Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 09-10-1985
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AND ORANGE COUNTY AND CHAPEL HILL PLANNING BOARDS AGENDA CONTINUATION OF THE QUARTERLY JOINT PUBLIC HEARING (JUNE 11 , 1985) TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 Chapel. Hill High School. Cultural. Arts Auditorium Chapel Hill, North Carolina 7:30 P.M. PAGE # A. BOARD COMMENTS 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 SESSION ON JOINT PLANNING • 1 . Plan Development a. Natural environment, infrastructure and pbblic services, sociological characteristics b . Goats and objectives/operating principles 2. Plan Formulation 00,E ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SeAtember 10,, 1985 Action AR enda SUBJECT: PD-2-85 CHANDLER'S GREEN Item I DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes N Vahments) Information Contact: SUSAN SMIT H VICINITY MAP • NARRATIVE SITE PLAN—REDUCES (SEE 6-11-85 FOR FULL SCALE PLAN) SPECIAL. USE PERMIT INFORMATION SHEET 9-6-85 JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ll, FINDINGS 6-1185 CHAPEL HILL STAFF MEMORANDUM 4-11-85 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT REPORT 3-85 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SEE 8-11-85 AGENDA PACKET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732 8181 Durham — 688-7331 • Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968 4501 PURPOSE: To continue the Joint Public hearing hearin o the Development/Rezoning/Special Use Permit application for Green . NEED: The applicant, Attenton Realt y, Development—Housing (PD—H) and Residential-2st(R-2] a 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) , I-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 82 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 a parcel for an additional 26 lots , PProval for this IAI'AAlAnOlAAAA�IA1 - --.- _ .. PD—2—85 CHANDLER'S GREEN 004 SEPTEMBER 10, 1885 PAGE 2 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 an the Orange • County Land Use Plan . That designation allows the • consideration of application for rezonings to any of the residential zoning districts ER—1 through R-131 . 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. The request was submitted to a joint public hearing with the Town of Chapel Hill on July 11 , 1985. Concerns expressed at that time regarding open space and buffer requirements , particularly the 100' perimeter open space/yard setback requirement for PD—H districts; impact of power Lines and drainage easements on residential units and recreational facilities; and the collector road system serving the area, among other items, prompted the Board of Commissioners to continue the public hearing to allow staff the opportunity to address these matters. 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: (SEE ATTACHED 9-6-85 JOINT STAFF MEMORANDUM) - - • • • 005 *v..,tt.,..... ........• - .. . • . -,--= • •..,:-..;..4,...•:.:: . - 1 . .z. . . . 1 • • .4; .- • • ' • . t ... - . • a* • •:•• ti'''.: • • . . • 1St . • . s ; ' • • _ 4 . . .• •. *. • I . • A • •..".. • • e1 . • • -;.-!.. :. .- - , • • At- . 1 . • - . ' :.:i 1 poir - - . .. •.... t ..•........1 . a . • -,7 4C •.• • .•sct . iro . . t i . 1 I . e •.. • • r I • ... • • :.. ;5)...4*4.-.N, • N, I ; re- . •• . \ I • 1*.: 3211,40 - 0 .....9 1 0 1,4*. . . . 5/ '''. €),xt.. ' ',N‘ %%.,....* \ •• •••-....=III•-• •,-1145 * ....•,. _ • .. ....Thr .••••••N.1/4 ..•!•. , - &C. "*' :. ." F-Irp ' •".C.... 2,16AC,. 1 •••••• - ! In\ .•. C.) •*".. —13111 ••■ 7 Wm • • '''' '••• . . C.).. '. .. . :.. •. .. ‘ •• •• ii 711.r AG caL. 4•.„,.•;,,. .. 1 , Iss A*- . .„ . •• .., .,54•NC. „*. 1.• .. .... : . ' . II 4'4 " . '• r,. i ..-4,...,,,,... " li. -.7.. ' • •"` • .. :,•„t..-.„.... . s. — •••.■ : . •••.„ _: cl, ......:. • • ••• •• • .,,, -:J.%1••.7......1..:: • $ . ••.- ,,/ . . . • • .„ . ..1 4, •• ••••••-•-• • •fl • ' .e. 0 ■. • ••••• • • ",./ /A -— i . . ........\\ i 41 * • I? 1 ISO • ... .•• ill. ap• • • - ' • ••• ..... .•••••4• „.. 1 ......— . ,,i,i• •;•// • 1 I • ...'''`...•... ./7-' '.., •1 . \ .1 Ti! :1 • •••••,,t4,6,• C : . '''-- // \ •••••••1••••••'/ r . -rzt .1 1 II 1 •,ror. "1-••••••••-••••••• , 1 • . . r • ...•••••• • e _ • •i, i ,, s, .,N:• A It\ -:I • •••- no C",,,, ...... ; filar Ac. . .• :t!c.74.. 11 I -'- •• • - 0 . - 4-c "-t. ..._ _____1. ...it'-.- . ... . . _ ................... .,. . -i 1 14.79 44• • 1 :4,•• .1 acaser I. ILL....• till ' . . -.., i ......',71 i'"\i'l/Iiii ....2Vr•—'.0"iii . eat i Lit ..'"•"'"' ig.I i ...• co.r."7....1.22 I . I.= - 166° Ho. , . ••••• •4( 9 1 .• I .—.. IC. // ' I, 1 • - 712513 . 7.r i=1.42,5:0'• Iv . • 4S...4111' C' 1 ....-••■• ' • it. 1 •Nr „ c't 0 1 ., ....,,:,..., Pi •et . .- .. //- ,2•0•1‘'‘,\ 129•C... I • ••■3 1 ' \'`'•••• /, -,‘,.3 . . • r-i 1... -- I t• _ __ __ . ' . - - . r Mg I )NCN• .•. './ .1' . I 01.1 G 1 / -, • , 1 \\# •-fA I VW • / . 11 , . 0 • N • i . _ L . •••••■ . . f i j 1 r ' ', • - 1 • - . 1 — r '•' ' CHANDLER'S GREEN 1 C Applicant: Allenton Realty 2 Zoning: R-1 t N 1.. . ,.. . - 1 - . . , , -, , 'I / Ili .1. , ; /...., :‘, Ilk Requested Zoning : PD-H-R-2 For ....0.4. :-" ...:...°65'...'" i .41.'Ur 1 • . `• 80.24 acres /,,,- - ; . ... im 4t7rmira' .. map macaw .1.1triti . . LUP Designation : 10 yr Transition ..rgv. I 1,. ,..,, ,,, „ \NAL I'1)4 - .• /4, •tt Scale: 1 " : 100' .- --, i•-•r--..,, .,.,;-0- . , `-,-".`".: 7 ' • -4. ,...,..4.. ,... . . .•. , rej I.., ..hlifs•• j ,C51.•4 1 % • ,,,o ,,,,...••• .• ...05.14..F.. 1 4:el•A''' ialst I I NZ: -E:•-.• • •.. •• 1 18.11•*.i r . Nr.2 -........ir - '11, *•:‘ .„„ ...• - Ii '....-- -% 1 .1•') -.. / •••• / • N i I 12 •,/./ xt. j swot cAes 1 31 1 lutga -iiic4 --....„ \i \* r•;NI". w:3T. 'I' ") ''' 1610,31 /, ,......,s. • • .: Az ://r .. . % . -- • - L.C:!4••sizs—r• 4 NI Millie ( F17-1-\-h-.2) • Millimmor - . _ • 006 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 Mitegial.....1111-EMDMil. 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 • • • • • • - - • • raiglanat.....yilaile...±aluaa, 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 presel:d :„ ... __ z2binv,! Boards to make the required findings. :•-_ • • •!111 ' - •- use permit. The applicant has the burden of establishing by evidence the facts and conditions required to support approval of the application. fot -• - 0 - • - - II 0 011 *- - g -Lflo • - f 11- n- * 4 9 - • ••• - • - - V t- f ,- 0 • . fok 9...t 4 - . - 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 Zgecial_ase 2ermite, Section 8.2 aeneralltandards of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. _ . _ ORANGE COUNTY' PLANNING DEPARTMENT 00'7 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CA.ROLIN.A. 27278 t ■:„\EVR- 001 MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: 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 HilI 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 . . 008 PD-2-85 CHANDLER'S GREEN PAGE 2 May 15, 1985 SURROUNDING LAND USE': NORTR Unnamed 60' dedicated public right-of- way; a single family residence; the Potted Plant Greenhouse; a future church site; and I-40. EAST - I-40; undeveloped land • SOE 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-I. The Ten Year Transition Area plan category allows a range of residential zoning districts from R-1 to R-13. P� si.a ii :{Iot•t{L 11 'H. Mt.I. � +11�i ii wy tCrV �;� I` y i ,r • •' �`� � _ •� ` Vlrrrq!yY (j� 1 Ain • �• `•.,`.T•4j \ ; '.� l Ia 1 \ � I r, \ 1 P��{MY{aa�^F `a, -` fir_``\ • 0.y{r� ••E:C�`` 0 •_ �aA.• 7.1, '•'"'v' t,a�r", \Tk._• �''• �Ll'1 t '' ', T�N�•n, 4i�y w, �'©Ai. �_. + • tom. ' r - -•'� '�- � + '\ �. !:••aw4 ' t �. / f r' t�y�,` �,�• •---�--'--• { •a � .,.ltt -� fir, , wf i=, /a ` 1+�nJ .t� ,l , `�\a %iz •.i.u. •�t n i \ ,`\y � } , •Ity11f. T Ca�v/� a wo ..w ., ,�� f,�� wL i.•�, FY' n `� ' �taWUf•w Y n fM•.11fM1 O lYaYq{Mt,iM.R.Iy.{Y :. �) •;Wr�t'•'' by+'4J /f 1• ` 4 M 4.a•r►H uaa..r.Y.Wf r.rra.4./•ts OY.wrfalyel.�rt •' / "{.{t• !{- :�••'°u• •/ �, ,\', ��:it y . - `r.iri`ti{i.u.w�rraaial+ iirwe i° � ♦i• t . . '`','�•�..'• •',:k4rt:'.t.y' /., l•�� t t �y a/ . ,1 _ _ - �•�•'l ' .},'• ,IAAw I. ' ,{!l+'�•�•�r.i• i'ti'Y'•41'.r '. ��:y •�' t`j�y� t '.,+' "r .a •r, r.... ,. i.l fL,.: •.k ..1 ti. i ..Lr.;�r•'A',';l`y.la,•' ` o�� i. •' a'7 ,t , � �.�; '��.t •51 •' •'�•-S;F f1�.It 147'!�};.,. r T �Y��v `y_�:j «.., ti• ,1• PHILIP POST (fiiAS�C1A $• r ••1 � t •y:i� �y.,� � a .ft.�,'.:.. j` � } �aioin�v.�e..o.ra�..Y..•onneuu{,♦ - + .t.'j.:Y„/Cr `5•�.�1:.•' l.' 'UI V ' w �t.'.� ••✓ ••i.•�f �. ��(� •m• _ �J , .. .::• 10i1!(fYh Aiw,'I�,rf1My�,'4 '1• , •. ■NEC/$ /. ,:f J•.,1{:;�i• .t' } Y'i.r a:• \� � 1 •'+;e.l,;y.,.i,��iNfU11Er7E CANOECAPE ARCFUTEC7 1••PNEUMINAFiY'PtJlt�,; �.t..� + " •r. 1 •� a s 0 T __ OUfl11AM,NOATN CARGIOfA ... diL7�A ........... a.•o:.'`,iti.,: '' I«Ali.t,ENlnf�_Ah11L7K "W . � 1pb W� l [t �•s r.r{inn :1 • .ELF' C) ............................. .tea"~~dT 1�`�t~!� ,�}r� �E •Z J'f l.` 1} I R•i - t , •, J • qy. `+ .�;yf�'. —r•+..a' +• Jai/� \♦ �'� � .. • {.�' 'i" .Y' t l!�r ` \, �'i.: \�'f'an..t ,� ��'s�.�wi,ii >'t!Y•� •' - •` .i'` �. �- ••, r t y'�•1 � y i 1 j �/-lU- t. '•� ., \• f ^a.� \' tt� 1' {{'(�(.a `> i` ,c;M►r ri i i ti� ; (i t �} � �;_tt\ ;�\� �, IN. +� ' N •�1, .r' r 1'/� � � '1.i 1 it. ..- .;j.� . •aaL `�"'T -Th .I /ol"'i.w...a r,;.«��a � R i. u- i �' 'r PPP � ' `t `. ~'\.\` a �•.14:f '1"" '•i"� .` _ _ � r (' ,��a.`r r I ��- '•�i' � • :/Y.��•�J t t!�r• � ', �.O✓ 'rh �r�+t . �.eu••'+'.'!.- ,t �`�' �rsl�' �� '�,• ...� /lilt ai :'.. .��'`'� ! r�� t•'r / '��• Ii"�-'�''�j'=/%i�lf�6-•�•'-y, ' �'�•�/ ! tJ .r' �_. \ .i 1 r r' � •�."•• titer.�\, `�> •.... `� U. Wd mot: '.•,` ,� .� '-' � ��, . . ,� :•. \,\ � , '�- PNILIP POST &ASSOCIATES —'� a " • _W --s+ ��""' Fr.w,F......r..F...• '^ *� Ti' Rsc..SatoI Frio'eiJh4�M�0i'O•�LL.KLtYtAtY6W111N • '• � - �" - •� � . '. ruf is g,coulter• a s i L 4 N.. AND&CAPE AACNITE!CT i PRELIMINARY PLAN EAL ry 8 INIL Go,i DUAIIAIV,NOAiiI CAAOUNA j� jb== f� 011 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Chapel Hilt Mayor and Council FROM: Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Chandler's Green (PD—2—85) (SD-25-11 ) DATE: September 6, 1985 On June 11 , 1985, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council held a Joint Public Hearing to review the application for the proposed Chandler's Green • Planned Development/Rezoning/Class A Special Use Permit and Subdivision . At that time a number of questions were raised regarding differing regulations in Orange County vs. Chapel. Hilt, particularly with regard to open space and buffer requirements . Additional information was requested regarding a collector roads plan . Comments were made about inadequate parking availability at a proposed recreation area . Other issues raised included: - Traffic impacts; - Location of road stub—outs; Location of Weaver Dairy Road Expansion; Open space acreage and location ; —. Pump stations vs. gravity sewer; Condition of a dam upstream from portions of this proposed subdivision; - Impact of power lines on residential units; and - Compliance with Orange County floor area ratios . The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan . A collector roads plan for the vicinity of the proposal has been drafted that shows existing arterial and collector roads and suggests a network of additional arterials and collectors in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision. A set of recommended conditions of approval have been drafted jointly by the Orange County and Chapel Hill Planning Departments that address the concerns raised at the Public Hearing . Attached are the staff findings and recommendations; reduced copy of the applicant 's plans; copies of the Chapel Hill. and Orange County memoranda from June 11 ; and minutes from the June 11 meeting . The applicant and staffs wilt comment on these issues and present the collector road plan at the September 10 Public Hearing . Please refer to the June 11 , 1985 agenda packet for further information and full site plans . 012 • RECOMMENDATION Article 8.2.2 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance 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 tt is found, in some specific manner, that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and genera ! 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. The Planning Staffs of Orange County and Chapel Hill have reviewed the application , the site plan and al ! supporting documentation and have 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, with the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, • 1 . The grantee of this Specie ! 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 013 3 renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 2. Security shall, be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travetways; 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, water and sewer, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County and/or Chapel Hill to serve this development) installation , servicing and hookups to the development 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 appticiable utiLity company prior to the issuance of a Special Use 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. Dedicate a 70—foot right—of—way and construct Sweeten Creek Road to Town standards for a collector street (41—foot cross section with curb and gutter and a sidewalk) . Plans for this street shall be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager prior to. the issuance of the Special Use Permit . 7. Provide temporary turn—arounds to Town standards at all stub— • out streets, and provide a sign at the end of the streets stating "This street is subject to future extension". 8. Widen the proposed stub—out street that extends westward from the northern part of Sweeten Creek Road to Town standards for collector streets (70—foot right—of—way, 41 foot cross section with curb and gutter and a sidewalk) and provide a stub—out street aligned with it 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 . • • . _ 014 4 9. That Weever 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. 10. 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. 11 . That final plans for all proposed streets be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager before issuance of a Special Use 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 Special Use Permit . 12. 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. 13. 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 the Special Use Permit . 14. That a 10—foot non--access easement be provided from Sunrise Road 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. 15. That water and sewer Lines shall be installed and easements provided to the standards of Orange a Water and Sewer ewer 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 cast of any assessments required by OWASA for maintenance of fire hydrants until ttl such time as this responsibility is assumed by a homeowners association or a public entity. 16 . 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 lk • 015 5 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 parking facilities shall, be expanded to provide ten (10) spaces . The recreation area shall, be screened from the adjacent properties by a suitable hedge screen and vegetation . Plans shell be approved by the Town Manager and County Manager prior to approval, of the Final Plat. A total, of 3.21 acres of contiguous open space shall be provided or, at the applicant 's option, a payment in Lieu of open space reservation be made to the Town of Chapel Hill for the difference between open space required and provided. (According to procedures specified in Section 7.9.5 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.) 17. 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 entranceway to the development. 18. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted Landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 19 . ALL plans for storm drainage, soil, erosion and sedimentation control, be approved by the Erosion Control Officer prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit . In addition , Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on going work for the total project . The project shalt at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 20. That a stormwater management plan with hydrologic calculations be approved by the Town and/or County Manager prior to issuance of a Special Use Permit. 21 . That drainage easements be provided through Lots 13,14,and 18 as shown on the submitted site plan . 22. 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 . 23 . That all applicable requirements of the Orange Zoning Ordinanc be satisfied including the designation of sight distances at points of ingress & egress; provision of a 100' foot perimeter _ . _ - -- 016 B open space along the perimeter of the property for a width of 100' ; and specification of the maximum floor area per lot . 24. That all structures be erected on compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 25. 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. 26. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 27. 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 and Chapel Hill Planning Department . Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . 29. 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 . Mmainfax=mwoom•D.,--"-_ ......____.................. ! FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING PEPARTMENT i ' j PERTAI N I N'C TO APPLICATION PO-2-05 CHANDLERO'S GREEN i I :} Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set fartll In Article 8 for Special Uses as well as t set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.# b) requires written finding$ ertifYing compliance with the J following: r (i) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth 10 Art cle .8 divided Into two (2) sections which include: 1 These regulations are (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards For Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Artiplo 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) , (2) Other requirements as set forth In the Zoning Ordinance, Including tha prflylsiops of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimenslonal Requirements). Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the applicat#oq In question. The findings have been presented' by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board In its deliberations. j ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" Indicates compliance; "NO" Indicates noncom fiance) Planning Staff ( Ordinance Fipolpgs Based on Planniing Board Requirements Subnlltted Applic�ation Evidence Submitted to Support*FlndI"9s Recolumandedt Fladinc 8.6 - Application submitted on r Yes No Application, narrative and legal description Yes, No forms providing full and accurate provided. Submittal indiudes description of preliminary plan; A proposed use, sign and buffer plan; streets, drailnage and erosion including location, appearance control plan; -and utility plan. and operational characteristics $•8 a} - Tarcpcy siiK copies of the X Yes No 26 copies of the site plan were provided. Site yes No site plan prepares by a registeved Ian w s N.C, land surveyor or engineer containing; p. a prepared by Philip Post Associates, P.E. 1. North point, scale and date X Yes No Sown on the site plan. .. 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No yes No I p Shown on the site plan. Yes ' No 3. Location and width of all ease- .--.. ments and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site X Yes No Shown on the site plan. YES NO ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Findings Based on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Planning Board Recommended Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No Developmen posed structures an the site t is proposed for single-family Yes Na hou$ing; Typical IQt layout details are E provided. Structurps proposed for'the j5. Location of all areas on the site X Yes No recreation area are Indicated' R subJect to flood hazard or inunda- There are no flood prone areas on the $ite Yes No ! according to :the Flood 1psurance Rate flap tion as shown on flood maps or $oi 1 maps (FE1WHA) anti so* Is pups. i Ib. Location of all water courses X Yes No All water courses and directioo of flow are yes No on the site, including the indicated on the site plan, j direction of flow j 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography At flue foot conmours is,shown interval of five (5) feet based on the site plan, yes No on mean sea level datum j8. Proposed or existing fencing, Yes No° Parkin are for screening, gates, parking, `-'— 9 a recreation facilities is Yes Na service and storage areas Indicated, lio other fencing, gates' screenHg service and/or storage areas are, proposed. A. Access .to.s t to includi•{ig.• sight Yes No distances on all roads used for �-- Access to site Fran+ 4leaver Dairy and Sunrise Yes No access . t Roads is shown. Visibility triangles are provided. Sight distances are not Indicated on i0. Elevations of all structures the site plan. ... proposed to be used In the the No Development su Yas- No l p pxpary Specified maximum development. building height, of 25+ individual building details not available for single-family development, .11 . Names and addresses of owners X Yes No and applicants Provided In application, Yes '�No 12. A fee, as set by the Board of County Commissioners X Ye s No $1190.00 application fee paid. "�Yes '�No O 00 ARTICLE 13.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDSJALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes`.' Indicates compliance "'No'' indicates noncom Hance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Based o' Recommended i=indi i — Submitted geniis lonEvidence Submitted .to Support lndings Article $.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: i a} Method and adequacy of provision K Yes No Applicant Indicates that the development Yes too ' for sewage disposal facilities, is to be served by extension of p4b)Ic solid waste and water service to be to the site as pr4YNed in the � narrative and on the utilities plan. OtJASA's preliminary approval of submitted plans has been given with the condition that gravlty service connections be utllliett wherever possible. Solid waste collectlon'will be by private contractor. b) Method and adequacy of police, X Yes No fire and rescues squad rotec- APP)icant indicates that fire protection wiIL._._.Yes No q p be provided by Cite New klope Volunteer Fire �. i tiQ° Company; rescue service by the South Orange i . ' Rescue Squad; and police protection by the i Orange County Sheriff's Department (See attached correspondence), l c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No Allpllcant access to the site and traffic provides a traffic impact report Yes No conditions around the site prepared by Phil Post Associates, P.E. Applicant , proposes improvements to both Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Road, NCDOT approval of the entrancemys ' and proposad road improvements has been obtained. Applicant proposes that the site be served by public roads. Applicant's narrative indicates the roads will be constructed to Town Standards; however, the site plan Indicates construction to NC DoT standards. Applicant � ls willing to construct roads to eititer standard at Boards] direction, ARTICLE 8,8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS , Article 8.8,23 Indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable section$ of Article 7 - Planned Develppmen+ i ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLAAINEO DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance., "No" indicates noncom ilan( i Planning Staff Findings based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements - Submitted Application 'Recommended Findings -- Evidence Submitted To Support Findings. { Article 7.4 Indicates the applica- I tion must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements Include: I 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site plan provided at a scale of is,-100'. Yes property at scale of not less ____ No than 1" = 100' nor more than III = 20'. 20.3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Legal description provided iri tlarratime. Yes No Property —' 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 llo Cflanged 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 i No Property is located In an area designated Yes s amendment will carry out purpose Ten year Transition which ailows �sirlgle- Plan "' �� and Intent of adopted Comprehensive ( • ' family development at the 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 Support Findings ,�llecommended Findings Article 4,2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant Ihas applied for a Planned Development-flous jig Residential-2 designation, ' The criteria For that district are set forth In Article 4.2. 3 and are as Follows: f a)Designated by the adopted Land Use X Yes No The property is locates# 4,O an area Plan as a Transition Area, which designated iQ Year Yes No t can reasonably be expected to be Transition �tld �� annexed by a municipality in the contiguous to the corporate limits of the ensuing 10-20 years. Town of Chapel Hill, b)Water and sewer lines should exist i at the site or be assured of ..1Lyes No Water and sewer lines are to be Installed by Yes No i installation as aprt of the development the applicant in compliance witil OWASA standards process, and final plan approvals. J c)Vehicular access must consist of X Yes No Access to the site is provided is We �.. direct access to a street classified—''� e v �iYLa Yes No as either an arterial or collector Dairy Road {SR 1733) designated in the land Use Plan as an arterial• by the adopted Land Use Plan. toad and via Sunrise Road OR 1732) . 1 I � J . 1 its f• i ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Cpntlnued) Planning Staff Reccn►unenda.t i runs..Rased on Planning Board � Ordinance Requirements SubillItted A (lcatiorl Evidence Submitted To Support Findln Recommended Findings ) Article 7,1+ 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 ( major streets and mass transit Direct access is provided via prpposed Yes No facilities and designed so as not Sweeten Cree{ itoad to Weaver Dairy Road, an arterial, and Sunrise Road. to create traffic on minor streets No mippr In residential districts residential streets will be affectad by this project as designed. f7.11.2 so located with respect to _X Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage ' Applicant proposes to extend public Water Yes No facilities that enlargement or and sewer facilities to the site cjr'Ide install extension will not result in storowvater management facilities on-site to higher net public cost or earlier serve the development. Cost of in$tallation is { Incursion of public cost to be borne by the applicant. (� and So located with respect to Yes No Letters regarding adequate sery ce Yes N police,fire and rescue services, i provision ._,,. o and schools and parks so as to have been received from police, Fire and rescue j have access in the same manner Services. Tile service level necessitated by this development Is compatible with other de ' I as ermitted under the existing In the vicinity. v , zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No ment without hazard from flooding, Soil surveys/ topographiclfl66d maps indicate Yes No' erosion, and soil subsidence or stream crossing site in southeasterly direction. ; slipping Applicant proposes drainage easemepts along stream and other dralnageways, Site slope is gentle to moderate, Z1.' I ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Ordinance Requirements Recommendations Based on Planning Board i — SubIlIt ad Annll -Wi Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 7.11 .3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which ' an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: i a Two access points are propse4 via a i�4bllc }l. Access points provided to X Yes No rQlldr, Sleete Creek Road1 to Weaver Dairy Road encourage smooth traffic -'—r! and Sunrise Lad. Applicant proposes Yes No flow with controlled turn- ; Improvements to both roads. Sight distances at ni ing movements and minimum access are acceptable s re of ' to P#COOT, No �nit�or streets are j hazard to vehicular or affected by this proposed.developmegt, pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. 02, Safe and convenient routes provided X Yes No Applicant has provided pedestrian ways I•it ' vided for pedestrians. throughout site to points of ipgress t l F t to Yes iro Crossings are site. Applicant also provides 30 j safely marked, located and greenWay . ) controlled, pedestrian easement within. the Duke Potiyer easement. j a)3. Visibility provided at inter- X Yes No sections (pedestrian and vehicular) Visibility at intersections compile$ with Yes No In accordance with Article 6.$. Section 6.6. Signage details indicate-isign 100-foot open space provided Yes X No located at edge of 25'x251 visibility trlangle. j a}4, l along per.i.meter of PO-11 district, Applicant has requested waiver of 1001 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 1001 buffer along the 1-40 of district boundary. right-of-way and vegetated buffers of 301 and 50' ; In accordance with Chapel Hill buffer requirements ! 05. Yards, fences, walks or X Yes No along Sunrise and Weaver Dairy Roads respectively. ( ' vegetation provided to screen Applicant provides 1001 buffer along proposed Yes No Off undesirable views, light- ' Ing, noise, etc. Parking/ 1-11O.- effectively screening the residential units, f ' loading areas and refuse collec- Staff recommends that the recreation parking facility be relocated and screened from Sweeten Creek Road. tton/storage areas screened. ' I O W ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff PiannJg Board Recommendations Based-ton n Ordinance Requirements Submitted App!•ication Eyidence_'S_ubmittec# 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 height complies with Yes No ` standards set forth is 25+, Development summary indicates dimensional standard. indiyidual units, In Article .112.3 and _ Article 5, 1. 1 compliance to be determined upon issuance of a building permit. a)7. Signs to be erected In accordance with Article 9. —X-Yes No Applicant Indicates sign datalis and Yes No , location which comity with the provls16gs Standards regarding "Internal of Article 9 width specifies a maximum sign relationships" are as follows: area of i6 square feet. 01, Streets, drives and panting Yes No areas provide safe and con- applicant proposes a 33' public roads Yes No venlent access for dwellings Sweeten Creek Road, as the primary road and emergency vehicles, serving the devdiopment. Two cui-de-scs and do not create small and two stub-outs are also proposed. As' 1 block sizes. designed, the proposed public streets provide ' safe and convenient access to dwelling units. ib)2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or Yes No less dwellings provide Tile proposed cul-de-sacs and stub-oyts Yes „ No 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 IX Yes No ! than 50 dwellings provide -- Sweeten Creek Road provides access to Yes ' No access to parking areas so lots served by private drive$ as proposed located, designed and in the typical lot details, Staff recommends that the parking area serving the controlled as to channel area and accessed by this road be redesigned traffic without interruption. to minimize traffic interruption on Sweeten ' b)3• Walkways farm safe, con- X Yes No Creek Road, venient system of access to Pedestrian walkways are pravl'ded �thich Yes No dwellings, facilities and satisfy this requirment. E off-site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking, delivery and refuse collection Z`L areas does not exceed 100 feet. .rs ARTICLE 7 - SPECiFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS lContinuedj Planning Staff Recommendations Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements — - �L Submitted Application Evidence Submitted'To Support Findings Recommended Findings Article 7.14.3 standards continued: Walkways used as play X Yes No areas or schonl routes Pub tic streets are proposed and as No by children are so located a continuous network of pedestrian t And designed to minim.l+ie walkways provided. School bus routes contact with vehicular could be established through the developmenC. traffic. Crossings appropriately marked r and safeguarded. 04. Protection of vis(bility- i See a}3. and b)3, above. 05. Open space and spacing . between buildings - See Article 6 standards. I . 1 • f f i 1 c C ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates com ( lance• "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff ; Recomijiendat Ions Uased on Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Phoning Board Evidence Submltted :To Support Findings Recommegded Findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building 111 i height and lot coverage; p and development Intensity. i The applicant has applied J for a _�?p-i U-2 designation. he standards I for that district are set forth in Article 5. 1. 1 and are as follows: a} Minimum lot un area per x Yes No Applicant prpvldes a 1010Ienm lot a e o Yes No • dwelling unit - 20,000 200000 f � � sq.ft. square feet per lot. b} Minimum lot width - Yes No Dimenslbnal requirements are not applicable Yes N _No _ . sq. ft. to a planned development. Requirements will I' c} Required front setback - Yes No be applied to the subdivision requiredI:m allow Yes No HA ft. '— individual lot sales. d} Required side and rear Yes No '+ " setbacks - —`- Yes No e} Maximum building height - Yes Na —35 ft. Applicant indicates minimum building height Yes No j In development summary. Puilding 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. t standards is addressed in- Article 6. I • i ZU ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Ye,%Wlridicates comp)iagEEi #'No" indicates noncom )lance Planning Staff ' Recommendations Based op Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted T9 Support Findl'ngs Recommended Findings Article 6 lists specific i standards which apply to { various types of development applications. f Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled i by the Land Use intensity I (LUi) system. and references Article 5. 1. 1 Table of Oimen- t s tonal Requirements. 1 a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Applicants site contains 00.2 acres. area - ►S,oOO sq. ft. Minimum gross land area provided is - Yes �NQ 1 i approximately 80.699 acres or 315.15,24i8.11 b) Maximum gross land yes No square feet. + area - NA sq. ft. Clot a iicable YeS No ( pp. 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 iot. o q P r 287,388 squarg Maximum floor area feet for the planned development i perms teed - 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 space ratio - 82 "�" No Applicant indicates provision on 65.777 acres—Yes No or 2,86'5,246. 1 square feet of open space; however I Required minl 1; -�num o en applicant provides 3,205,624 square feet or 73. space - 21802,50 t. ft. acres of open space based on the uncovered open space proposed' exceeding the open space requirement by e) Required minimum pedestrian Yes No r landscape ratio - I,&_ �. Required minimum pedestrian Not applicable to this zoning district. landscape area - square. fdet. , ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Recomwitendat Ions Based on Planning board Ordinance Requirements. Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findln�s Recommended findings Article 6.12 standards (continued) f) Required minimum live- Yes No A ability space ratio - -- ppllca�t propose$ 2� i5�851.3 square feet Yes No .70 ' Required sati:sfyiftg the iiYeai,llity space regmlremegt. minimum liveability space - 2.Ji6O.6)3.0 sq. ft. g) Required minimum recreation x Yes No Appll:ant proposes 80,5$6 square feet silos- • Yes too space ratio - 022 Eying the minimufo recreation space requirement. Required minimum recreation Itecreetloq facilities are proposed, staff space - ?7j335•��b1i sq, ft. recommends design revisions to the feciiitles h) Required minimum open Yes No proposed. ! Not applicah-le in cpse of detacl)e+ space adjacent to d, sipgle- Yes No building walls family uses. Primary walls ft. Secondary walls ft. I� I Tertiary walls ft. � Q 00 i' ARTICLE b - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff ,. . Recoimnendat tons Based on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements 50011tted Appl.icat.ion Evidence Submitted.To Support findings Recommended Fjadi Article 6.25 contains those standards applicable in the MTC-Major Transportation Corridor district. These 'standards include the . �•; ;following: a) Minimum of all of total Yea No , Proposed 5.1W cQtatoIos: 3 tt9?� 282,5 s e feet Yaa____lVo. lot area shall remain 25$ of the site. ( Q73 56 1F qp',p f uncovered. 3. Square feet. ARpII.cant . Propose$ 0 233,822. sgaitre feet or •.067% of the maximum permitted $h•e11 Ae covered with sfrucrureg � ib) 100-foot buffet. Yee No (rssI dent Ial/reef-eatlonal-) ar#4 park . �isp.lri.e. apd required adjacent to p4ce$IbaskeTp,1il courT). Ye�� 4! edge of Interstate Applicant provides 1001 buffer to be •retalned in its highway right-of-way. natural state alon' •ttta Property frontage with the Kept in natural state t-!I0 y Tills buffet- corresponds. w!th the � P right-of-way. or landscaped in 100 open space requirement far! a1'I planned clevelopmegt- accordance with approved housing districts and with buffer regrtlrements provilitad landscape plan. in the Subdivision Regylattons. c) Front, rear, and Yes' No ' side yard setbacks ?" ' These requirements lore not applicable to single- you °, required as' follows: family developments, ' 100' setback from the Interstate ` right-of-way corresponds with 100'open space' requirement 1' 1. 100 feet adjacent for PP-11 districts. j to Interstate right- ' of-way. ' I 2. 50 feet adjacent to other property lines. I t"'r lt'�/` V 1H It_14(11/V{j Vi 1/li/a_Il.l1 V{tr\� 1\L U (L41 i 1 1 i lU tai J Planning staff Recommendations eased on Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Subpiitted Application Recommended Findings - ------- Evidence Submitted To Support Flndln4s Article 6.24 standards (continued) d) Off-street parking and loading shall conform with the ! requirements of Article 10. The off- x Yes too Applli:ant proposes 4419 add deNelo pent o street parking standard the lots o s p yes yiO for the Proposed use Is Off-street r long as �Ily ll°ustn� w)ti} 1pdivldoal r parking as provided In typlpal lot layout as follows; details. TWO parking space s a e the recreation area. Saff redo Proposed l�to serve , l space/dwelling unit facilities be redesigned so as to bedrelocatede parking relocated 2 spaces/basketball court of the drainage easement and screened from the street. f Application of the standard results In a regal rement of ; spaces. The off-street loading --Yes NO standard Is: Not applipable to thls zonlnq d(strlcft —yes No f Appl ication of- tile standard results in i a requirement of spaces. e) Signage shalt conform with the requirement's of _X—Y es No Applicant's signaga details conforpl with the Yep NO } Article 9, requirements of Article• e 9.1 i Applicant proposes -• a sixteen square foot slgn, the M441144m permitted. G ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATiON OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Btmff Recommendations Based on Planning Board 0 rd I nance Requirements Submitted Application Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Recommended Flndin! Article 6.24 Standards (Continued) e) 3. No more than 10 Yes No Not applicabj4�.. Yas NO parking spaces allowed in a con- tinuous row without division by land- scaped median strip. Every fourth row of Yes No Not applicable. Yqs No parking separated by 8-foot median with It least one tree for each 60-feet of median i length. 4. Type screen is Yes Na Not applicable. NQ screening ragyirpmont •ts Y4s No required. Standards nstabllshecl for this zoning district for that type include o� in relAtlon .i• the following: to the zonidg-dlstrlcts applicable to 44jacent properties, 1 ' i IN ,•,.�, �+-ti u 1uTLIL8112N Ur O MtNSIONAL ANUIREMCNTS Continued Planning .Staff j Recomruen4ations Based on Ordinance Requirements Submi'fted Application Planning Board Evidence Submitted To Support Findlogs Recommended Finding ' Article 6.24 standards '�— {Continued) f €) The development shall conform with the requirements of IJ Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as foIIOws: 1. Street frontage land- ~ i scaping must include Yes No Not appltcabla to gingle-fajlilyt detached ,____Yes IJQ a 10-foot landscaped developments at. -2 densitie4, area planted with one 301 and 501 yegeteted.bu fe s App' pplicant has proposed tree per f r along 4morlse NO and i p 10 feet, a WeaYer Dairy Road frpntages respectlyely. Suffes Will hedge or other durable be provided in accordance with Chapel Hlii landscape material at Applicant propo$es i00� bu fe Design' Manual, least 3 feet in height, and un 1"�10, • This. buffer is to for the property fronting and retained in its natural state. grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping Yes No " r must include a i0-foot Yes NO 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 Provide coverage of at �� �� Yes Na least 5% of any other vehicular use area. r I i r C:) i INIJ • • • O33 AGENDA # MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: David. R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Chandler's Green - Application for- Subdivision Approval (50-25-0-11) 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. 2 034 Site Desert tion 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 • Hills 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 muctr-are a. 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 OWAFA 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 •.0 4.111111.M.••••••.m..1111.••• 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 ,411, 3 035 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 or 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 Chepel 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 irrpact 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 iraffic on Weaver Dairy Road at 4,187 vehicles. Weaver Dairy Road's capacity is 10,000 ADT. • - — • ----- • • • • — 11E9Mlantallr . .• I - ... 4 The applicant's report does not account for developments that have been • approved but not yet constructed. These. approvals would represent a 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. 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 or 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 8 would deny the application. • _ RESOLUTION A 037 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR CHAND- LER'S GREEN SUBDIVISION (50-25-0-11) (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 an 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 f of a 65' cross-section with curb and gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of j 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 f of a 41 ' cross-section, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, with dedication of of a 70' right-of-way, along the site's frontage. A. 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 03S 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 bu.ildable 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 0314 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._ I. (Pi ti .��...• ...ssfC•'4„ e • '�.•iF.1.F•• • • • •, .• ono -- • It a • • WAG, _may• ill -m i••• •••I•L•A s.e 1 Ue €1 C' I Wit- Gil p : ... ' •p 'i %%%% r 7f t . } / 1 •: •r 1 cio I i - ... , 33 4;'ISO' a .. / / 'j'"rr... 1 '/ Ir o r es 11. ! . r or,1../ 11..x- .% : 1. 11 .�• i . . • 41111111744 L. :. un a VI/awns= , . co....r.r.:-..,;. '.-1-:. "�.+ / t,,,�,�4 P' , tsar. V Al: •• ' at // \3\-0.,..,1/ N 1 >s,.• 1.°� _' • o , 4..:1...,... 1�.r • I 1 1 4ti ,1la'. Q '1 1 1 IA.2' `'s I I , •�clIBRIMPEN r „tipel , . .. ... „„, 1 1.1. ‘i. A"\N \a, • 1 . IS ,`.! MOM ere 1 �. /I' N r0••- �tl �• 1 moo.7 za.r `V!J< a .., ' 1. Y.twp4y,,— Loa MELT I 3• '. . ``r., IA�{ :AIV I T at rte-'` `� ft t r. ••�'`�-..�k�� ),• •.% r� d l ....1., , }: 1� _. 1,1 ..t._-- tia/-'' •+•irs^.r-'--f r+' `r. .,• '`- \` «a !/ y —1 1 `-••- r.,•,ut 1h' g' -`' �\I 1 ce lla i *T.SIX 41. /it/ ...we. ;111 3 ail,-• S ∎.....6 .a,.//� •tea- �.. ? .; .�1. / X31� 1:1�� - . Lac•Acr iO N tviAf I("ia.iMIMAf``t fl*r . 20464 11-2- • ....-..............-: •.*_ ____._ _ .._____ . .. w . ' - - — fr• 1 • ......k. 1 C `. :. 1 0 ft.40P 491 %NS.. 1 . •itf Oar otios, 0.1, - . . . .d. I, 1 1 40 te .. - 3. 11 , . *4. 1 . . qt‘ • . i 1 .,.... 4. 41 "As, • ; I i ihteft, 1 1 I N 3 0 0 e j 3a ito` al cc = .sp, 4, el o 17. 44 1 ti I *V lanswerffirri pt .i. its m 'a e I I ‘,,,, Q 0 0 • • ,- 1 fl^ tO e -. i '''-' • 1 15 #1° , ..., . ..._._....___.. i..._ PHILIP POST . 043 &ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS"PLANNEIIS Sl inVFYORS #51509 11 April 1985 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT REPORT • CHANDLER'S GREEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Allenton Realty &. Insurance Company, Inc. 115 Orange Street P.O. Box. 731 Durham, N.C. 27701 This report. estimates the traffic impact of this proposed single family residential development that will produce traffic for Sunrise Drive, N.C. 1732. and Weaver Dairy Road. 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 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 single family housing predicts an average daily trip rate of 10.0. 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 of Traffic Engineers) -are as follows: Peak a.m.(7-9 a.m.) # Trips Sunrise # Trips Weaver Dairy " IN BOUND 27 13 OUT BOUND 54 26 TOTAL 81 39 (919)929-1173 a 100 EASTOWNE DRIVE A POST OFFICE BOX 2134 3 CHAPEL HILL.NORTH CAROLINA 27514 _. ..... .- . PHILIP POST' . • &ASSOCIATES. . 0 44 . anNwitits.m.AmmEns-suavevoRs. #51509 Transportation Impact Report - April 11, 1985. Page. Two - . Peak p.m.(4-6 p.m.). # Trips Sunrise # Trips Weaver Dairy • IN-80UND. 63 30 • . OUT-BOUND 36 17 ........ ............ TOTAL 99 47 . . 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: • . Sunrise Drive(N.C. 1732) is a_road between Weaver Dairy 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 that are being made on the property frontage. Weaver Dairy Road is a connector road between N.C. 86 and Erwin Road. . The 1984- aberage number of ADT on Weaver Dairy Raod is 4187 per counts taken by the Town of Chapel Hill. This is.well . below the 10,000 vehicle capacity that the road can handle. C. The_ traffic tree in Appendix A shows the increases' in traffic' from the p.m. peak of 4 to 6 p.m. (The tree is also reduced from the 2 hour peak to a one hour volume which is approximately 60%.of the two hour volume, per ratio between 4 to 5 p.m. traffic and 5 to 6 p.m. traffic) . . . Two Hour Peak One Hour Peak In-bound Out-bound In-bound Out-bound I Sunrise • , - Northbound- . 9 5 6 3 Southbound • 54 31 32' 18 .. Weaver Dairy Westbound 61 35 37 20 Eastbound 23 13 14 7 N.C. 86 • . Northbound 13 7 8 4 Southbound 48 28 29 17 Erwin Road Northbound 4 1 2 1 Southbound , . - 19 6 11 4 _ I - . , • -----•---- ------------- ------------- ' ------- MERUSW - t`it 04,5 PHILIP POST _ b-ASSOCIATES • #5150%ESS-rs..�c■s. .nws Transportation Impact Report • April 11, 1985 Page Three . The Town. of Chapel Hilt has'made a traffic analysis on the number of movements on the three intersections that. are being studied. The following numbers show the increased impact. Weaver Dairy and N.C. 86. Level A Service Current.Movements Chandler's Green 1142 movements 58 movements - 5% increase • Erwin. Road and Weaver Pair 820 movements. Y _ Level A Service 21 movements - 3% increase N.C. 15-501 and Erwin Road Level .0 Service- ? - 286 movements 15 movements - h% increase The ADT for Weaver Dairy Road, Sunrise Drive and Erwin Road has in- creased slightly by the new volume conimg out of Chandler's Green. Weaver Dairy Road will increase from: the current 4187 ADT to 5377 AOT, whereas the approximate capacity of Weaver Dairy Road is over 10,000 AOT's. The total capacities for Sunrise' Drive and Erwin Road are not significantly affected by the .additional ADT's- form this project. D. Conclusion: This report has studied the affects of the traffic.generated by Chandlers. Green on Weaver Dairy Road, Sunrise Drive, Erwin Road and the intersections that would be affected by these roads. The roads are very capable of handling much greater volumes than are generated by this project. Weaver Dairy Road would have to carry twice as much traffic as it is currently before it would be at its approximate capacity. The major intersections have been analyzed and the amount of increase generated by Chandler's Green at the peak p.m. hour will not reduce the level of service at these intersections. The improvement of the property frontage along Sunrise Drive and . Weaver Dairy Road will allow for left turn lanes which will facilitate turning ing traffic entering the new development. I - awl PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. SWEET N0. r" .` !` Engineers/Planners/Surveyors �""= of-- �=-" 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 CALCULATED 8Y_ �' `l0- CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 GATE (919) 929.1173 or 493.2600 CHECKED By DATE SCALE M CD cQQ 1Z� 6` U4 rD 10 • Pb r\j a, - -b - % rti CT ��rc.4�ua4s6sTL � t PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET Engineers/Planners/Surveyors —` or ----'' _ 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 CALCULATED By CHAPEL, HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919) 929.1173 or 493-2600 CHECKED By DATE SCALE // tJ n Z Qr r 7� 4 .a .z m tA- �.....�1. ...�._ 7{'_J.-\_ ''`may ^_--• - __�_. � , , � ',.. ;G1__ L o O r o ► 4.5 C49 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 . I t connects Airport Road CNC 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 offide• 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 86 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 WEESIBMINIMISKIEN �o�Tai �o'Scfa.E- i O 4 o ® � vi Da E lilt', t� a I �1�ll�ojs �• �� FIGURE 2 �, 3 t Games n�14 O Pe,sv�.a4 ® AvPao ® �«T at. ta1G61L (.AiSTp�lLwo�d a r- t ' 052 units. If approved, it would be located on the east side of Erwin Road. Roads into the project would connect to Erwin Road across from Old Oxford- Road and north of Weaver Dairy Road. The second project, Cambridge Place, would be located off of Westminster Drive behind Timberlyne Village Shopping Center. This project is planned as a sustained care facility and- would include 1 71 units for senior citizens. EXISTING CQNDITIQNS, Two of the three intersections that we evaluated generally operate at during high levels of service eaK g 9' PM. p periods. Both the NC 66/Weaver Dairy Road intersection and the Weaver Dairy Road/Erwin Road intersection operated with little delay and traffic generally is free flowing during the- peak period. The intersection of US 15-501 and Erwin Road still' maintains a stable flow. However, some congestion could be observed. The weekday peak. travel period for this 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 determine the level of service at which the intersections were operating. This technique defines. critical movement volumes as: °The volume of travel represented by the highest lane volumes of opposing travel (throuh and left turns) from both north-south and east-wes directions that occurs during the peak hour.' A tabulation of the critical movement summation for the threw intersections is shown in Figures 4.1 , 4.2, and 4'.3 The- critica1 movement analysis shows that both the NC 86/Weaver Dairy 1 Road and the Weaver Dairy/Erwin Road intersections operate at level of service A during the peak hours. This is considered the highest level of service and features generally free flowing conditions. ' Service level designations include six service level ratings ranging from A to F. At tachmen t' A- describes these service levels. The US 15-501 and Erwin Road intersection currently operates at service level C. We generally consider this adequate for most urban arterial streets. The most recently adopted Chapel Hilt/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 m be of vehicle-trips that a h t 1 , we listed below new developments jalong the dcorridor athat are either under construction, approved for future construction, or pending approval . The size of each development , its peak trip generation rate, and the number of vehicles expected to be generated by the development also are listed. • .._ _... _ ___.. m�mm nmun�niBin�ARNFIP IRFi91. g tit+ltTt� .E- �Lt' ''-" �1It,►� QN 41f6T+�uteT�t, ,fir f* 4L vo PO . .• tip' F I GORE 3 VK 054 • FIGURE 4.1 TObJP1 OF' CH,AiPE.L HILL_ --- PLettNII4I NG DEPT . C R I.T•I Cr4 L_ M QL J EM S1'rT 0241Nw4 L._Y S I' S US 1. S —SO 1 AT ERL I N1 ROAm DATE FEBRUARY 1984 *******•*************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE C. SATURATION 4605;0. CRITICAL N/S VOL 193 CRITICAL E/W VOL 9'42 CRITICAL STAN 1. It. Sts ************************************* 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 • • • • r. . . .. . r•. L. • 12.0 L... 12.0 4• ... • • • •• • •• • • • • . •••r 5 •-• • a• r•. rry . . . . • e • . . . • . . . . 6 • •• • as • a•..r • as • • • • • • r • •a• • TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9' 1.11 268 32 THRU 47 37 1201 1049 RIGHT 20 87 9 116 TRUCKS (X) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 10 2 1 SOUTHBOUND 10 0 1 EASTBOUND 10 2 1 WESTBOUND 10 2 1 PHASING N/S 13. BOTH TURNS PROTEC1ED (NO OVERLAP) E/W :3. BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN! ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 -- 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH t 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU —RIGHT 81 135 702 673 I LEFT 0 58 240 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND .•- INPUT VOLUME 9 111 268 32 ADJUSTED VOL 0 58 240- 0 CAPACITY 0 0 0 0 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A N/A 0155 FIGURE. 4.2 TOWN OF C1-1r4PEL. H r L.t_ -- P Larzinor.4 IENC 0E1='T . CR:I TI CAL... MOkJEr 1ENT ANALY'S I S ER4JIN. ROAM AT (4Ei JER DA I RY POr4►0 DATE FEBRUARY 1984 ********************************** LEVEL. OF SERVICE 44 ' SATURATION 13 CRITICAL• N/S VOL 2245 CRITICAL E/W VOL CI CRITICAL SUM" 2294S LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 RTL 10.0.. R•T L 10.0 RL. 10.0 . . . . . . . L h h. . f h h • r• f• •. 1160.11- . • f• lift s 3 .• .• . • ►• ••.• .. . • Ff. • • f• Oh* •.• . • 4 • .o COO* 04111 8.41.0.116 f. • OS * * • • . • • •••• 6 ..$- .•• . ..... . . .. II ••• • h *ea • • • • 6- .h•- ••.•• • f. .. ..h... • • f • • .• f• . •. . • TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 284 0 47 0 THRU 61. 40 0 0 RIGHT 0 40 148 0 TRUCKS (X) 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 a1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W a1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 — 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH e- 60 SECONDS ' CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU —RIGHT 236 84 0 0 LEFT 0 0 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 284 0 47 0 ADJUSTED VOL 172 0 0 0 CAPACITY 152 0 0 0 MOVEMENT NO OK OK OK . FIGURE 4e3• 055b T 0WI I O F'" C'HA P EL. H Z. L L -- P Lg4I'VN•I N S DI E PT a.. CR Z T I CAS,. MOt,.►EMENT ANALYS I E NIC IS 46- Ali"T' WE`A'.JEFZ D At: I MY' ROACr DATE: FEBRUARY 1984 • *'x ******************************* LEVEL. OF SERVICE oc+r SATURATI ON 4 2 £' CRITICAL WS VOL Z 9' CRITI CAL E/W VOL 1 e5 1 r, CR ITI CAL SUM '7 20. J ***y **** *** S******y iJ1 **y ix*x** ff LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH" MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 R. . 11 .0 RT.. 11 .0 RTL 11 .0'" RT. 11 .0 2 LT... 11 .0. L. . 11 .0 • . ....• r. . .. L. . 11 .0 3 • r. •:r•.a. rr• . r• •• a-.•• a-• a a • a • . • ra" 4 . • r Soor s.rr• ee.a..- rra .. . eo • . • r 5 e"• . *SS. r• •• . a .. a.• • •• • . • • a • r• .. 6 • rr ..rf•. rr•• • •• r p. . ara • . . a • • .. TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND • . LEFT 4 55 0 147 THRU 448' 207 1 4 RIGHT 128 2: 5 141 TRUCKS (Z) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 10 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 10 0 -'•- i 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 C#PEDS/HR) CYCLE. LENGTH : 60 SECONDS , • CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU -RIGHT 496 229 6 159 LEFT 0 63 0 161 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 4 55 0 147 ADJUSTED VOL 4 63 0 161 CAPACITY 330 0 0 153 MOVEMENT OK N/A OK NO • • • 6.57 TABLE 1 New- Developments and Associated Trip Generation PM Peak. Generation Added Development Size Rites- Trips Kensington Trace 135 du .60/-dwelling 81 Coventry 43- du 1..00/dwelling 43 Timberlyne Village 144 du .60/dwelling 86 Cambridge Place 171 du .40/dwelling 68 Steeple Chase- 16 du 1..00/dwelling. 16 Booker Creek IV • 30 du 1 .00/dwelling. 30 Kirkwood 108 du. 1 .00/dwelling 108. Windy Hill 91. du 1 .00/dwelling 91 Highlands. 91 du 1 .00/dwelling 91 Booker Creek Village 30' du 1..00/dwelling 30 Summerf iel d. Crossing 1.40 du 1 .00/dwelling 140 Timberlyne Shopping 130850 sf 14.42/1000 sq. ft. 1887 Timberlyne- Offices ' 23903 sf 2.20/1000 sq. ft. 53 - M.1•NIWMOMO +�� 2724 We based our trip generation calculations on rates found i n ale Qenerat•ign;, Third Edition.. Institute of Transportation Engineers. We used. rates for the PM ak hour our of adjacent street traffic. Ca TRIP DISTRI$UTI Q4 Trip distribution can be described as the tendency of drivers. to use certain routes before entering or after exiting a trip generator. An 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 project for the streets and intersections within the corridor. AS;I Gl+1E'*1T QF TRIPS We estimated the paths that drivers entering or leaving the various developments would travel while in the corridor. We focused our attention especially on how the trips would move through the three critical intersections. 4�� • o 68 ,.- Table 2 shows- our estimated trip. distribution and intersection assignments. We- first evaluated the added trip load using only trips generated from approved. developments. We then analysed added trips that would be- created from the Windy Hi l l and Cambridge Place developments. Figure 5 i l l ustrates• existing pm peak hour traffic plus- traffic added by approved projects. Figure• 6 shows the number of peak hour vehicles that would be using the surrounding street system if Windy Hill and Cambridge Place. were occupied. ASSESSMENT* OF IMPACT Developments. along the Weaver Dairy Road/Erwin Road corridor that have been approved during the last fees years. traffic' flows, i n the• area. General l y, levels. n of service. i nathe affect 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 performance of this intersection wi l l drop from level of service C to level of service- E if all of the approved The capacity of the roadway will b exceeded vbyo9 pets nt. occupied. 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 movement analyses of the three intersections with ail approved developments occuppied. Windy Hill and Cambridge Place would add about 159 trips to the corridor. The additionai trips. wouid do little to worsen the level of service considering problems with this corridor created by previously approved developments, . Figures 8.1 , 8.2, and 8.3 show the critical 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. RECOMMENDATIONS We identified measures that could be taken to lessen the traffic impact of the approved and proposed developments. We feel that major • TABL}E�2 #h fr�k1M!Mrslaj iit�iP4 Yutsr Wry Ncdlterie tesd tort{ds' Xsastastai True cU 1111111 Total Want 111111 rite Fsltiia gp.��ri etd fkn is toe airy Nirtnosd Tiainlrae 91 1t�pr1 Via, flit std Yi1 YIIt's1d �N �T Noeseeal� looter Irret Vlt;sp� tltaPll sse Ni¢tuda�TtaMritsi t1• til6ridpe Hill _ Y11dr Nil{ taad+rkdpe Pia* Calk dpe Plue i Peat IF.Trip teaerlkin ». IM _M14 » 1"_ .--.- •!at !�9{ 41 q Is" Loll f oetabmd lira¢ 1 M aN l i bell INS $lot 34 1111 TiI a 214 pt 1Llq Fnt1aN Gera¢ a 43 !1 N I40 a tiD mild 1 i. l 14 tl �!1 as !u Wolbond Tlra¢ 1111 i 14 Ri¢t_...»...._».1111...»__»»».....»._..._..»»_...__»�__._._...»-- - _ �.»..........» _.._».............»_.._.__._.._._._......... l]! '#r 1 i bril0ead Left Left Ewio M Salkb ad Aigll¢ 11 11 21 n at 14 41 Yeseer Dairy ``eft 47 14 24 FaalOsud lira¢ i j ti¢k 1411 of 4? to !t Left ; 4lesitwaad Tlra¢ ILeft + ...»........_.»_.._»__._._»....._....»»..�»»»_...»_...._.__..___.}gyp' .._ ..... ...__.._»..»_..__... riatlsosad A q t !» 11 lia 11 aA I xc u te.tu...a Iir1et Yeavir hire Loll Eaatiawd TtyAt¢ { 1Rsibond ika¢ 4 41 {� 311 14 .-----_---- 14 to 941 N I � I � I i 1 t1o�TK i 1 ti 1 F I SURE i PM pfb4k PVQVL,-NATAFIC- wil t AerrovF-P VmLopmw t t6f.TH AS*C".f. s r QA1R ' � 1 F l©URE 6 Viaxwp, ON-wi V6&D /F^WX 4 RU p� 1 `PtAK-4outh.TIz#,lFfIC.. APmo+tED DEYEcnPht�nt-1+a + "Pi PILL + GAMbRIP(%E. 062 • FIGURE 7.1. . -TOWN• OP CHAPEL.. HI L.L.. -- P L..ANN INIG C)E EPT . CR I T'I C. L. MO',.)E11ENT 1:21NF11._Y$ I S S 1 E--SO 1 ./ERI..J IN ROA0 APPR0I.JE© PRO,SECTE DATE MARCH 1985 LEVEL OF SERVICE E SATURATI ON 1. 0 91 CRITICAL N/S VOL 4,25 CRITICAL E/W VOL 3. 1. 46'7 CRITICAL SUM 1 7942. " ************************************* 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.a 2. L.-... 12.0 L.... 12.0 T... 12.0 T.. 12.0 4 3 •r• • • •• FFF •'.• F L. . 12.0 L.• 12.0 . FF ...... .. . .•. ►. 5 . .. • ..• .•••O s,..♦• 6 • • F • F•-•. •-. . ••F• •• TRAFFIC VOLUMES- NORTHBOUND - SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT THRU 67 335" 483 136. RIGHT 20 57 1201 1049• 251 236 TRUCKS C%) LOCAL BUSES ($/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0 _ 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 a EASTBOUND 5 1 WESTBOUND 0 1 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :3• BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) E/W s3• BOTH TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY s• 1 . 0 — 99 (*PEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH s 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND All —RIGHT 91 322 666 LEFT 0 303 466 83 83 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND JPUT VOLUME 9 " 335 483 •JUSTED VOL 0 303 " 136 :APACITY 0 0 466 83 •OVEMENT N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A • - FIGURE 7.2 . •T OWN OF CHAPEL H I' L.I— -- PLr.,ANN I NG DEPT .. . OM i T I CFltdL. P1 Okoi EM ENT A■1∎4 L.Y S X $ WE J.J•ER D I I RY./ERW X N' — 04PPR04.00EO PRO.JE.CTS DATE MARCH 1985 *********************** .********** LEVEL OF SERVICE F4 SATURATION 2.9 . CRITICAL N/S VOL :S20- CRITICAL E/W VOL C CRITICAL SUM. 520' ************************************* LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH- MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 4n £,' 1- LTr 10.0 RT. 10-•0: RL.- 10.0 2 • • •• . . . r 3. . . • r.er • Pw r .P 4• .. • • •-1. 4 • e P O P e P e•rr P••PS • er• .-P rP • • .• • • Pa 5 • s.• ar.rr •- .s• r•.... r• • e• s•. �( r P•: r r •+ rr r ♦O••••: PPP . r.♦r ... P• P e . . . • • • • TRAFFIC' VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 51.0 THRU 106 100 127 . 0 RIGHT 0 0 0 85' 354- 0 TRUCKS 00 LOCAL BUSES t0/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 . 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 1 • EASTBOUND 5 0. WESTBOUND 5 1 0 L PHASING N/S :1 .. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W. :1.. NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 — 99 (NPEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH- : 60 SECONDS CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU —RIGHT 520 194 p L LEFT 0 0 44 0 0 LEFT TURN CHECK • NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 510 0 127 p ADJUSTED VOL 409 0 44 p CAPACITY 326 0 • 0 0 MOVEMENT NO OK NO OK FIGURE 7.3 ,-oN to C Hr4 P E ir. H I L.L. -- 064 C R.I T I. C. L. M GV E11"!ENT P041%.1.141.."'Y B.I a- E P'"I" NC B4..,001480:44..rER• Dr4I. RY -- 1441= pRO,.,'E PR 0.JEC I S DATE' MARCH 1985 *******************************•*** LEVEL OF SERVICE C. SATURATION 6 B CRITI CAL N/S VOL 8 1. 1 CRITI CAL E/W- VOL ,'. 6 1 CRITICAL y. y5�(11�y yyI 17'2- y i ********i.***ifl•***'�i*********�i*******X• LANE' GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND E NOV WIDTH SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND MOV WIDTH. MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH 1 R. . 12.0 R'r. 12.0 2 Lam. 12.a - 1.2•a. RT.: 12.0 3 L..., 12.0 .... •. . . L. .. 12.0 .FR . ... 4 F.r• .•.••b • 5 • ••• • 0000 0000 . k 0000 0000. .. . 0000 .. •-• a.- • s r .. • ••• •- 6 •.. aaa• •0.0.00 s .,.. • .. • •.• • TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 4 THRU 540 00 0 374 30 RIGHT 355- L 5 340 NORTHBOUND TRUCKS t/:) LOCAL BUSES C#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR • SOUTHBOUND 5 0 5 0 i EASTBOUND 5 1 0 WESTBOUND 5 1. 0 1 PHASING N/S t2. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED EfW :1 • NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY t 1 , CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS 0 99 CMPEDS/HR) CRITICAL LANE. VOLIJIES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND THRU -RIGHT 567 317 EAST806 WESTBOUND LEFT 0 244 361 266 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 4 282 WESTBOUND ADJUSTED VOL 0 0 374 CAPACITY 494 244 0 266 55 MOVEMENT OK N/A 0 3 OK OK OK • FTGURE� 8.1. 0 65 T ObJMJ OF" CHAPEL_. KILL -- P L AININ I.N G DEPT. C R•I:T I. C,A L. MOVEMENT NA LY E I E us 1 5-x-50. 1 lERI,.J rN- A©©ED PROJECTS DATE MARCH 1985 **********************************- LEVEL- OF SERVICE E. SATURATI ON L 1. Si- . CRITICAL N/S VOL '71. 5 CRITICAL E/W VOL 1. 2.54 CRITICAL SUM 1. 969• ************************************* 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 R . 12.0 2 L... 12.0 L...- 12.0• T.. 12.0. T.. 12.0 3 - . .••., r.Milk . . . ...... L. . 12.0 L. . 12.0 4 v. . .•a. r.-s.. ..... .-...• .. . . .. . • ••. ♦.. 1'r. t. .•. .•.•• .. . •. •.. .. .• .• 6 • ••• ...a .: ... .. . . a••• • • ..- • • e .• • . TRAFFIC VOLUMES• NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 9' 374' 518 167 THRU 76, 66. 120.1 1049 RIGHT 20• 286 9. 329 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 p 1 SOUTHBOUND 5. 0 1. EASTBOUND S• 0 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 1 1 PHASING N/S :3. BOTH- TURNS PROTECTED (NO OVERLAP) E/W :3. 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 HRU -RIGHT 100 369 666 750 LEFT 0 346 504 117 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1 NPUT VOLUME 9 374 518 167 DJUSTED VOL 0 346 504 11? CAPACITY 0 0 0 0 MOVEMENT N/A N/A N/A N/A i 1 FIGURE 8.2 T'011.4N•• 0 P CHAPEL. H-I L L -- 1="1..101P4P.4 I N G. D a Frr" .. CRI.TI CAt..,. Po!OVEMEI 1- ANAL...YS I: S- lAJ EA4,01 E R• Drat I R.. E Rto.1 I N4 -r r4 D D E D • P R 0-.J E-CT S DATE MARCH 1985 ********************************** LEVEL. OF SERVICE OA,- SATURATION 3-I CRITICAL N/S VOL 550: CRITICAL E/W VOL Cl - CRITICAL SUM v 590 ************************************* - LANE GEOMETRY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LANE. MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH NOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH .rl. 1 LT. 10.0 RT. 17.0 - RL. 10.0 2 r. . . •.a rF r. .._., .... .. r.. •.-.r. • r. ar. .• 3 ... • s• r .s-. 41 0. 0.•1- • .. OFF* • • • • •■ • 4 ..•. MO, s.. . ss• • . . 40410 5 .a 4141 .-.s s r.r . ►s. ..... . ..•. .. . • . r .- 6 •-.P 410.0..... OFF 0..41 0. F.. .•.F. • • •. ♦r r. I TRAFFIC VOLUMES NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 529 0 140 0 THRU 116. 1.041 0 0- RIGHT 0- 94, 364 0. TRUCKS C%) LOCAL BUSES (li/HR). PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND 5 0- 1. 1 SOUTHBOUND. 5 0 1 . EASTBOUND 5. 0 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1 PHASING N/S :1 . NEITHER TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 • NEITHER TURN PROTECTED j PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY : 1 . 0 - 99 (IOPEDS/HR) CYCLE LENGTH : 60 SECONDS .. CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 'HRU -RIGHT 550 207 0 0 LEFT 0 0 126 0 LEFT TURN CHECK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NPUT VOLUME 529 0 140 0 IDJUSTED VOL 429 0 126 0 CAPACITY 343 0 0 0 MOVEMENT NO OK NO OK ________ - ________ _._.. _ ____ _.._ _...__. ..v._ ___ 0._ .. . _ ...... ___ • • •FIGURE. 8.3 � ''� • TOWN OF CH"PEL. H L LL -- PL84NN 2'N 0- • 0 EP r .r C.R:L'T t C+4 L... M011,.+EMI EP rr o iNA1...YS I S - PY: IN C" 1346./WE 14JER 044 I R`r — 'A0DE0 PRO,.TE CT"S DATE MARCH 1985 ' ** " **' ************************** LEVEL OF SERVICE C SATURATI ON- ?a- CRITICAL N/S VOL $S4 CRITICAL E/W VOL S.75 CRITICAL SUM 1 2 a IP . ************************************•* 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.. 1.2.0: L.... 12.0 . .... . . . . L. .• 12.0 ��- a r• . ....•. F. ._ r.•rt 4 .•.•. ....• .r.•. .. ■.••• . ..F i • ro .. • •...• 5 r.-r• .•s.e ••• . .• s . • . . .. .-r • . . F.-r . 6-. ..r ...•rr r■•►. ..• t • • • r.e F.' t.♦ •.. .•. TRAFFIC VOLUMES' NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND LEFT 4 296. 0 288 THRU 547 306 L 4- RI GHT" 369 2- 5' 354 TRUCKS (%) LOCAL BUSES (#/HR) PEAK HOUR FACTOR NORTHBOUND- 5 0 1 I SOUTHBOUND 5 a 1 - EASTBOUND 5 0 1 1 WESTBOUND 5 0 1. PHASING N/S 12. HEAVIEST TURN PROTECTED E/W :1 • NEITHER TURN PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY s 1 . 0 – 99 (#PEDS/HR) CYCLE. LENGTH . : 60 SECONDS .. CRITICAL LANE VOLUMES BY MOVEMENT NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND THRU –RIGHT 574 323 6 375 LEFT 0• 260 0 281 - LEFT TURN CHECK I NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INPUT VOLUME 4 246 0 • 388 ADJUSTED VOL 0 260 0 281 CAPACITY 511 0 0 369 MOVEMENT OK - N/A OK OK 068 improvements to the east end of the corridor will be necessary in the- near future. The adopted Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan recommends that Weaver Dairy Road be realigned at its eastern' end to connect to Sage 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 realignment,. proposed Currently, the- Greenf i el ds. development is building the- portion of- the realignment from Erwin Road- to the US 15-S01 Boulevard. This- should help the. Erwin Road/Boulevard. intersect.ion somewhat. However, the full realignment would be necessary for the corridor to function properly. We feel that the Town ultimateiy should become involved in building. the portion of the real'i gnmen t from Erw i n Road to Weaver Dairy Road. This segment would. cross Greenfieids� se portions of six smaller parcels whereas the 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 street improvement- project. The NC 86/Weaver Dairy Road- intersection would continue to operate- at an- acceptable level as newt developments are- occupied. However, the opening of I-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. 0 r • ... FIGURE 9' WAV PROPOSED SAGE ROAD EXTENSION.'J� G,4 4? .4 : , ., ' 4,_ v. 4 4.. VAIN Avis la iff . •*4 gi..orr ��-err► • #• 11110.4* Alto* 4A11 . 4,44, 4 wiii44,14.7.1r *Im ily ) ...k.,,, .4, .7,iik AEU, w///. aim $ illialir ii%4311741/11"P 4ir . $ MI A 7fAt it, z . s s </ A•Q401*. •fir► s txrjr�4�s '��,1,00.7ii 0 r :=, lipoi 4:.: 4‘4 ' Tr*O4, , Q • • RMdM R• • VI 4v0 ° V � �� 11118101IlLtrilvillir `o` oe *41- os. 40,I BEET . :TNr rr _ ATTAC*IENT sir U 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:. - LEVEL OF SERVICE C: THIS IS STILL IN THE ZONE OF STABLE FLOW, Bur 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 CAPAC ITY. IN THE EXTREME, BOTH SPEED AND VOLUME CAN DROP TO ZERO. • • 011 DRAFT MINUTES JOINT PLANNING AREA HEARING JUNE 11 , 1985 80CC PRESENT: Don WilLhoit (Chair) , Moses Carey, Shirley Marshall Norman Walker C.H. TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: P/B MEMBERS PRESENT: Alice Gordon (Chair] , Chris Best, Ruth Burnette, Valerie Greenberg , Peter Kremer, Betty Margison , Frank Pearson, Sharlene PiLkey, Carl Walters, Steve Yuhasz P/B MEMBERS ABSENT: David Shanklin, Steve Kizer AGENDA ITEM Al : Joint Planning Public Hearing Procedures This agenda item is to identify the procedures to be followed in conducting Joint public hearings in- volving the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board. The Joint Planning Agreement adopted by the Orange Cbuirty 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 pro— posa Is. 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 . The procedures (memo included on pages of these minutes] 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 _ _ . 2 discussions between the Planning Directors of both jurisdictions. Use of the procedures will provide a consistent method of conducting joint public hearings . Geof Gledhill, County Attorney, presented the Orange County procedures for consideration of Special Use Permits for Planned Developments . He continued by explaining the "findngs of fact" prepared by the Planning Staff and the supporting evidence given as part of the presentation . He noted that the Planning Board will complete a similar excercise when they consider these findings and public hearing 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 . Gordon inquired if there would be a time to review the three general findings, Gledhill responded, yes, and that the burden of proof under Orange County Ordinance was on the opposition. This proof must be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. AGENDA ITEM C1 : PD-2-85 Chandler's Green (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, David Taylor, Roger Walden , Randy Smith , Alice Ingram, Ralph Cochran , Fritz Brunson . Presentation by Collins . The applicant, Altenton 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 tots. The 19.2 acres Located in the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction is zoned R-2 and the applicant is presently pursuing Y p g subdivision approval for this parcel for an additional 28 tots . 1 1,111 073 3 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 alt 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 was not in compliance and those areas where the applicant was requesting a modification of the ordinance provisions . The first negative finding is: Access to site including sight distances on all roads used for access . Access from Weaver Dairy and Sunrise Roads is shown and visibility triangles are provided, but site distances are not indicated on the site plan . This could be solved by simply making notations on the plat . The next negative finding related 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 —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 . • . 074 4 The final negative finding concerns the maximum floor area ratio which is exceeded 3%. Staff recommendation on this is to reduce the average dwelling size to 2475 sq. ft. to bring this project into compliance. Mayor Massif 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 Commissioners under section 7.3 of the article dealing with Planned Developments. In this case, the maximum floor ratio and sight distance requirements could be allowed by either graphic changes to the site plan or additions attached to the approval of the application . Mayor Massif again questioned as to the order in which the County reviews exemption requests before allowing an application for Planned Development to be presented for Public Hearing. He indicated we are dealing with an 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 process that the applicant 's proposed buffer meets the public safety and welfare requirements to an equal or greater degree. The way the County has handeled this is that it is considered 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 requirement is to separate the different intensity uses. The Board's* function 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 . • &75 5 Mayor Nassif questioned how the Boards could proceed with a public hearing if a project was not in compliance with the Ordinance? ' Gledhill said 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 proposal with the Department of Transportation and the plan was revised to reflect NC DOT sight distnace requirements. Staff realizes the applicant has complied with NCDOT requirements. Collins stated the planning staff felt the buffers 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 076 6 . 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. Massif asked who would have to provide the buffer, and whether it was a floating requirement of the County's. 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 30-50' buffer is adjacent to Sunrise and Weaver Dairy Roads and operates as well along the perimeter in the Town 's jurisdiction . Ms . Kawalec stated her concern was 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 MTC buffer is included in' the Lot sizes. The Lot sizes adjacent to I-40 vary from 1/2 acre to almost an acre in size including the 100' buffer and the setbacks from the proposed streets . Massif questioned if the area that is left given the setback requirement will place houses on those lots 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 077 7 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. A council member asked if you apply the setbacks to the lots that are in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction , would those Lots meet minimum requirements? Collins answered affirmatively . Collins referred to the recommended conditions of approval included in the agenda packet , specifically condition number 7 and S. He added that condition number 10 should be expanded to include an additional sentence that all roads be built to Town standards. Sweet Creek Road would be a 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 S standards and all the cul—de—sacs presently shown on the site plan would be constructed to Class C standards. Regarding condition number 14 the Chapel Hill staff pointed out that the recreation area situated south of Sweat Creek Road as shown on the site plan is a Little over two acres in size. If you apply the Orange County recreation space ratio and Chapel Hill requirement, a total. of 3.2 acres would be 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 Hill and Orange County combined. As for the County 's requirement, they have satisfied the requirements; if they wish to provide additional recreation space they could do so within the Chapel Hilt jurisdiction 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 Orange County staff position that the applicant complies with the general standards and regulations with the exception of the three negative findings. He continued that staff 078 8 received no indication that this development would be hazardous to the general health, saftey and welfare. Orange County staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval included in - the agenda packet . Ms. Ingram indicated she was concerned 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 tine, 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 lot 62 and 63, in particular, and then 28, 29 and 37. She noted they are going to have a view of a vast expanse of vacant land with power lines. Collins addressed each lot separately as to suggestions for best possible improvement . Marshall asked if the acreage of the recreation space includes the land in the entire easement? Collins responded yes. Yuhasz stated that Lots 62 and 63 would not be counted as recreation space. 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 kE 9 Taylor 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, spoke to the following: difference between buffers and setbacks; and gravity sewer and pump stations. Planning Board member Gordon asked if the Chapel Hill staff concurred with the setbacks and buffers as stated as being sufficient . Weldon responded affirmatively, there is sufficient room to satisfy Town standards. Gordon inquired if there is a perimeter buffer requirement. Weldon responded that. Landscaping plan which would comply with Town standards wduld be submitted and approved. He noted there was no comparable Town standard to the MTC 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 interstate in the Town 's planning jurisdiction? Weldon 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. Massif 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 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 Ordin- ance, 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 080 10 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 of the ordinance and who would evaluate and make the decision . Gledhill responded that staff makes only a recommendation . He further noted that it is a standard, but there is a provision referenced as Section 7.3 which allows some requirements to not have to be met provided that the applicant satisfies to the Board that the purpose behind the requirement has been satisfied to an equal or greater extent and that requires a finding on the part of the Board based on the evidence presented that in fact that is the case. Mayor Nassif asked the proper time for the applicant to propose changes to the project. Gledhill indicated there is no fixed answer to the qestion because in practice where an applicant proposes something that varies from the 1 requirements of the ordinance, that proposal. comes forward at the application stage and presented at public hearing . In practice the County has dealt 1 with those questions at the time it considers the application . Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board had prevously asked that incomplete applications not be brought before the Board for consideration , however this does not address or resolve the ability to requst 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 end sight distance requirements' are not waiverable 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. Geoffry There have been instances recently where applications have been so incomplete that the board has directed the staff to reject the application if there are too many gaps . The idea is that for some requirements of the ordinance the board might consider variations which could be dealt with at the public hearing. . . . . . . . _ 11 Council member Smith asked in regards to the buffer around the individual lots (not the MTC buffer] if it should be shown on the plans; should we be -.. concerned about this; what does the developer plan to do and at what point wilt this be discussed. Gledhill answered that the applicant will have the .,, . ,..,.;,„ • opportunity to maks a presentation on that item. But as he understood it, the 100' buffer for the _ planned development - applies to the perimeter of 4.„ the overall project. He added the Boards can negoitiate or waive it as long as the substitute ,.. buffer, in the opinion of the Boards, is equivalent to that provided by the 100' specified. ,4‘ Commissioner Walker questioned if the 100' MTC ,.;.' -.., buffer applied in Chapel Hill 's jurisdiction? 4., 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 . I *'; 1 ,,t Mayor Massif clairfied 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. Massif said until we annex it would be in the Joint Planning Area and right now we are using your requiements ' for joint planning . He expressed concern that he did not know when you waive them and when you do not and when it should be considered. Geoffrey Gledhill reminded the Boards that the burr:len is on the applicant to prove he meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Roger Weldon continued his presentation rereviewing open space requirements, traffic patterns , additional rights—of—way and drainage easements . Weldon 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. 12 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. Kawatec questioned the necessity, reliability and maintenance of pump stations. Weldon noted it would be impossible to provide service to this subdivision without a pump station . Remus Smith questioned the Location of the perennial stream and compliance with the Town 's standards.. Roger Weldon clarified that it was not a perennial stream. Remus Smith questioned if the applicant has been asked to show if this was subject to the resource conservation and if he was to redesign his plan Discussion on perennial streams foLLowed. A council member asked why it is so difficult to determine it is a perennial stream. Weldon responded that maps available are old and that on • site determinations wouLd have to be made. Applicant presentation by Ralph Cochran of Atlantan Realty . Mr. Cochran stated that this subdivision would provide for single family dwellings with at'. 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 Hilt 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 continued commenting on the sight distance at the entranceway which was referred to earlier. The sight distance requirement has been met and 083 13 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 . ALL Lots have large rear yards which also act as buffers. 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 regarding the fact that 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 "L." 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 continued asking about the market study for executive housing in regard to the power line running through the property and being next to the interstate. Cochran responded he had marketed other properties with similar conditions recognizing that those which were the least desirable would most likely have to be discounted. 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 have 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 to possibly provide this space. _ _ 084 • 14 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 requirement by either staff. Two of these lots abut each other to the rear and this provides additional buffer. Hopefully, if the adjoining use is rezoned and is incompatible with this development , this existing neighborhood would be 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 R-2 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 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 Willhoit 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, Geof Gledhill, told Boards and Council Members that the provision in question is 7.14.3 al 4. It is more complex than just a 100 ' buffer. He noted that the term "buffer" was incorrect . Where you have a PD—H district adjoining another residential district that 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 have to be R-1 ; if they are not R-1 then there has to be 100' of open space between the PDH boundary and the R-1 zone. O 65 15 Mayor Massif asked if the open space requirement were a separate entity and Gledhill responded it could be a setback within the tot. 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 project 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 Hilt 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 Weldon described the buffer requirements of the Town Ordinance, noting under the schedule of uses they do not apply to this type of major subdivision application creating lots for single family dwellings where it adjoings vacant Land zoned R-1 , R-2 or R-3. Buffers are required where it 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. Weldon responded it applies to more intensive uses but not single family property. • _ _ — . 086 4... Is Cochran requested that the Town buffer requirements apply to this project. - 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. Council member Smith inquired if the 100' buffer is part of the lot. WhilLhoit - responded nothing can be built in this open space area. Collins responded it extends from the lot Line. Commissioner Marshall questioned the safety of the damn Located south of the tract. Cochran responded that the Soil Conservation Service was involved in its construction . The Chapel Hill 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 repbrt, but noted the Board did not know of the problems with the ponds and streams and noted 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 introduced 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, nothing the distance of the facility from some Lots and requesting additional spaces. Randy Smith, agent for the applicant, commented the facility was 1 06'7 17 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 Massif 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 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. He noted that consideration of the local road network is incumbent on the governmental units 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 Massif 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 Yuhasz inquired if Chapel HiLL has a roadway network Plan for undeveloped land in its jurisdiction in the 1 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 Massif responded there is no plan in place and that staff i p f should attempt to address the road network to serve 18 undeveloped land as the developers have no authority over the Land in question. Planning Board Chair Gordon inquired of the waiver requested on page 44 regarding the 60' right—of—way existing to the Potted Plant and questioned its status . 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 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 and Board. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p .m . • it • MEETING OF CHAPEL HILL AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD CHAIRS August 6.1985 Brief Notes Taken by Alice Gordon s for Alice Ingram and Alice Gordon met on August eting ss hthe p on ces sfonse to formulating the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. m the July 23 directive given to the Chairs by the Orange County Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council. I. Outline of Joint Planning Process to Formulate Land Use Plan The Chairs discussed the outline prepared by Alice Gordon. The following are the main additions and/or comments made: A.Plan Development 'Ingram suggested that we should also use a recent map of Orange County distributed by the Economic Development Commission. to add a A-1 Physiagraphic characteristics. Both agreed that it was necessary soil analysis which indicated the suitability Of the soil for supporting septic tanks. B-1 and B-2 Water and sewer,Trans orat1e;IeBo�agreed t o a transportation of a water and sewer policy is a top priority, o element. Gordon indicated that Orange County must still develop p a transportation n t around plan. Both agreed that it was important to consider the type leas a the 1-40 interchanges,and both questioned the use of the Research ch Triangle center a most focus in determining road accessibility (conceptually, important focus). • C-1 and C-2 Goals and objectives,Growth issues. Ingram suggested that each jurisdiction should develop its own goals ent toaceraing county character,that is, that Orange County should develop the concept of what Orange County should be like in twenty years. B.Plan Formulation Both agreed that it would be desirable to relate the Uoi Joint La. They also Land to th d Chapel Hill Township section of the Orange County Lan d that we should make a formal request to Duke University asking s for state em a which concerning the official status of Duke Forest lands and any p they would be willing to share with us. C.Conclusion. With the addition of the above information,the two Chairs agreed that the Outline of the Joint Planning Process should use Plan used in guiding the development and formulation of the Joint Planning Lan II.Implementation and Scheduling The Chairs each agreed to appoint a committee from their Board which would jointly form a Joint Planning could serve in this capacity and Gordon.indicated that Committee of three people who • she would have a committee of three or four people. Joint Planning Meetings on August 6 and August 8,1985 Page 2 They agreed that the five major elements of the outline leading to the drafting of the Land Use Plan (up to B of the Plan Formulation phase)should be completed, and then presented for discussion. The drafting of the Land Use Plan would come as a second process with apublic hearing date of December 10. After reviewing the current staff schedule which called for completion of , major work elements by the end of August and joint vork sessions in early September,the Chairs agreed Lo recommend the following schedule and discuss it 4 with their staff and Board: August 29-Completion by the staff of the five major elements which are to be •I a "k° L.- t Land Use Plan,namely,natural environment,infrastructure and °t R ciolo R =s characteristics, U � �,� goat characteristic Use Plan ` :. ' s x „,„--7.i,=— . k �` _ ; er this written material to the r x� ,,�'f� R j. 4.. . meeting discuss the five major • i ► ' 1: i - °”-•:,= -- ,�" `t Land Use Plan.and to�, �' plan for as i )a �aM+ f I � I ,4 s , .:- .- - z-l•' m t - • ;;_ o planning boards and the two• �,� a fog, ar ,,; is and a timetable for drafting the ,` _ c+ �• .,..',...• .. 5 ,� - " .,�.`-•-�' ;:x *MG COMMITTEE AND STAFF w t �. , :.Bell,Marvin Collins '� 4:: .11411..---11-1 �' xf b, r *� 'y ' ,�` : 'I e for Developing a Land Use Plan .% ; „h.. tr - :w Gordon t .'s 1, =r w j', 1., ►complete the five major elements in - b . _ ;' .';i 'the County portion of the i 9F Y •-• ::{at(although the staff will begin to ' �._-#1 , ''' `” :,, , ``,. �. .k- ,.' yican prepare the background- xa` ' -, ,- L:-'' A,. * .v �' at.'-,:ii not yet make recommendations on '` Rf r -.7.s..4-fi ..N: -7':4,-1,---.. z: ' ch the framing of the goals and �� � � � �iT��°=. `;��: -}• ' Joint Planning Area in the same wa• r,Y,, ¢. *_ „ ; � : .. n the Orange County Land Use Plan. Thus - .;; .- r h . ' ; * _ g'a,� :,'• miming concepts and guidelines. i'q . _ ,- ortance to ,i :�` � ,. .�e ate P receive the water �� slim p o - i°r r• • Nation from OWASA by August 29 if the " ' Therefore Bell will contact Pat Davis and Gordon will ask Don W'ft,of ',� '.' `.} ..,tact Everett Billingsley to indicate the importance of our receiving this information. Walters stated that we should indicate,at least in the policy issues section,how we are going to handle the location of collector and local roads. He also indicated that the element concerning existing land use was sufficient to address the issue of agriculture in the Joint Planning Area. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OR purr PLANNING Prepared by Alice Gordon and Alice Ingram September 10.1985 I. Summary of the Joint Planning Task Directive to Plan n in o Board chairs. In a July 23 work session on Joint Planning involving the two governing bodies(Chapel Hill Town Council and Or ange County Board.of Commissioners)and the two planning boards, the Chairs of the Orange County Planning Board and the Chapel Hill Planning Board were direc the two governing bodies to coordinate joint planning activities. As a first step, he they to facilitate the preparation of the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area y Descri Lion of the Dint Plannin A reement. The Joint Planning Area is the area outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the Towns but within the Joint Planning Area boundary as shown on the Orange County map entitled"Land U se Plan " According to the Joint Planning Agreement(1)the Orange County land use plan.zoning ordinance,and subdivision ordinance shall remain in effect in the entire joint planning area until amended as described in the agreement(2)Orange County and Chapel Hill shall develop a land use plan and zoning map to be applicable in the ten and twenty year transition zones shown on the county Land Use laan p (3 I Upon completion of the land use plan and zoning map,Orange County shall adopt, on the Chapel Hill Side of the joint planing area located witin the ten and twenty year zones,that portion of the land use plan.zoning map Y ar standards of the Chapel development ordinance which shall be and plicable to the Chapel Hill Side(4)There will be a courtesy review process in the rural buffer zones of the joint planning area and in the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of the Tow Other portions of the agreement address such things as the administration of the n. agreement,including the handling of development proposals in the ten and twenty year transition zones,and the procedure for amending the agreement. II. Description of the Joint Planning Procedure Outline of the 'oint 'loon in_ •rocess for the Land Use Plan. The first task is to develop a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area(JPA)using the December 10 deadline given by the governing bodies as a target date for the public hearing on the plan. The two chairs met on August 6,as described in the attached summary,and agreed on an outline for the joint planning process. (See orange booklet, giving JPA Background Data,for the complete outline). The out inee included the following major elements: 1.Plan Development(Background Data) A.Natural Environment("God given") B.Infrastructure and Public Services("people given") C. Goals and Objectives('what people want") D. Sociological Characteristics(existing and projected characteristics) II.Plan Formulation A. Land Use Plan Categories and Location Standards B. Draft Land Use Plan Deseriolion of work comleted The work completed to date is contained in (1)the orange booklet, "Joint Planning Area Background Data,"August 30 1984 (2)the set of pages entitled"Joint Planning Area Background Area-Additions.' September 5,1985 and(3)a series of Joint Planning Wall Maps which are listed in the Appendix given in the "Additions." Most of the background data needed for the plan development phase are included,with sections IA,IB,and ID being the most complete. Section IC(goals and objectives)still needs work • Joint Planning Page 2 Ioint Planning Board Committee. To aid in the joint planning process,the Chairs each designated members from their respective Boards to serve on the Joint Planning Board Committee. In addition to the Chairs,the members of this committee are Dave Brower,Don Francisco,Betty Margison,Tom McCurdy.Sharlene Pilkey,Carl Walters. Summary of iointplannina meetings and events since July 23. The schedule of meetings and events related to joint planning is as follows. August 6- Meeting of the Planning Board Chairs August S- Meeting of the County Planning Board Steering Committee and Staff August 13 Chapel Hill Planning Board Meeting (County Board invited) August 30-Background Data delivered by Orange County Planning Staff • September S-Meeting of Planning Board Chairs and Staff September 8- Meeting of Joint Planning Board Committee III.Comments and Recommendations A. General approach to the land use plan The Joint Planning Board Committee made the following comments and recommendations- 1. Why are we starting from the beginning to develop a Land Use Plan? The Orange County Land Use Plan is already in place.and could be used as a starting point. 2. Why is the "Baltimore approach" being used? We should get a consensus from the governing boards that they approve the use of this approach before more work is done. B. Goals and obiectives/operating principles., The goals and objectives are a critical element in the development of the Land Use Plan and are are needed before the plan can be drafted. The Joint Planning Board Committee made the following comments and recommendations. li 1. Before we can progress,the Chapel Hill Town Council should adopt a set of Goals and Objectives for Chapel Hill. That would clarify the Town's policies. (Would it be possible to adopt a set of policies by September 24?) 2. Next we should adopt a set of guidelines which would cover only the important policy statements which are necessary for guiding the formulation of the Land Use Plan. There should not be a conflict between the goals and objectives for • Orange County and for.Chapel Hilt,but there would be no attempt to merge the sets of goals and objectives. Such a procedure would be time consuming and is unnecessary. Instead,we should use a smaller list of"operating principles"to guide plan development. A possible first draft of these principles is stated in the paper entitled "Joint Planning Operating Principles" which can be found in the"Additions." 3. Then the Joint Planning Board Committee should develop and recommend a set of operating principles which would be subject to review and approval by the planning boards and governing bodies. C. Administrative procedures and communication. Before the Chairs can continue their work on joint planning,there needs to be a set of procedures for communication among the boards and with the staff that will be streamlined and efficient,and also a clear understanding about the priorities for completing work. The Chairs recommend that the Chapel Hill and Orange County staffs develop such procedures,subject to approval by the Chairs and Boards. Joint Planning Page 3 IV. Information Needed from the Governing Bodies and Planning Boards The Chairs are requesting that the members of the governing bodies and the planning boards read the Joint Planning Area Background Data,including the Additions"and make written comments on the following points: A. Is there any information missing from the Background Data which you think is essential to the plan development? B. Are there points in the Background Data with which you disagree.or which you wish to reinforce? C. Do you agree with the general approach used in the plan development? If not,what would you suggest instead? D. Do you agree with the approach being taken to develop operating principles to guide plan development? If not.what would you suggest instead? Please send your written comments by September 24 either to Alice Gordon.Edgewood Drive,Chapel Hill,or Alice Ingram, 1012 Highland Woods,Chapel Hill (zip code:27514). V. Schedule for Completion of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan The rest of the schedule depends upon timely completion of the information requested in Section IV above, compilation of all background data required.an adoption of Goals and Objectives by the Town Council,a workable set of administrative I!, and communication procedures developed by the staff,and the development of a set of goals and objectives/operating principles to guide the formulation of the Land Use Plan. Decisions still need to be made concerning the scheduling and content of public meetings. Of course,the steps listed under Plan Formulation must be completed. The staff could start right away to develop the categories and locational criteria,as listed under IIk The Chairs,Joint Planning Board Committee,and staffs can proceed on the rest of the plan formulation when the above material is complete. The joint planning process is both delicate and difficult.and we need your constructive comments and your help. VI. Development Standards in the Transition Areas Both Chairs agreed that development standards should be formulated for the transition a which as w ch are unique for q those areas,and not necessarily the same as those for the rest of Orange County or those for Chapel Hill. A good example can be found in the specification of road standards. There could be a standard for roads in small subdivisions which is somewhere between a 27-foot paved road with curb and g utter and 18-foot dirt road. Public c w water and sewer,and sued roads with curb rb and gutter are characteristic of urban areas,while wells and septic tanks,and roads with no curb and gutter are characteristic of rural areas. What is the best way of making the transition,so that the area will be in good shape for annexation without imposing unreasonable burdens on those who wish to develop before public services are available? The Joint Planning Board Committee could start to work on these standards,subject to review and approval by the planning boards and governing bodies.but the Land Use Plan should be adopted before the standards are adopted.as specified in the Joint Planning Agreement. k123-7-' TABLE As HOUSING UNIT COUNTS AND POPIA.RTION ESTIMATES FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWN. TOWN .TURISTICTION for 1970, 1980-'85 • CATEGORY YEAR 1970 1960 1981 1982 1983 1964 1985 July.,85 •WITHIN TOWN LIMITS I. Housing Units .71:1u rd:zd a1 !1 s8 1., Single Family • 3829 3436 56 67 50 94 107 23 2. Multi-family 2859 349 36 112 37 143 336 346 3. Total Units Added 6688 3785 94 179 87 237 443 369 B. Demolitions - - 13 3 3 6 1 e C. Units Annexed - • 7 39 O 0 38 0 D. Brand Total 6688 18482 10570 10785 10869 11098 11578 11947 E. )(Change - 56.73 .84 2.03 .78 2.11 4.33 3.19 : F. Year-Round H.U.' 6686 10473 10559 10774 10858 11087 11566 11935 G. Yr.Rd H.U.,Occupied 6516 . 10019 10095 10300 10380 10599 11057 11410 1. Owner Occupied 2714 4160 4189 4275 4308 4399 4589 4735 2. Renter Occupied 3802 5859 5905 6026 6073 6200 6469 6675 a2 a2 *9 *10 *10 H.Overall Vacancy Rate 2.57 2.95 .09 1.90 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.10 I. I Vacant Units 172 309 10 205 152 122 127 131 II.Pepulation Estimates *1 *1 A. Persons/ Occup.Unit 2.80 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 B. Persons in Occupied Housing Units 17960 23346 23499 23522 23832 24411 25467 26279 1. Owner Occupied 8892 11556 11632 11643 11797 12084 12606 13008 2. Renter Occupied 9068 11790 11867 11879 12035 12326 12861 13271 C. Persons in Group •11 Quarters 7572 9075 9166 9257 9347 9438 9529 9559 D. Total Persons 25532 32421 32665 32778 33179 33849 34996 35838 e3 E. Town Acreage 5452 6492 8537 9116 9197 9263 9263 9263 E. Pop.Density (/Ac.) 4.68 3.82 3.83 3.60 3.61 3.65 3.78 3.87 BALANCE OF JURISTICTION 1. Housing Units A. Units Added 04 08 1. Single Family - 450 15 4 4 9 26 5 2. Multi-family - 24 2 0 0 2 159 24 *5 3. Total Units Added 665 474 17 • 4 11 185 29 8. Units Annexed by Town - - 7 39 0 0 38 0 C. Demolitions - - 0 0 0 0 0 8 D. Grand Total 665 474 484 449 453 464 611 640 E. Year-Round H.U. 664 474 484 449 453 464 610 639 *6 F. Yr.Rd H.U.,Occupied 635 453 462 429 433 443 , 584 611 *7 G.Overall Vacancy Rate 2.57 2.95 .09 1.90 1.40 1.10 1.10 1.10 H. !Vacant Units 16 14 0 a 6 5 6 7 II.Population Estimates -- A. Persons/Occup.Unit- --- 2.8 2.33 2.33 4.33 2.33 B. Persons in Occupied Housing Units 1733 1022 1127 1027 1041 1070 1409 1476 C. Persons in Group Quarter% 0 0 0 0 0 e e e 8. Total Persons 1.733 1022 1127 1027 1041 1070 1409 1476 ws esr�.m amm.rm mn r wm..m:.r.mwa.racr:s.amvro.m w..+o=c _.- IURISTICTION TOTAL 27265 33443 33 791 33806 34220 34919 36405 37313 NOTES, el From either the 1970, 1980 Census. Persons/Qccu.Unit held constant from 1980 *2 Figured from unoccuppied units/total housing units (as listed in Census) *3 From the Town Annexation Map *4 From a summary of area housing units (CH Planning Dept.,1/1/80) *5 From (4) above, Dec. 1971 count *6 From 1980 Town ratio of occupied:total housing units • *7 From Town overall vacancy rate, I(H) above *8 From Town Inspections Department Certificates of Occupancy a9 From overall Postal (residential) Vacancy Survey '.. *10 Rate continued from 1984 (no additional rate info available) *11 Persons in Group Housing Quarters estimates from 1980 Census (for 1980), and increase SOURCE, Chapel Hill Planning Department, 8/22/85 egg TABLE t1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE IN JOINT PLANNING AREA by TM. JURISTICTION AND JOINT PLANNING AREA ACREAGE TOTALS ai Oaaldsrdlal1V-60Y Nobi9e Nanuf. TCUef^ 7rese Y IIe-I.- Inert. & RtCS4 Agt•l. lining Forestry Hater Opan AREA1 LAND USE Low Kadin High HAne 8ata1/ Hhales4le So OLS3 aody TOTALS --------rte- -..._----�-» --.y-_.«.-N.»----f«--».«..».».4.»..-.-t--�.-_f.�.»_}_.»....•..»»r' -•-�+.-».1+.-..�• Carreorn Town SH.T 103.1 103.3 9 I I.E 13.4 53.3 3.4 32.9 71.8 56.3 69.,7 0 0 .7 1145.7 2266.l0 ».-«..._..__.««.«-f-.».._.•_..«___f«...-.1-«-__»...--f...»...V__».-.M«»-.�t__.._.....f.._-..rte-�---f--------t..-....+4 _ r- 4...n.Ju!1•.,1.or. Wi4.me TP4.( 35.7 0 0 2.2 to 13.5 3.9 460.3 4B.8 774 a • 167.3 Of 14.5 4365.60 „+ Jm•/.t ICS..+l. Total IE53.8 185.7 137 9 {1.3 25.6 73.3 34.9 36.8 532.1 1613 839.7 5 0 16B 3E5B.! 8578.TO Chapsi Hill Tam 3338.3 433.4 186.71 11.7 14.7 233.1 182.9 3.9 158.7 1310.9 MILE 6.7 0 0 60 3455.5 18148.30 CN Jarfsttetton eatanca 941.9 .07 83.8 18.5 0 1.4 10.1 8.3 5.8 573.7 42.1 267.3 36.3 0 S 3 8538.5 4480.17 Jnrlst/et lon Total 4232.8 423.47 179.5 82.E 34.7 234.5 993,3 32.6 164.E 1642.6 !062.3 1-74.2 3M7 0 62.3 5994 14568.47 ...ow.s......w..sa..v.w..u.a.........wwaw..www......sw..aw...wa....ow.o.wwa..wmww.wm.......a.wwwow.w..w..w..o.a.w..ww.w.w.s....sa.uw.wwo Joint planning Ara. , Balance 467.3 17.83• 6.7 878.7 a 95.3 41.9 3.6 199.2 1593.8 862.3 738& 163.3 3371.1 114.5 90587.9 31881.43 �..».........---•-~- --4........w.----s------ f..-•----•--------a------M--------1--_-•_-1---__--f----+------• JPA Total 111788.3 547 387.8 30 78 1.9 86.8 8 .4 30867 30.7 46.8 3788.5 1489.7 8495.9 219.6 3331.1 344.8 P7840.1 58026.60 IfCREA08 pBRCtNTAOI CAR86GR5 JURi6T3CTIQ1 »-- -»»^ _ -f OV�I6At•L Ca rW-Tam 6.83 97.6 73.94 380.6 100.N 93.43 70.7t 88.88 69.40 13.45 43.57 1.49 .90 .90 .42 33.87 33.56 Carrboro Jurtstion r- Salanca 57.75 0.38 86.06 .06 .06 0.59 MEN 77.18 10.80 86.51 46.43 911.t0 .00 .00 99.58 64.93 66.44 CHAPEL HILL JURI9TIOTIaN Chapel Ht II Town 77.85 19.98 87.88 52.76 100.06 99.40 � 94.92 31.97 96.47 6T.63 96.06 1.44 .89 .N 96.39 57.85 89.66 CH Juristiettan Salanee 82.15 ,.08 12.98 47.38 .00 .69 5.48 66.03 3.53 78.37 3.96 97.56 tN.N .N 3.49 42.35 36.34 JOINT PLAHNtNB ARIA »....�«..-----1 «.»� •..«M. .-lam.»»rte»»...- ...-"4'»----•-----f--------f •...f Carrboro 5.10 98.90 31.34 2.96 47.89 0.50 3T.27 13.07 8.21 1.91 3.94 .77 .N .N .N 4.30 3.49 J,4P0! HtYI 11.08 •7.40 :8.36 3.dB :I6.ii 94704 `9.25 ir.7d 59.67 29.48 Tt.T6 .08-r--,N .N 17.6 38.43 17.6 371 6 Caerburu 36.78 96.31 79.70 6.06 tIId.dO 93.115 76.St 2J.7A 47.84 31.38 75.70 .65 .N .N 17.6 36118 01.69 -».....00 M-----------"___»»-»--- Cart•.0.1.-1Ct t9n Bai4nee 6.97 .42 3{.05 .80 .80 6.48 77.46 .97 tP.21 7.41 4.13 .N .N N.8t 7.49 7.511 C11 Jurist totfon 9alance 9.67 at 7.16 3.46 ,d0 .11 1.63 27.04 1.45 14.11 2.94 3.15 16.53 NO •67 1.38 T." Carr.e 391 Jarlst. 6.04 91.43 18.28- 3.46----.80 LJt ---9.91 64.50 2.42» 26.78 6.36 11526 i8.53 .09 49.19 1678 95.14 Carrboro Jur/et. 1P.08 39.32 42.39 2.98 47.89 9.30 23.74 ML 53 9.19 14.12 7.33 9.49 .00 .N 4672 11.70 19.78 CH Jurletiction 40.95 77.42 55.54 7.35r 56.11 »85.15»»62.Bay-39.74- 43.07--47.58»-_74.30 »3.83 16.53 .06 18.87 81.53 8a.11 "-.A 649 JurLet. 53.03-76.74 W.93r 10.33- 100.06 94.44x_86.43 88.27 50.26- 57.71 81.63 13.11 » 16.53x- .00 66.79- 33.83 36.43 Sal+nee of JPA 46.97 3.26 1.97 89.67 .00 5.56 13.57 91.73 49.74 40.29 18635 86.89 63.47 180.00 33.8t 66.77 63.57 NOTE81 ' 41 Acreage figures based on total land use aonaaes for-.%I* s In the eWdy era grid. Total dc""Ues for tome and J-istietlona w141 vary from recorded totals gin"MOLE tr{d sectlona were added• and not partlona. 02 Tr pertatton4 Cormnunicatlone and Utilities R56 TABLE Vt POPULATION ESTIMATES for TOWNSHIP, TOWN BASED on a COMPARISON of PROJECTED, ESTIMATED COUNTY RESIDENTIAL POP. DENSITIES using LOW MIGRATION RATE 1^---- --- -------^-- ORANGE COUNTY CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP ------------ CHAPEL HILL TOWN --_--- -�„-_1 YEAR T.RE9.PDP.*1RE9.POP.*2 RES.STUD.*3RP DENSITY PROJ.D.*4 RPO/PD•5 PROJ.D.*4 EST.RPDa6 TOTAL AC. EST.POP.*a EST.T.POP*9 PROJ.D.►4 EST.RPDa6 TOTAL AC. EST.POP.*8 EST.T.POP+4 1980 77539.00 69397.00 8142.00 .27 .27 7.00 .81 .81 57434.00 46391.23 54126.13 3.29*7 3.29 07 8452.00 27831.59 32472_63 1981 79670.20 71447.20 8223.00 .28 .28 1.01 .82 .83 57434.00 47771.49 55583.34 3.29 3.29 8506.00 27994.30 32661.21 1982 81802.40 73497.40 8305.00 .29 .28 1.02 .84 as 57434.00 49153.93 57041.68 3.30 3.30 8837.00 28132.83 32866.68 1983 83933.66 75547,60 6386.00 .30 ,29 1.03 .86 .88 57434.00 50532.53 58499.23 3.11 3.11 9173.00 28534.63 33334.65 1984 86065.80 77597.80 8468.00 .30 .29 1.04 .87 .90 57434.00 51913.30 59957.9@ 3.17 3.17 9236.00 29296.59 34123.35 1985 88197.00 79648.00 8549.00 .31 .30 1.05 .89 .93 87434.00 53294.23 61418.78 3.34 3.34 9265.00 30964.56 35837,49 198S 90467.60 83857.60 8630.00 .32' .31 1.05 ,41 ,96 57434.910 549b6.15 63164.65 3.29 3.47 9763.00*t0 33872.47 38791.37*11 1987 92779.20 84067.80 8712.00 .33 .31 1.06 .93 .99 57434.00 56640.76 64917.16 3.25 3.44 t0261.00 35319.86 40285.70 1988 95069.80 86276.80 8793.00 .34 .32 1.07 .95 t.0? 57434,00 511317.88 66671.23 3.20 3.41 10759.00 36722.81 41734.82 1989 97361.40 66486.40 8875.00 .35 .32 1.07 .97 1.04 57434.00 59997.39 68428.64 3.15 3.36 33257.00 38079.94 43138.69 1990 99652.00 90696.00 8956.00 .36 .33 3.08 -.99 1.07 57434.00 61679.16 70187.36 3.10 3.35 11755.00 39389.99 44494.93 1991 307535.80 92499.80 9036.00 .36 .34 1.08 1.01 1.20 57434.00 63087.33 71671.73 3.14 3.40 11909.40 40479.08 45629.6@ 1992 103422.60 943 03.60 9119.00 .37 .34 1.06 1.04 1.12 57434.00 64496.39 73159.44 3.18 3.45 12063.80 43582.39 46780.22 1993 105307.40 96107.40 9200.091 .38 .35 1.919 1.06 3.15 57434.00 65905.72 74645.72 3.22 3.49 !221$.2@ 42b99.93 47943.93 1994 107193.20 97931.20 9282.00 .38 .35 1.09 1.08 1.17 57434.00 67315.49 76!33.39 3.26 3.54 12372.60 43831.7@ 49222.44 1995 709078.00 99715.90 9363.0@ .39 .36 1.09 1.10 1.20 :17434.00 68725.68 77620.53 3.30 3.59 12527.00 44977.71 50314.62 1996 111533.60 102068.60 9445.00 .40 .37 1.10 1.12 t.23 57434.00 70514.85 79487.60 3.26 3.57 13074.20 46F.79.17 5aOF.-.BZ 1997 313948.20 104422.20 9526.00 .41 .37 1.10 2.14 1.2b 57434.00 72306.14 81355.84 3:22 3.55 13621.40 48340.50 53770,3,: 1998 116383.80 106775.80 9608.00 .42 .38 1.11 I.it. 3.29 57434.910 74099.44 83227.04 3.18 3.53 1416R.F0 49960.42 5`,431..wA 1999 128818.40 709129.40 9689.00 .43 .38 1.12 1.18 1.11: 57434.01 75894.66 85099.21 3.14 3.50 34715.8@ 31537.73 57061..4F 2000 N1 121253.00 111483.00 9770.00 .44 .39 1.12 1.21 1.35 57434.00 77691.71 86973.21 3.10 3.48 15263.00 53071.33 58640.23 MAX 2`000 1187544.34 1177774.34 9770.00 4.82 4.62 57434.00 265363.33 274844.83 4,6E 15263.00 70573.06 76245.96 NOTES( 1. tT)OTAL (RES)IDENT (POP)ULATION IS THE SUM OF (ESTIMATED) LOCAL RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS COUNTED AS RESIDENTS 2. FULL-TIME RESIDENTS (EST.). EXCLUDING STUDENTS(ADJUSTED FROM APRIL I CENSUS COUNT TO JULY 1 ESTIMATE) 3. STUDENT RESIDENTS (ESTIMATED FROMFULL-TIME FALL ENROLLMENT SUMMARY) INCREASED AT.THE RATE OF 11( / YEAR FFROM BASE YEAR (198@) 4. (RIESIDENTIAL (P)OPULATION DENSITY I8 DERIVED FROM COHORT-SURVIVAL ESTIMATES OF COUNTY POP. CHANGE / COUNTY ACREAGE while (PRDJ)ECTED (0)ENSITY 38 BASSOON TRENDS BETWEEN 1960-1980. S. THE RPD/PD FACTOR INDICATES TD WHAT DEGREE THE ESTIMATED FUTURE COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY DIFFERS FROM DENSITY ESTIMATES BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERN. THIS FACTOR IS THEN USED • TO ADJUST DENSITY PROJECTIONS FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP AND TOWN. S. IEST)IMATEO (R)ESIDENTIAL (P)OPULATION (DIENSITV IS THE DENSITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (SEE 5 ABOVE) 7, PROJ.OENSITY AND EBT.RPD GAME FOR TOWN, 1980-$S, DENSITIES DERIVED FROM CERT. OF OCCUPANCY G. tEST12MATED (POP)ULATION IS THE PRODUCT OF THE ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY/RC w THE TOTAL ACREAGE 9. (EST)IMATED (T)DTAL iPOPIULATION INCLUDES ESTIMATED STUDENT RESIDENTS (95% OF COUNTY TOTAL IN TOWNSHIP. 5739 IN TOWN). 10. TOWN LIMIT ACREAGE, 1280-1985,FROM ANNEXATION MAP. ACREAGE ESTIMATES FOR 1990,1995,AND 2000, PROJECTED BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERN OF TOWN ANNEXATIONS. OTHER ANNUAL ACREAGE TOTALS DERIVED USING INTERPOLATION. 13. TOTALB MAY NOT CHECK DUE TO RDUNDINS. St. ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION IN YEAR ROSS WITH AVERAGE POP. DENSITY IN COUNTY TOWNSHIP AND TOWN EOUALLING THE ESTIMATED HIGHEST PAST RESIDENT DENSITY (3965), 4.6238 PERSONS/AC.. CHAPEL HILL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Revised Sept. 3. 1985 -- TABLE W, POPULATION ESTIMATES for TOWNSHIP, TOWN BASED 0. a COMPARISON of PROJECTED, R56 ESTIMATED COUNTY RESIDENTIAL POP. DENSITIES U%if.g MEDIUM MIGRATION RATE ORANGE COUNTY -------- --1----------------CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP ----------------- CHAPEL WILL TOWN ---------;--------- ------- EST.PCP.-a EjkT.T.POP*9 RES.STUD.*3RP DENSITY PROJ.D.*4 NPD/PD*5 PR0.1.D.04 EST.RPD*fi TOTAL AC. EST.POP.-8 EST.T.PDP-9 PROJ.D.*4 EST.RPD*S TOTAL AC. YEAR T.RES.POP.-IRES.POP.*2 ---------- ---------- -------- --------- -- --- --------- -- *7 -7 1.00 .01 at 57434.00 46391.23 54126.13 3.29 3.29 6452.00 27831.59 3a472.53 19118 77539.03 69397.00 8142.00 Z7 Z7 3.29 850E.ee 27994.10 32661.21 .as 1.01 .82 .83 57434.Be 41873.65 55685.50 3.29 1981 79823.00 71620.CO an3.as .28' as 57434.Bib 49354.96 57244.71 3.36 3.30 8537.00 28132.113 32866.68 isse 82106.00 73801.00 8305.00 .29 .28 1.02 .134 ag 5743k.Be 50836.47 5880,3.17 3.11 3.11, 9173.00 281554.63 33334.65 1983 114388.0e 76202.00 83B6.00 .30 .29 1.03 .as 19 60362.79 3.17 3.17 9236.00 29296.59 341Z3.35 66671.00 713203.00 8468.00 .31 .29 1.05 87 .91 57434.091 52318. 30964.56 3SS37.49 1984 1.06 .89 .94 57434.00 53806.78 61928.33 3.34 3.34 9265.00 ISS5 88963.00 80424.00 8549.00 .32 .30 1.07 .91 .97 -Z7434.00 55602.32 63800.8P 3.29 3.51 9763.00*1O 34ZS4.51 39183.61*11 1986 91435.00 828915.00 8630.00 .33 .31 1.091 57434.00 57401.29 65677.69 3.25 3.49 10261.00 35794.11 40759.95 8529r.00 B712.00 .33 .31 1.07 .93 Be 67656.27 3.20 3.47 10759.00 37280.05 4a_-9Z.06 1987 93908.00 .95 1.03 57434.00 59am, 1988 96379.00 875116.00 8793.00 .34 .32 I. :06 69439.33 3.15 3.44 11257.00 387el.42 43780.17 1989 98652.e0 89977.20 8875.00 .35 .32 1.09 .97 1.06 57434.00 stools 3.10 3.41 11755.00 40116.15 454^21.07 1990 101324.00 92368.00 8956.00 .36 .33 1.10 .99 1.09 574.14.00 62816.23 71324.43 74511.15 3.1a 3.52 12063.Be 1.11 1. 3 3.14 3.47 11909.40 42B77.37 464a7.89 91 9036.00 .37 .34 1.10 1.01 1.12 57434.910 64331.69 72915.89 42453.87 476151.70 199t 10,3360.00 94324.00 .38 . 4 104 1.15 57434.091 65848.10 199? 105399.00 96280.00 9119.0 1.11 1.916 1.17 574.34.09. E.73E.E..10 76106.10 3.22 3.57 teals.Ba 43F,4f-.10 401843.93 B9 .10 1993 1917437.00 98237.00 920e.00 .39 .35 3.0S 1.20 57434.01A &FkAR4.,'7 77702.17 3.2S 3.63 1:137P.Se 44853.19 994 109475.00 200393.00 9282.00 .39 .35 1.11 1.�s 57,;A4.00 70403.'5 79Z:SS.10 3.30 3.68 t_-5�7,00 460",.-.11) 50AII.tlo 1 2.11 1.191 1995 litsiz-00* sea!145).00 9363.00 .40 .36 1..*.!F. t 7 4.�4.0 17 72330.03 a 130e.76 3.06 3.66 13074.28 478S0.77 5.,e641 9445.60 .41 .37 1.12. 49&,r,.F I S5C17(.f I 1,.1.( 334741.00 30"E%-OP" 1.13 1.14 1.:9 57434.09 74260.07 S,3309.77 3.eZ' 3.64 13set.40 1997 116770.00 107a44.910 95L&.00 .42 .37 1.Is 1.33 !;74.-,4.00 76191.91 85319.51 3.18 3.63 14168.621 51371.22 56847.79 109792.00 S&O .43 .38 1.14 3.14 3.61 34715.80 53053.51. 5857F..24 199B 139399.ea a.eel 1.15 I.IS 1.36 57434.00 78126.80 87331.35 3.10 3.58 15263.00 54691.32 60260.BZ' 1999 laeomoe ile339-00 9689.00 .44 ..38 I.tS 1.El 1.39 57434.00 80063.24 89344.74 zoelet♦12 ie4656.00 1148116.00 9770.00 .45 .39 4.6e 57434.00 265563.33 E74844.83 4.62 15263.00 70573.06 76141.96 MAX Bow 1187544.34 1177774.34 9770.00 4.6e NOTESs 2. (T)OTAL (RE9)IDENT (POP)ULATIGN 19 THE SUM•nF (ESTIMATED) LOCAL RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS COUNTED AS RESIDENTS ExCLUDIWS STUDENTS!ADJUSTED FROM APRII I CENSUS COUNT TO JULY I ESTIMATE) 2. FULL-TIKE RESIDENTS ZEST.), RATE OF 1% / YEAR FrRnm BASE YEAR lt980t 3. STUDENT RESIDENTS tESTIMATED FROMFULL-TIME FALL ENROLLMENT SUMMARY)E INCREASED AT THE OP. CHANGE / COUNTY ACREAGE while IPROJ)ECTED (D)ENSITY 15 BASED ON TRENDS BETWEEN 1960-19a& 4. (R)ESIDENTIAL (P)OPULATION DENSITY IS DERIVED FROM COHORT-SURVIVAL ESTIMATES OF COUNTY P THIS FACTOR IS THEN USED 5. THE APD1PD FACTOR INDICATES TO WHAT DEGREE THE ESTIMATED FUTURE COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY DIFFERS FROM DENSITY ESTIMATES BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERN. To ADJUST DENSITY PROJECTIONS FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP AND TOWN. S. (EST)IMATED (R)ESIDENTIAL jPlOPULATIGN (D)ENSITY IS THE DENSITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (SEE 5 ABOVE) 1989-851 DENSITIES DERIVED FROM RECORDED CERT. 13F OCCUPANCY T. PROS.DENSITY AND EBT.RPD BANE FOR TOWN, 1980-851 ACREAGE (POP)ULATION 16 THE PRODUCT OF THE ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY/AC x THE a. (ESTIIMATED DTRL (pOp)ULpTIOI4 INCLUDES geTtIqRTED STUDENT RESIDENTS 195% OF COUNTY TOTAL IN TOWNSHIP, 57% IN TOWN). TOWM ANNEXATIONS. EITHER ANNUAL ACREAGE S. tEST)IMATED IT) N pNNExATIom MAP. ACREAGE ESTIMATES FOR 1990,1995,AND 2009, PROJECTED BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERN OF Is. TOWN LIMIT ACREAGE, ISBO-1985.1`110 TOTALS DERIVED USING INTERPOLATION. 11. TOTALS MAY flDT CHECK DUE TO ROUNDING- it. ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION IN YEAR E888 WITH AVE RAGE pop. DENSITY IN COUNTY TOWNSHIP AND TOWN EGUALLING THE ESTIMATED HIGHEM PAST RESIDENT DENSITY tI965), 4.SB38 PERSONS/AC.. CHAPEL HILL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Revised Sept. 3, 1983 FIVEAR )ABLE Xt PDPULRTItlN E.7it1RTE6 for TOWNSHIP. TOWN BASED on 4,=IM)ARIeON Of PROJECTED, ESTIMATED COUNTY RESIDENTIAL POP. DENSITIES using HIGH MIGRATION RATE ORANGE COUNTY -------i- ------- CHAPEL HILL TOWN[�HIP - CHAPEL HILL TOWN.REB.POP.+3RE8.PIP.+8 RES.STUD.+3RP DENSITY PROJ.D.+4 RPD/PD+5 PROJ.D.+4 EST.RPD+6 TOTAL AC. EST.POP.+B E.T.T.POP+9 PROJ.D.+4 EST.RPD+6 TOTAL AC. EST.POP.a8 EST.T:POP+9 77539.00 69397.00 0140.00 .27 .27 1.00 .81 .81 57434. 46391.23 54186.13 3.29 3.29 8452.00 27831.59 32472.53 81476.20 73253.20 8223.00 .29 .2S 1.04 .B2 .65 57434.8 48979.03 36790.68 3.29 3.29 8506.00 27994.10 386B1.21 63414.40 77109.40 13305.00 .30 .2B 2.07 .84 .90 57434. 51557.48 59457.23 3.30 3.30 8537.00 28132.83 32866.68 69351.60 80965.60 5386.00 .32 .29 L.LO .86 .94 57434.0A 54156.54 62123.24 3.11 3.11 9173.00 28554.63 33334.65 93289.80 84822.80 8468.80 .33 .29 1.13 .87 .99 57434. 56746.20 64790.80 3.17 3.17 9236.00 29296.59 3123.35 97227.00 86678.00 8549.00 .35 .30 1.16 .89 1.03 57434. 1 59336.40 67457.95 3.34 3.34 9265.00 30964.36 3'JS37.49 +10 311 1986 101906.00 93276.00 8636.00 .37 .31 1.20 .91 2.09 57434.091 62633.44 70831.94 3.29 3.95 9763.00 38597.38 4:516.48 1987 106586.00 97874.00 8712.00 .36 .31 1.23 .93 1.15 57434.00 65943.17 74219.57 3.25 4.01 10261.00 41120.63 4••086.47 1988 1!1265.00 102472.00 8793.00 .40 .32 1.27 .95 t.21 57434.00 69264.86 77618.21 3.20 4.05 10759.00 43616.12 41-628.13 1989 115945.00 107070.00 8875.00 .42 .32 1.30 .97 1.26 57434.00 72597.83 8t029.05, 3.15 4.09 11257.00. 46077.35 5.136.10 1990 120624.00 111668.00 6956.00 .44 .33 1.33 .99 1.32 57434.00 75941.48 64449.68 3.10 4.13 11755.00 4849B.29 5:603.21 t99L 125055.20 116019.20 9036.00 .46 .34 1.36 1.01 1.36 57434.00 79128.44 87712.64 3.14 4.26 11909.40 50771.47 5.1921.99 1992 129469.40 t20370.40 9319.00 .47 .34 1.38 1.04 1.43 57434.00 82324.07 90987.12 3.18 4.40 12063.80 53076.33 511274.16 1993 133921.60 124721.60 9200.00 .49 .35 1.41 1.06 t.49 57434.00 85527.93 94267.93 3.2E• 4.54 32218.20 55413.04 60657.04 1994 138354.80 129072.80 9282.00 .51 .35 1.43 1.08 1.55 57434.00 88739.58 97557.48 3.26 4.67 12372.60 57781.74 63072.48 L995 142787.00 133424.00 9363.00 .52 .36 1.46 1.10 1.60 57434.00 91956.64 100853.49 3.30 4.80 12527.00 60182.58 65519.49 1996 148159.40 138714.40 9445.00 .54 .37 1.49 1.12 1.67 57434.00 95831.88 104804.53 3.26 4.85 13074.€0 63438.45 £8Ac'2.10 1997 153530.80 144004.80 9526.00 .57 .37 1.52 1.14 1.74 57434.00 99714.73 108764.43 3.2e 4.89 1?52t.40 66664.60 72094.42 1998 153303.20 144(295.80 9608.00 .59 .38 L.1., 1.t6 L.90 57434.00 103606.73 11.734.33 3.I6 4.93 14168.60 69855.26 75331.B 1989 1E 4274.FJD 154585.60 9689.00 .61 .36 1.58 1.18 1.87 57434.00 107507.44 116711.99 3.14 4.96 14715.80 73W5.00 76527.73 2000 169646.00 159876.00 9770.00 .E3 .39 1.E1 1.21 t.q4 57434.00 11141£.45 t20697.95 3.10 4.99 15263.00 76108.75 81677.65 -12 IAX .?000 1187544.34 1177774.34 9770.00 4.62 4.62 57434.00 265563.33 274844.83 4.62 15263.00 70573.06 76141.96 NOTESt 1. (T)OTAL (RES)TDENT tPOP)ULATION IS THE SUM OF (ESTIMATED) LOCAL RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS COUNTED AS RESIDENTS + 2. FULL-TIME RESIDENTS (EST.). EXCLUDING STUDENTSiADJUSTED FROM APRIL 1 CENSUS COUNT TO JULY 3 ESTIMATE) 3. STLjDENT RESIDENTS (ESTIMATED FROMFIILL-TIME FALL ENROLLMENT SUMMARY) INCREASED AT THE RATE OF t% / YEAR FFROM SASE YEAR (1980) 4. (R)EBIDENTtPL tP)OPULATIGN DENSITY IS DERIVED FROM COHORT-SURVIVAL ESTIMATES OF COUNTY POP. CHANGE / COUNTY ACREAGE „hit+ 4PROJ)E'CTED t0)ENSITV IS BASED ON TRENDS BETWEEN 1960-1980. S. THE RPD/PD FACTOR INDICATES TO WHAT DEGREE THE EST114ATED FUTURE COUNTY POPULATION DENSITY DIFFERS FROM DENSITY ESTIMATES BASED ON HISTORICRL PATTERN. THIS FACTOR IS THEN USED TO ADJUST DENSITY PROJECTIONS FOR CHAPEL HILL TOWN914IP AND TOWN. S. tEST)IMATED (R)ESIDENTIRL (P)OPULATION (D)ENSITV I5 THE DENSITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (SEE 5 ABOVE) 7. PROJ.DENSITV AND EST.RPO SAME FOR TOWN, 1980-851 DENSITIES DERIVED FROM RECORDED CERT. OF OCCUPANCY e. (ESTIIMATED (POP)LATION IS THE PRODUCT OF THE ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY/AC x THE TOTAL ACREAGE 9. (EST)IMATED (T)OTAL (POP)ULATION INCLUDES ESTIMATED STUDENT RESIDENTS (95% OF COUNTY TOTAL IN TOWNSHIP, 57% IN TOWN). 10. TOWN LIMIT ACREAGE, 1980-1985,FROM ANNEXATION MAP. ACREAGE ESTIMATES FOR 1990,1995,ANO 2000, PROJECTED BASED ON HISTORICAL PATTERN OF TOWN ANNEXATIONS. OTHER RNNUAL ACREAGE • TOTALS DERIVED USING INTERPOLATION. 31. TOTALS MAY NOT CHECK DUE TO ROUNDING. 12. ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION IN YEAR 2000 WITH AVERRSE POP. DENSITY IN COUNTY TOWN8141P AND TOWN EQUALLING THE ESTIMATED HIGHEST PAST RESIDENT DENSITY (1963), 4.6238 PERSONS/AC.. CHAPEL HILL PLAW41NO DEPARTMENT R+vl++d Sept. 3, 1985 ,Fj OFFICIAL COPY MINUTES APPROVED 9/30/85 MINUTES MANE COUNrY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNIM AREA REARM SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners net for a Joint Planning Area Hearing with the Town Council of Chapel Hill and the Orange County Planning Board on September 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Cultural Arts Room at Chapel Hill High School. COMMISSIoNERS PRESENT: Chair Don %Unbolt, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. CCMMISSICNER ABSENr: Conmissioner Norman Walker. CHAPEL HILL WAN COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Joe Nassif, and Council members William Thorpe, David Godschalk, David Pasquini, and Beverly Kawalec. CAME CCONTY PLANNING MEMBERS PRFSENT: Chair Alice Gordon and makers Barry Jacobs, Betty Margison, Margaret Miller, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters and Steve Yuhasz. CHAPEL HILL PLANNING CHAIR PRESENT: Alice Ingram. STAFF PRESENr: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Planners Susan Smith and Gene Bell, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. CHAPEL HILL MET PRMENT: Planning Director Roger Walden, lbwn Manager David Taylor and Assistant lbwn Manager Soma Ioewenthal. A. BOARD COMMENTS Nbne. B. AMIENCE CCM= None, KnaG...02E 1. PD-2-85 CHANDLERS GREEN (Rezoning from Residental-1 to Planned Development Residential-2 with Class A Special Use Permit) (A copy of the descriptive narrative with the list of remacendations is in the permanent agenda file). The Presentation was given by County Planning Director Marvin Collins. This agenda item is to continue the Joint Public Hearing on the Planned Development/Rezoning/Special Use Permit application for Chandlers Green. 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 Tbwn of Chapel Hill's northeast corporate boundaries and situated between Sunrise Road (SR-1732), I 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 82 lots. The 19.2 acres located in the Tbwn 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 tots .7 and 11 on Tax Map 25 in Chapel Hill. Tbwnship. The location of the property is within an area designated- Ten Year Transition on the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation allows for the consideration of an application for rezoninga to any of the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-13). The present zoning classification of the property is Reaidetial-1. The development standards must be net and a Special Use Permit most be obtained in order for the development to proceed. The request was submitted to a Joint Public Hearing with the Tbwn of Chapel Hill on July 11, 1985. Concerns were expressed at that time regarding (1) open space and buffer requirements, particularly the 100' perimeter open space/yard setback requirement for PD-H districts, (2) impabt of power lines and facilities, and (3) the collector road system serving the area. These • 2 items, along with other items, prompted the Board of Commissioners to continue the public hearing to allow staff the opportunity to address these concerns. Approval of the request would allow development of the property for single family residences on lots containing aminimmm of 20,000 square feet. Collins listed the issues raised at the June 11, 1985 public hearing as follows: Traffic impacts; Location of road stub-outs; Location of weaver Dairy Road &pension; Open space acreage and location; Pump stations vs. gravity sewer; Condition of a dam upstream from portions of this proposed subdivision; Impact of power lines on residential units; and Compliance with Orange County floor area ratios. Collins noted that the applicant has not submitted a revised site plan that addressed any of these concerns. In reference to the concern regarding stub-outs within the subdivision itself, Collins stated that the TOwnivianager and the County Manager suggested the possibility that a Collector Roads Plan could be developed for this area. Collins explained the Collector Roads Plan as developed jointly by the Orange County Planning Staff, the Chapel Hill Planning Staff and Engineering Department. Collins noted that condition #6, which originally recommended a 60' right,of-way, was now increased to a 701 right-,of-way since Sweeten Creek Road clearly falls under the Orange County designation for collector street. Another concern noted was the 100' setback provision which is applicable only in Orange County's jurisdiction. -Collins cited the colored subdivision naps prepared by staffs and illustrated the range of lot sizes and adjacent zoning. The concern about off-street parking within the recreation area was addressed by recommending ten (10) parking spaces rather than the 2 proposed by the developer. In regard to the open space requirement, the developer could either enlarge the existing recreation area to 3.21 acres or he could make a payment in lieu of open space to the Mown of Chapel Hill in accordance with Chapel Hill's Development Ordinance to eddress the requirements for the portion of the property being subdivided in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. Both planning staffs considered the impacts of the power line easements and could find no suitable alternative except to increase the lot sizes where the power lines cross. The applicant does not wish to revise the site plan so enlargement of the lots is not an option. Both staffs agreed that given the location of the power lines and the manner in which they cross the property, the arrangement that the developer came up with was about the best that could be done given the circumstances. Another concern had to do with the Orange County floor area ratios. The applicant exceeds the total amount of neer area limited by the County's Land Use Intensity System to about 20,000 square feet. Staff has recommeded that the applicant comply with the floor area ratio by either staying at or below the average for all units or by increasing the size of some units while lowering the size of other units so long as the limitation imposed by the ordinance is not exceeded. The next concern addressed by Collins was the condition of a dam located upstream of portions of the proposed subdivision. There was no opportunity for staff to check out the condition of the dam.- It is a dam constructed under auspices of &S, - In regard-to a gravity system vs. pimp stations, staff has no problem with the layout proposed by the developer which is the minimum necessary to serve the project. Monsimasameasosa.m.m. f Collins referred to the 28 conditions of 3 staffs. Be noted that some of these are roan agreed upon by both issued in'Orange County. typical °f any Special Use Permit The coalitions that Collins specifically noted are as follows: #6 - Dedicate a 70-foot right-of-way and construct Sweeten Creek Road to Tbwn standards for a-collector street (41-foot cross section with curb and gutter and a sidewalk). Plans for this street shall be approved by the Town Manager and/or County Manager prior to the issuance of the #7 Provide temporary turn-arounds to Tbwn standards at�all Use sit streets and provide a sign at the end of each street stating "This street is subject to future extension". #8 - Widen the proposed stub-out street that extends westward from the southern part of Sweeten Creek Road to Tbwn standards for collector streets (70-foot right-of-way, 41-foot cross section with curb and gutter and a sidewalk) and provide a stub-out street aligned with it 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 and/or County Manager prior to the approval of the Final Plate T Manager #9 - That raver Dairy road be improved by 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. #10 - That Sunrise Road be improved by 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. #14 - That a 10-foot nonaccess easement be provided from Sunrise Road along the rear of the lots adjoining the 60-foot northwest property line. This easement shall be llaabeeledrsoh of to prohibit driveway or vehicular access Onto the 60-foot right-of-way. #15 - 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.' It is further provided that easement documents,as required by MASA shall be recorded before final plat approval, property owner bear the cost of any easement required OWASA for maintenance of fire hydrants until such time as this responsibility is assumed by a homeowners association or a public entity. #16 - (in part) A total of 3.21 acres of contiguous open space shall be provided or, at the applicant's option, a payment in lieu of open space reservation be made to the Tbwn of Chapel Bill for the difference between open space required and provided. (According to Procedures specified in Section 7.9.5 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.) Collins then cited the findings and noted that where noncompliance was found, conditions of approval were included which seek to address that element of noncompliance with a specific standard. of-wa Chair Willhoit inquired about the stub-out of Bradley Drive to the right- , y in condition #14. Collins responded this right-of-way exists. There was a desire on the part of-the Tbwn of Chapel Bill to initially limit access for this project to this existing 60 foot right-of-way. together felt that, given the arrangement The two staffs n rth of Chandler's Green subdivision and if Sweeten Creek properties Le developed asoa principal access, over a period of time this 60-foot-right of way needed to be eliminated. The reason for the stub-out was' to allow future properties to the north and at that time the existing 60 foot riigght-.of--way could be closed. Collins continued that this was a stipulation of the Tbwn of Chapel Bill's staff. Roger Walden,-Chapel Hill Planning Director, stated that the reason for the closing of the right-of-way was to prevent access onto two roads, this preventing double-frontage lots. Commissioner Marshall asked if the dam should break how much water and how many houses would be involved. She noted that all safety standards should • - - 4 be met. Collins responded that he was not sure how much water would be released but that 4 or 5 lots would be affected. Marshall continued that public safety is a matter the Planning Board should consider. She also pointed out that there is a Bradley Jibed in Chapel Hill and perhaps the name of this road should be changed. Commissioner Carey asked again for explanation of the options for compliance with the floor area ratio. Collins responded that the applicant had proposed a total floor area of 287,000 square feet. Cne option would be to decrease the size of some dwellings and perhaps increase the size of others within this maximum area. Another option would be to establish a floor area ratio of 2,660 sq. ft. for each dwelling. He noted this would be monitored by the County through the issuance of building permits. Comissioner Marshall noted this could create problems with the last few houses built. Collins agreed, but responded that the progress of the subdivision as a whole could be tracked and the developer informed how as he was using up the maximum floor area allotted. The developer could be provided • with projections as to what the usage might be if the development was continued along the same lines. Chair Willhoit inquired what would occur if at some later time a resident wanted to add to his/her home. Collins responded the only way this could be done would be to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance or the • developer could return to the Board of Ccevissioners and %own Council to request for a reconsideration of a condition of approval. David Godschalk inquired about the practical, affect of condition 623 on the plan which requires the 100' perimeter open space. Collins responded-that one part of the buffer is related to the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) and another part to local requirements. Staff recommendation was previously- for a waiver of the buffer requirement, but after looking at the lot sizes and comparing them to adjacent property densities, this reconeendation was changed to require the 100' buffer in accordance with the ordinance which was very specific on this point. Be noted this did affect the nunber of buildable lots and that,at least 2 Iots would be lost. Gordon noted that the 100' buffer requirement was one that had been consistently applied in CrangeCaunty for other planned developments. Beverly Kawalec expressed concern with the per line through the develoPment. She felt it was an obtrusive eyesore and that Chapel Hill staff should include- (1) stipulations which require that the recreation area be moved outside of the tower line easement, (2) a stipulation for a 50' buffer between buildable area and the easement obserifing all, setbacks, and (3) a dedication to the Town of Chapel Hill of pedestrian easement within all poWer line easements. Commissioner Lloyd inquired how many acres of water was behind the dam: Collins responded 1-4/2 acres. Mayor Nassif stated that the power line easement should not be platted in the lots at all, just be a space marked easement. Be noted that this would be part of his motion when the project comes to the TOWn Council for a vote. He noted there were computations which could be done-for the reservoir in case of a dam blowout. He felt the applicant should furnish this computation. Commissioner Carey inquired if the power line easement was included in the floor area ratio and Collins responded yes. He continued asking if the ordinance allowed this and the response was yes.- - David Pasquini inquired if staff would confirm the potential presence of a stream subject to the Resource Conservation District requirements and would inform the %own Council and Walden responded -yes. He cited the potential effects on lots 12, 13, 40, 41, 42, and 43. Mayor Massif expressed concern with the contours of the lots located across'Weaver Dairy Road from the proposed Bradley Road extension in regards to a proposed collector road. Collins responded that topographical maps were used to plot out the alignment of'the collector street. Nassif asked if there was to be an overpass on Sunrise Road and Collins responded yes. Enimauffmnomonalma 5 Mar 'son inquired about the timing for the road construction. The developer responded approximately 3 years. Allen Aldridge, applicant, was sworn in for his statement. Barry Jacobs inquired about traffic projections in regard to 1-40. Collins referred this question to the applicant and noted that Chapel Hill staff had done a Weaver Dairy Road impact study. Walden responded that Chapel Hill staff had prepared a corridor study of Weaver Dairy Road from NC 86 to US 15-501. The three intersections studied were NC: 86/Weaver Dairy Read, Erwin Road/15-501, and Erwin Road/Weaver Dairy Road. The conclusions were as follows: (1) Considering the existing conditions and develop eats approved, but not yet constructed, there is a problem of overcapacity at the 15 501/Erwin Road intersection. This will be partially mitigated by the improvements proposed for Sage Road Extension (2) The Erwin.Rd/Weaver Dairy Road intersection is not yet at capacity (3) The Weaver Dairy/NC 86 intersection is well below capacity Walden noted that this study did not address the impacts of I-40. Jacobs asked for NZDOT projections of I-40 impacts on the area. Willhoit reviewed the procedures to adjourn the public hearing. Allen Aldridge, applicant, requested that the hearing had been continued o receive staff re speak. a stated noted Mr. Aldridge could speak to those concerns. reports. ' i stated that Mr. Aldridge began by apologizing to the Boards for bringing in the manner in which it was presented. this project difficulty in trying to deal with 4 bodies ( 2 ' Be Fie noted there afs great governmental agencies) as well as CJWASA. - Administrative staffs and 2 Be stated that the project. was begun 12 months ago and extensive preliminary engineering studies have been done:- The amount of $16,500 has been spent, as well as considerable time, effort and energy. He noted that his firm had tried to comply with all the recommendations. He continued that he had received a six page report on September 9, 1985 with many of the previous recommendations changed. Be noted it was the first.written report his firm had received since the June 11, 1985 public hearing. His intent was to develop a nice residential subdivision'with curb and gutter and sidewalks. He felt it was a very unfortunate circumstance that he could not 100' 1 buffer now being required by the County and develop the comply with the ne0 Be felt the considerable road requirements development ns planned. equirements were unfair and unfortunate. He also noted the recreation area was for the neighborhood and it did not seem to him to be necessary to have 10 Parking spaces, particularly since there were to be sidewalks on both sides of the street going to the recreation area. He felt if these items could not be overcome, the hearings might as well be stopped as his firm could not develop the project under these conditions. Mayor Massif asked if Mr. Aldridge was withdrawing the petition. Aldridge responded no. He continued that he would like for the Board and Council to make the decision as to whether the conflicting items could not possibly be overcome and, if so, then he felt the petition should be withdrawn. Massif continued that as long as the petition was before the Boards it would require action and that the developer would be the one to withdraw the petition. Aldridge stated he was not willing to withdraw the this point, but could not meet the requirements now being application at Chair Willhoit adjourned the public hearing and referred they to the Chapel Hill Tbwn Manager and the County Planning aBparcatior recommendation. He noted the 'earliest the Comidssiiooners could receive for be September 30, 1985. He asked if the recommendation could be received from the Board and Council by that Taylor stated that the Town Council's next meeting date awas Manager County Attorney •Gledhill stated that several requests for additional information had been made and could only be considered if brought before the Boards at public hearing. 6 Walden reviewed the list of information requested including dam safety, application of the Resource Conservation District, NCDOT comment on 1-40 impacts, stub-out gradients, and stipulations regarding setbacks from power line easements, elimination of power line easements within recreation areas, the elimination of lot areas from power line easements and the dedication of pedestrian easements within the power line easements. He noted a typographical error in one of the conditions and added a stipulation that elimination of a condition does not invalidate any other condition of approval. Chair Willhoit noted that he felt a new public hearing could be avoided regarding the consideration of these it by the Boards. Gledhill noted that if factual information is presented to the Board as part of the recommendation it is acceptable. Nassif commented that since this property abuts the Tbwn limits, the developer could ask for annexation. Willhoit stated that the public hearing is adjourned by consensus to November 4, 1985 to receive recomendations from the Chapel Hill Tbwn Council and the Orange County Planning Board. WORK SESSION ON JOINT PLANNING 1. Plan Development a. Natural environment, infrastructure and public services, sociological characteristics. b. Goals and objectives/operating principles 2. Plan Formulation Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners will be held on September 17, 1985 at 7:30 in the Courtroom of the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk MIMIlunammemeranumm,------ •••■■• • )9-616 //T .. . . „cs- g, .04V '7 • • fzv2 7Z4 ?? c2c ,f2/e • aeve • „ego C "I/ er, - `711 • Ce742A,_. .4010.44 % d-r. --A--"erco—core' 4u-edge& • dray_ 0 e---` e—C 00,"1 (Zuor.41.. ew# /4ti .4":0°1■449A dof tirLd (fir orLe.e..4k. V • 420, ) geD .. .. ".. -..... ■••■•01. ..*.1.1.1100,14...."......1* ...w..' ..' 1, J .. e7".7°!..:". •42.0/4".404/ . .• . . .°•:eg. e''.°'-. . 1".""e.... 74144. .00/a4e1..4g2a.". ' ... . . • .- .,., . -.. .. , , ... ■.. .... . . ..- -- —,412.----A ----------- -6-0-e) x-r6) .c. ---7 ..)- j .. __..__ ,---, ...-. _. _e!.• ___ _4=!-.;:.--1,-..".."7 ...-_-_--7--!_":11.1.___ e_44.....r._<9 ....---- .. .. :rnoreioe-ti - . t..-1 .._ . . . .., - ...... .--- ____ _,.._.....-_,_____0<-.-er__ ___,10 .",_... ....- ........_ ...,,: m....../ ,--,........ -___--....-.‹..----.-_-,---. -_-----v-:. -- . )-----(417____,----- --. ----.---..-er-- .--11-__-____ ---- ---------- _ __ . -X.--"f .., ... . . ‘a../.'" ssfev. ___ _771 2-------- . ,•r—) .-r•s71.. (4.e))/__4Huil, -- _"e___ __ ___ _______i _ f.'s j___ _ __ ,,,yetref-■ 4Z.C...e.e.c:$42, .0-----e.42......<0 — ---- ---— - I. . ______:__216-- -,/&- - --Wdetel#". __ ■<<",_____). . , ___ „2,_(_.r.!"..'„7„..6.?:-.. . . ..e,?.e_ . 1-- -4k4e ) • • r . • �- �� . _ its) . . . „7,0- in -.9 421.71 .__754,,, ,.-�. j,/ . . C.r. -' --�" Gam' 0 41/./ .7e7 eeddvtme- 6'40 . tom...-!��! �„�--�'�'• .....- _�. III Si c7 �g'L `7' , ----•-�C�+ .. --,- .- f - - . , . __Je f_, •r KO .,.,-*'-') **---• A _, ,,,..-:-_____, .--62.__., , __& ..__ _ _. _ _______ _ . ... ,,--_ ___(7'._.. ..‹,,e,■!.< 4') . _______________ _ . . _ _ _. __ . . . _ _..__ _ . . ___g/f._C-_____e_aa. _ .e• .-"_ ___---e„,__ __ --. .. ._.,-------. .z*_,04 .2"-- ---r" _ _ _ ___04__ -1 %—,...c .. .-..„ .. • ep .2...." ...,....eo. .4. e? „...--, 437 . _ .E_T__ .2r7777.. . _ . _ ___L,....e...---:e J ,- ,-5,67.44 r--_ 7.... .7._..., ..-i ,04.4-?&44_..f2J57 41:34 _..... 7 ' • .f.. AO . .4,,ezdapt. . 7iF .'-- ____ . - 57) )0•/' , 944.1"ettetb iree410,014 eAtktoeo .f 4ft• C . rep-A,b gCc • 49'1"-'2 "" • (5) rifc - • • c /3,/ cr) c Cf" --- - - --- -- - - -- --- . __...mss sz).r._.._ ._ - -- __ _ -- --i7. _ . -- __.e:--°- ," ...t- -- . s ..---2-< .11....--f-f_. , .. ...-1 .�...-_--3.-. --- A. /c_irti „....? a....),0._. -I-.__.(,,,_ .__ _6„,„..,___....- .44•PID --- ___ .... ._. ~dam___ _ _.. .. __ ... . __ ____ __ ._____ ___ _ __ . _. . . _ _ _ ___ ._ . _. __ ._ _ .._. _____ ._ .. .._ _ . ____ _ ___ _ . _ _ _._ ._ ____ _ _ __ . . /52i, E9.,.../...._....4 _ __ _ ____ . _ .. .____ ___ ___ _ _ _ __ _ __„ . ____ __ _ . _ _ _ ___ ___ ___ _ __. ____ i0 / ,--tc7 ,g . y - -- - .- J ..9 'ka u - ' , ��.. iimr -- `7 4... ... , ......„--...z5"--1 41.- dr ,---2, _ __241.44.-., — . . ,.... , .. . ... . . . ....-4. 4reof.14.4....„6" ./.. , ,..--? ,,,,.., 44.„ ,r .rr...-9 .....t_... . . ..... . .... de......„ , f) . . . _ •_ . . _r° 9 .--z.0.--.0 ; .. • • :.. 0.. Z . .......--4--e--". .. ,...44.44.44-0, ,,,...... . Ccz--• - . . . . ..Z--1. 7‘,.5-eV . . . 0 . . L----4—' . ----..--z,43--. „....!----;sc---;,..- .--7--------) . .. . . 0 ..." " - - . . . . / (r)---. „.----, c,....-,,,,.--, . _ 1 ,/ rte. .. c__-294,09,. ,(--- „■.".(i) ,,'"'1--"°#* /-'-'7 c::::.fr, .."'". t.---c--g ...._-!-‘04„.., ----"**** / ,weet-e...e...,. c___„„0,,,....1". . .0r------) , } -3--"A"--", . ■ . _ 7 e c..fi-9 - � :.�' -.,�•!`�.G _.-Yca Cam_.... . . . . . . - - - 8 4,-<;.:--r _ .9 ----we- _ "--ce c _ _ _ r d XiL C . +rf L 2 �� , CD 7.4 � Gam. •orie-gal -2-7 to . . ` � Pic. L- • __ . _ ______. .'_./0.1__ — -- _.— ._— '"' #4" 4. . ealW0S.,S740040/40 __*,..S.°'*!....■ - .- ,..‹■...■. .6'1.!°144f . .'''''.." ..,z.. te