 CRITICAL SUM 0 **********•****** •******************** . LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE • MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH I R. . 11 .0 RT. 11 .0 RTL 11 .0 RT. 11 .0 . 2 LT. 11 .0 L. . 11 .0 • . • . .. . . L. • 11 .0 3 • • • . . • • . • • . . • • • • • . • • . • 4 • . • • . • . • SI • . . • • • • • • • • 5 • • . • • • . • • • • • • . • •.• • • • • 6 • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 4 55 0 147 THRU 448 207 1 4 RIGHT 128 2 5 141 TRUCKS (X) LOCAL BUSES (00/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 10 0 SOUTHBOUND 10 0 1 EASTBOUND 10 0 1 WESTBOUND 10 0 1 . PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 — 99 (*PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU —RIGHT 496 229 6 151 LEFT 0 63 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 4 55 ADJUSTED VOL 4 63 0 161 CAPACITY 330 0 0 i53 MOVEMENT OK N/A OK • NO I TABLE 1 New Developments and Associated Trip Generation • PM Peak Generation Added Development Size Rates Trips 135 du .60/dwelling 81 Kensington Trace 43 du 1 .00/dwelling 43 Timberlyne Village oentry 144 du .60/dwelling 86 T 171 du .40/dwelling 68 Steeple Chase Place 16 du 1 .00/dwelling 16 Steeple Cease 30 du 1 .00/dwelling 30 • Booker Creek IV 108 Kirkwood 108 du 1 .00/dwelling 191 Windy Hill 91 du 1 .00/dwelling Highlands 91 9 1 du 1 .00/dwelling Booker Creek Village 30 du 1 .00/dwelling 30 1 Summerfieid Crossing 140 du 1 .00/dwelling 140 Timberlyne Shopping 130850 sf 14.42/1000 sq. ft. 1887 83 Timberlyne Offices 23903 sf 2.20/1000 sq. ft. 2724 We based our trip generation calculations on rates found in Trio Generation, Third Edition, IstitutedtfcTransportation nfEngineers. We used rates for the PM peak hour TRIP DISTRIBUTION • Trip distribution can be described as the tendency of drivers to use n certain routes before entering or after exiting a trip generator. estimate of trip distribution usually is based on a general knowledge of drivers' trip origins and destinations. These origins and destinations depend on the land use patterns throughout the community. We made a series of assumptions about how vehicles would approach or leave developments in the corridor. We then estimated trip distribution to and from each protect for the streets and intersections within the corridor. 1 ABB I G181ENT OF TRIPS We estimated ents paths that entering or ocusedvarious our developments especially on how the trips would move through the three critical intersections. Table 2 shows our estimated trip distribution and intersection assignments. We first evaluated the he added trip load using on l y trips generated from approved developmen ts. We then analyzed a dded trips that would be created from the. Windy Hill and Cambridge Place developments. Figure 5 illustrates existing pm peak hour traffic plus traffic added by approved projects. Figure 6 shows the number of peak hour vehicles that would be using occupied. street system if Windy Hill and Cambridge Place ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT, Developments along the Weaver Dairy Road/Erwin Road corridor that have been approved during the last few years will significantly affect traffic flows in the area. Generally, levels of service in the vicinity of these projects will drop. The most significant deterioration in traffic flow will occur (and is occurring now) at the intersection of Erwin Road and US 15-501 . The will drop of this intersection P from level of service C to level of service E if all of the approved developments are occupied. The capacity of the roadway will be exceeded by 9 percent. Drivers trying to move through the intersection will experience low speeds and long delays brought about by the congested conditions. The Erwin Road/Weaver Dairy Road intersection will be affected minimally by the new developments. It will Maintain a service level A although volumes will increase. This intersection's continued strong performance is due to its simple "three legged" configuration. Some decline in service levels will .be seen at the NC 86/Weaver Dairy Road intersection. The level of service here is expected to drop from A to C. This intersection would continue to provide acceptable service. Figures 7.1 , 7.2, and 7.3 show the critical celomovement analyse es of the three intersections with all approved Windy Hill and Place 159 to of corridor. The additional trips considering problemswith 8this gcorridor gcreated tyepre iouasly approved developments, . Figures movement analyses of the three major intersections that would be affected by the added developments. All three of the intersections would maintain virtually the same level of service with both Cambridge Place and Windy Hill occuppied. RECCt41ENDATA$. We identified measures that be the traffic impact of the approved and proposed developments. Wefeelthatmajor TABLES 2 - aiali�M�lf�av�rtiyopr�irlps tkaw hiry NaRoad 6rii9n,mow Cwrldar total rill. Total villaaf YisdY Hill asd Kensisgian TrKe Kirkwood TLNerlyae Village Yisdr Hilt aid pi Plate Esistisg Ssaeerfield Dmlisg CorastrT �_» !late YiadT Hill Cambridge Ke Cea6riige Nosasats Soaker creek Village $triple Chase Highlands Tirlerirae Alts. 1 _ ......«..,.�..._.....»..... -«_ 141_._.. 1f7 » »� _..._...«1434 «... 91 ---------- Peat Hr.Trip&arratioa i71« ! _.._« lefl ! 21 21 9 74 lisrlIlosad Rlglat 371 32 7 n Loft t11 34 21 46 231 32 3 At Satllaed Throstgl !7 34 14 76 3 � its Ervin IN t4 4i 1201 121 2611 9 1 us 15-511 lift Eastland bratgl 1291 167 r 111 haft 32! 32 34 238 !2 164! fi 141 92 71 tNstbossb Riot 16.«......_........_...«..«......._« _..._..««...«�.«..«.«« .«.«.«.....«« «.._«...««._...«....«....ii... _ «- __.. 139 ! 1te 116 9 26 42 21 Lvft 284 26 20 itartlboatd 11#010 6 ! !4 21 14 3 114 ult SoaiMmd R ratgl 401 2b 14 4b !27 9 5 1 Ervin of 14 46 1 11 31 velvet Dairy left 47 42 13! 354 1 Esstlaesd Riot 141 2b I i lift6 .--------Vostlosad UPO ....-....««_«. ..............«...«...._.__..««.«.«._«..«__.««-..-«-«..»-«...-_.«.._ _._.___......»._.«_. 4 «..._»...«-- --._.._... 113 S j f4 547 left 4 335 fLortltfaad KThvatgl 1n 42 IRS m 1j 3d lift 42 !2 3" 2 gathhand TirosO 217 2 HC li Right 6 1 Ywee�tDairy loft 1 5 S Eastiroasd Thom 1 311 Right S IN 374 14 4 Loft 14` 42 4 14 Right --«-'.14...«_._»..._._«__«.._....«�«.«...._«.«.- .............._..._.-«_. 1" ,j h -fir. . 4-:"..e,4‘ ,, 0004, 41 ,4" . 11,..i . ,F.,, . j. `1Rk6 ...1 V t g ® ■ y Pi Ni a • c n lia ow oC s� n.rnr•,yv+ i 11. to I 3 i i. mot ► Ai' 1;1i ink s • 2 v 4.p. I. l- ,‘ • . Mitiosc IINki . „„.e„,, S^I +► r -9rr ,1� .'„o N sts 4 oC• 1 -4,7,2, 4 Ni 0 aro J IC- zkr j t • ® w 1 4 4 4 . 0 • u w �- I ., . i � 4 1 I*1 , .c, %I'' 0,1?41 . li • FIGURE 7.1 TOI4N OF= CMrsPEL_ 1-1 I 1-L_ — PL_PrfVhJ I NI+C DEPT . CR I 'I" I CAL_ PiOt.JEt1EhET AIV"L_YE I E 1 1 5-- 50 1 ..'ERWI I N ROAD -- APPROlJED PROJECTS DATE MARCH 1985 ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE E SATURATION 1 CO SP CRITICAL N/S VOL 452E5 CRITICAL E/W VOL 1 1 46:7 CRITICAL SUM 1 75,2a ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 RT. 12.0 2 L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 T. . 12.0 T. . 12.0 3 • . . . . • . . . . . . . . L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 4 • U • . • • • • • • • 6 r • . • • . • • • • • • • • . . . • • . • TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9 0 335 483 136 THRU 67 57 1201 1049 RIGHT 20 251 9 236 TRUCKS (X) LOCAL BUSES (K/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :3. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) E/W i3. BOTH ,TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 - 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND -IRU -RIGHT 91 322 666 LEFT 0 303 466 83 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NPUT VOLUME 9 335 483 136 )JUSTED VOL 0 303 466 83 CAPACITY 0 0 0 0 MOVEMENT . N/A N/A N/A N/A FIGURE 7.2 • -I-01,411s4 OP CHAP'S!.- H ILL — PL-A4d1•••4 I NI0 DEPT .. c I T I CAL. PiO L-A larsil E1VT A14ALYS I S -- APPRO�,JEC PROaECTE 4J EA4.�'E R C►A I DXR E R1,�J DATE MARCH 1985 ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE A SATURATION 29 CRITICAL N/S VOL SO CRITICAL E/W VOL 0 CRITICAL SUM 5 2 O ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH NORTHBOUND MOV WIID HD MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 RT. 10.0 RL. 10.0 • • • • • • • LT. 10.0 , . • . . . .•• . . . a • • . • . • • . . . • • • • TRAFFIC VOLUMES WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEFT 510 0 0, 127 0 THRU 106 100 0 85 354 0 RIGHT TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (O/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0 5 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 1 WESTBOUND PHASING N/S c1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED DS/HR> PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 60 SECONDS CYCLE LENGTH CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 194 o 0 THRU -RIGHT 520 1 � 0 LEFT 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 510 0 0 0 44 ADJUSTED VOL 409 0 0 0 CAPACITY 326 NO OK MOVEMENT NO OK • . FIGURE 7.3 ' TDWN OF CHAPEL. H I L.L... — PL.AI'*JN1 I IPJG DEPT . . CR I T I CAL. MO'.,JE 1EMT ANAL5i''E I 'tea 144 C X8.6.0,1 JEAVER DA I R'Y -- A Fs R FR 0 V ED PR0.3'ECTE DATE MARCH 1985 _ ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE C SATURATION 4.83 CRITICAL N/S VOL BI 1 CRITICAL E/W VOL a45. 1 CRITICAL SUM 1 1 772 ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1. ' R. . 12.0 RT. 12.0 RTL 12.0 RT. 12.0 2 LT. 12.0 L. . 12.0 . . . . . . . L. . 12.0 3 . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . 0 . . . . . 4 . . b . • . . . • • • . • • • . • f • • • . . • 0 0 0 0 1 5 • . . . . . • . • 0 . 00 • . . • • • . 6 . . . . . . . . 000 . . . . TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 4 282 0 374 THRU 540 300 1 • 4 RIGHT 355 2 5 340 :::::,„•,. TRUCKS f"/.) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 • 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY a 1 . 0 — 99 ($PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH s 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU —RIGHT 567 317 6 361 LEFT 0 244 0 .266 LEFT TURN CHECK ,! f NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND , INPUT VOLUME 4 282 0 374 ADJUSTED VOL 0 244 0 266 r CAPACITY 494 0 0 • 355 MOVEMENT OK N/A • OK OK i FIGURE 8.1 I TOWN OP CHAPEL— HI EL—M L—ENTPLE INJ I' I DEPT.. CPITI CAL— 1P1C1 US i S_SC1 i ..EF L4 DATE MARCHDD C PF�C .3ECTE ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE E SATURATION 1 1 9 Tr CRITICAL N/S VOL 7 1 S • CRITICAL E/W VOL 1 2 5 • CRITICAL SUM 1 9'669 ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV 'WIDTH MOV WIDTH I RT. 12.0 RT. r 12.0 T. . 12.0 TT 2 2 L. . 12.0 T . 12.0 3 O • • . . S • WOOS L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 4 . . . . . . . 6 • o • s O . • e • • r • . . • S a e TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9 374 518 167 THRU 76 66 1201 1049 RIGHT 20 286 9 • 329 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (11/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0 , SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :3. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) E/W :3. T BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 - 99 (10PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 'HRU —RIGHT 100 369 666 LEFT 0 346 504 • 117 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NPUT VOLUME 9 374 518 ,DJUSTED VOL 0 346 504 1170 CAPACITY 0 0 0 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A N/A FIGURE 8.2 • • T OWBV O P C HP"P"E I.-�O�EM�f�lT P�t�lf'�r I...Y'S I S pep-1r . C R I T I C~AL' . WE AVE R C7t I Ry"}'"ERW I hJ v=v D C>E C> pYRO EGT DATE MARCH 19135 ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE 04 SATURAT I ON 2) 1 CRITICAL N/S VOL 5 5 CI CRITICAL E/W VOL O CRITICAL SUM 55i ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE NOV WIDTH MOV 1 LT. 10.0 RT. 10.0 RL. 10.0 • • • • • • • r • • • • • • • . • . . 3 • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 5 OSO SOO , • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r r . . . ■ TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND . EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 LEFT 529 16 104 140 0 •THRU RIGHT 0 94 364 0 TRUCKS (X) LOCAL BUSES (O/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING E/W :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 - 99 (OPEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 550 207 0 LEFT 0 0 126 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 529 0 0 ADJUSTED VOL 429 0 126 0 CAPACITY 343 0 0 MOVEMENT NO OK NO OK '.4 i .FIGURE 8.3 T 01I.41N1 O IF C HF=t P E=L•. ��,EM EIVT PPrhJt�I.Y S I ��E PT . CRITI C: L_ M MC E.,14E. 1/4J'ER DPI DATE MARCHA1 g�EG7 PROJECTS ********************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE C SATURATION "70:) CRITICAL N/S VOL B3'4 CRITICAL E/W VOL S?5 CRITICAL SUM 1 209' ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND MOV WIDTH MOVTWIDTH MOV WIDTH LANE MOV WIDTH 1 R. . 12.0 RT. 12.0 RTL 12.0 RT. 12.0 2 • LT. 12.0 L. . 12.0 . . . L. . 12.0 3 • . . . . . • 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •• • . ... . . • . • • • . • . . . 5 6 • . • • • . . r . • • • • • • . . . ■ TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 4 296 388 547 306 0 4 THRU RIGHT 369 2 5 354 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (1}/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND - 5 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 EASTBOUND 5 0 1 I WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED DS/HR) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 574 323 281 LEFT 0 . 260 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND 3OUND WESBO D • INPUT VOLUME 4 296 381 ADJUSTED VOL 0 260 0 CAPACITY 511 0 0 369 MOVEMENT OK - N/A OK OK improvements to the east end of the corridor will be necessary in the near future. The adopted Chapel Thoroughfare that Weaver Dairy Road be realigned Road. This would create an intersection with US 15-501 superior to the Erwin Road/US 15-501 intersection. This new alignment should be a five lane section, 65 feet wide. Figure 9 shows the proposed realignment. Currently, the Greenfields development is building the portion of the realignment from Erwin Road to the US 15-501 Boulevard. This should help the Erwin RoadBaulbevnecessarysfori the somewhat.orridor the full realignment would properly. We feel that the Town ultimately should become involved in building the portion of the realignment from Erwin Road to Weaver Dairy Road. This segment would cross portions of six smaller parcels whereas the Greenfields segment only crosses one large parcel . Many years could pass before we achieve a completed realignment if the Town counts on developers to build the segment. • We recommend that the Staff ask Council to include the portion of the Weaver Dairy Road realignment between Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Road as a top priority improvement project. li The NC 86/Weaver Dairy Road intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level as new developments are occupied. However, the opening of 1-40 could impact the intersection. We are not certain at ' this point what impact would occur so we did not consider it in this report. All in all , we feel that transportation impacts created by approved and proposed developments would be significant, particularY at the Erwin Road/15-501 intersection. Our recommendation to complete the Weaver Dairy Road realignment should solve the negative traffic impacts that would occur. ••• o. FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED SAGE ROAD EXTENSION t• .pa I l IVA.. 4444►,► ..� . 1/41,179.• �4 &wit' iwrr#4y• 1111 404 . 1 • ;40* ♦• firIrik,-.A.,..?,fral o •4v:E' 1 . g. 64 IN IIII bit • .. ,PV Orr- am" 'T°. 1110#.... -''' % 1000 lradllip ..// - 1 10* 'Ali' * s i • . Airpar Alt/ $ * <1 41111V .46,17 $ *11 1 • tr 4 1; In *q. i l . "1414114111 130 ' l■ : Elf v.i41 s InOppl ♦ o 1 /11111 1 �' � � � � irt `P`'� '� •AIIII `` �'� it io �j AEE t 10 TIM' 5 di.4` S YAt ATTACHMENT A OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR LEVELS OF SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICE A: THIS IS A CONDITION OF FREE FLOW, ACCOMPANIED BY LOW VOLUMES AND HIGH SPEEDS. LEVEL OF SERVICE B: THIS OCCURS IN THE ZONE OF STABLE • FLOW, WITH OPERATING SPEEDS BEGINNING TO BE RESTRICTED SOMEWHAT BY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. .d- LEVEL OF SERVICE C: THIS IS STILL IN THE ZONE OF STABLE FLOW, BUT SPEEDS AND MANEUVERABILITY ARE MORE CLOSELY CONTROLLED BY THE HIGHER VOLUMES. LEVEL OF SERVICE D: THIS LEVEL OF SERVICE APPROACHES UNSTABLE FLOW, WITH TOLERABLE OPERATING SPEEDS BEING MAINTAINED, THOUGH CONSIDERABLY AFFECTED BY CHANGES IN OPERATING CONDITIONS. LEVEL OF SERVICE E: THIS CANNOT BE DESCRIBED BY SPEED ALONE, BUT REPRESENTS OPERATIONS AT LOWER OPERATING SPEEDS, TYPICALLY, BUT NOT ALWAYS, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 30 MILES PER HOUR, WITH VOLUMES AT OR NEAR THE CAPACITY OF THE HIGHWAY. LEVEL OF SERVICE F: THIS DESCRIBES A FORCED-FLOW OPERA- TION AT LOW SPEEDS, WHERE VOLUMES ARE BELOW CAPACITY. IN THE EXTREME, BOTH SPEED AND VOLUME CAN DROP TO ZERO. I 1 • . . 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JUNE 11, 1985 • Action Agenda Item it D-1 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - PREPARATION OF JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN . DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Attachment(s) REVISED TIME SCHEDULE; Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS • CHAPEL HILL TIME SCHEDULE; JPA LAND USE PLAN PRELIMINARY FORMAT; POPULATION PROJECTION FORMAT; APRIL 29, 1985 UPDATE Telephone Numbers TO PLANNING BOARD; GROWTH ISSUES SYNOPSIS. Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501, , PURPOSE: To update the Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council and Orange County Planning Board as to the status of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. , -NEED: The Joint Planning Agreement was adopted by Orange County on August 6, - - 1984 and by Chapel Hill on October 10, 1984. After departures from/additions to the Planning Staff's of both jurisdictions, work commenced on the preparation of a Land Use Plan for the area in January of 1985. The Orange I County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and OWASA staff representatives have been meeting periodically to review the planning process to be employed and discuss various elements of the work program. Work completed to date includes all base mapping associated with the project, collection and mapping of environmental data for Land Suitability Analysis, completion of a "pilot" project concerning computerized mapping' of environmental data, collection and mapping of existing land use data, and preparation of outline drafts of growth issue, location standards and population projections. The Town of Chapel Hill has initiated efforts to update it's Land Use Plan as part of the Joint Planning activities and has, also adopted a time schedule governing this process. The schedule differs from that currently, being employed by the County, and possibilities exist that compatibility between the two plans cannot be achieved. . - .-, IMPACT: Updating the governing and advisory boards of the status of planning efforts • will acquaint them with the approach being utilized in development of the plan as well as work completed to date. Resolution of the difference in time schedules can also be accomplished. RECOMMENDATION: As the Boards decide. 0§111.1111110MINIMuliallamm . . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH • •martin CAROLINA 27278 • ou it 1;514;7 t. ob N otto‘ MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 1985 SUBJECT: REVISED TIME SCHEDULE - PREPARATION OF JPA LAND USE PLAN On May 13, 1985, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a "Suggested Process for Preparing a Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill and its Environs." (see attached). The process involves a series of public meetings and work sessions, including joint Council/Planning Board or Council/Commissioners sessions. The time schedule adopted sets December 10, 1985 for the Joint Councty/Town Public Hearing to receive comment on the JPA Land Use Plan. Staff has been working towards a September 10, 1985 public hearing date. The schedule as adopted by Chapel Hill would conflict with efforts by Staff to insure plan compatibility between the two jurisdictions. At the May 20, 1985 meeting of the Planning Board, a motion to adopt. December 10, 1985 as the public hearing date for the JPA Land Use Plan was approved. (see attached draft minutes). A revised time schedule and process has-been-prepared which reflects this date and which also parallels the Chapel Hill process. A copy is attached, and it is recommended that this schedule be discussed at the June 11 work session between the Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council. It will alsb provide a basis from which to identify the status of the JPA Land Use Plan project. Ylk6f4Mitl' U9,001.7 Marvin E. Collins Planning Director • • • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA • 27278 ..6.0.113 or co% DRAFT . A :.•frv. 4..•rt ,,,,:e* PROCESS FOR PREPARATION OF A LAND USE PLAN FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY - CHAPEL HILL JOINT PLANNING AREA , • . Projected Completion Date Task January - September Staff & Planning Board work with Chapel Hill, Carrboro and OWASA staff and boards to: a. Prepare project area base maps b. Prepare Development Intensity (Land Suitability) Analysis c. Prepare Existing Land Use Map d. Draft discussion paper on Water/Sewer Issues . ,. e. Prepare population projections for urban area and "maximum population" figures f. Draft discussion paper on growth issues - Growth patterns and trends 1 - Research Triangle Park influence - Infill development policies - Thoroughfare planning and road capacities - Drainage basins and sewer service - 1-40 impacts - Development densities/location - Rural buffer considerations - Comparison of existing land use mix to • projected land use needs ' - Greenway, entranceway and open space considerations June 10 - July 3 Staff cofnpiles "draft" goals & objectives for JPA Land Use Plan from: a. Current Orange Land Use Plan .b. Chapel Hill "draft" goals & objectives c. Current Township Advisory Council (TAC) goals & objectives July 9 Planning Board review - goals & objectives July 18 Chapel Hill TAC - review goals & objectives July 25 Bingham TAC - review goals & objectives I. ■ LAND USE PLAN PROCESS . PAGE 2 , - • ' - • Projected Completion Date • Task • August 1 Chapel Hill TAC recommendation - goals & objectives August 8 - Bingham TAC recommendation - goals Scobjectives August 16 Public Meetind# 1 notice to newspapers 'Send Public Meeting: # 1 notice to TAG members. August 19 TAG recommended goals & objectives presented to . . Planning Board. Planning Board review/recommendation to BOCC re: -. ' goals & objectives. V . " .•August 21, 28 V V Advertise Public Meeting.# I " August 30 Complete Development Intensity (Land Suitability) Analysis/Existing Land Use Map/Discussion Paper- Water & Sewer Issues/Population Projections V September 2 . .Presentation of recommended goals & objectives to Board' of Commissioners September 3 . Conduct Public Meeting # 1 . • a. Provide project overview V V b. Review Development Intensity ,Analysis/Existing Land Use/Water & Sewer IssueS/POpulation ' Projections • - V c. Solicit public comment regarding local issues •September 6 Public Meeting #2 Notice to newspapers - Send Public Meeting #2 Notice to TAC September 10 Completion date for discuSsion paper on growth issues September 11' • Advertise Public Meeting #2 September 12 Joint BOCC/PB Work Session to review background inforMation, plan alternatives, recommended plan• September 17 BOCC adoption - goals & objectives. • September 18 Advertise Public Meeting #2 , September 24 Conduct Public Meeting #2.- Present discussion paper; plan alternatives, recommended plan. Solicit citizen comment. October 10 .-TAC Review/Recommendation. ' EDC Review/Recommendation. October 21 TAC recommendation presented to Planning Board. Planning Board recommends plan for public bearing. November 4 BOCC sets public hearing/approves advertisement. V ----- LAND USE PLAN PROCESS PAGE' 3 Projected Completion Date 0 Task • • • November 15 Public hearing notice to newspapers. - , November 18 PB final review . - November 20, 27 Advertisement in newspapers. December 10 • Public hearing'- Staff recomendation Town recommendation' •• - TAC recommendations - EDC recommendation - 'Public coMment January 13 CHTC approves redommendations for revisions to JPA Land. Use Plan - • February 3 BOCC receives CHTC 'recommendations for revisions and refers to PB February 17 PB to recommend adoption of JPA Land Use Plan March 3 BOCC to adopt JPA Land Use Plan _ March 24 CRTC to adopt JPA Land Use Plan BOCC - Board of County Commissioners PB - Orange County'Planning Board • TAC - Township Advisory Council EDC - Economic Development Commission CHIC - Chapel. Hill Town Council CHPB - Chapel Hill Planning Board NIMIIMIlimmommomr DRAFT PREPARATION OF GOALS & OJECTIVES FOR JPA LAND USE PLAN Projected. Completion Date Task June 10 - July 3 Staff compiles "draft" goals & onjectives for JPA Land Use Plan from: - Current OC Land Use Plan • .- Chapel Hill "Draft" Goals & Objectives - Current Township Advisory Council Goals & Objectives July 9 Planning Board Review - Goals & Objectives July 18 Presentation of Draft Goals & Objectives to • Chapel Hill TAC July 25 ' Presentation of Draft Goals & Objectives to Bingham TAC August 1 Chapel Hill TAC Recommendation - Goals & Objectives August 8 Bingham TAC Recommendation - Goals & Objectives August 19 TAC Recommendations presented to Planning Board PB Review/Recommendation to BOCC prepared September 2 Presentation of Recommended Goals & Objectives to Board of Commissioners ' September 12 Joint BOCC/PB Work Session to review background information, plan alternatives, recommended plan September 17 BOCC adopts Goals & Objectives EXCERPT FROM MAY 20, 1985 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES QRAFT VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed (Kramer & Gordon, both feeling that Planning Board Chair should chair these hearings.) Agenda Item #6b: Time Schedule - Completion of Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Memo concerning the time schedule for the hearing to receive comment on the Land Use Plan for Joint Planning Area. The date of September 10, 1985 as set by Orange County would conflict with Chapel Hill and efforts by staffs to ensure plan compatibility. Staff is asking for consenus of Board for recommendation that work and the Joint Planning Area Plan be centered around a December 10, 1985 Public Hearing date. MOTION: Pi].key moved recommendation of December 10, 1985 as date for Public Hearing on Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in order to coincide with Chapel Hill. Seconded by Kizer. Walters noted he felt Orange County needs to set the pace not Chapel Hill in the future. • Kizer inquired if water/sewer, water standards, etc. were grouped together in consideration versus separate items in priority. Collins responded that ' the reason for breakdown was infrastructure versus standards/zoning. VOTE: 8 in favor. Shanklin and Gordon opposed. Agenda Item #7: Water Resources Committee Report Greenberg noted the February meeting had been cancelled by staff and several attempts to meet with staff had been unsuccessful. • Smith responded staff had been stretched "too thin" and had not been able to schedule another meeting. Agenda Item #8: _Subdivision Application North Dixie - Section Two - Final • The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Final Plan for North Dixie - Section Two. 5/13/85 Suggested Process for Preparing a Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill and its Environs April, May. 1. Work with Planning Board on refining Town Goals and 1985 Objectives (incorporating substantial public input). June 2. Obtain Council adoption of Goals and Objectives. March-Sept. 3. Staff and Planning Board work with Orange County staff, Carrboro staff, and OVvASA staff and Boards to: a. Prepare Land Suitability Analysis for entire urban area.* b. Prepare Map of Existing Land Use for urban area. c. Draft discussion paper on water and sewer issues. d. Prepare population projections for urban area. e. Prepare "maximum population" figures for entire urban area. . _ f. Draft discussion paper on growth issues; -Growth patterns and trends; -RTP influence; -I nf ill; -Road capacities; -Drainage basins and sewer service; -1-40 impacts; Density of development; -Rural buffer; Comparison of existing land use mix (hous- ing, commercial, office/institutional) to projected land use needs; and -Greeriways, Entranceways, and other Open Space considerations. Early Sept. 4. Joint Chapel Hill Council/Planning Board Work Session (suggest County schedule work session at about the same time) for staff to present the above. Late Sept. 5. Hold two Public Information meetings to present all of the above, hear comments and reactions. October-Nov. 6. Chapel Hill, Orange County staff/Planning Boards to draft Land Use Plan, Map, incorporating all of the above. December 10 7. Joint Town/County Public Hearing to review Land Use . I Plan. Jan-March, 8. Chapel Hill staff/Planning Board to revise Chapel Hill • 1986 portion of Land Use Plan, for Council consideration. • Jan., 1986 9. Council to communicate its ideas to Orange County Board of Commissioners for revision/preparation of a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area. Jan.-March, 10. County to prepare final draft Land Use Plan for Joint 1986 Planning Area. March, 1986 11. Chapel Hill Town Council to adopt Land Use Plan for: a. . Chapel Hill Planning Area; and • b. Joint Planning Area. *Urban Area = Chapel Hill and its Planning Area, Carrboro and its Planning Area, and Joint Planning Area. 1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR PREPARATION JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN I. OVERVIEW A. Purpose - Implementation of the Joint Planning Agreement 1. Formal parties to agreement a. Orange County b. Chapel Hill 2. Informal parties a. Carrboro b. OWASA B. Scope/Responsibility 1. Chapel Hill- all areas within its corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) . 2. Carrboro - all areas within its corporate limits and ETJ. 3. Orange County - remaining portions of Joint Planning Area. C. General Approach 1. Inter-jurisdictional work team a. Members (1) Orange County (2) Chapel Hill (3) Carrboro (4) OWASA b. Regular Meetings to discuss (1) Strategy (2) Schedules (3) Responsibilities (4) Progress 2. Identification of, and assignment of responsibility for, 6 major work elements • a. Development characteristics Planning Approach To be used by all participants. b. Goals and Objectives - Orange County and Chapel Hill c. Population Projections - Chapel Hill d. Utility Service Areas - Orange County, Chapel Hill and OWASA e. Location Standards - Orange County f. Thoroughfare Plan - Orange County and Chapel Hill II. IN-DEPTH A. Development Characteristics Planning Approach 1. Environmental Approach used by Baltimore Regional Planning Commission 2. Overview - Environmental deterministic approach which involves: intram•■■••■ 2 a. Mapping and overlaying selected environmental parameters b. Districts that emerge in overlaying process represent areas of varying environmental constraints c. Development intensity type classifications are applied to the districts d. These classifications determine the type and intensity of land use that will be allocated to each district in the planning process 3. Approach was approved at a meeting of managers and planning directors on 1-22-85. 4. Mapping element has 2 components a. Environmental characteristics Attachment 1 (1) Slope - major factor in determining development intensity (a) 0 - 7 1/2% - High to moderate intensity development (b) 7 1/2 - 15% - Moderate to limited intensity development (c) over 15% - Severely limited development potential Attachment 2 (2) Slope Orientation - important from standpoint of energy conservation and livability; 2 classifications: (a) Warm slopes (E, SE, S, SW) (b) Cold slopes (N, NE, W, NW) Attachment 3 (3) Vegetative Cover - important for balanced ecology, aesthetics, retention of runoff, and groundwater replenishment; 3 categories: (a) Wetlands (b) Forest (c) Open Attachment 4 (4) Soil Suitability - major factor in 1 determination of development potential: (a) 3 categories i. Desirable ii. Marginal iii. Undesirable (b) Categories based on: i. High / low slope ii. Depth to groundwater iii. Plasticity iv. Depth to bedrock b. Accessibility Characteristics Attachment 5 (1) Based on travel times in feet per minute (FPM) for various types of roads (a) Interstate - 4840 FPM (55 MPH) (b) Arterial - 3960 FPM (45 MPH) (c) Collector - 3080 FPM (35 MPH) 3 (2) Travel-time contour maps produced for every major interchange and town center in study area plus travel time to RTP Attachment 6 (3) Travel time contour maps are overlaid to produce composite map which breaks study area down into 4 levels of accessibility (1 = most accessible . . .. 4 = least accessible) 4. Analysis Attachment 7 a. Physio - Access Districts Map (1) Produced by overlaying slope, slope orientation vegetation, soils, and relative accessibility levels maps. (2) Defines 54 physiographic types and their relative accessibility based on: (a) Slope (1=0-7 1/2%, 2=7 1/2-15%, 3=over 15%) (b) Slope Orientation (W=Warm, C=Cold) (c) Vegetation (W=Wetland, T=Trees, O=Open) (d) Soils (D=Desirable, M=Marginal, U=Undesirable) (3) Each of 54 physiographic types are defined by the environmental characteristics which make them up; e.g. , a 2WTM physiographic type would have: (a) 7 1/2 -15% slope (b) Warm slope orientation (c) Trees (d) Marginal soils Attachment 8 b. Development Intensity types, i.e. , the type and level of development a physiographic type can support: (1) Seven types defined (a) Type I = least intense development (b) Type VII = most intense development (2) For each Physiographic type, a Development Intensity Type is determined and assigned (3) For each Development Intensity Type compatible uses and densitites must be defined B. Goals and Objectives 1. Purpose a. To gauge the feelings of 'TPA residents relative to: (1) Quality of life (2) High vs. low density residential development (3) Open Space (4) Environment (5) Non-residential development b. To serve as a determinate of location and intensities of land uses proposed in the plan 2. How to be accomplished a. Planning Board and Township Advisory Councils review and approval b. Public meetings 4 C. Population Projections 1. Primary responsibility will be Chapel Hill's. 2. Basic elements in work plan include: a. Generation of birth/death rates for Chapel Hill Township b. Estimation of 1970-80 migration rate for Chapel Hill Township c. Adjustment of migration rates to build in assumptions about economic growth of the Triangle area 1980-2000 d. Generation of population projections for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 using cohort survival technique. D. Utility Service Areas 1. Primary responsibility will be that of Orange County and Chapel Hill with OWASA assistance 2. Will take form of issue paper; issues to be addressed include: a. Existing service area and capacities b. Water/sewer extension policies c. Costs of providing service d. Alternatives to centralized water & sewer E. Location Standards 1. Orange County will be responsible for 2. Purpose a. To identify standards which all parties to agreement can agree upon for the spatial allocation of various land uses in respective plans. b. To promote consistency between/among the various plans. 3. Technique a. Review of standards in adopted land use plans for: (1) Orange County (2) Chapel Hill (3) Carrboro b. Review of standards in planning literature c. Synthesis of standards from local plans and literature to form set of standards agreeable to participants F. Thoroughfare Plan 1. Responsibility will be that of Orance County and Chapel Hill with NC DOT review 2. Will pick up where Chapel Hill/Carrboro thoroughfare Plan leaves off 3. Will primarily: a. Look at adequacy of existing street network b. Identify long-range improvements maw 5 III. PLAN FORMULATION A. Preliminary 1. Development Intensity map is produced by applying development intensity types to the Physio-access Districts Map. 2. Acreage of each development intensity type district on the map is determined and multiplied by the carrying capacity identified for the development intensity type. 3. Based on projected population, estimates of the acreages needed for various land uses, e.g. , residential, commercial, instutional, etc. , can be made. B. Fine-Tuning 1. Land uses and required acreages are allocated based upon combination of: a. Goals and objectives - where public wants them to go b. Location standards - where they should go from technical standpoint c. Utilities and streets - where they can be served and accessed 2. Plan is revised and fine tuning done as result of reviews by: a. Governing boards b. Staff c. Public • �.•._. _ _�.� .._ �.r. ,.... r rte .` ._. . _.-._ • Excerpts from How To Evaluate A Development Proposal In Your ATTACHMENT 1 Community. by Jacob Kaminsky, a study for the Baltimore Regional Planning Commission. . 0 . DEGREE OF SLOPE ' The impact of slope.steepness on development is manifested primarily in the level of intensity and building and parking coverage.Slopes in the planning,area were grouped into four categories: 0-3 percent,3-8 per- .cent,8-15 percent and over,15 percent. (See the following map). . Land in the 0-3 percent slope category,where slope is minimal, is most susceptible to high intensity development.Variations in development • character in such areas can be attributed to accessibility of employment and services as well as to anticipated demands. • Areas with gently rolling topography (3-8 percent slopes) pro- vide a location for attractive, healthful development of moderate intensity. Appropriate development could occur in such areas with minimal disruption of the natural landscape. Areas with somewhat steeper slopes (8-15 percent) can be developed, although topography may create grading, erosion and street • alignment problems_ From the point of view of amenity,air circulation and vistas, development could be extremely desirable in these areas. A medium intensity level -of development is recommended, however, with correspond- ingly.low building coverage. ' Steep• slopes, from 15 percent and higher, present the most severe development problems. In many cases, development in steep slope areas is economically unfeasible. However, under favorable climatic condi- tions slopes with 15-25 percent could be very desirable,as long as there were minimal disturbances of the terrain and very low building coverage. A low intensity level•of development is recommended for such areas. '"3. DEGREE OF SLOPE i-�. -k• +r,, 3/;Yl � t+; ATTACENENT 2 • lir SLOPE ORIENTATION ' The micro-climate of areas with different dslope nd direction. depending upon the effects of solar radiation they and southern slopes heat in the winter and cooler breezes in the summer. they receive more solar heat m Northern and western slopes, on the other hand, receive less solar heat and more cold wind in the winter. Developmentlpl n c ed result in significant is f the variations in micro-climate of different slopes Eney reductions in heating and nceedlt costs, wi`11 lbesevenmo�so conserving in energy.e future. • conservation is a critical Therefore,every effort should be made to conserve energy. For these reasons it is suggested that the higher intensity development be located on southern slopes and less intensive development on northern slopes. The planning area was divided into eight categories r planning area, . of slope orientation. In the physiographic summary. the eight groups were combined d southwestern; slopes, including slopes, including II eastern, southeastern, southern a n northern, northeastern, western and northwestern.The following map shows slope orientation in the case study area. SLOPE ORIENTATION illfll :�y I } �: ti 4 , !,,11-,: • . � / ►e •.+;x / J � ': stov tee �\\� � ' • dpx .,, , " 'nS�f—j• q a r i , -{: :, = «� t 1:1*,j# — irsL+ . ,1, '..,`"f4r...` .. 'i fir- ' ', i•=_ r__,__y}: S 4 i ...._.. fi r`? t .-.'7:1_ 4. ,Iru:::''', t:_-_4- 7T1,f-21-7Z.71--L:5t"tr-v-.:- ;:-;---t-vi---. 77&-S- ; t.TON Y W r \ srxs ra ruts 0 85 " ATTACHMENT 3 ,I 0 ' WOODLANDS • . • Plant materials are needed for the balanced ecology of the natu- ral environment and the beauty they provide to the built environment.Trees can moderate extreme temperatures, absorb smoke and dust, reduce wind • velocity, and increase visual privacy. If properly related to buildings, trees can also reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling and heating. While the importance of tree planting and preservation has been widely discussed and agreed upon, many developers have found it cost- . . ly to preserve trees and economically desirable to remove them before con- struction. Savings from this policy are short-term, however, and developers often ignore the long-term and very much more real economic and social benefits. In order to reinforce the goal of tree preservation, development , types in wooded areas should have a low intensity level, with low parking demand and low building coverage. Most important, development in these types should preserve a large portion of trees, leaving them and the ground. _ cover around them undisturbed. The map below shows tree coverage in the planning area. mesenvom ...;-,.. `-. • ,i. � , TREE COVERAGE . /--:-:,..P0 ? s,tr-Ite • A _,,. 0 ,12,,• / te .� 4. '‘4i am ,rya F .�� - vit. : Mf wy . + ,0 . v ;�„tjy_ W..` :. 3. [ • lt,..=',. ht.- . tr:',11W% -"' ..,. .., a i 1 ' i" ^ , te• w w«! ,� ogiriesintikz - 4 .`+ - t-70N � \ '` '1.�f 0 86 • ATTACHMENT 4 • • SOIL-GEOLOGY 0 . The geologic formation of the earth is important in determining the appropriateness of development as well as its possible adverse effects on the natural environment. Knowledge of geologic conditions may alleviate special problems which developers may encounter, such as hard rock forma- tion and conditions which affect the feasibility and spacing of septic tanks. Areas were categorized according to their soil conditions so • that special 'standards could be applied to potential problems. Four classifi- cations were made: desirable (no problems), conditional, problematic, and • undesirable. These, in turn, had been derived from a more detailed soil association system with the following:categories: slope, flooding, bedrock, • stability,erodability,permeability, pans and water table.5 In areas served'by central sewer systems, soil associations are not factors in determining the relative intensity level of development. Ex- cept in those areas designated as undesirable (which are included in Physio- graphic Type 4), the soil-geology association may be used as a guide for developers as to the type of problems which may be encountered in the course of development_ It is also useful as a means of determining where special standards should be applied to reduce erosion, floods and other problems. . The following map illustrates soil associations in the case study area. .► faugavom , i r •'.,�•r ':..., SOIL ASSOCIATIONS • t it Y ,C. d i-1. ' Suitability for Development P� " Ai 3 t, �+t��`+�.��J J� b`! CgNgtTif2eAL 1 o� ,It isi;tt. ec, • ti. t 11. .art. r�'i �t jf �t `.-:*" t t era c.'ti.{ ,: 4 •a�F,.n ,y�' 1 _.Y' '' ♦ WAY j 74`ft i1."7 ,P..7 n' • 4 .ln t "Y y . r `Yi+,E•iiii.5n°.ii W�r7�•"` a O �L'74, a t".`-> t',16&,: 1e tif44.64W1.11::;:,Lr1.:' 77:)'i�"fq., 7.r e„ Cif J 9 i :a.1 M•i'�4 XIILIL ii MT ssiasiagiii 44,, � r,1,k J�i =At R Wits :.'!rn` 'd'- + �4 .`?i ' • .":• "*" '.l V.. UTILIZATION SLAND ILIZATION POTENTIALS OF THE BALTIMORE REGION BASED' ON NATURAL CRITERIA;Baltimore: Regional Planning Council, December, 1970. 89 • f__ ...:_.... .�... .. . . .�..._ ORANGE COTINT7C • . SOSZ. SII TABILZ! GROIIPLIGS ATTACSK6Mr 4A • } - SOIL, c oup LAND Q• I.at lc 2c 3 • 4- 5 g 9' • ;• Ptic 'rank Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor :Poor • Poor •&bso •tion• Sawa, axg ta*+df13.1 F . Pair Fair .Fair Fair. Poor Poor Poor Poor ore PaoitarF r ,I4f•'s 11 . Good Good Good. Good- Fair Good Fair Poor- Poor Brea . �ail.p TritiLt Fair ' Fair • Fair: Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor covet• . Dwellings Without Good Coot. Good Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor 3ascsseat 'OweZ].togs Gf3,ath Good. Good -Good Good . Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor _ 3- •t . • 3maZI Commercial. Good. • Poor Poor •Poor Poor Poor •3uilditte • v\a( ;coat Roads Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair . Poor Sad Stets ?oat Reservoir • Fait . Fair Good Good. Poor Fair stbaents,. D"zkes Poor Poor- Poor- Poor Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor P :ztueated Pond Poor- Poor Pte` Poor Poor- Poor Poor Poor Poor F :aap•Areas Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor P icaic Areas Good' Good Good. Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor F • f . la•'_ ound Good Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor Pair Poor P oilfields Fair Fair Fair- Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor F t ATTACHMENT 5. 0 !..` , . SITE ACCESSIBILITY INDEX, lipi.i, • . • • �ssaa* ..,.,,,�MOW cc.� wua attest 1' ► d' 'avowal . Accessibility to Interchange 9 C •c-) (ffrt ApilliriOlo ., k` I Ur' 401104''. Aia,.. ....,,..,,A • ,. . . .„,,, , ,i,„, imilirsi.,247 :I: • , r .4 , „r 4 ,."AN- • N ".-40 0 } ge " tt. . il Accassibiiity to Town-Center 2 `"(' x ..r illi .eel ►1 i I 1111#II I I PliAd 01181 k . y . illih Nam.. 4, g. t ...xaea xo • `` mvEf ..I i ' Tie On o oa i I-roN ---v, 92 i ATTACHMENT 6 • 0 . . - . • SITE ACCESSIBILITY INDEX /' \neumw Acassa3ury LEVeLS • r ® Nreow s room coml. 1 '. `� � ott, r OP" \IIA ;•;140' t r..j 4,- '' iir . Ci. %.....1 -.41111:414111 3COM in MT 11111Wit ei 0 Ai oatwmum lb 1 01.1410.. japi ‘,..., ..\ i N 44b71} \,j s''''."*"."... 441. 1 0 . `• i,F PHYSI©-ACCESS DISTRICTS The result of the physiographic and accessibility analyses is a composite map with districts, each representing a physiographic type by accessibility level, or, in other words, a physio-access type. The map,a com- bination of the physiography and accessibility maps, follows. Using this map as a base, and in concert with other amenities, the plan was prepared by attributing development types to the physio- access type districts. 0 93 Ellr ATTACEFMENT 7 ' 0 ' PHYSIO ACCESS DISTRICTS CRARllc?Eieafla3 TYPOS Mg 0.374 SLCPC ® I DB ens ta E* ta it Egi 5-e T. `•i+M �ii it u. rfS $21 my '�:).„,:;:...,,,,,,,p,�' ,::rt.( �I „ i. i rag t E C4V0?MG£ al ze r = 1 ,+;^.r •:K1YdN� r r ,,,, tl�1 �a11M CIUQIT121G.' um um sw sT sow cartraiam V .it'i •.r....V ATTACHMENT 8 0 . APPLICATION TO PLANNING AREA In general, high intensity type is allocated to districts with high accessibility, warm slopes, and flat.or rolling land. A decrease in intensity level is recommended with a decrease in accessibility or with an increase in the degree of slope. above a percent. A further decrease is suggested for cold slopes• and areas with tree coverage. Although each development in- tensity type is intended to accommodate a mix of uses, the plan recommends that uses requiring large structures of low intensity be located on cold slopes(such as warehouses, industrial buildings,and institutions). For areas having a physiographic character of 4_ of 15 percent'or more—a semi-rural 4—that is, slope type district was designated. This type is a separate.development category in which the intensity of development is less than in urban type 1 and to which special standards are applied. The application of the table to the total planning area,adjusted to reflect amenities, has resulted in the formulation of a development inten- sity types plan. All areas are included within the regional twenty-year sewer plan and not part of the semi-rural categories are designated for development at intensity type 1. 0 . DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY PLAN ? INN r- „� r •h /, �= anusaFA :, ::: not• • 71":27'44—• .�,... Ii my nAt• nPe w r ' `. 71111111 I }::::_:::,:„ ,p.�_ 71Ff N q t�130H7 r �'" ( 11 .....,.. ..: "N►�it i - .: s If ci,�► � �dll;,.i '11 r--%.......:Ilifii.::::: :::-:•:-,. S,,,,,L'A,A ilte-l?'lig '4.040 *,:-.01-.W,!,-,114 Fill1P----=-......._ , 1..ti:- ..,i*:::::*:::::::::::.:..... :k • ill 1\c 5 1'i,":-;:,:1:1,5,N'0.,,.1 . .r,,. --= . t — hh�rJ, i�7.. 114.14•111111111)�4i.-.1.1041,!,1111)� �lllpllfl ', I __'ks 'f :• 4 Q', 0 09 � a T „1n,E•"',.. split illiFey:::- ,:• :::;:u- . . suag N{gyp •°. ;: ��c 1-713111 —107 0 97 • • • • • ■ TABLE 1. - . •DESIGNATIOP: or DEVE'L+OPMEI3T'INT JSITY Tom__ I'0 PHYSIO-ACCESS DxSTRICTS . ACCESSTSILITT LEVELS (10) (5) (0) FA'`IIG t15) 2 • - V 4. ]7E�x1 E OF SLOk'E lWD `nI' vi III (I,0) 1 = 0-71 . 1TrTTD �''� V (5) 2 = T-15% • vI v Iv Iii (0) 3 = 15%+ - 3t3TM V iii rz DM V IV ii _ SLOPE O'�TATLObt' II I ii , I III (5) W = w (SW,.SE,E,S) ' �� t V CO). C ='cold. (21,11W,W,NE) -1CTD V - Iv Ii". Ix lad v IV . Iii II lq • III (0) T = Tom.• ICU Ix I (5) is = NO ads ICU � III • 1C UI II r R VI V IV III SOIL ASSOCCAtmauS 2E) II (10) D = desir°a'ble • V IIT (5) N1 = margiaaL - �, ]V (0) :0 = undesixable xi ' 2TdNi � III II - I 2LdTN4 J III II I R INTE S/TY TYPE C-t 2 III II I R 0 = =AL 2tCD V IV III. II 15 = I 20 = II• p� 2CD III II I 25 = III • 2C'ID I 30 = V © 117 III II 35 = V •"0 2C14 R m r 40 = VI III I7. p, 2CT►d R 45 = VII • U II I DEVELOPED AREAS 2C IxI I A R - • 2CTU ix . V III II 3 D In II 3W� IV -� I 3WZh IV III . 31104 III Ix r a I R 3W1T III r R R II • 3 CD Ig7 III II I I III Iz z 3C�TD R 0 I II I 3CZ4 III I R R II 3CTZ�1 R= R 3CU II R a R 3CTTJ = Source: Chapel Hill Planning Department METHODOLOGY FOR PREPARATION OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS LAND USE PLAN REVISION Population Projections Work Plan for Po Sketch o P I. Estimate current population of Chapel Hill Township and all key sub-areas: Chapel Hill, Carrboro, try to estimate population of S.E. Orange Urban Area (CHC Urban Area defined as the Joint Planning Area and all areas within its outer boundary). II. Generate maps of existing land use and zoning for CHC Urban Area 1. Chapel Hill to do for Chapel Hill and its Planning Area 2. Get information for Carrboro and its Planning Area 3. Suggest that Orange Co. map for Joint Planning Area III. Generate Projections for Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area A. Compare CHC Urban Area to CH Township 1. Acreage 2. Demographics 3. Boundaries B. Generate Birth/Death rates for C. H. Township ' , C. Estimate 1970-1980 migration rate for C. H. Township D. Adjust migration rates to build in assumptions about economic growth of the Triangle Area 1980-2000. . : E. Project population of C. H. Township using cohort survival methodology. Generate projections for 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020. IV. Estimate "carrying capacity" of CHC Urban Area A. Make estimate of current population densities in different parts of area. , B. Generate conceptual development plan for entire area C. Estimate maximum population for entire CHC Urban Area, building in ' assumptions about density, watershed areas, sewered areas, open space, etc. D. Compare carrying capacity to 1) population projections, 2) water and sewer capacities V. Break out projections by Traffic Zones A. Allocate projections 1. Considering existing population distribution 2. Considering conceptual Development Plan 3. Break into 3 components: Chapel Hill Carrboro Joint Planning Area ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Trurz.snoporrou NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ,6116L% tc. 4„,„ asoe April 29, 1985 TO: Planning Board 0-6 FROM: Gene Bell, Planner SUBJECT: Update on Joint Planning At the February 18, 1985, Long Range Planning meeting 4111 staff presented the desired planning approach for use in preparation of the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan. This was the same approach as used by the Baltimore Regional Planning Commission and is referred to as the Development Characteristics Planning Approach. Central to the approach is defining Development Intensity Type classifications for all properties in the study area. A Development Intensity Type is a classification applied to a discrete area of land and is an expression, in numerical form, of the amount of development that land can support. Development Intensity Types are determined by mapping and overlaying selected environmental parameters. The districts that emerge in the overlay process and the combinations of parameters that define them, determine the Development Intensity Type. Development Intensity Types are expressed in Roman numerals, the higher the number the greater the amount of development that can be supported. Contained herein are updates on the mapping element of the Development Characteristics Planning Approach along with progress in other JPA related activities. Mapping of Environmental Parameters Four environmental parameters were defined for mapping. These are slope, soils, vegetation, and slope orientation. Considerable mapping has been done since the February , . 2 4111 meeting. A brief description of each parameter and progress on it follows: slope. The percent of slope, i.e. , vertical rise in feet per 100 feet of horizontal distance, is an extremely important environmental constraint. In mapping, three levels of slope have been defined: - 0 - 7.5% - suitable for high to moderte intensity development. - 7.5% - 15% - suitable for moderate to limited intensity development. - over 15% - severely limited development potential. Slope mapping has been the most tedious and time-consuming parameter to map. Working with a topographic base of the study area, a draftsman has had to manually measure spacing between contours. Where spacing has been less than or equal to a pre-determined distance, the area so defined has been marked off. This process continued until all areas of varing slope on a map were delineated. •4111 Slope mapping is complete for the Southern Triangle and North Chapel Hill Areas and 90% complete for the University Lake Watershed Area. ,Soils The ability of the soil to support various intensities of development is a second major constraint considered in the mapping process. SCS soil maps of the JPA were consulted and particular soil properties, i.e. , septic suitablity, plasticity, depth to groundwater and bedrock, and potential for slippage, were used to rank soils into slight, moderate, .. and severe categories. 1 - Soil mapping has been completed for the Southern Triangle and North Chapel Hill Areas and is about 75% done for the University Lake Watershed Area. 'vegetation The third important environmental parameter mapped in the JPA is vegetation. It is' important from the standpoint of runoff retention, aesthetics, groundwater replenishment, and a balanced ecology. Three vegetation categories have been mapped. These include cleared areas, forest land, and wetlands. Sources consulted in determining vegetation have been 1983 aerial photos, vegetation and endangered species study of the Cape Fear River Basin, soils maps, and flood 3 plain maps. Cleared areas are considered capable of supporting the highest intensity development, forested areas moderate intensity, and wetland areas no development. Vegetation mapping has been completed for the Southern Triangle and North Chapel Hill Area and is about 50% complete for the University Lake Watershed Area. Slope Orientation Slope orientation, i.e. , northern versus southern exposure, is the final environmental parameter. I is not a constraint as are the first three parameters, but rather is an amenity factor. Its primary effect on development is to promote energy conservation and livability if high intensity development is allocated toward southern orientations when other parameters permit. Slope orientation mapping has been completed for the Southern Tringle and North Chapel Hill Area and has not commenced yet for the University Lake Watershed Area. Accessibility Mapping Mapping and overlaying the environmental parameters mentioned above defines districts of varying development 4111 potential which are assigned Development Intensity Type classifications. For example, the overlaying may define two areas containing low slope, good soils, clear vegetation, and southern orientation. However, one site is fronted by a major arterial while the other is accessible only by an unimproved dirt road. Obviously, the site along the arterial i is more suited to high intensity development because of its location. As a means of recognizing the locational advantage of essentially similar overlay districts, RELATIVE ACCESSIBILITY is used, it is expressed numerically on a contour map, level 1 being the most accessible and level 4 the least. Accessibility levels are determined from scores based on combined travel times from the town centers of Chapel Hill • and Carrboro and the four 1-40 interchanges to evenly distributed points in the JPA. The overall impact of relative accessibility on Development Intensity Type classifications is to lower a Development Intensity Type by one numeric increment for each accessibility level less than one. JPA staff participants have tentatively agreed upon the Accessibility map as presented. - . 4 Results of Computer Mapping About two months ago staff met with representatives from Geographic Data Management, a firm specializing in computer mapping and geographic data analysis. They had heard of our JPA mapping and thought it an excellent opportunity to show the capabilities of their product. With the concurrence of the County manager we embarked upon a pilot project with them wherein maps for the Southern Triangle were computerized and plots and acreage summaries produced. • Overall, we have been quite impressed with the outputs. The quality of the computer maps is very good and they seem to be as accurate as the base maps from which they were • produced. The real advantage of the computer becomes apparent in the overlay mapping and production of acreage reports. To manually produce the Southern Triangle overlay map too in excess of three work days. Manual acreage reports have not been produced, but would require many hours with a - planimeter. The computer map and acreage reports were produced in slightity less than an hour; 47 minutes processing time and 7 minutes plotting time. To be sure, the computerized process is not without manual imput. Before the base maps of individual parameters can be entered into the computer they must first be produced by hand. However, once maps are in the computer, its benefits are readily apparent in the speed and ease of analysis and the ability to make revisions in the maps. Location Standards As a means of promoting consistency among the various JPA land use plans uniform locational standards are needed for each class of land use. Orange County took the responsibility for initial definition of these standards in the form of an issue paper. The approach was one of researching adopted land use plans (Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro) and standard planning reference sources. A preliminary draft was presented at the JPA meeting on April 5 and discussed further at the meeting on April 19. Participants were in general agreement on the proposed standards, but the need to consult some additional sources was pointed out. To promote ease of use, the suggestion of compiling the standards in a tabular format was also mentioned. Orange County and the other JPA participants are 0 crrently working toward a comprehensive one-page set of • location standards. 5 410 . Survey of Existing Land VSe. The and use survey is important because it will determine the amount of land in the JPA that is undeveloped. Development Intensity Types assigned to undeveloped areas will determine which areas can support additional growth and which cannot. This data compiled with goals and objectives, location standards, and population projections will determine the form and content of the JPA Land Use Plan. The approach to determining existing land use is one of mapping all in-house data on existing land use and then taking these maps into the field for verification/correction purposes. We are fortunate in that Chapel Hill as part of its thoroughfare planning program did a dwelling unit survey in all areas encompassed by the thoroughfare plan. This covers most of the JPA and Chapel Hill has made this data available to us. Other land use information is coming from previous surveys in the North Chapel Hill Area and the University Lake Watershed. Tentative plans are to send two people into the field this week to begin updating the land use maps. . III 1 III • DRAFT 1 GROWTH ISSUES AND CONCERNS IN THE JOINT PLANNING AREA The Orange County - Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area (JPA) is experiencing extreme growth pressures which show no signs of abating in the foreseeable future. These pressures come from a variety of sources which include the major employment centers of UNC, and NC Memorial Hospital, the desirability of Chapel Hill as a place to live, the expanding influence of Research Triangle Park (RTP) as a regional employment center, and the "region shrinking" influence of the 1-40 corridor currently under construction through southeastern Orange County. The purpose of this paper is to briefly explore the implications of these growth pressures on the JPA and, in so doing, provide a starting point for discussion which will lead to defining goals and objectives to guide planning for the JPA. • Growth Pressures Four Growth pressures are identified above. A brief narrative of each follows: (1) UNC/NCMH - These associated institutions continue to be the major employers in Chapel Hill, Faculty, staff, and associated positions at UNC numbered 6,269 in 1978. •By 2000 this number is expected to increase by 19% to 7,490. 1978 employment at NCMH was 9,721 with 12,230 projected for 2000, an increase of 26%) (2) Chapel Hill - The demand for housing in Chapel Hill continues to grow. As of December 10, 1984, approval of 4,257 additional dwelling units and/or residential lots had been granted. 1,402 units were under construction at this time. Annexation may soon play a major role in the growth of Chapel Hill too. There are currently 24 areas under consideration for annexation; 20 of which could be annexed at any time. Most of these areas lie within the towns • extraterritorial jurisdiction, but there is an area of about 660 acres in the County portion of the JPA. This is in the N.C. 86/Weaver • Dairy Road area and includes Northwood and Sedgefield subdivisions. 2 1 From Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan 2 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department 2 (3) RTP - Current employment at RTP is estimated at about 25,000. By 2000 this is projected to rise to 45,000, an increase of 80%. 3 (4) 1-40. - 1-40 is projected for completion in The four interchanges serving the JPA will substantially reduce travel time from RTP. The interchanges and their projected times are N.C. 54/7 minutes, U.S. 15-501/ 10 minutes, Whitfield Road/ 14 minutes, and New hope Church Road/ 17 minutes. Traffic volumes on the Orange County Portion of 1-40 are expected to average 12,000-14,000 trips per day during tins first year of use and about 20,000-22,000 by the year 2000. 14 Orange County JPA The Orange County portion of the *IPA is composed of approximately 41,300 acres. The area contains three geographic divisions with the following approximate acreages: - North Chapel Hill - 19,900 acres - University Lake Watershed - 19,200 acres - Southern Triangle - 2,200 acres The North Chapel Hill area is experiencing the most intense growth pressures due to the northward expansion of Chapel Hill and the construction of 1-40 which traverses the area from the southeast to the northwest. Population Population figures from the "Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan" give an estimated 1979 JPA population of • 9,382..5 Projections to the year 2000 call for 34,330, an • increase of 266%. Table 1 gives a breakdown of current and projected population for the 3 geographic areas. 3 City of Durham - 2005 Comprehensive Plan, Draft 1 4 NC DOT Planning & Research Branch 5 Traffic analysis districts identified in the Plan match- up reasonably well with the 3 JPA geographic areas. 3 TABLE 1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED JPA POPULATION AREA 1979 2000 NUMERIC PERCENT ESTIMATED PROJECTED INCREASE INCREASE POPULATION POPULATION N.CHAPEL HILL 4,993 ' 12,147 7,154 143% UNIVERSITY LAKE 3,643 18,412 14,769 405% S. TRIANGLE 746 3,771 3,025 405% TOTAL 9,382 34,330 24,948 266 Land Use The major current, and projected, demand for land in the JPA is for residential purposes. Assuming that residential development in the JPA is currently at R-1 densities (1 dwell- . ing unit per acre with on-site water and sewer) with 2.72 persons per household, and that future development will occur at this level results in a figure of 3,449 current residential acres6 and a figure of 12,621 total acres for the year 2000. While residential development is expected to be the dominant land use in the JPA, commercial and service uses will occur too. The adopted Orange County Land Use Plan uses 5% of residential acreage to account for these uses. Table 2 gives a generalized overview of current and projected demands for land in the JPA. 6 Computations currently underway on recently collected' land use data will provide more accurate figures. 4 TABLE 2 DEMAND FOR LAND IN THE JPA ADDITIONAL REQUIRED CURRENT DEMANDS BY 2000 PERCENT AREA AREA RE OTHE1 TOTAL RES OTHER TOTAL _N REASE N.C.H. 19,900 1,836 92 1,928 2,630 132 2,762 143% U.L. 19,200 1,339 67 1,406 5,430 272 5,702 405% S. T, 2,200 274 14 288 1,112 56 1,168 405% TOTAL 41,300 3,449 173 3,622 9,172 460 9,632 266% Constrained Lands All undeveloped land in the JPA will not be available for development. In fact, about 32% of the total land area is questionable. This land falls into two general categories; public interest districts (composed almost entirely of Duke Forest Tracts) and environmentally constrained lands. Duke Forest tracts account for approximately 3,622 acres, all of which lies in the North Chapel Hill area. A much smaller public interest district of about 161 acres owned by the U. S. Government lies in the Southern Triangle. Environmentally constrained lands are those identified by an intensive mapping process as having any or all of the following; steep slopes, unstable soils, or wetland vegetation. Preliminary figures reveal approximately 11,336 acres in this category. This is 27% of the total JPA land area. Table 3 gives a breakdown by area for public interest districts and environmentally constrained lands. 5 TABLE 3 ACREAGE UNAVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTALLY TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL INTEREST CONSTRAINED UNAVAILABLE OF AREA ACRES DISTRICTS LANDS FOR DEVLOP- TOTAL MENT N.CHAPEL HILL 19,900 3,622 5,007 6,772 34% UNIV. LAKE 19,200 - 5,149 5,149 27% S. TRIANGLE 2,200 161 1,180 1,180 54% TOTAL 41,300 3,783 11,336 13,101 32% NOTE: ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSTRAINED LANDS lying in PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS have been broken out to avoid double counting. Comparison of the acreage required in Table 2 with that . available in Table 3 results in the figures contained in Table 4. There is a surplus of 14,945 acres (36% of total - acreage) available in 2000, but note that the Southern Triangle suffers a deficit based on the analysis employed. TABLE 4 LAND AVAILABILITY IN 2000 ADDITIONAL TOTAL NEEDED SURPLUS/ AREA ACRES. DEVELOPED BY 2000 UNAVAILABLE DEFICIT N.CHAPEL HILL 19,900 1,928 2,762 6,772 +8,438 UNIV. LAKE 19,200 1,406 5,702 5,149 . +6,943 S.TRIANGLE 2,200 288 1,168 1,180 - 436 TOTAL 41,300 3,622 9,632 13,101 +14,945 6 CONCLUSION The preliminary analysis employed in this paper has been of a cursory nature. However, several points readily emerge: - A substantial increase in County JPA population is expected by 2000; - Population growth will result in increased demand for land; and - A sizable portion of the County JPA is unavailable • for development because of environmental and related conditions. This raises the following questions for discussion: Population • (1) Can the area (and sub-areas) support the projected population? (2) What are preferred (and realistic) population densities? (3) Which areas are best able to support high population densities? • Tand Use (1) At what densities should residential development occur? (2) Where should residential development be directed to? (3) What will be the policy on in-fill development? (4) Will residential development be encouraged or discouraged along the I-40 corridor? (5) Commercial/Service uses will be required to serve the increased population. Where will they be located? (6) Land in the 1-40 corridor would seem prime for light manufacturing and wholesaling uses with the proper • infrastructure. To what extent and where should such • uses be allowed? 7 Environment (1) How much, if any, development should be allowed in Public Interest Districts which are not environmentally constrained? (2) Should the rural buffer be maintained in its present state? (3) Should water and sewer lines be extended through environmentally constrained areas? • ORANGE COUNTY ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JUNE 11, 1985 • Action Agenda Item 4 D-2 SUBJECT: 1985-86 PLANNING WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES • DEPARTMENT: PLANNING - PUBLIC HEARING Yes JL k No Attachment(s) APRIL 12, 1985 MEMO FROM Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS PLANNING DIRECTOR TO PLANNING BOARD; DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1985; SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD PRIORITIES; Telephone Numbers MAY 15, 1985 MEMO FROM COMMISSION CHAIR Hillsborough - 732-8181 TO COUNTY MANAGER; TIME ESTIMATES FOR Durham - 688-7331 • WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS. (MEMO FROM PLANNING Mebane - 227-2031 DIRECTOR TO COUNTY MANAGER DATED JUNE 6, Chapel Hill - 968-4501 1985) PURPOSE: To consider work program elements and establish priorities for the Planning Department in the 1985-86 fiscal year. NEED: During the current 1984-85 fiscal year, the Board of Commissioners and • , Planning Board have directed the Planning Staff to undertake various tasks involving further refinement of the Land Use Plan, the updating and/or addition of development standards,. clarification of policy issues and the initiation of a strong enforcement posture. As the .Bbard of Commissioner's is currently considering the proposed 1985-86 budget, it is an opportune time to meet with the Planning Board and develop work program priorities for the Planning Department in the forthcoming fiscal year. IMPACT: • The establishment of a work program for the Planning Department, including the assignment of priorities to individual tasks or work elements, would • provide a yardstick by which to measure the Department in terms of goal: accomplish- ment; provide the Staff, Planning Board and Commissioners with a common set of issues to address; and to provide a means •of -considering'utrade-off's" when issues arise in the coming year which demand a higher priority. RECOMMENDATION: As the Boards decide. . • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT iTIT.T,SBOROITGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 6,0ta It• ,J, :4111111.11,•,__.....IP* kr IrgEht,11 *P. '14 100 MEMORANDUM TO: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 1985 SUBJECT: 1985-86 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES (TIME ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETION OF WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS) - Chairman Willhoit in his May 15, 1985 memorandum asked that the list of key issues identified therein be merged with those contained in my memorandum to . the Planning Board dated April 12, 1985. He further asked that time estimates be provided for the completion of each work element. On the attached pages, I have attempted to do this. Work elements have been divided into three groups as follows: I. Activities initiated in the current 1984-85 fiscal year and which would carry over into the forthcoming 1985-86 year. 1 2. Activities which would be initiated in 1985-86 and which have been identified as high priority items by either the Planning Board or Chairman Willhoit in his May 15 memorandum. 3. All other activities included in my April 12 memorandum. • • I have also provided an indication of which division within the Planning Department would assume responsibility for completion of the work element and an • estimate of the time required to complete each task. Time estimates are based on the amount of time required to complete similar elements in past years or on existing schedules. . . WOULiAte.Y647--) Marvin E. Collins Planning Director . . PROJECTED STAFF TIME AVAILABILITY FOR 1985-86 WORK PROGRAM COMPLETION 1. Available Manhours/Employee/Year_ 260 Total Work Days -.30 Less: Vacation, holidays, sick leave, training 230 Net Work Days x 8 Hours/Day = 1,840 Manhours/Year 2. Current Planning 3 1/2 Positions x 1,840 Manhours/Position/Year = 6,440 Manhours Current positions. include: Planner III (Division Head); Planner II (Split position with Comprehensive); Planner I; Planning Technician. 3. Comprehensive Planning 3 1/2 Positions x 1,840 Manhours/Position/Year = 6,440 Manhours Comprehensive Positions include: Planner III (Division Head); Planner II (Split position with Current); Planning Technician; 2 Part-time Planning Interns. 4. Available Manhours - Planning Division Current 6,440 Manhours Comprehensive 6,440 Manhours Total 12,880 Manhours 5. Manhours Required - Activities Other Than Work Program Activity % of Total Manhours • a. Development Application Review 19% . 2,447 b. Agenda Preparation 10% 1,288 c. Permit Issuance 1I%- 1,417 d. Technical Assistance 12% 1,546 . e. Participatory Paving Program 2% 258 f. Sign Violations 4% 515 g. Zoning Violations 5% 644 h. Secondary Road Program 1% 129 i. Intergovernmental Coordination 3% 389 - j. Base Map Maintenance 1% 129 k. Development Advisory Committee 1% • 129 Manhours Required 69% 8,887 6. Manhours Available For 1985-86 Work Program Total Available Manhours 12,880 Manhours Required - Other Activities 8,887 Manhours Available - Work Program 3,993 • 7. Manhours Required - All Activities in 1985-86 Work Program . . . - Manhours • Elements Carried Over FY 1984-85 2,020 Priority Elements FY 1985-86 2,640 Other Work Elements FY 1985-86 4,340 Total 9,000 1985-86 PLANNING WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND • TIME ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETION ELEMENTS TO BE CARRIED OVER FROM FY 1984-85 EXISTING PROJECTS ASSIGNED DURING FY 1984-85 Task Responsibility Time Estimate • I. Joint Planning Area Plan, Comprehensive Planning 810 including University Lake • Watershed 2. Cane Creek Watershed Study Comprehensive Planning 160 3. Watershed Standards Revision Current Planning 40 4. Subdivision Regulations Update Current Planning 40 . 5. Mobile Home Standards Update Current Planning 80 6. Planned Development Standards Current Planning 40 Update . 7. Special Use Modification Current Planning 40 Standards Update 8. Computerized Building Permit Inspections/Administration 160 System 9. Enforcement Procedures Current Planning 20 10: Public Relations/Education Current/Comprehensive 80 Programs Planning 11. Water/Sewer Extension Policy Comprehensive Planning 210 12. Water. Reservoir Study Comprehensive Planning 40 (McAdams Report) 13. Sewage Disposal Policies Comprehensive Planning 20 14. Water/Sewer Service Policies - Current Planning • 160 Hillsborough 15. Efland Sewer Impact - Land Use Comprehensive Planning 40 Plan Implications 16. Road Capacity Studies/Road Current Planning 80 Definitions & Classifications • All Work Elements - Time Required 2,020 Manhours Notes: (1) Joint Planning Area Plans includes two 1-40 interchanges (2) Subdivision Regulations Update includes provisions regarding requirements for dedication/reservation of recreation land or payment-in-lieu. . - 1985-86 PLANNING WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND TIME ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETION PRIORITY ELEMENTS TO BE INITIATED IN 1985-86 FY NEW PROJECTS TO BE ADDED IN FY 1985-86 AND WHICH CAN BE COMPLETED Task Responsibility Time Estimate 1. Designation of Reservoir Sites in Comprehensive Planning 80 Little River and Upper Eno Watersheds 2. Area Study - 1-40/1-85 Interchange Comprehensive Planning 220 3. Study of Adequacy of Zoning Ordinance Current Planning 40 Provisions vis-a-vis 1-40 4. Thoroughfare Plan Comprehensive Planning 160 (NCDOT Participation) 5. Development of Methodology for Pre- Current Planning 80 Zoning of Property 6. Commercial/Industrial Development Current Planning 160 Standards Update 7. Infill Development Policy Update Comprehensive Planning 80 8. creation Plan Comprehensive Planning 650 0 (Recreation Department Participation) Comprehensive Planning gq 0 10. Little River Township Land Use Plan Comprehensive Planning 440 11. Computerized Land Use Information Comprehensive Planning 650 System (Data Processing/Land Records Participation) All Work Elements - Time Required • 2,640 Manhours 1,910 Note: Tasks and manhours deleted represent projects which must be taken from work program to stay within available manhours. 1 1985-86 PLANNING WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND TIME ESTIMATES FOR COMPLETION OTHER WORK ELEMENTS TO BE INITITATED IN 1985-86 FY PROJECTS WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN AVAILABLE MANHOURS Task Responsibility Time Estimates 1. Ordinance Consolidation - Unified Current Planning , 650 Land -Use Code 2. Development of Entranceway Policy Comprehensive Planning 160 ' 3. Design Standards for Streets, Current Planning 650 Utilities, etc. 4. Development of Urban-Rural Service Comprehensive Planning 160 District Concept 5. Area Study - Pantry Area Comprehensive Planning 220 6. Standardized Procedures Manual Administration 650 i 7: Computer Program - Planning Library Comprehensive Planning 40 8. Computer Program - Fiscal Impact Comprehensive Planning - 160 Analysis 9. Impact Fees/Application Current Planning 80 10. Consolidated Fee Schedule Administration ' 80 11 . Low-Income Housing Issues Comprehensive Planning 160 12. LESA (Land Evaluation System Comprehensive Planning 650 Analysis) 13. Groundwater Protection Study Comprehensive Planning 440 14. Computer Program - Environmental Comprehensive Planning 160 Data Bank 15. Intergovernmental Coordination - Current/Comprehensive 80 Surrounding Counties Planning All Work Elements - Time Required 4,340 Manhours ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ..,...„e INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 11111 . TO: Kenneth R. Thompson FROM: Don Nallboit SUBJECT: Planning Items DATE: May 15, 1985 A Joint Planning Public Bearing is scheduled for June 11, and it is my understanding that only one item is on the Public Bearing agenda. This would be a good opportunity to have a briefing for the Chapel Bill Town Council, the Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board on the status of Joint Planning planning. It would also be a • convenient time to have a work session with the Planning Board regarding the Planning Department's work program prior- ities for 1985-86. Commissioner Marshall and I met with Alice Gordon, 11111 - Planning Board Chair, and prepared a list of key issues that es should be considered in setting priorities for 1985-86. These issues include: 1. Designation of water quality critical areas for Cane Creek and University Lake reservoirs. 2. Review impact of sewer line (alternates A and B) on McGowan Creek and Land Use Plan. 3. Consider designation of reservoir sites in Upper Eno and Little River watersheds. 4. Review Hillsborough's water and sewer.extension plans. 5. Review and take formal action on the &Adams' Report. 6. Prepare area plans for 1-40 interchanges. 7. Review water and sewer extension policies. ' 8. Perform road capacity studies. 9. Prepare definition of "minor road." 10. Review adequacy of Zoning Ordinance in accommodating 1110 - 1-40. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8505-701 Planning Items May 15, 1985 111/1 Page 2 11. Review mobile home standards. 12. Revise subdivision ordinance to require recreational open space or payment into trust fund for acquisition of recreational open space. 13. Review effectiveness of ordinance enforcement. These items need to be merged with the list in Marvin Collins' April 12 memo to the Planning Board. In order to set priorities, we will need an estimate of the staff time required for each item. I would appreciate it if you would have this infor- mation distributed prior to the June 11 Joint Planning Meet- ing. Woke 1111/ cc: Board of Commissioners Dr. Alice Gordon 11111 • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EMUUMMOROIRM 4111 NOMMTICOARCMCNA 27278 ,61r•rw,%, 41// ots MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTLI:Lr94ING BOARD PROM: MARVIN COLLIPW.SLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 12, 1985 SUBJECT: 1985-86 PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM The Planning Department is in the midst of budget preparations and has been asked to develop an annual services program. The program identifies the services to be provided and activities to be performed during the forthcoming 1985-86 budget slyear. The Planning Department is soliciting comments and recommendations from the Planning. Board regarding elements it would like to see included in the work program. This matter will be discussed at the April 15 meeting. Elements which staff has identified are listed below. They are separated according to activities which will carry over from the present budget year and new activities to be initiated in 1985-86. ELEMENTS TO BE CARRIED OVER FROM 1984-85 1. Preparation of Joint Planning Area Plan, including • University Lake Watershed Area. 2. Preparation of Cane Creek Watershed Plan 3. Watershed Standards Review/Amendment 4. Subdivision Regulations Update 5. Mobile Home Standards Review/Amendment 6. Planned Development Standards Review/Amendment 7. Special Use Standards Review/Amendment 8. Implementation of Computerized Building Permit System - 9. Establishment of Stronger Enforcement Procedures a. Unapproved subdivisions b. Zoning violations c. Monitoring of infiltration Ait'OM in wai-arhemA mire%mt, d. Monitoring of construction activity along Intestates 10. Expansion of Public Relations/Education Programs 4111 11. Water/Sewer Extension Policy 12. Water Reservoir Study ELEMENTS TO BE INITIATED IN 1985-86 1. Development of Computerized Land Use Information System 2. Consolidation of Ordinances in Unified Land Use Code 3. Development of Methodology for Pre-Zoning of Property 4. Development of Entranceway Policy for County/Towns 5. Area Study I-85/US 70 Interchange (Eno Township) 6. Area Study - Little River/Cedar Grove Townships 7. Design Standards a. Streets and Pedestrian Ways b. Utilities C. Storm Drainage d. Erosion Control e. Flood Plain Control 4111 f. Recreation Facilities 8. Urban-Rural Service District Concept 9. Thoroughfare Plan 10. Area Study - Pantry Area (Hillsborough) 11. Area Study - 1-40/1-85 Interchange 12. Standardized Procedures Manual 13. Computer Program - Planning Library 14. Computer Program - Fiscal Impact Analysis System 15. Study of Impact Fees/Application to Orange County 16. Consolidated Fee Schedule 1 17. Recreation Plan (Recreation Department) 18. Low-Income Housing Issues 4111 19. LESA (Land Evaluation System Analysis) - SCS Coordination 20. Groundwater Protection Study/Underground Storage Tank Survey 4111 22. intergovernmental Efforts - Surrounding Counties The above items are not listed in priority order. With the Board's assistance, a list of projects can be developed, then priorities assigned. Please feel free to come with additions to the list. Not all of the above items can be carried out in one year without additional staff. Thus, elements will have to be carefully selected. If you will identify those items which you feel are most important prior to the meeting, it will expedite discussion and a decision. 4111 _ _ _ _ _ Admikk 1985-86 WORK PROGRAM NING BOARD PRIORITIES ITEM KIZER PILKEY YUHASZ SHANKLIN PEARSON BEST MARGISON - GORDON.- (2)' Water Resources X X (3) Commercial/. Industrial Areas Standards X X X , (1) Infill Development X (2) Watershed Standards X X (1.) . Enforcement Procedures X 1 (4) Planned Development X X X X Standards (5) Water/Sewer Extension X X X X X Policy (1) Reservoir Study X (3) Prezoning'Methodology X X X (3) Thoroughfare Plan X X X (1) Recreation Plan X (1) County Airport X (3) I-40 Area X X X Note: Numbers in ( ) indicate'total responses by item Excerpt from April 15, 1985 Planning Board Minutes 10 1111 Planning: Short Term Concerns Public Hearing Policies DRAFT Gordon reviewed the public hearing policies. Kizer expressed concern about using arbitrary means to limit development. He felt projects should be approved or denied only on their merit, not on time constraints. Gordon felt that what was at issue was time for consideration of projects. Kizer said that public hearings should only be continued for specific items and only if there is a need for clarification of information already presented. He continued that incomplete applications should not be considered. Kizer felt that the public was not properly informed about the information requirements for the Oakwood Estates Plan. It was the consensus of the Board that at the time notices were sent out to property owners, some brief information also be sent telling property owners what they would need to produce as evidence if they were in opposition to the developers request. MOTION: Pilkey moved that Planning Staff display a large land use plan wall map at each Planning Board meeting showing subdivisions and I-40, as well as the Joint Planning Area. Seconded by Kizer. VOTE: Unanimous. Smith suggested that it would possibly take two maps in order that all information would be readable. Agenda Item #9 Long Term Concerns. a. Priorities Gordon requested input from Board members concerning long range planning priorities. Kizer noted three items that he felt were extremely 4111 important: 1) Water 11 1111 2) Revaluation of commercial/ industrial areas. 3) Infill development in major metropolitan areas. Pilkey also felt that the number one priority should be water followed by establishment of stronger enforcement procedures, and third, the re- evaluation of the industrial/commercial nodes. Yuhasz listed his priorities as follows: 1) Watershed standards review amendment 2) Planned Development standards amendment 3) Water/Sewer extension policy 4) New reservoirs 5) Development of methodology for prezoning (i.e. , Land Use Plan) 6) Throughfare plan 4111 7) Recreation Areas (is County willing to take over these areas for park development?) Shanklin listed his priorities as follows: 1) Watershed standards review 2) Sewer extension policy 3) Planned development 4) County owned and operated airport (He noted that he would like to see the same amount of money yc:11;sg:rt=i:us;,:aer as is set aside Pearson stated his priorities as follows: 1) Planned development standards 2) Water/Sewer extension policy 3) Prezoning Best, being new to the Board, commented he felt it 110 might help to find some means to help staff accomplish some of these tasks. 1151111mimasomaromm.......---- 12 4111 Be noted that anything to do with 1-40 should be high priority. Margison had concerns as follows: 1) Water/Sewer extension policy 2) Prezoning 3) Thoroughfare plan 4) 1-40 Gordon noted that one thing she felt that the Board should be very clear about was the concept of what Orange County should "look like" in the future. She was especially interested in seeing 1-40 area plans. She felt the next thing that was needed was to provide the infrastructure to support this development and coordinate efforts for a water/sewer extension policy and a thoroughfare plan. She also expressed a desire for standards regarding industrial/commercial development and location. Another concern was the revision of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to planned developments and special use permits. Discussion on the preservation of farm land followed. Pilkey noted that nothing was mentioned under the long range concerns about the preservation of farmland. Gordon commented that prime farmland needed to be preserved for future growth. Kizer also noted that all around the world there seems to be a temporary excess in the supply of food and that in the future this will perhaps not be so. Thus, preservation of farmland is still an important issue. Agenda Item 010 Planning: Staff Work Program 1985-86 13 Presentation by Collins. He Noted that he concurred with the basic priorities as stated by Planning Board members. Land Records and Tax Office are working on a new set of aerial maps for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area which can be utilized by all three jurisdictions for the land use information system. In regard to joint planning Collins felt we needed to decide what was urban versus rural. He felt, too that staff needed to address administrative procedures. Fee schedules needed to be revaluated to see if they are self supporting. Collins further noted he felt the Fiscal Impact Analysis System was important in regard to the long range impact on the County as far as schools, water and sewer systems and the cost and benefits to the county. He noted the twelve elements carried over from 1984-85 work program should be cleared out first, due to the fact that some of these elements were carry-overs from previous budget years. The elements of the 1985-86 work program that he would stress are as follows: Thoroughfare Plan Prezoning Issue (the design standards and unified land use code are involved in this issue) Land Use Information System Smith noted that many of these elements were in the final stages of completion. Gordon inquired of Collins if the Planning Board could do something to help clear up the elements that had been carried over simply due to the fact that Board of Commissioners had set other priorities for Planning Staff. Collins responded that it would take a great deal of staff work and time to get items prepared for discussion with the Board or other committees. Collins noted one concern that he has which seems to interfere with the work program is the number of development applications. Considerable time is also being spent with citizens explaining the 1111111111 _ 14 procedures they must go through for development approval. Smith noted that she felt -the mobile home policy directive from the Board of Commissioners would turn into a project that would take considerable staff time. Smith also stated that it was a directive from Board of County Commissioners to write informational brochures. Gordon reminded planning board members of the special meeting April 29th. The meeting adjourned 10:30 p.m. 0 i 0 BY-LAWS OF CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION, LTD. ARTICLE I NAME AND LOCATION The name of the corporation is Chandler's Green Subdi- vision, Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the "Association" . The principal office of the corporation shall be located , at 119 Orange Street, Durham, North Carolina, but meetings of members and directors may be held at such places within the State of North Carolina, County of Durham, as may be designated by the Board of Directors. • ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Section 1. "Association" shall mean and refer to Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. , its successors and assigns. Section 2. "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real property described in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. . Section 3. "Common Area" shall mean all real proper- ty owed by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners. Section 4. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Properties with the exception of the Common Area. • Section 5. ' "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of- the fee simple 'title to any Lot which is a part of the Properties, including contract ' sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of any obliga- tion. Section 6. "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Weaver Dairy, Ltd. , a North Carolina limited partnership, its succes- sors and assigns if such successors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the purpose of development. Section 7. "Declaration" shall mean and refer to the . . . . Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions applicable • • - to the' Properties recorded in the Office of Register of Deeds of Orange County. Sectibn 8. "Member" shall mean and refer to those persons entitled to membership as provided in the Declaration. ARTICLE III MEETING OF MEMBERS , . Section 1. Annual Meeting. The first annual meeting of the members shall be held within one year from the date of . : incorporation of the Association, and each subsequent regular • . _ annual meeting of the members shall be held on the same day of the same month of each year thereafter, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. If the day for the annual meeting of the members is a legal • holiday, the meeting will be held at the same hour on the first day following which is not a:legal holiday. • -2- • ,r 0 , -61 ECEIVE-6' rt.)INNYAIIII II,' ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION, LTD. The undersigned, being of the age of eighteen years or more, do hereby make and acknowledge these Articles of Incorpo- t ration for the purpose of forming a non-profit corporation under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, as contained in Chapter 55-A of the General Statutes of North Caro- lina, entitled "Non-Profit Corporation. Act", and the several amendments thereto, and to that end do hereby set forth: ARTICLE I The name of the corporation is Chandler's Green Subdi- vision, Ltd. ARTICLE II , The period of duration of the corporation shall be perpetual. ARTICLE III The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized are A. To be operated solely as a "homeowners associ- ation" as defined in the Internal Revenue Code §52B and the corresponding provisions of any future federal tax law, and no activity shall be permitted which shall violate the provisions of said Code section. B. To promote the health, safety and welfare of the future owners and residents of the single-family -houses being constructed by Allentoh Realty and Insur- ance Company on a parcel of land located on the east side of Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Road, orange County, North Carolina. " C. To provide for the preservation of the values and amenities in the properties. D. To own, acquire, build, operate and maintain on the properties recreation facilities, playgrounds, open spaces and other common facilities for the bene- fit of the residents of the properties. MOUNT,WHITE,HUTSON&CARDEN,PA. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA Fillr ........-......___ E. To promote fellowship and friendship among its members and to provide an area to hold meetings • and social gatherings for the better realization of • such purposes. F. To provide a forum for the expression of ideas and plans with regard to the improvement of social, recreational and general living conditions in the properties and to take steps toward the fulfill- ment of said ideas and plans. G. To purchase, lease or otherwise acquire and hold, own, use operate and sell or otherwise dispose of real and personal property necessary for the imple- mentation and full enjoyment of the purposes herein enumerated. H. To acquire and receive revenue for its opera- tion, primarily from but not limited to membership fees, dues, charges and assessments from the members of the corporation. I. In general, to have, exercise and carry on any activity which may seem to the corporation capable of being conveniently carried on or exercised in connection with the above or which may seem to be calculated directly or indirectly to further the purposes of the corporation and not forbidden by the laws of the State of North Carolina. ARTICLE IV The corporation is to have no capital stock. Member- ship (including classes thereof) and the method for election of directors shall be as provided for in the By-Laws. ARTICLE V The address of the initial registered office of the corporation is 119 Orange Street, Durham, Durham County, North Carolina, and the name of the initial registered agent at such address is Allen D. Aldridge. ARTICLE VI The number of directors constituting the initial Board of Directors shall be three (3), and the names and addresses of -2- =mow to ' the persons who are to serve as directors until the first meet- •. iiag of shareholders or until their successors are elected and qualified are: NAME ADDRESS . Allen D. Aldridge 119 Orange Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 C. Ralph Cochran 119 Orange Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Arnold R. Spell 119 Orange Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 ARTICLE VII The name and address of the .incorporator is C. W. White, 201 N. Roxboro Road, Durham, North Carolina 27701. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party has hereunto set his ,77A hand and seal, this the 0(7 0 day of f72aMCJ , 1985. .711 (SEAL) C. W. White NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY This is to certify that on this day before me, a Notary Public of 1)u e_.1•-■64.1y County, personally appeared C. W. WHITE, whom I am satisfied as the person named in and who exe- cuted the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, and I having first made known to him the contents thereof, he did acknowledge that he signed and delivered the same as his voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein expressed. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal, this ,.-..:;945YL\ day of 1-1;OLVT.11 , 1985. 4.1/YLL) i7 Notary Public My commission expires: -3- DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR CHANDLER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION, LTD. THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRIC- TIONS is entered into this the day of , 1985, between WEAVER DAIRY, LTD., a North Carolina limited partnership (hereinafter called "Declarant"), and all parties hereafter acquiring any of the described property. WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of all lots within a subdivision known as Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. , in the County of Orange, State of North Carolina; WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Declarant and to the benefit, interest and advantage of every party here- after acquiring any of the described property that certain covenants, conditions, easements, assessments, liens and restric- tions governing and regulating the use and occupancy of the property be established; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to provide for the preserva- tion of the values and amenities and the desirability and attrac- tiveness of the property in Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd. ; and for the continued maintenance and operation of such recrea- tional and common areas. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Declarant agrees with all parties hereafter acquiring any of the property hereinafter described, that it shall be and is hereby subject to the following restrictions, covenants, conditions, easements, assessments and liens relating to the use and occupan- cy thereof, which shall be construed as covenants running with the land which shall be binding on all parties acquiring any right, 'title or interest in any of the properties and which shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. MOUNT,WHITE,HUTSON&CARDEN,PA ATTORNEYS AT LAW DURHAM,NORTH CAROLINA 6MOMMimm■ • • ARTICLE • PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION Section One. The property which shall be held, trans- ferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in Orange County, North Carolina, as more partiqular- ly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section Two Declarant may convey from time to time a Lot within the boundaries of the property described on Exhibit A to a Construction contractor for the purpose of erecting single- family homes on the Lot so conveyed. The construction contrac- tor, as soon as is practical, shall commence construction of the single-family homes and cause a survey reflecting the precise location of said homes to be recorded in orange County Registry. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Section One "Association" shall mean and refer to Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd., its successors and assigns. Section Two "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Properties, including contract sellers, but excluding those having any interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section Three. "Properties" shall mean and refer to that certain real property hereinbefore described, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the juris- • diction of the Association. Section Four "Common Area(s)" shall mean all proper- ty owned by the Association, or such other property which the Association may hold subject to the provisions of the Declara- tion. Common Areas shall be defined and bounded on the plat(s) of Chandler's Green Subdivision, Ltd., and amendments thereof and designated thereon as "Common Areas" or "common Open Space". Common Areas shall be conveyed to the Association free and clear of encumbrances prior to deeding the first Lot in the subdivi sion. -2- Section Five. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Proper- ties with the exception of the Common Area and shall include all improvements thereon. Section Six. "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Weaver Dairy, Ltd., its successors and assigns, if such succes- sors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the purpose of development. ARTICLE III PROPERTY RIGHTS Section One Owners' Easements of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area which shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the following provisions: (a) the right of the Association to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use of any recreational facility situated upon the Common Area (b) the right of the Association to suspend the voting rights and right of use of the recreational facilities by an Owner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot remains unpaid; and for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infrac- tion of its published rules and regulations; (c) the right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed by the Members. No such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless an instrument signed by two-thirds • (2/3) of each class of Members agreeing to such dedica- tion or transfer has been recorded; (d) the ,right of the Association to limit the number of guests of Members; (e) the right of the Association, in accordance with its Articles and By-Laws, to borrow money for the purpose of improving the Common Area and facilities -3- • • • i and in aid thereof to mortgage said property, and the rights of such mortgagee in said Properties shall be subordinate to the rights of the homeowners hereunder; (f) the right of the Association to adopt, publish and enforce rules and regulations as provided in Article X. Section Two Delegation of Use Any Owner may dele- gate, in accordance with the By-Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilities to the members of his family, his tenants, or contract .purchasers who reside on the property. Section Three. Title to the Common Area The Decla- rant hereby covenants for itself, its successors and assigns, that it will convey fee simple title to the Common Area to the Association, free and clear of all encumbrances and liens, prior to the conveyance of the first Lot of the subdivision, except utility and storm drainage easements. Section Four. TV Antennas and Satellite Dishes. The Association may provide one or more central television antennas for the convenience of the Members. The Association may regu- late or prohibit the erection of television antennas on indivi- dual Lots, but in no event shall any television satellite dish be permitted on any individual Lot. ARTICLE IV MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS Section One. Every Owner of a Lot which is subject to assessment shall be a Member of the Association. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any Lot which is subject to assessment. Section Two. The Association shall have two classes of voting membership:, Class A. Class A members shall be all Owners, I ' with ;the exception of the Declarant, and shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each Lot owned. When more than one person holds an interest in any Lot, all such persons shall be Members. The vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine, -4- • but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot. • Class B. The Class B Member(s) shall be the Declarant and shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happen- ing of either of the following events, whichever occurs earlier: (a) when the total votes outstanding in Class A membership equal the total votes outstanding in Class B membership; or (b) on January 1, 1990. ARTICLE V COVENANT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS Section One Creation of the Lien and Personal Obliga- tion of Assessments. The Declarant, for each Lot owned within the Properties, hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay ' to the Association: (1) annual assessments or charges, and (2) special assessments for capital improvements, such assess- ments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the property against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with ,interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such property at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for the delinquent assessments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. Section Two Purpose of Assessment. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the recreation, health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Properties and in particular for the acquisition, improve- -5- a. 1111111111111mi _ ment and maintenance of the Common Area and of the homes situa- ted upon the properties. Section Three. Reserves. The Association shall establish and maintain an adequate fund for the periodic mainte- nance, repair and replacement of improvements to, the common areas and those other portions of the Properties which the Association may be obligated to maintain. Such reserve fund is to be established out of regular assessments for common expense. Section Four. Maximum Annual Assessment. Until January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment shall be Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($50.00) per Lot. (a) From and after January 1 of the year immedi- ately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased effective January 1 each year without a vote of member- ship by up to ten percent (10%) of the previous year's assessment. (b) From and after January 1 of the year immedi- ately following the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased above the increase permitted in Section Four(a) above by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of each class of Members who are voting in person or by proxy, at a meeting duly called for this purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all Members not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting setting forth the purpose of the meeting. The limitations hereof shall not apply to any change in the maximum and basis of the assessments undertaken as an incident to a, merger or consolidation in which the Association is authorized to participate under its Articles of Incorporation. (c) The Board of Directors may fix the annual assessment at an amount not in excess of the maximum. -6- Section Five. Special Assessments for Capital Improve- ments. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a' capital improvement upon the Common Area, and in connection with exterior mainte- nance, including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of each class of Members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. Section Six. Notice and Quorum for Any Action Author- ized Under Sections Four and Five. Written notice of any meet- , ing called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Sections Four or Five shall be sent to all Members not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of Members or of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60%) of all the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subse- quent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. Section Seven. Uniform Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments shall, except as herein otherwise specifically provided, be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots and shall be collected on a monthly basis. Provided, however, that the assessment for Lots owned by Declarant which are not occupied as a residence may be a lesser amount as fixed by the Board of Directors of the Association, but shall not be less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the regular assessments for other Lots. -7- Section Eight. Date of Commencement of Annual Assess- . ments: Due Dates. The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all Lots within a phase on the first day of the month following the conveyance of the Common Area Such annual assessments shall be paid ratably on a monthly basis. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assess- ment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual assessment period. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every Owner subject thereto. The due dates shall be established by the Board of Directors. The Association shall, upon demand, and for a reasonable charge, furnish' a certificate signed by an officer of the Association setting forth whether the assessments on a specified. Lot have been paid. Section Nine. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments: Reme- dies of the Association. Any assessment not paid thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at the highest rate permitted by law on the date the assessment became due. The Association may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same or foreclose the lien against the property and in either event interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any such action shall be added to the assessment. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area or abandonment of his Lot. Section Ten. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages and Ad Valorem Taxes. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage and ad valorem taxes. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage or tax foreclosure or any proceed- ing in lieu thereof, shall extinguish the lien of such assess- ments as to payments which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. -a- • Section Eleven. Exempt Property. All Properties dedicated to, and accepted by, a local public authority and all Properties owned by a charitable or nonprofit organization exempt from taxation by the laws of the State of North Carolina shall be exempt from the, assessments created herein. However, no land. or improvements devoted to dwelling use shall be exempt from said assessments. Section Twelve. Working Capital Fund. At the time of closing of the sale of each Lot, a sum equal to at least two months' assessment for each Lot shall be collected and trans- ferred to the Association to be held as a working capital fund. The purpose of said fund is to insure that the Association Board will have adequate cash available to meet unforeseen expenses, and to acquire additional equipment or services deemed necessary or desirable. Amounts paid into the fund shall not be consid- ered advance payment of regular assessments. ARTICLE VI ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES Section One Annexation of additional property, except as provided in Section Two of this Article VIII, shall require the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the Class A membership and two-thirds (2/3) of the Class B membership, if any, at a meeting duly called for this purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all Members not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting setting forth the purpose of the meeting. The presence of Members or of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60%) of the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the re- quired quorum is not forthcoming at any meeting, another meeting may be called subject to the notice requirement set forth above and the required quorum at such subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum of the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. In the event that two- thirds (2/3) of the Class A membership or two-thirds (2/3) of the Class B membership are not present in person or by proxy, -9- Members not present may give their written assent to the action taken thereat. Section Two. If, within five (5) years of the date of incorporation of this Association, the Declarant should develop additional land within the property described in Exhibit A as hereinabove provided in Article I, such land may be annexed by the Declarant in the manner provided in Article I without the consent of Members, provided that the Federal Housing Administra- tion and the Veterans Administration determine that the annexa- tion is in accord with the general plan heretofore provided by them. Section Three. Annexation of additional Properties shall be accomplished by recording in the County Registry a Declaration of Annexation, duly executed by the Declarant, if the Declarant has the right to annex pursuant to Section Two above (and by the Association if pursuant to Section One above), describing the lands annexed and incorporating the provisions of this Declaration, either by reference or by fully setting out said provisions of this Declaration. The additional lands shall be deemed annexed to the Properties on the date of recordation of the Declaration of Annexation, and in the case of an annexa- tion by the Declarant, no action or consent on the part of the Association or any other person or entity shall be necessary to accomplish the annexation except the City of Carrboro, if re- quired by its ordinances. Section Four. Subsequent to recordation of the Decla- ration of Annexation by the Declarant, the Declarant shall deliver to the Association one or more deeds conveying any Common Area within the lands annexed as such Common Area is developed. ARTICLE VII INSURANCE Section One (a) Liability. Public liability insurance shall be secured by the Association with limits of liability of no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) -10- per occurrence and shall include an endorsement to cover liability of the Owners as a group to a single Owner. There shall also be obtained such other insur- ance coverage as the Association shall determine from time to time to be desirable and necessary. (b) Premiums. Premiums for insurance policies purchased by the Association shall be paid by the Association and charged to the Owners as an assessment according to the provisions of Article V above; provi- ded that premiums on account of hazard insurance coverage for individual Lots shall be apportioned to the individual Owners according to the amounts of the coverage required. Section Two. Fidelity Insurance or Bond. All persons responsible for or authorized to expend funds or otherwise deal in the assets of the Association or those held in trust shall first be bonded by a fidelity insurer. to indemnify the Associa- tion for any loss or default in the performance of their duties in an amount equal to six (6) months' assessments plus reserves accumulated. ARTICLE VIII USE RESTRICTIONS Section One Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors of the Association shall have the power to formulate, publish and enforce reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use and enjoyment of the Common Area Such rules and regula- tions may provide for imposition of fines or penalties for the violation thereof, or for the violation of any of the covenants and conditions contained in this Declaration. Section Two Use of Properties. No portion of the Properties (except for temporary office of the Declarant) shall be used except for residential purposes and for purposes inciden- tal or accessory thereto. Section Three. Quiet Enjoyment. No obnoxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon the Properties, nor shall anything be done which may be or may become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. -11- Section Four. Animals. . No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be kept or maintained on any Lot or in any dwelling except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept or maintained, provided that they are not kept or main- tained for commercial purposes. ARTICLE IX EASEMENTS All of the Properties, including Lots and Common Areas, shall be subject to such easements for driveways, walk- ways, parking areas, water lines, sanitary sewers, storm drain- age facilities, gas lines, telephone and electric power lines and other public utilities as shall be established by the Decla- rant or by its predecessors in title, prior to the subjecting of the Properties to this Declaration; and the Association shall have the power and authority to grant and establish upon, over, under and across the Common Areas conveyed to it, such further easements as are requisite for the convenient use and enjoyment of the Properties. In addition, there is hereby reserved in the Declarant and its agents and employees an easement and right of ingress, egress and regress across all Common Areas, now or hereafter owned by the Association, for the purpose of construc- tion of improvements within the Properties. ARTICLE X GENERAL PROVISIONS Section One Enforcement. The Association, or any Owner, shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants, reserva- tions, liens and charges now or hereafter imposed by-Adie'provi- sions of this Declaration. Failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section Two Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. -12- • • . . • • • . Section Three. Amendment. The covenants and restric- tions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land, for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is ' recorded, .after which time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years. This Declaration may be amended during the first twenty (20) year period by an instru- ment signed by not less than ninety percent (90%) of the Lot • . • Owners, and thereafter by an instrument signed by not less than • seventy-five percent (75%) of the Lot Owners. - • Section Four. FHA/VA ApproVal. As long as there is a Class B membership, the following actions will require the prior • written approval of the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration: Annexation of additional Properties, • dedication of Common Area; and amendment of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. • Section Five. Rights of Noteholders. Any institution- . al holder of a first mortgage on a Lot will, upon request, be . • entitled to (a) inspect the books and records of the Association during normal business hours, (b) receive an annual audited financial statement of the Association within ninety (90) days following the end of its fiscal year, (c) receive written notice of all meetings of the Association and the right to designate a representative to attend all such meetings, (d) receive written notice of any condemnation or casualty loss that affects either a material portion of the project or the unit securing its mortgage, (e) receive written notice of any sixty-day delinquen- cy in the payment of assessments or charges owed by the owner of • any unit on which it holds the mortgage, (f) r6c6ive ;iltten notice of a lapse, cancellation or material modification of any insurance policy or fidelity bond maintained by the Owners Association, (g) receive written notice of any proposed action • . that requires the consent of a specified percentage of mortgage ' holders, and (h) be furnished with a copy of the master insur- ance policy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Weaver Dairy, Ltd., has caused • this instrument to be executed by its Managing Partner in accor- . -13- dance with the partnership agreement, this day of , 1985. WEAVER DAIRY, LTD., a North Caro- lina Limited Partnership BY: ALLENTON REALTY AND INSURANCE COMPANY Managing Partner ATTEST BY President Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY , a Notary Public, do hereby certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he is Secretary of ALLENTON REALTY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, Managing Partner of Weaver Dairy, Ltd. , and that, by authority duly given ' and as the act of the corporation on behalf of the partnership, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its President, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by self as its Secretary. Witness my hand and notarial seal, this the day of , 1985 My commission expires: Notary Public -14- Q • ALLENTON REALTORS® P.O.Box 731 -119 Orange Street Durham,North Carolina 27702 Telephone(919)683-1410 June 6, 1985 Ms Susan Smith Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Susan: This is to clarify several points regarding Chandler's Green which we discussed this morning. 1. Trash collection will be by individual home pick-up using a • private contractor. 2. The streetrights-of-way. as shown on the site plan are 60' in width. These right-of-way widths will be decreased to 50' in the event that all agencies concerned will allow that width. . 3. We will construct all streets to either NC DOT or Town of Chapel Hill standards upon instruction from the appropriate agency as to what is required. If you have any further questions, please give me.a call. Sincerely, • • C. Ralph Cochran Senior Vice President CRC:cau • 11* 16. 1.1s1; • REALTOR" OFFICIAL COPY MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER JOINT PLANNING AREA HEARING JUNE 11, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Planning Area Hearing with the Town Council of Chapel Hill and the Orange County Planning Board on June 11, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Cultural Arts Roam at Chapel Hill High School. COMMISSIONERS pRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Moses Carey, Shirley Marshall and Norman Walker. CHAPEL RILL TOWN COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Nassif, David Godschalk, Beverly Kawalec, and Reginald Smith. MANGE COUNTY PLANNING MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon and members Chris Best, Ruth Burnette, Valerie Greenberg, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. QRAIMEAMEGEIMMUJIMM21 David Shanklin, and Steve Kizer. l. Joint Planning _Public Hearing Procedures This agenda item is to identify the procedures to be followed in conducting joint public hearings involving the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board. The joint Planning Agreement adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council requires joint public hearings on development proposals. Two governing boards and one advisory body (the Orange County Planning . Board) will be present at the hearings to receive testimony/hear presentations regarding such proposals. As each jurisdiction has different procedures for conducting public hearings, a standard procedure for the joint hearings is necessary. These procedures ODIUM included on pages of the minute book) consolidate those employed by each jurisdiction and have been recommended for use by the Orange County Planning Board. Minor refinements have also been made to reflect Chapel Hill procedures through discussions between the Planning Directors of each jurisdiction. Use of the procedures will provide a method for conducting joint public hearings. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, presented the Orange County procedures for consideration of Special Use Permits for Planned Developments. He explained the "findings of fact" that are prepared by the Planning Staff and the supporting evidence given as part of the presentation. He noted that the Planning Board completes a similar exercise when they consider these findings and public haring comments for their recommendation. The Board of Commissioners then use these findings and recommendations in making their decision as to the issuance of Special Use Permits. Dr. Alice Gordon inquired if there would be a time to review the three general findings and Gledhill indicated there would be and that the burden of proof under the Orange County Ordinance was on those speaking in opposition and must be presented in the form of competent material and substantial evidence,. çJx3l (Rezoning from Residential-1 to Planned Development Residential-2 with Class A Special Use Permit) . The following were sworn in for testimony: Marvin Collins, Susan Smith, 0 David Taylor, Roger Walden, Randy Smith, Alice Ingram, Ralph Cochran, and Fritz Brunson. Presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins. The applicant, Allenton Realty, has requested a Planned Development Housing (PD-11) and Residential-2 (R-2) rezoning designation for 80.2 acres out of a 99.44 acre tract located contiguous to the Town of Chapel Hill's northeast corporate 2 boundaries and situated between Sunrise Road (SR 1732), 1-40 and Weaver Dairy 0 Road (SR 1733). The purpose of the request is to allow development of a planned single-family residential community composed of 108 lots. The 19.2 acres located in the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction is zoned R-2 and the applicant is presently pursuing subdivision approval for this parcel for an additional 26 lots. The property is known as Lot 17 of Map 17 and Lots 7 and 11 on Tax Map 25 in Chapel Hill Township. The properties located within an area designated Ten Year Transition in the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation allows the consideration of application for rezonings to any of the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-13). The present zoning classification of the property is Residential-1. The requested designation is PD-H R-2, Residential 2. Certain development standards must be met and a Special Use Permit must be obtained by the development to proceed. Approval of the request would allow development of the property for single family residences on lots containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet. Collins referenced Article 8.2.2 and noted that if it is found that the project is in compliance with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found that it will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will not enhance or maintain the value of contiguous property or is not in compliance with the general plans for the County. He then referenced the findings of fact and pointed out the areas where Staff found that the applicant is not in compliance and those areas where the applicant is requesting a modification of the ordinance provisions. The first negative finding relates to access to the site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. Access from Weaver Dairy and Sunrise Roads is shown and visibility triangles are provided on the plan, but sight distances are not indicated on the site plan. This funding could be resolved by simply making sight distance notations on the plat. The next negative finding relates to the requirement for a 100-foot open space to be provided along the perimeter of a PD-H district. The applicant has requested waiver of the 100-foot open space requirement as provided in the narrative. Applicant proposes a 100 foot buffer along the 1-40 right-of way and vegetated buffers of 30' and 50' in accordance with Chapel Hill buffer requirements on Sunrise and Weaver Dairy Roads respectively. The final negative finding concerns the maximum floor area ratio which is exceeded by 3%. Staff recommendation on this is to reduce the average dwelling size to 2475 sq. ft. to bring this project into compliance. Mayor Nassif inquired as to how the public hearing was being held if the applicant was not in compliance with the Ordinance. Collins stated that the applicant can request a modification. Such a modification can be made by the Board of Caumissioners under section 7.3 of the article dealing with Planned Developments. In this case, the maximum floor ratio and sight distance requirements could be satisfied either by graphic changes to the site plan or conditions attached to the approval of the application. Mayor Nassif again questioned the order in which the County reviews exemption requests before allowing an application for Planned Development to be presented for Public Bearing. He indicated we are dealing with a development that does not comply with the Ordinance. Gledhill stated the 100' buffer can be altered by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds as part of its review process that the applicant's 0 proposed buffer meets the public safety and welfare requirements to an equal or greater degree. The County has considered such requests as part of the public hearing process. This applicant has a proposal for buffering in the area where they have not met the 100' requirement. They are going to try to persuade you that they have satisfied the purpose behind the 100' buffer requirement to an equal or greater degree. The purpose of that 100' buffer 3 requirement is to separate the different intensity uses. The Board's function 411 in this process is to determine if the applicant's proposal satisfies the intent for the 100' buffer requirement to an equal or greater degree. You should do that as part of your deliberating process. The applicant is going to demonstrate that their idea is better for the project. With respect to the sight distance requirements and ratio requirements, these may not be modified and, therefore, the applicant must comply. Mayor Nassif questioned how the Boards could proceed with a public hearing if a project was not in compliance with the Ordinance? Gledhill responded that they would have to ask for a waiver of the requirements or the Boards can review the proposal and include compliance or modification as an condition of approval. In this case, the applicant's layout may have led the planning staff to make assumptions about each lot in the subdivision that are not correct. What we are going to determine based on the evidence presented here tonight is whether those two requirements are met by the applicant and to determine if they are not and whether it can be • addressed by imposing special conditions. Mayor Nassif asked if he had a project to present to the County if he could submit the project and not necessarily comply with the stipulations or the Ordinances and still come before the Board and prove that, even though he does not comply, he has a good project. Is that the typical way the County would consider it? Gledhill stated that usually when the applicant does not fulfill all the requirements, the application is returned to the applicant as incomplete. He indicated that the sight distances had likely been an oversight. Collins responded that when the applicant addressed the sight distance requirements in this particular situation, the applicant had reviewed the 410 proposal with the Department of Transportation and the plan was revised to reflect NC DOT sight distance requirements. Staff realizes the applicant has complied with NCDOT requirements. Collins stated the planning staff felt the buffer modification is justified. Discussion followed regarding buffer requirements for the Town of Chapel Hill and their application to future development of adjacent properties. Collins stated he felt a 100' buffer was excessive for this subdivision. Shirley Marshall stated she felt there needs to be a combined Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area where the town would have the decision- making capability. Nassif questioned how a determination would be reached as far as which property is going to be the highest density -what if the next proposal comes in with acre lots? Would that one have to give up the 100'? Collins answered no. Development of one acre lots would be at R-1 density and would not have to provide the buffer. Nassif asked who would have to provide the buffer, and whether it was a floating requirement of the County. Collins explained the requirements of the County subdivision regulations noting that if the property adjacent to this was subdivided under the current zoning buffer requirements could be imposed if needed. Alice Ingram questioned if what the applicant proposes would meet Chapel Hill's standards? Is the applicant asking for a total waiver? Collins responded that the applicant has asked for a waiver of the 100' buffer in our jurisdiction, Chapel Hill's 30-50' buffer is adjacent to Sunrise and Weaver Dairy 0 Roads and operates as well along the perimeter in the Town's jurisdiction. Ms. Kawalec stated her concern about the lots along 1-40. Does each of those lots contain 20,000 square feet in addition to the 100' buffer or is the 100' buffer included in the 20,000 square feet minimum of the lots? Collins answered that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer is included in each lot size. The lot sizes adjacent to 1-40 vary from 1/2 acre 4 to almost an acre in size including the 100' buffer and the setbacks from the 411 proposed streets. Nassif questioned, with the area that is left given the setback requirement, will houses placed on those lots be closer to the street than on the other lots. Collins responded that if everybody wanted to build on the setback line along this particular road they would all, be the same. There is more flexibility in the northern part of the subdivision to shift the houses on the lots. Some parts of the subdivision are more limited than others, but there can still be some variation in the setbacks. Collins referred to the recommended conditions of approval included in the agenda packet, specifically conditions 7 and 8. He added that condition 10 should be expanded to include an additional sentence that all roads be built to Town standards. Sweeten Creek Road would be Class A in accordance with Chapel Hill standards. All the stub-outs presently shown on the site plan, plus one additional stub-out, would be constructed to Class B standards and all the cul-de-sacs presently shown on the site plan would be constructed to Class C standards. Regarding condition 14, the Chapel Hill staff pointed out that the recreation area situated south of Sweeten Creek Road as shown on the site plan is a little over two acres in size. Applying the Orange County recreation space ratio and Chapel Hill requirement, a total of 3.2 acres are required for the entire project. What has been shown is less than that amount. The Town of Chapel Hill recommends that additional recreation space be provided on the site plan so that the total recreation area is 3.2 acres for Chapel Frill and Orange County combined. As for the County's requirement, the developers have satisfied the requirements; if they wish to provide additional recreation space they could do so within the Chapel Hill jurisdictional area. Collins noted condition number 24 relates to Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Nassif raised questions about the pond design asking if there were lots proposed downstream from the pond. Collins summarized the position of the Orange County staff in that the applicant complies with the general standards and regulations with the exception of the three negative findings. He continued that staff received no indication that this development would be hazardous to the general health, safety and welfare. Orange County staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval included in the agenda packet. . Ms. Kawalec indicated her concern about the power line that cuts through the site adding she did not quite know how to approach it using Orange County's system. It appeared to her that it is going to desecrate the recreation area. She asked if staff had considered that and what their thought on this subject was? Collins responded the developer in this case really had an option: he could either design his lots in such a manner that they would back up to the easement or he could provide some type of open recreational space adjacent to that power line, using that as a buffer or screen to keep residential units away from the easement itself. The fact that he has kept his facilities on either side addresses the latter. We do not anticipate any particular problem under the power line. Ms. Ingram inquired about lots 62 and 63, in particular, and then 28, 29 and 37. She noted these lots are going to have a view of a vast expanse of vacant land with power lines. 410 Collins addressed each lot separately as to suggestions for best possible improvement. Commissioner Marshall asked if the acreage of the recreation space includes the land in the entire easement? Collins responded yes. . _ 5 Yuhasz stated that lots 62 and 63 would not be counted as recreation space. Commissioner Marshall said not much could be done about the power line easement, but that the 100' buffer and trees would help the view to those lots. Discussion continued on recreation acreage. A council member questioned the requirements if a property owner wanted to build a storage building on a lot. Collins responded a 15' setback would be required. Presentation of Chapel Hill Town Manager's Report Dave Taylor, Town Manager, requested that pages 110-145 of the agenda packet be entered as evidence to the public hearing. Chair indicated that entire packet is documented as part of the public hearing. Taylor turned the presentation over to his staff. Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director, discussed the difference between buffers and setbacks and between gravity sewers and pump stations. Planning Board Chair Dr. Alice Gordon asked if the Chapel Hill staff concurred that the setbacks and buffers as stated would be sufficient. Waldon responded affirmatively that there is sufficient room to satisfy Town standards. Gordon inquired if there is a perimeter buffer requirement, Waldon responded that a landscaping plan which would comply with Town standards would be submitted and approved. He noted there was no comparable Town standard to the MIC buffer requirement. He further noted there was no buffer requirement around the perimeter for the proposed subdivision where it adjoins vacant land. Steve Yuhasz asked if the Town has any buffer requirement along the 411 interstate in the Town's planning jurisdiction? Waldon answered negatively. Commissioner Walker asked if the Town honored the County's requirements in their jurisdiction. Cochran asked that the Chapel Hill buffer requirements be provided in place of County requirements. Nassif questioned whether his planning department should be making the decision of the necessity of the 100' buffer. He indicated the Town has accepted in joint planning that, in those areas outside of our extra- territorial jurisdiction, we will use the County subdivision regulations or any other applicable regulations. He asked: are we or are we not in our review to use the 100' buffer? He asked if subjective decisions are made to allow for this one not to have it or the next one to have it. Is it fluid at all times? If it is fluid in the Ordinance, who makes the decision how fluid • it is. Is it made by the staff or by the policy making board? Does a developer go in to our staff and the County staff and say that is fluid and everybody agree and say we do not think you ought to have it and we will go • before the Board and say you do not have to have it. How does it get evaluated by the staff when something is so fluid, but yet it is in the Ordinance written in a fairly precise manner? Mayor Nassif asked the attorney if a subjective decision may be made on the application of the open space requirement within the Ordinance and who would evaluate and make the decision. Gledhill responded that staff makes only a recommendation. He further noted that there is a standard, but also a provision, referenced as Section 7.3, which allows that some requirements need not be met provided that the applicant satisfies the Board that the purpose behind the requirement has been satisfied to an equal or greater 0 extent. This decision requires a finding on the part of the Board based on the evidence presented. Mayor Nassif asked when is the proper time for the applicant to propose changes to the project. Gledhill indicated there is no fixed answer to the question because, in practice, where an applicant proposes something that varies from the requirements of the ordinance, that proposal comes forward at - 6 the application stage and is presented at public hearing. In practice the County has dealt with those questions at the time it considers the application. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board had previously asked that incomplete applications not be brought before the Board for consideration, however this does not address or resolve the ability to request a waiver of the 100' buffer under the planned development ordinance. She noted there is no waiver of the 100' MTC buffer requirement. Gledhill confirmed this as well as indicated that floor area ratios and sight distance requirements may not be waived and must be satisfied for approval of the application. These issues have been dealt with by the County at the time of application and reviewed at public hearing. There have been instances recently where applications have been so incomplete that the Board has directed the staff to reject the application. For some requirements of the ordinance the Board might consider variations which could be heard at the public hearing. Council member R. D. Smith asked whether the buffer around the individual lots (not the MTC buffer) should be shown on the plans; should we be concerned about this; what does the developer plan to do and at what point will this be discussed. Gledhill answered that the applicant will have the opportunity to make a presentation on that item. But as he understood it, the 100' buffer for the planned development applies to the perimeter of the overall project. He added the Boards can negotiate or waive it as long as the substitute buffer, in the opinion of the Boards, is equivalent to that provided by the 100' specified. Commissioner Walker questioned if the 100' MTC buffer applied in Chapel 411 Hill's jurisdiction? Geoffrey Gledhill responded the County does not have zoning jurisdiction in Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction. Geoffrey Gledhill continued that regulations of the county, including the 100° buffer requirement, do not apply anywhere in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Mayor Nassif clarified for Mr. Walker that even if the Town required the • MTC buffer, there were no undeveloped areas in the Town's jurisdiction along the interstate to which it would apply. Walker noted as Chapel Hill annexes it may get into that area. Nassif said until we annex, it would be in the Joint Planning Area and right now we are using your requirements for joint planning. He expressed concern that he did not know when requirements are waived and when they are not and when the issue should be considered. Geoffrey Gledhill reminded the Boards that the burden is on the applicant to prove he meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Roger Waldon continued his presentation and reviewed again the open space requirements, traffic patterns, additional rights-of-way and drainage easements. Waldon continued that to satisfy the Town's open space requirement for the subdivision the applicant would have to provide additional open space or a payment in lieu of the required open space. David Taylor addressed the following primary concerns: traffic impact, drainage and resource conservation district and the sewer service to the area. He said that his staff recommends to the Council approval of the preliminary plat with the stipulations as specified. Ms. Rawalec questioned the necessity, reliability and maintenance of pump stations. Waldon noted it would be impossible to provide service to this subdiv- ision without a pump station. R. D. Smith questioned the location of the perennial stream and compliance with the Town's standards. Boger Waldon answered that it was not a perennial stream. 7 R. D. Smith questioned if the applicant has been asked to show if this 411 was subject to the Resource Conservation District and if he was to redesign his plan accordingly. Discussion on perennial streams followed. A council neither asked why it is so difficult to determine what is a perennial stream. Weldon responded that maps available are old and that on- site determinations have to be made. Applicant presentation by Ralph Cochran of Allenton Realty. Mr. Cochran stated that this subdivision would provide for single family dwellings with all lot sizes being 1/2 acre or larger. It is well located to the 1-40 interchange and 15-501 Boulevard, making for good accessibility. He continued that this project is compatible with the low density residential uses already in the area. The property is "L" shaped which makes it more difficult to work with. The applicant has worked with Chapel Hill and Orange County Planning Staffs and feels he has a good, low density development for the area. He continued, noting the reallocation of densities (1.35 in Orange County jurisdiction and .77 in Chapel Hill jurisdiction) . Cochran commented on the sight distance at the entranceway which was referred to earlier by the staff. The sight distance requirement has been met and will be noted on the plat. Floor area ratios will be in compliance with the Planned Development section of Orange County Ordinance. In reference to the Resource Conservation District, the applicant is prepared to lose a lot if necessary to come into compliance. He noted that the question regarding buffers seemed to be an important one. The project is buffered from all streets, honors the MTC requirement and is compatible with the existing land use in the area. An lots have large rear yards which also act as buffers. 410 He addressed the question of increased traffic generation at the intersection of 15-501 and Erwin Road. He noted that the studies made indicated the increase would only be about 1/2%. He then addressed the question of pump stations. He noted the reliability of pump stations because they were monitored at all times. David Godschalk, Chapel Hill Town Council, remarked on the shape of the site and inquired if the applicant had any interest in the adjoining property or if he knew what might be going to take place on these adjoining properties. Cochran responded that this property is under one ownership. The property inside the EL" is owned by a local family and is held in trust by NCNB Trust Department. The area to the north has already been subdivided into several parcels and the parcel on the corner has been purchased for a church site. Godschalk asked about the applicant's market study for executive housing and the limitations such a study identified regarding the power line running through the property and the property's location adjacent to the interstate. Cochran responded he had marketed other properties with similar conditions and recognized that those which were are the least desirable would most likely have to be discounted for sale. Godschalk asked how strongly the applicant was committed to this site plan. He felt it was obvious there were some areas that could be redesigned to perhaps enhance the buffer area or make the recreation area more desirable. He asked if some of these alternatives had been explored or is the applicant willing to explore some of these alternatives. Cochran responded that the project had been redesigned for Orange County, for Chapel Hill and for DOT. The applicant agrees to meet the open space requirement and will be looking at the area around the stream possibly to provide this space. 411 Commissioner Carey inquired what was being proposed in the way of a buffer around the perimeter other than the area that abuts the interstate. Cochran responded he had not been told of additional buffer requirements by either staff. Two of these lots abut each other to the rear and this provides additional buffer. Hopefully, if the adjoining land is rezoned and is 8 incompatible with this development, this existing neighborhood would be 0 protected. Commissioner Marshall noted this seemed to be a very curious interpretation of the regulations. The buffer is required to protect the quality of development and she felt waiving the buffer requirement would be a serious compromise to the general plan for the physical development of the County. She continued saying that everyone coming in with a Planned Development would have an equal opportunity whether they were going for Rr2 or R-8 and no one would be penalized more than another. Cochran responded he had first proposed a general R-2 rezoning and not a Planned Development, as this is essentially a subdivision and potential purchasers would not want to be involved with a homeowners association, and was told that the Board was reluctant to approve, general rezonings due to loss of control. Based on this judgment, the applicant then pursued a Planned Development. Commissioner Wilihoit responded that Staff noted it was possible to waive the 100' buffer if a buffer of equivalent screening or impact were provided and he felt a backyard without a buffer was not equivalent to a 100' buffer. Cochran responded he was never led to believe he needed a perimeter buffer. It is really an open space requirement. County Attorney Gledhill told the Board and Council Members that the provision in question is 7.14.3 a) 4. It is more complex than just a 100' buffer. He noted that the term "buffer" was incorrect. Where you have a PDH district adjoining another residential district, the requirements of the adjoining residential district apply along the boundary; in lieu thereof, you could have a 100° open space along the PD-H boundary. That translates to any lots along the R-1 District having to be R-1; if they are not R-1, then there has to be 100' of open space between the PD-H boundary and the R-1 zone. 410 Mayor Massif asked if the open space requirement were a separate entity and Gledhill responded it could be a setback within the lot. He continued that if an R-2 District were adjacent to an R-1 District, there would be no such requirement. • Commissioner Carey noted the change from R-1 to R-2 triggers the requirement. Commissioner Marshall noted that after the more detailed explanation she is even more convinced that this proposal seriously compromises the general plan for the physical development of the County. Gledhill responded that perhaps the performance standard as used by the Town of Chapel Hill for its buffer requirement might address the concern regarding buffering one district from another district. Commissioner Carey asked Cochran if he were aware of the performance requirement under the Town of Chapel Hill's Ordinance and Cochran responded no. Roger Waldon described the buffer requirements of the Town Ordinance, noting that under the schedule of uses buffer requirements do not apply to this type of major subdivision application creating lots for single family dwellings that adjoin vacant land zoned R-1, R-2 or R-3. Buffers are required where the land is adjacent to a street or other more intensive uses. In this case the adjacent land is R-2 and vacant. Buffers are required along Weaver Dairy and Sunrise Road. Chapel Hill staff had requested that Town buffer standards be applied in anticipation of annexation of the property into the Town's corporate limits. Gordon asked if a buffer would be required near the Potted Plant. Waldon responded the buffer requirement applies to more intensive uses but not single family property. projecc bran requested that the Town buffer requirements apply to this t. A Council member questioned the availability of buildable areas on lots 35, 41 and 42 which contain drainage easements. Cochran responded dwelling units would have to be designed and located outside these easements. . „ 9 Council member Smith inquired if the 100' buffer is part of the lot. Willhoit responded noting can be built in this open space area. Collins responded it extends from the lot line. Commissioner Marshall questioned the safety of the dam located south of the tract. Cochran responded that the Soil Conservation Service was involved in its construction. The Chapel Bill Planning Board recommendations were introduced into the record by Alice Ingram. She indicated that the Planning Board does agree with the Manager's recommendation and their concerns were incorporated into the Manager's report, but noted that the Board did not know of the problems with the ponds and streams and that a concern regarding utility line voltage was not incorporated in the Manager's report. High voltage lines may pose an adverse impact. She continued that the Board raised questions regarding impacts of stub-outs in the neighborhood integrity of the development. No comment was received from the Appearance Commission. Collins introduced the full agenda packet into the record as evidence and specifically cited the Orange County Recreation Department recommendation. Council member Smith inquired why only two parking spaces were provided at the recreation area, noted the distance of the facility from some lots, and requested additional spaces. Randy Smith, agent for the applicant, commented the facility was intended to be used by residents of the development only and that the furthest lot was 1/2 mile away. Collins introduced the June 6, 1985 letter from Ralph Cochran. No citizen comments were received. Mayor Nassif requested that direction be provided to Town staff on the review of proposals and application of standards. He noted the development is likely to be urban in nature and questioned the adequacy of the local road 0 network. He continued that the development should not be considered a neighborhood unless adjacent vacant land was included by nature of the design. He inquired how the road network is affected by this development/ especially Improvements to Weaver Dairy Road. Be noted it is incumbent on the governmental units to consider the local road network so that developers of undeveloped land have some guidance on the projected road network. He continued that the survey of the projected continuation of Sage Road across Erwin and Weaver Dairy Roads should be completed prior to approval of the project and that the site plan should be revised accordingly. Mayor Nassif further commented on drainage and power line impacts on lot design, maintaining that these easements should not be part of the lots. He commented that pump stations may be a legitimate proposal in this case. Planning Board member Margison inquired when Weaver Dairy Road will be improved. Manager Taylor responded it is to be widened to 5 lanes and is a high priority project. Planning Board member Yubasz inquired if Chapel Hill has a Roadway Network Plan for undeveloped land in its jurisdiction in the joint planning area or, if not, what ideas should be used to guide us in consideration of how these stub-outs are to be developed. Mayor Nassif responded there is no plan in place and that staff should attempt to address the road network to serve undeveloped land as the developers have no authority over the land in question. Planning Board Chair Gordon questioned the status of the 60' right-of-way existing to the Potted Plant and the waiver requested on page 44. Collins responded that any further development would be required to use the stub-out provided from Sweeten Creek Road and that the existing right of-way would be closed. Gordon asked if the right-of-way could be considered a buffer. Collins III responded it could be considered as part of the open space requirement. Commissioner Willhoit referred the proposal to the Town Manager and County Planning Board. By consensus decision the public hearing was continued until September 3, 1984 to receive the recommendations of the Town Council and Orange County Planning Board. - 10 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Don Willhoit, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk