Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-25-1985 Pg/NAL, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD AGENDA QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 25, 1985, 7:30 P.M. ORANGE wp ' COURTHOUSE SUPERIOR COURTROOM H I '4:woos I N.C. A. RORLEJENBLUDEMi 1. LUP-4-85 Vic Knight (Rural Residential to Commer- ' cial Transition Activity Node) 2. m-5-85 Scotswood (Residential-1 to Planned Development Housing-R-2 and R-5 and Planned Development-General Commrcial-IV) 3. PD-6-85 Bradshaw Mobile Acres (Agricultural-Resi- dential to Planned Development-Housing - Agri- cultural-Residential) 4. ,Z-12-85 Wildwood Section IV (Residential-1 to Residential-4) 5. Z-13-85 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. (Agricultural- Residential to Local Cbmmercial-1) 6. Z-14-85 James Hill (Residential-1 to Community Commercial III) 7, Land Use Plan and Ordinance Text Amendments (a) Land Use Plan - Orange County Highway Classifi- cation System (b) Zoning Ordinance Cl.) Article 4 (Permitted Use Table) (2) Article 22 (Definition) (3) Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) (4) Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) (5) Article 8 (Special Uses) (c) Subdivision Regulations (1) Section III-D (Preliminary Plan) B. ADJOURNMENT ,t. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 00000r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date NOVEMBER 25. 1985 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN REQUESTED BY GARY CARLEE RICHAR iSON DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact : GENE BELL SUMMARY SHEET COPY OF NOTICE AN LOCATION MAP APPLICATION MATERIALS ANALYSIS (MEMO TO MARVIN COLLINS) Telephone Numbers d Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive information on a proposed secondary amendment to th- Land Use Plan for a 3.12 acre tract (inclusive of street righ of—vay) owned by Gary Carleen Richardson . The property i question is located on the east side of N.C. 86 approximate! 1 .2 miles south of 1-85. It is known as Lot 5 on Orange Count Tax Map 50 for Hillsborough Township . NEED: The applicant cites changed or changing conditions as the reason for the amendment . In support of this the followin! non—residential uses along N.C. 86 south of 1-85 are mentioned L. . Downey, Surety Storage, Keith 's Heating and Ai Conditioning, Woods Brothers, and Kiddie Quarters Playschool The applicant feels that ". . . .this property will be put to its highest and best use by being amended and rezoned. " IMPACT: The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Pia desi nation of the subject property from Rural Residential t• Ten Year Transition/Commercial—Industrial Transition Nodes making it compatible for rezoning to commercial or industria uses. It would also extend the node further south making it possible for the next contiguous property to request redesignation to node status. The changing conditions in this areal were recognized in the Central Orange Area study in 1983 and the node was redefined accordingly: both in terms of size (expanded) and designation (Commercial to Commercial Industrial) . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request . 4' - • • Eovember 25, 1985 • • Members of the Grange County Planning Board and Hillsborough Residents- With your permission and consent I would like to change • the listing of my Property from Rural Residential to Commercial- Industrial . My wishes are that my property be developed and used for the beautification, progress, growth and prosperity of Hills- borough. This is my heritage, the place of my birth, of which I am extremely proud . My hopes and dreams are to see the land be developed to its highest potential . I take pleasure and am happy t relinquish a part of my heritage for the town' s growth , beautification and development which can be enjoyed by many future _enerations. • Thank you for your consideration. Most appreciative, • 4 • • agrei7 ' • • Miss pArSt. Carleen Richard on • . . ;-• • GCR/pu , • ___....-_ _._._ .. ._�_ ...�..�..�...._.� _�- ._.ems _ 000004 li . • WILDWODD . g • PIEDMONT ELECTRIC • Oa ... 1 co 3.l . ' STAGECOACH, Sec, 1 WOOD'S BROTHERS - "} . . . . SURETY •• '_ °' ft. ,�` TORAGE . . I DUKE FOREST • • RICHARDSON LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT (Rural Residential to 10 Year Transition • Commercial-Industrial Transition Node) er= State: 1" = 440' '1 ca • x ri ... .. — — _ _.,. .�.. Location Map •. y� 14. x F" D ) � j 4+ �a u WIC `k I�arpt ��'"-a 0 O. - `�: itA�ml .o �., +ter e� ca )1 ,, , I ;_ . 1 • ORANGE COUNTY BLANINING DEPARTMENT 000005 s ` RILLSBOROt7GE NORTE CAROLINA 7Q K , .011011116. ;',1a LI r ~ fit } REFERENCE:: LUF-4.85 s=f TYPE OF REQUEST: SECONDARY APPLICANT: GARY CARLEEN t3 RICHARDSON SPECIFIC REUEST: TEN YEAR AGENT: VIC KNIGHT TWANSITION/COMMERCIAL—INDUSTRIAL zx TRANSITION NODE STAFF ASSIGNMENT: GENE BELL PUBLIC HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 1985 ****************** VEEFTCATTONI OF APPLICATION AS COMPLETE t - _ The applicant has submitted the required application materials which include: - a. application forms -- completed h. fulLr dimensioned tax map with parcel to be redesignated highlighted c. Lattarlaf request — narrative LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The property is Located on the east side• of N.C. 8S approximatetly 1'.2 miles south of I-95. It is known as Lot 5 • on Orange County Tax Map. 50 for Hillsborough Township . It contains 135,299 .24 square feet or 3.129 acres . The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 CR--11 . 2SSUES rThis application raises the following Land use issues for consideration: )fi 1 . Appropriateness of the area for„ commercial/industriel uses and implications of rezoning. 2. The rellIationship tiatween the application and the overall 4` .!;end Usie P Lan and policies for the County . 3; - If app oved, 'the potential for strip—commercial devetoprent along N .C. 86 . ' RECgMMgNOATTON The Planning Staff recommends denial. of the request. °RANGE- C01:114TY PLAN ILNG DEPARTMENT 331ZILSISO ROUGH 00000�i NORTi CAROLINA. - i 27275 ZFilit NOTICE OF PUBLIC: HEARINS OK PROPOSEf AMENDMENTS • TO: SHE i.AND USE PLAN OF ORANGE COUNTY, .N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina haptar -153A, Section 323 and Section 343, notice is hereby given that a publi ' earing wilt be held in the Superior- Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse OS East Margaret Lana, Ni LLsbOrough,. North Carolina on Monday, November 25 985 at 7:30 p.m. lfor the purpose of givin..g all interested citizens a pportunity to speak Tor or against the adoption or proposed amendment. to th=. range County Land Use Plan. The amendment undl er consideration is as follows: • LUP-4-85 VIC KNIGHT REALTY FOR GARY CARLEEN RICHARDSON4, The property in question- is Located on the east side of N.C. 86 - approximately 1.2 mites south of .I-85. It is known as Lot 5 on Orange County. TeX Map 5Q for Hillsborough Township .- It contains 136,299.24 square feet or 3.129 acres. The present zoning of the property is Residential-4 (R—I) . The applicant is requesting, that the property be. redesignated in - the Land Use PLn from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Commercial—I (dust.riaL Transition Activity Mode. - LL interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment on any item must be received during the public hearing . hose wishing to opposa a request must provide competent material and ubstantial evidence as to the specific manner in which the proposed use does 3t satisfy the ordinance. (For requests requiring the issuance of special use ermit (items ;€5,6 and 7) only sworn testimony and evidence will be taken as squired in a quasi—judicial proceeding . The testimony of experts on impacts n public hea Lth/sat-ty and property values may be necessary) Following the lose of the public h=aring, only evidence presented at. public hearing will be xamined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision ;t the request . - Changes may be lade in ,bhe advertised proposals which reflect debate , 3je'ctions and dftscussions at the hearing . Question's regarding the proposals should be directed, to the Orange County Lanning Department . Copies of the proposed full amendments are available in .e Planning Department for public review. The Planning Department is Located the new Courthouse, 106 East Margaret_ Lane , Hillsborough . Offi-ca hours are •or $ :00 a.m . to 5•OO p .m . , Monday through Friday . MARVIN C^r r TLS. Pt crierrun. nTocrTr n • ORAZYGE COUNTY PLA.LNN"EkTa DEPARTMENT RIELSBOROTTGEC 1110007 .0 • NOB=CAROLIN'A.. [1131E eleliViE 1= 27279 -447- ••• 41..0" LAND USE. PLAN AMENDMENT APP LkCAT1 ON All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the followingrapplication as completely as possible:. OFFICE. USE ONLY REO.UEST LUP—M — DATE. RECEIVED: Fat tkTE STAFFPERSON(S)•RESPONSI SE.Er. GENERAL DATA: Property, diner(s) Name: (1,-...o.r/ ra,- 1Ei R; Mailing Address: . Pthert 4104 Ase 7.2Ar Phone:. (Home) (Work) Agent(s) Name: IEaves,. rn. CF,4„. .11 Keil 4.4 141/41 Mailing Address: Pô reci_ 4St , )41/6 km r,::.45 Li C., 41-41e Phone: /7.3a SPEC 1 Fl C DATA: • Tax Reference: Township 4, Tax Map SO Block Lot Public/Private Road Name: iikv 14, 4.„.,//;... LtSize:*Acreage9J29 AC/A 5 Square Footage Lot Frontage .3',$?‘ 6 ...13. 4,2) 1:gt Depth 56/.3 .571- ,, • • • • REQUEST #LUF- •000008 :• • 0403■74• tinued) - ory Designation(s): General Actilvi.ty Node Watershed • Joint Planning Area. • Describe Land- Uses In the General Area: (:),,prerfr, ■ / gitiSz • On Adjacent Parcels of Land: • • • • REQUEST _ lig ef fj: /I 0-7" Land Use Plan- Category Designation(s) Requested: 6,,n.p6,,,;„/ r,„/Q1a.,-„..( 1:04 5,Y40.7 A/deo Type of Amexicnent: Primary Secondary 7Cs.:. - * * * * * * * * * * * This appi i cation should. be submitted. with the following materials: „k" .-FuIly dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted, the parcel , i- Ortportion thereof, in question. Ce7a1 description- of the parcel, or portion therof. .101171111■■■••■ .K Letter of request to include: • o the-tax, reference, general location and owner of the parcel o tbarcurrent and requested land' use plan- category designation(s) o a narrative stating- the manner in. which the proposed amendment wilt carry-out the- intent and purpose of the adopted _- comprehensive plan- or part thereof . o e statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment . o statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area,. or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I (We), the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true to the best of -my (our) knowledge and that the application as submitted is complete. aCici PO,, $ f a.5d,r$ aat. NAME APPLICANT(S) , SI GIIATUR.,2 OP*APP L I CANT(S) /-... DATE' • • , . . . . . i • , 1 0 0 0 9 0 9 . 1 ! .... . v . P. C., C• o /••".% • < On . \we/ 'D •" ..l C%. ‘ i . • I- ■t ■ : •'•••••••••••”*......... .. • 1 1 005 EEO N 1+. 1 : - i ' i . . I ; • - " • 1 I ....— • 1 I. , . .. 1 1 I • i I . ! k , (5) : • 1 .13 1 1 ' 1 7t- 1 .:r• 4, 0"' I ti •P':C4 ■■■ 1 S . 1 i II \ \ 1 I • I I, 0"..).... ..., I NJ , ! 1 I 1 I i ' 1 . I . I r 1 1 1 . • • 000'KeN I ! I I . ! . I , i . • r;r: "4 .S 1 ! ! . I , . 1 . . , ; ! . .r. : 7.4 .• ; . 1 -,if ••::: . " • . , . .. ... - . .. :7. '.-.4".::•" -• . , .: - 1-.i- ' • : : . ' • i ,i..3../ : kit .,--; . - ...4. :' ..........., 14 ii.-ii, ' 1 t ---; - . •- ... ,..;,.. ii-.--- ',1,' 1:.: • : -.'' 't...') '''' " ' • : ! t. ''''''. • i - -11 i - ' .- . .. . . 1 •.: . ;4 ' .: - .: -.. -,., -,----. ' I ..::: -.,.- 7 1 . r. . .- . ' • .;-=';'' cr oovres nt,''' ! I :, ' • ".! ........" ... — •,..i '''-;t, 4 PI" • . - .. . .f. .r 1 1 , -; ' : 1 7 , . . — • '':,. '9,-.1 I • , . _ . 1 • .._ _ __ _ . ...__ ..... I — - • _ H00010 NOREM CAROLINA • 48:1.6 ORANGE COUNTY eo3x 274 ma 479 zte THIS DEED, made and entered into this the/1.,.day of 4terr, _ 1977, by and between CRAB= L. RICHARDSON and wife, PATSY C. RICE- . • AROSON, ROBERT LEE RICHARDSON (divorced), DORA H. RICHARDSON (widow), MITT R. SAY and husband, JAMES OTIS LOY, LESSIE R. WRENN and husband, WTTZZAM DAVID WRENN, all of Alamance County, North Carolina, giMBLEEN . , R. MED= and husband, le. ' H. MEDLIN, of Durham County, North Carolina, and MARGARET- R. WOODS and husband, ERIC LOTAN WOODS, JR., of Mecklen i burg County, North Carolina, hereinafter called Grantors, to GARY CARLE= RICHARDSON (single) of Alamance County, North Carolina, here- inafter called Grantee: WTTNESSETE THAT the Granters, in consideration of Ten Dollars $10.00) and other valuable consideration to them paid by the Grantee, the re- ceipt of which is acknowledged. have bargained and sold, and by these . presents do bargain, sell and convey to the Grantee, her heirs, succ- essors and assigns, all of tee- following described- rel property: A.certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in' Hillsborough Township, Orange County, North Carolina adjoining the lands of N. C. Highway No. 86, Archie E. Millis, Duke University, Lot No. 2 and being all of Lot .•. No: 1 and bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the center of N. C. Highway No. 86 corner with Mary S. Cook, Lot No. 10 and Archie E. Millis (iron stake in first call 50 feet from the zorner in the road); running thence with the line of Ar:-!.i..e S. Millis South 88 deg. 30' East 363.20 feet to a co:.crete monument . . corner with the said Millis and Duke University Foresty School; thence with the said Duke University South 02 deg. 1 21' 20" West 349.00 feet to an iron stake corner with Lot No. 2 (LesSie R. Wrenn)" thence with the line of Lot No. • 2 North 88 deg. 30' West 413.54 feet to a point in the center of N. C. Highway 86, corner with Lot No. 2 and in line of Lot No. 9; thence with the center of said Highway and Lot No. 9 North 06 deg. 54' East 96.80 feet; thence again with the center of Highway and Lot No. 9 and 10 North 11 deg. 55' East 256.82 feet to the point of BEGIN- . NEING, and containing 3.129 acres more or less, and being afl of Lot No. 1 of the property of Charlie R. Richardson ' estate as surveyed 'and plated by Harold B.. Spoon, Registered 1 . Land Surveyor, January 2,1, 1977, and recorded in the Office of the:Register of Deeds for Orange County, in Plat Book ,27 ,at Page . • • • . . - ' . • ................ - . -- — 0 0 0 0 1 12 • . .. _ . • . . • _ . — . - . . . • MEL The . _- .. VIC KNIGHT'REALTY. .. - - . . . -- . . Boone 8quare,P.O.Box 850 - - - - Hillsborough.North Carolina127278., - . . (9r9)732.-ssaa - ... - • - - . . . . . - — . • •We arm herby maki.nie application to the Orange County Planning Department • requesting an. amendment to the Land Use Pisa of Orange County for- property -owned.by Gary' Carleen-Richardson.located on:Bistro:ay- 86 South in Hillsborough. Toranship. Orange County- Township Map,. Block, Lot number is. 4.50..5; . . PIN number- is 9873-54-6367. Property'.is• now zoned Rural. Residential- ' ... . . . We feel this property-will be put to. it's. highest and best use by being. amended and tezoned. Because of the changes now taking place in, the are frcan In, erstate 85 on. to Highway 86 South, an amendment would not be detremential to the overall, development of the area. , Since this is the last parcel. of land in. this node the property would conf=ono to - erciaL standards rather than residential standards. . There are senieraL commercial properties in. the general. area now such _ as L.A.- Downey and Sons, of Durham, (which is new construction), Surety • Storage, ICe ' Heating, and Air. Conditioning,. Woods Brothers, Inc.,. and arldie Playschoot. There are two high density residential developments lin. the general. area: Wildwood. and Stagecoach Run. Wildwood is located. approximately t mile North; of subject property. Zwagecoa.cb, - • Rutt-is-located; diagonally across Highway 86 South from subject property. • .7. : -....:;—..--•' - . • • . 1 • - . • Adjacent to rties b Township,. .,.. Block and Lot number are as P C r HaP _ ft:Myst. . ' 1 ' . . Owned t by Robert R. Beyer, 5850-Cameron.Run Terrace, , -.:•' —, ' - -- ----."-.-.1-..21erandria,.. V . MOS; - . •• - •-,•,- - _ •--.tuna is,vacant. Zoned.Rural Residential • 4-:50...6 Owned-by Charlie Richardson, Route- 2,. Box 602 C- ' • .' Land is-vacant-. Zoned; Rural. Residential. - • .: 4.49i.c.l. Duke, University School_ of Forestry, Durham, N. C. Land. is vacant. Zoned Public Private Interest. - 4.45..27 Owned by Woods Brothers, Hillsborough, N. C. Land is used as commercial storage building (DB& Surety Storage) .., • . Land is zoned Commercial. - :., • • • We realize the Land Use Plan seeks to manage the forces of change to insure an appropriate and desired pattern of land use which is important and necessary Each amendment for a change will have_future effects on the:surrounding properties and the area. We think the integrity of th/ residential areas, while recognizing the locational advantages and—opportunities for non-residential development of the area, will be -"protected! The amendment will allow low density, law polluting, low impact, nal n-residential development of the area includi* commercial - • and industrial uses. - , Each Office is Independently(Lined and Operated • _ - -_ — ! • • -r^;`''q. -- -�".''.'C•• •7••••Vw••••:•c..,s.� _7M.-„•..•�r..ny-_c L^.`•f.^ v.lr+.:.Yx' •.D•1+..'•"_ ,*_:1.�...'.•”-:L:ug't•rnT• 000012 :r• _ • _ Since: Highway..OE."-:s---a:major`artery North- and South is this County, they • .... iapaet=of changing;. the.Land:Use Plan iai.IL be minimized.. There are _• comet ercia.L.properties is the mediate area now such.as Surety Storage, _ • Keith's. Beating: a*+rf At Conditioning, Woods Brothers, Inc.- and Kiddie- Quarters. Pl:agschoot..'- The back.ad?acent property is owned by Duke University • • School. of Forestry and is. understood_ to•be-non-residentiaL use. There-' ss.may one: adjacent property- that. is zoned Rural: EesideatiaL. ' - _ _ 71;�' _ ' . _ .'i_' - + 57.•.i.••11,1,7 .-...t'_ _ . - ,• • t' • • _ ;n •• . ♦ •• • , 4 • • ORANGE- COMITY PLANN OTG DEPARTMENT 0000 R LLSBOROi7G8 NORTR CAROLINA 27278 p w N 4 t+1 r ui ��a -MEMORANDUM- ID: MARVIN- COLLINS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. FROM: GENE BELL G-11. DATE:: NOVEMBER t4-, 1985 SUB.JECT:. ANALYSIS OF GARY C. RICHARDSON LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION (LUP-4-85) L have; reviewed the Richardson Land Use Plan amendment app•Lication I to accordance with "PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND' USE PLAN" adopted by the. Board. of County Commissioners on November ! T, - 1982, and with applicable portions of the ' Orange County Land Use Plan. My- findings are. summarized Ere taw-... A- paint of clarification needs to wade at the outset with, regard to this property. A mapping error in the "Centra.L Dr‘ga- Area Study* resulted in this property being ctaeai fi ed as Pub.lfc Interest District,. i .e., Duke Forest . The correc designation for the property should be Rural Residential based upon the Land Use Plan and the designation of adjacent private properties. Accordingly, I advised the applicant to specify this as the current plan designation in the- application . APPLICATION The apppcation is complete. One point of clarification needs to be made with regard to - a comment in the letter of request, how ev er. In paragraph three, the applicant cites that this is the Last parcel of land in the node. This is incorrect. The purpose of the application is to have the parcel included in the node. - . • With r?gard to (tore the amendment would carry out the inten and purpose of the plan, the applicant states: • • We think the integrity of the residential areas, while recognizing the locatfanal advantages and opportunities for non- 000014 rjea1 danti a L development of the area, wi L L be protected. The amendment will allow Law- d nelty, Law polluting, low impact, non- rI ssidenti a L. development of the area including commercial- and industrial uses. I take issue. with- the Last sentence in that Commercial- Industrial Transition. Nada status- could conceivably open the door to the:! fc l lawi ng zoning; districts•,. LC1 , NC2, CC3,. 004, Or,. ED, I1,1 12, and I3;. some of which- are not consistent with *....Low density:, low polluting:,.. Low impact, non-resi denti a l development.." - - REASON PO AMENDMENT Changed or changing conditions is given as the reason far the • amendment. The applicant cites various non- residential uses in the area as- evidence of this. There are a number of such uses which- tie to the. north of the applicant's property-. The changing nature of this area was addressed_ in the "Centra I Grange. Area Study" in 1983, the result being:. (1I Redesignati on- of the- node from Commercial Transition to Commercial-Industrial Transition, and t2 E panaion of the node (in accordance.-with the Location Criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use. P'lani to encompass the non-residential uses . COMPARISON OF LOCATION STANDARDS Analysis of a- Land Use- P Lan• amendment requires that the requested designation be compatible with the app Haab Le Laceticnel ICri•ta•rie in- Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan (a copy of these: etandards is attached3.. In the table below, YES- means that the area. being eve busted 1 s compatible with the Locations !. cri teron- and NO, of course, means than it is not. Additional explanation is provided where the response Is not a clee rcut YES or NO. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, 10 & 20 YEAR TRANSITION COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL Land Stops Water Lines already exist Slope is borderline. in area. Stops i's away Calculations based an from Hi Lleborough sewage measurements taken from•- treatment plant. If sewer USES 1 "=2000' Topo Maps j extended would probably indicates slope of require. pump stations. slightly over 14%. Hydro Logy YES s' YES r • Flora S. Fauna YES . YES a I. -i . • 0000i5 Sail Conditions. Sails are Herndon C Sai Is- are Herndon G Meal and Tatum' 0 (MO) tHral and Tatui- 0 (TaD] both of which- pass both- or which pose moderate to severe moderate to severe restrictions on develop.— restrictions on develop- ment. See= attached pages went.. See attached pages free gem. Survey Sa from Solt Survey Lt. Orange County. Oren a County*. Public Services/ Already served. with water. Already served- with Utilities If sewer- extended would water-.. If sewer extended probably require pump would probably require stations pump stations. Transpartation 3700 feet to railroad NO (0.8 mi La from inter— System I section of arterial and collector, 1 .1 mites from interstate interchange, and 3700 feet from rail Lineal . Energy Use YES YES , Existing Land Use. Located on- northern N0 (would be compatible fringe of area if tand.uae- designation characterized by rural changedi or law—density uses. Agriculture & Eastern: property Lino Eastern property line Forestry adj.ains Duke Forest. adjoins Duke. Forest. Population Density Located' on northern• fringe Located on. northern- af area characterized by fringe or area character— law population density. i zed by low population density. Historic &.. Cultural YES YES RECOMMENDATION My relommendatian is that the Land Use Plan amendment application for redesignation from Rural Residential to 10 Year Transition/Commercial—Industrial Transition Node be denied. This is based upon: (11 Th adopted "Central grange Area Study" has adequately addressed non—residential' •development in - this area ; a n d . ] The application fails to meet a l l locati ona l , - criteria for the requested Land use . cLassifications. /1 _ (�(� ?Lill Cal 'CC=: ` A,YD =� 0 0 0 016and Slone. Hd s' fiCant : t ' Located. =ssIesv La areas :sae ave ver; load that WGU1d umrea•Cnmbly in- road access, as ieLi as service tease the cent of emzead3+- r by r2il,, Lines. These areas water• and sewer lines. should- mve+tto Nast compleete transpert:atiaa metxas++.e in the =vdralowv. Located autstde• • Camay's ?.,,w.-g.' :artsdistion: of LOO-year• :loci rune areas as idew„C.ed. by the Cis of Eagtheert. t rmy Ube. Lacatad within - less an a. 5 minute =muting . ?Mots and ?sutra. L,OCated• . M�.r from mma l-scat= zolesercial • away tram sizes that would, uses ES-Vi a 5-L3 «.ntta :sir- • . . 1..1 developed, create 3 aL . tree =St= coam e"2 .5. uses • -.mat:• to uairsie 4r ea— ar an ?rhos- area. • =eared spear-es as ideas' - !.ad b± too-.atata or nt•tec *and use. Locaced in areas watch a _a. t:ausiticsi .adssaitt 3o a'e axe. • tree rural or law-wdensity law-.density uses Soil Conditions. :.orated to vrhar or higher d+n t 1 uses•. e. areas waere genersL soil - =dillies are saitanla for ater3cul.tare and ?aree't';v. an uses because- of teat tocaced away ram areas where drainage chaeactehdseies development l ou.LJ. have a dean-, ant y for mental Impact as sroductive site- deve?.atesnt,. • 34_ _ uses ant managed Pores:. Laud. ?rsbiie S4* ces/ff _titles. • Lo=athed la areas Italia are Peculation Density. Lorateel, - or-could be reasonably and ...:1- area wish, =aerate to effect-may served a?' eel"- hiab; pepula=an d!".3$'L.''.ea. tr'!4. ed public. services . and attlittes. Historic and Cultural. Located. away ~ems areas ',Mere development would nave a ae=imastaL moans on state or federally acknowledged.- histarie..cu:. I si tea ar• Cauat7 identified Public to:eras;. Areas. • tat=WAIF Z: C,.M W=C.-IUD .. 1'°..10ISZLOLt AC•x.I.,i i'st .`1Gnc' Land dose. *oe IoM on - tenseartation 3yste 5. ?for ed - lama ;alto.Slopes of ..:ss. as. ::a intersect= of mr e-rLal• - than. 15: made. endlar coLnct+o�r,_hisbra7s art alie extending .5 n beyond. suet Hydroloay. *Located cut- intersects= or within one I tUed Warta: an interstate =tar- . • ;ram areas as identified change t.*.S.z :CQC feet at by the =Ors of er9•- . ?lora and ?antra. Located e,aerer Use. Located. within sizes 'ass than a 10 huts c�- t',la,C would* } if develaoped, create- a mu ing tine ass Urban • threat to unique or sad. a s. sexed species as identified. by the state or federal setae Land Use. taeated rile=rile= id_nti_ied Tee or government. Twenty Mesa Transition areas. - Soil Conditions. Located . til areas ',mere ,moral. sail. L oultare and Forest:-f. Le- coaditioils are suitable for =tea away C."'o►A areas were ur'aaet uses becauaa of goad develot sat Brat ld :save a ie - d ge cha- ct eristics meista.t len=t oa ;reductive • eat load bear'a:g i capa.Citi mgr-cultural uses and =aged for sits_devalovitt. ,e ..forms load. Public Ser°v't:es/*Jtil ties. . ' Ponulat+on Density. Located Lora:eel, n areas I xo .c; are in areas wssn moderate to e • or .road be reasonably aced, population densities. effectively served by can-- • +t'ait:el public Senecas and '-; .. . •utilities. =.:ssort: and n,.;1t •ra "L catced. away ��`.mn areas where developmens -• ,. ou.n. nave a tetr ncal. _ ers1 zc:�owtatrod .,:� ..."azC: an state tr d 7 ».� • +era]. sires or CCunr, tdenzt :ed '•.:ell starter, ra as. • - SOIL DESCRIPTIONS 000017 • MC—Merstdon silt (sem', 6 tar.10 percent.slopes.This TaD—Tatum silt loam, 8 to 15 percent.slopes. Th. well drained soil is on narrow•side slopes•on the uplands. welt.drained.soil is on side• slopes. on the uplands. 171 MaPPed areas' are long. mow. roughly rectangular areas are elliptical in shape and are 5 to 20 acres in ajar.. bands and are 5 to 50 acres In size. Typically, the surface layer is strong brown silt loam Typically,the surface layer is dark yellowish brown silt 'inches thick. The subsoil is 29 inches thick. The u. loam 4 inches thick. The subsurface- layer is yellow silt part is red silty clay. The lower part is red silty cla loam 5 inches thick. The sibsoil is 49 inches- thick The loam.The underlying material, extending to a depth of . • upper part is reddish yedoar, silty day loam The middle inches,is mottled red saprolite that crushes to loam.. part is mottled yellowish red silty clay loam-and mottled Included with this soil in mapping are small areas th• strong brown clay.The lower, part is mottled reddish yel- have a dark red clay loam surface layer and a few sm- - low silty clay loam.The underlying material,extending to areas of eroded soils. Also included are small. areas , . a depth of 62 inches,is mottled yellowish red,light gray, Goldston and Wilkes soils. and yellowish brown silt loam. The organic matter content of the surface layer is la Included with this sod in mapping are some-salad areas The permeability is moderate, the available water capaci of soils that have a gravelly'surface layer and a few areas ty is low, and the shrink-swell potential is mod of eroded souls. Also included are•small areas of Geor- Reaction of the subsoil is very strongly acid or strong! geville,Goldston,and Wilkeit soils. acid. Depth to bedrock is 40 to 60 inches. The seaso The•organic matter content of the surface layer is low- high water table is at a depth of 48 to 72 inches. The permeability is moderate, the available water capaci- Most of this soil is woodland and pasture. Some I ty is medium, and the shrhik-swell potential is low. The cropland.Slope,surface runoff, erosion, and.deptb to • subsoil is strongly acid or ivery strongly acid. Depth to are the main limitations to the use and management • • bedrock is.more than 60 inches The seasonal high water this soil. • table is below a depth of 72.inches.- This soil has medium potential far corn,soybeans, as Most of this.soil is used As upland. Some is used for wheat, and barley. Minimum tillage and crop • • pasture and some as woodland. Slope, moderate perinea- management help to control runoff and erosion.Con' •- bility,surface runoff,and erosion are the main limitations lion practices such as maintaining drainageways in "I to the use and.management of this soul striperopping,contour farming,and crop rotations.that in This soil has medium potential for corn, •soybeansa elude close-growing crops also aid in conserving soil an tobacco, and small grain. Minimum tillage• and crop yam - residue management help to control runoff and erosion. The potential for hay and pasture forage is moderate! Conservation practices such�as maintaining drainageways high if plants such as iadino clover,red clover,and seri - in sod, terraces and dive�ons, field borders, strip- lespedeza are used. Proper pasture management helps t. • cropping, and crop rotations that include close-growing insure adequate protective cover by reducing runoff an. crops also aid in conserving soil and water. controlling erasion. The potential for hay and pastutre forage crops•such as This soil has medium potential for most urban • - sericea lespedeza, red dower, white cloverr, fescue, and because of slope and depth to rock.The limitation of slop- orchardgrasss is high. Proper pasture management helps can be reduced or modified by special planning,design, o to insure adequate protective cover by reducing runoff maintenance. Erosion is a hazard• if ground cover i- and controlling erosion. I . removed. The potential for most recreation uses is medi The potential for most urban uses is medium because of urn.Slope is the main limitation, slope and permeability. The permeability affects the per- : This soil has moderately high potential for broad-leav-• formance of septic tank absorption fields, but this limits- - and needle-leaved trees. The dominant trees are whit- tion generally can be overcome by modifying the field or oak, black oak, post oak, northern red oak, southern r • by increasing the size of the!absorption area. The limits- oak, crimson oak, yellow-poplar, hickory, maple, beech tion of slope can be reduced or modified by' special loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, and chestnu planning, design, or maintenance. Erosion is a hazard if •oak.The understory is mainly dogwood, redbud, holly,an ground cover is removed. The potential for recreation sassafras- There are no significant limitations fo uses is medium because of sidpe. This soil has moderately ' woodland use and management. Capability subclass III., y potential for broad-leaved woodland group 3o. and needle-leaved trees. The dominant trees are white oak, black oak, post oak, northern red-oak, southern red - oak, crimson oak, yellow-poplar, sweetgpm;• hickory, maple, ash, beech, labially pine, shortleaf pine, and Vir- ginia pine. The uitderstory hs mainly dogwood, redbud, sourwood, holly, and sassafras. There are no significant - . limitations for woodland use and management. Capability -• subclass Me, woodland grou 30. '-. * Taken from the Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina ;1977) , pages 15 and 19. • ! . 3 000018 1 ORANGE COUNTY', NORTE( CAROLINA 67' • TABLE' 6.--BUILDING SITE DEVBLOPMEUT-•Continued : i •; Dwellings Dwellings Small ' :oil name and ! Shallow { without • with commercial Local roads amp symbol ! excavations ! basements 1 basements buildings and streets �• I. ana: 1 1 ! _ ; r, :,a: ! !! 'Selena part-.-..-- Severe: !Severe: !Severe: Severe: Severe: too clayey. ! shrink-swell. j shrink-swell. ! shrink-swell. shrink-swell. sedgetield part-. Severe: Severe: ;Severe: Severe: !Severe; s=; { too- clayey, shrink-swell., j shrink-swell, ! shrink-swell, ' shrink-swell. • wetness. ' wetness. 1 wetness. ! wetness.. 't L: 1.edon: t ' ! '' i 3 Moderate: Slight ---•-1 Slight !Moderate: ;moderate: Ili { too clayey. r slope. low strength. 71- c: !moderate: Moderate: ;Moderate Severe: Moderate: ' ! too clayey, I elope. ' slope. slope. low-strength, ..' elope. • i slope.. qi asses: ! ! d, - , Moderate: Slight - ;Slight . ' Moderate: !Moderate:: . too. clayey.. ' slope. j low strength. 'moderate: 'Moderate: !Moderate: Severe: {moderate: �: too clayey, ! slope. ; slope.. slope.. ! low strength,. ^! slope. ! ! !slope. dell: ! ! t• 3 .. Severe: !Severe: ;Severe: Severe: ;Severe: tom clayey. ! shrink-swell. ! shrink-swell. shrink-swell. t low strength; 1 I �; shrink-swell. N tredell part----- Severe: . !Severe: Severe: Severe: Severe: too clayey. ! shrink-swell. shrink-swell. shrink-swell. low strength, ; I shrink-swell. fe ! j Urban land part- 1 •nun: ! Severe: !Severe: Severe: Severe: Severe: t too: clayey, ! wetness, ! wetness, wetness, low strength. c -wetness. 1 low strength. j tow strength. low strength.. :1; :isburg: ! • - it 4......-..........-- Moderate: {Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Moderate: depth to root. ! slope, depth to rock. slope. slope. t: :f • - --- Severe: ;Severe: Severe: Severe: Severe: slope. I slope. ! slope. ! slope. slope. 1 ! L :age: ! 1 ! . --•"------ •----!Severe: !Severe: ;Severe: Severe: ;Severe: too clayey, ! wetness. ! wetness, wetness, ! low strength, wetness. ; shrink-swell. I shrink-swell. ! I shrink-swell. ` shrink-swell. ! s: ! ! • j ( 1 •uct: ! .0----.---------.. Moderate: !Moderate: Moderate: Severe: Severe: Coo clayey_ j low strength. low strength, slope. tow strength. • j depth to rook. .E--- Severe: Severe: Severe: - Severe; Severe: slope. slope. • slope. slope. • slope. -an land: ! ! 'e ! i 1 • - i = • • ! I. 1 .ce'1 ;. . -4...w.*....--• !Severe: Severed !Severe: Severe: .: Severe: ' I too clayey_ low strength. ! low strength. low strength, low strength. ! ! , i • See footnote at end of table. S+ 000019 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date NOVEMBER 25. 1985 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: P0-5-85 SCOTSWOOD DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK PROJECT SUMMARY . SITE PLAN/VICINITY MAP IMPACT ANALYSIS STAFF FINDINGS APPLICATION AGENCY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031. Chapel Hill. — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A . H . Graham, Jr. NEED: John W. Graham & A. H . Graham, Jr. are requesting a pLanned development and rezoning for 331 .12 acres of Land located aLong High ay 70 Bypass and St. Mary's RaadtSR 1002) northeast of HiLLs orough . The property is referenced as Tax map 6 , Block B. , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, tot 17 of Hillsborough Township . The roperty is Located in an area designated as Ten Year Transtion and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orang, County Land Use Plan . The present zoning cLassification is (ResidentiaL-1 ) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290.03 acres' to be rezoned PD—H—R2, 29.50 acres to be rezoned PD—H—R5 and 7.43 acres to be rezoned PD-6C4. IMPACT: ApproyeL of the request wouLd allow deveLopment of 410 residentiaL Lots with a minimum 20,000 sq. ft . per dwelling unit 216 attached muLti—family dweLLing units and a 65,460 square feet of commerciaL space on 10.43 acres . (See Impact Statement) RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the pLanned development rezoning request and iesuance of a Class A SpeciaL Use Permit with conditions srlecified in the attachment . 1 000020 RECOMMEND 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 1 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orangel County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of alt public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed constriuction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 2. Securi4 shall be provided for the grading, paving and L 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; Landscaping and mulchihg around all mobile home units . 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County 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. 4. 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. 5. Roads, parking areas , walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, Landscaping and mulching around units shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6 . Left a d right turn Lanes shalt be provided on St . Mary's Road at proposed graham Drive. 7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right—of- way with a 41 ' paved cross section . Hamilton Way shall extend directly north to Baldwin Road and Cameron Circle realigned to curve into Hamilton Way at a 90 degree angle instead of connecting to Baldwin Road . This would provid an efficient collector system using Graham Drive and Hamilton Way. B . Turn La as to the east and west shall be provided on Graham rive at the intersection with St . Mary's Road. • 000021 RECOMMEND 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 2 9 . Curb and gutter shall be provided along all streets. 10. A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the street along lalL streets in the PD—H—R2 zone with curb cuts for the handicapped at street intersections. 11 . Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90 foot right—of—way, containing a 65 foot cross section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot wide median . This would allow bppropriate room for heavier vehicles . 12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevard into the multifamily and commercial areas. 13. The driveway off Scotswood Boulevard into the commercial section is inappropriate for the entrance of trucks . The radii should be reworked in this area to allow easier truck access . 14. A cul—de—sac shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue and the entrance on St . Mary 's Road (SR 1002) abandoned. 15. A stubout to the western property Line shall be provided from Scotswood Boulevard. This stubout shall be located . to connect directly to the southern corner of Greentree ' Drive. 16. A stubout to the Guy Baldwin Jr. property shall be provided with the Location to be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation . 17. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub—out streets. 18. A third lane shall be provided along US 70 between St . Mary 's (Road and Miller Road (SR 1555) . 19. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrance to the commercial area shall be restricted and only right turn motrements permitted. 20. A traff c light shall be installed at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and US 70 during the development of the first pase. (This provision may be satisfied by direct action of NC DOT) . 21 . ALL roes shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange 'County standards shall be erected at all intersections . -- 000022 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 3 22. A 10—foot non—access easement shall be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining Carolina Loop . This easement shall lie Labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access nto Carolina Loop . 23. Mercury Lights shall be installed throughout the development as each phase develops. 24. The Lift station at the southeast section of the project ( lift rptation #1 ) shall be of sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along t Mary's Road . 25. Prior to paving streets, utility service Laterals shall be stub$ ed out to the front property Lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer Laterals shall, be capped off above ground. 26 . ALL utility lines shall be installed to state standards . 27. ALL utility easements shall be shown on the site plan incLudiig easements to adjoining property. ALL required easement documents shall be recorded before final plat approval. 28 . The number and Location of fire hydrants shall be approved prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 29 . The fol. awing recommendations apply to the recreation k area and facilities . . a . Provide a minimum of 16 acres recreational purposes [active and passive] . The passive recreation area would include the open space area along Nancy Hill Creek. b . A minimum of seven (7) acres are to be developed for active recreational purposes to include the following: — Tot li Lot/playground area with play apparatus for t. chi ren, ages pre—school to 14 (i .e. swings, slides , clim6er, whirl) and benches for adult supervision . — One Full—length basketball court — Picnic area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tablas, 5-7 individual picnic tables scattered throughout the woods with 1 trash receptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables . — Bicycle paths throughout — Open grassed play area . — Adeq;ate night lights for safety and security reasons — Appropriate Landscaping c. Provide 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre recreation area. d. Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. 1 as open space/passive areas with walking and hiking I 1 0000`)f....3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 4 paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designated "open space area) to these areas from both Graham Drive end Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the creek at either end and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways. A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated coterminous with the open space area. a. Multi amity recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area (i .e. tables, trash recept cies, grills) . fa f. Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities . I g . Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons . h . Wherev r possible, provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps. Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes no gre tar than 5%. I 32. ALL plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation contra ! shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the site plan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil nd Erosion specifications. In addition , Orange Countyl shell inspect the installation of control devices and th on-going work for the total project . The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 31 . Grading on the site shell be kept to a minimum. In Lieu of planted Landscaping, 'existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. I 32. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit . No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development . 33. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the initation of construction activity. 34. That ILL structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits . 35. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 36. The final site plan and narrative of the project 1 .... incorporating all changes , deletions and additions 1 through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned ....----- ...- „..-- . 1 000024 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 5 Development Special Use Permit . A copy of the final site Plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County' Planning Department . Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . 37. The d4elopment shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with or fulfillment of the above conditions and the Orange County development regulations and ordinances . 38. If any of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, -I hen this approval shall be void and of no effect. • , SCOTSWOOD �`" ----� DEVELOPER : JOHN & A.N.GRAHAM Jr. N Q� Present Zone; R t ' Proposed.Zone; PD-H -R2, PD-H-R5 '�•� PD-GC4 �.` Al LUP Designation; 10-yr Transition and I • Commercial Transition �� r i 41t U r y, ••� 1h4rn Y.,t • It ���� 'P I •• ' M `•� hr/lC.G1it•..f '\ aft. /J. "a.Y . t � 1::1uv~ t� "'••` �, tt�W.Nlgr�EiuiiB[�'t 29.504 AC. + :. i,.1�• •• '\ ..nY •.a.w1•• !• wa trr.•.•. K 1 1 rJRr= n —�+.�t+f�grfrti rnlsr _ t rwua...y«•w:i; •iiv� �r/��r.�.��$�. � •�.• if!• ! N,YM—a•.,•.n,r.l.IYrya. X31 —• �� ', Ii� Yw.Ya...«t{•H, 43'± AC.r•'' ! e�,I, a m,a.t�1 i SCOTSWOOD '•!`i:r• __ ..�—._._--J =�_.�. , �'!/../' Fn ZONING MA1 p dps, & Al a,mam,.r Q 141 f+W. rrttv our=) �� •..�., `" ( 11li!NNINIt4:U MIS+ttr�x+,tN�:uvt: WAM 000026 ORANGE. COMITY PLA lTSTING DEPARTMENT BILLS BOROUGH NORTS'C4ROLILT.A. 272.78- Pw of MEMORANDUM. TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: • •. EDDIE KIRK., PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1985 SUBJECT: PD-5-85 [PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING REQUEST) SCi Sw000 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS: John W. Graham A. A. K. Graham, Jr. P'— O. Box 2088 r,. Qurham•,, No 27702 • LOCATION: High-way 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road [SR/002) REQUESTED. ACTION: Approval as a Planned Development and Rezoning from .R-1 to PD--H—R2 for 290..03: acres•, from R—T to PO—H—RE for 29.50 acres, and 10.43 acres from R-1 to PD-- GC4.. PURPOSE: To al Low higher density residential development then one per 40,000 sq.. ft. for the two residential requests and to allow commercial' development of the 10,143 acre tract. LOT SIZE: 331 .12 total acres. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant, wooded. tract SURROUNDING NO AND ZONING: The property in question is zoned R-1 . Zoning designations are identified below for .surrounding property. NORTH — Undeve,laped wooded Land zoned R-1 and AR. SOUTH — Residential subdivision development zoned R-1 . - EAST (_ Rural, undeveloped- property zoned 'AA. • M 000027 MEMO: NOVEMBER 18, tam PAGE 2 WEST — Hi LLcrest subdivision zoned R-20 in the Town or Hillsborough's jurisdiction and Colfax Fu.rn i to re. zoned NC-2. LAND USE P N: Designated tQ—Year Transition . Commercial rrarrsitioo Activity Node. • • • 000028 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 oti ar ,010.111, "771 "1ft:a 41 .0 'a ago' MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK AND LAURA HILL, PLANNERS DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1985 SUBJECT: ' MPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSW000 DEVELOPMENT A. WATER , ND SEWER SERVICES Water distribution and sanitary sewer plans (dated October, 18853 forlScotswood were approved by Hillsborough 's water plant superintendent and water commissioner. Water pressure was also checked and proved to be adequate to serve the project. 1On November 18, 1985, subsequent to the site plan approval, the Town Board agreed to provide public water and sewer services to the project. The Location and size of the major water and sewer lines proposed to serve the site are as follows: 1 . Water: — Ten E10) inch Line from US 70 ties in at Scotswood Bouleiiard and follows Scotswood Boulevard to Graham DriveJ — Eight (8) inch line along Woodlawn Drive within project area ties into existing six (6) inch line at Miller Road. — Six (61 inch line ties into existing six (6) inch line on St . Mary 's Road, and eight (81 inch line along Graham Drive within project area. 2. Sanitary Sewer: — ALL lines within the project are to be eight (8) inches. — Six (61 inch force main along St. Mary 's Road will extend approximately 4000 feet to existing manhole at 000029 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSWOOD PAGE 2 the intersection of St . Mary's Road and Thomas Ruffin St. Eight (8) inch line within the project area will tie into the 8 inch force main at the pump station Located south of Nancy Hill Creek. — Eight [8) inch Line ties into a two (2) inch force main at trio second pump station located near the northeast corner of the site. The capacity of the Hillsborough water treatment plant is 3.0 11 MOD, of which 47% is being utilized. The wastewater • treatment plant, which has a capacity to treat 2.0 MGO, is currently Operating at 40% (800,000 GPO) of its capacity. Water use and sewage treatment estimates were derived for approved and proposed developments to determine the remaining capacities for both the water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant (see attachment) . Assuming the "high scenario" listed in the attached calculations for the Scotawood development, the water treatment plant • would be operating itt 72% of its capacity and the Wastewater Treatment Plant at 78% of its capacity . 000030 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSW000 PAGE 3 WATER/WASTEWATER CALCULATIONS — HILLSBOROUGH 1 . Current Water Treatment Plant Capacity 3.0 MGD 2. Current Wastewater Plant Capacity 2.0 MGO 3. Current Use a . Water 1 .4 MGD b . Wastewater 8 MGD 4. Approved De yelopm,ents Estimated Water Use (a) ( High/Medium Scenarios ) (b) a. Wi dwood Section III o 12.97 acres , R-4 zoning o Assume 11 .02 acres developed (0) o TOTAL: 44 units 19,800/13,200 GPO b . Wang Property o 41 .8 acres, R-3 zoning o Assume 35.53 acres developed (c) o TOTAL: 106 units 47,700/31 ,800 GPO c. Scholar lar Property o 12.4 acres, R-3 zoning o Assume 10.54 acres developed (c) o TOTAL: 31 units 13,950/9300 GPO d . Meadowlands (d) 300,000 GPO a. Wood's Edge (e) o TOTAL: 52 mobile homes (2 badrms. per unit) 15,600 GPO f. Cedar Creek Condominiums o TOTAL: 160 units 72,000/48,000 GPO g . Cornwallis Hilts o TOTAL: 111 units 49,950/33,300 GPO TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 519,000/451 ,200 GPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT: (f) (g) o REMAINING CAPACITY 1 ,108,100/1 ,148,800 GPO o % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 84% /62 % WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT: o REMAINING CAPACITY 681 ,000/748,800 GPO o % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 66% /63 % r i 000031 §.` IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSWOOD PAGE 4 5. Proposed Developments H.i�rh/Medium Scen rips a. Spotswood � a 410 single family units. . . 184,500/123,000 GPD o 216 multifamily units (2 bedrms per unit) 64,800 GPD o ESTIMATED USE 248,300/187,800 GPO b . Wildwood Section IV o 28.80 acres, R-4 zoning o Assume 24.48 acres developed (c) o TOTAL: 88 units 44,100/29,400 GPO TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 293,400/217,200 GPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT: 6 REMAINING CAPACITY 787,600/931 ,600 GPO �p % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 74% / 69% WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT: th) o REMAINING CAPACITY l£) (g) 387,600/531 ,800 GPO o % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 81% / 73% (a) Assumil 150 gallons per day (GPD) per bedroom. (b) High scenario— 3 bedrooms per dwelling unit; medium scenario— 2 bedrooms per dwelling unit . Both scenarios were used, unless a site plan specified the number of bedrooms per unit . Assumed 2 bedrooms per mobile home. (c) Subtracted out 15% for roads. (dl "Sewer System Fesibility Study for Central Orange Study Area". E-C Maguire, Inc. May, 1985. tel Subtracted out 5 mobile homes for which building permits have been issued. [fl Assumed 150 GPO of wastewater (per bedroom) is treated. (g) These figures do not account for groundwater infiltration into the sewer lines . Chl These figures do not reflect the amount of wastewater treatm nt capacity earmarked for the Efland area . The initial capacity set aside for the EfLand area will be 55,000 GPD, and will eventually be expanded to 325,000 GPO. 000032 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSW000 PAGE 5 B. Traffic° Impact:, Scotswood will have access points from US 70, St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) , Willer Road (SR 1555) and Baldwin Road (SR 1554) . The major traffic increases and points of congestion will come from the entrances onto US 70 and St . Mary's Road (SR 1002) . Another major point of congestion will be the intersection of US 70 and St. Mary's Road. A 1981 traffic count on St . Mary's Road indicated 2000 trips per day. ON US Bypass 70 a 1984 traffic count indicated 7900 t.; trips per d y just east of NC 86 and 6600 trips per day just west of Lawrence Road (SR 1561 ) . According to the traffic impact analysis prepared by Kimley- =' Horn, Scotswood would generate 5,700 trips to the site and j 5,700 tripe) away from the site on an average day. It would add 1 .725 daily trips east of the project on St . Mary 's Road and 3,450 trips west of the project on St. Mary's Road. An additional 4,025 would be added to US 70 east and 2,300 trips to US 70 west of the project . These estimates were prepared under the assumption that the traffic would use the US 70 and St. Mary's) Road intersection instead of possibly using Lawrence Ro d, and are conservative according to the study. C. Recreation Facilities: Proposed recreation facilities for the multi—family area include a clubhouse and changing room, 2 regulation sized tennis courts and a swimming pool. The recreation area for the single family development includes an open space area of 16.2 acres which includes an open space area along the ? stream. This 16 .2 acres meta the minimum area requirement for recreation space in the Zoning Ordinance, however, no improvements are proposed for this area by the developer (See Planning Stsff recommendations) . 0. School Facilities: Students from the development would attend Cameron Park for grades. K-51 Grades 6 and 7 would attend Standback Middle School and grades 8 and 9 would attend Stanford Jr. High School . ALL children in grades 10 through 12 would attend Orange High School. ALL of the schools are operating at F!' capacity except Orange High School which is presently building en addition . Looking at the single family development with a proposed 410 units and using a figure of .718 as a multiplier for 3 bedroom single family units, there will be 294 school—age children produced by the development . The multi—family development with a proposed 216 units and using a figure of 000033 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SCOTSW000 PAGE .194 as a multiplier for 2 bedroom townhouse units, would generate 42 school—age children. The total residential development would generate 336 school age children . E. P.9.1192. EUS' 11PA11DASULARL1i *LS01.3. The Orange Rural Fire Department has indicated they can provide fi e protection with proper sized water lines and fire hydrars at proper intervals. The Sheriffs office has indicated they will require three additional personnel and 2 additional vehicles to provide adeqate protection . The Orange County Rescue Squad can presently provide service for this d velopment . FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT O O PERTAINING TO C=y W APPLICATION: SCOTSWOOD �. Planiwd developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires vrritten findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: ' (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements). L15LcJ below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application In question. The findings hav, been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" Indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) ` Planning Staff Plannin g Board Ord i ti oance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 8.b -'%�kpplication submitted on X Yes No Application, narrative and legal description Yes No Forms providing full and accurate submitted. �"- description of proposed use, including location, appearance and Operational characteristics 8.8 a) - Seven (7) copies of the X Yes _ No Site plans submitted. Y No site plan prepared by a registe es red i _ N.C. land survayor or engineer containing: I . North point, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 2, Extent of area to be developed Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 3. Location and width of all ease- "- mentn and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site X—Yes No Drainage easements are shown on the site plan. Yes No T- Utility easements will be provided as needed. — ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 4. Location 'of all existing or pro- X Yes No Site Plan shows proposed structures in the . Yes No posed structures on the site multi-family & Commercial districts. Individual structures In the single family district have not been 'indicated. 5. Location of all areas on the site X Yes No The 100 year floodpialn for Nancy Hill _Yes No subject to flood hazard or Inunda- Creek is located within the open space area. tion as shown on flood maps or soil maps E. Location of all water courses X Yes No Water courses are shown. —Yes No on the site, including the direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes Na Topography at 5 foot contour intervals Yes No interval of five (5) feet based has been shown. -- — on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, X Yes No Screening, parking, service and loading _Yes No screening, gates, parking, areas have been shown. service and storage areas 9. Access to site Including site X Yes No Access to the site Is proposed via new streets Yes No distances on all roads used for off US 70 and St. Mary's Road. Turn lanes and access deceleration tapers have been indicated on the site plan. 10. Eluvations of all structures _x._Yas No Structural elevations have been shown for Yes No proposed to be used in the the multifamily and commercial areas. development. 11 . Namus and addresses of owners X _.__Yes No Provided in application. Yes No C and applicants .— � 12. A feu, as set by the Board of Yes _ ' � _x2 es No $49a.0o application fee paid, Yes No CTi County Commissioners O O O ARTICLE 11.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes'.' indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Q . GJ Planning Board )'fanning Berard� Ordinance Requirements Eladings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 8.2.4' requires the applicant " to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision K Yes No Applicant indicates Hillsborough water Yes Ng__ _. -- or sewage isposa aci ities, and sewer service— is available via t�ulid waste and water service extension of existing lines. b) Method and adequacy of police, Yes No Yes No fire and rescue squad protec- -�-- —' Fire protection, police and rescue are to — ---- be provided by the Orange Rural Fire Department, Orange tion Co. Sheriff's Dept. and the Orange Co. Rescue Squad respectively. The Sheriff's Dept. has indicated they will require 3 additional personnel and 2 additional vehicles to provide adequate protection. The Fire Department has Indicated they can provide adequate service with proper sized water lines and fire hydrants properly spaced. The Rescue Squad indicated they can provide service fbr• the development. c) Method and adequacy of vehicle Yes No Yes No access co the site and traffic �" '— Improvements to US 70 and St. Mary's Rd. --- conditions around the site indicate turn lanes and deceleration tapers. Interior roads show a single smonbh traffic flow. ARTICLE 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATIONIPLAINNZr, r:C'JELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Development ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compilance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Re: uirements Support Findings Findings _ 2 Findings Evidence Submitted To S Article: 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements imelude: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site plan has been submitted. Yes No property at scale of not less _ than I" = 100' nor more than 1" = 20'. 20.3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Legal description has been submitted. Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No Not applicable. No error alledged Yes No error, If any, to be corrected —` -- ---- by proposed amendment 2U.3.2 d) Changed conditions, If Yes No Not applicable. Changed conditions not Yes No aoy, which male amendment reasona- alledged --- ably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Property located in tO Year Transition area Yes No amendment will carry out purpose as well as Commercial Activity Node. Designat on and intent of adopted Comprehensive permits R-2, R-5 and GC-4 zoning provided certain Plan zoning criteria are met and a Special Use Permit is obtained. O O Cr,7 . 'tiF ........_ _.... Q ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) . O r.1 Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements _ Find;ngs Evidence Submitted Lo Support Findings Findings Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant --—has—app4-i a d—f-o-r—a—P D-H-R2 designation, The criteria for that district arc: set forth in Article 4.2.E and are as follows: a) Designated by the adopted Land Yes No The property is located In a 10 Year Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, Transition area which will probably be annexed which can reasonably be expected to by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. be annexed by municipality in the ensuring. 10-20 years'. ' b) water and sewer lines should Yes No The developer is proposing Hillsborough Yes No f exist at site or be assured of and sewer service. Hillsborough has _ installation as part of the indicated a willingness to serve the site development process. and preliminary approval of the plans. Q) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No US 70 is classified as an arterial and Yes No of direct access to a street `- `- ' St. Mary's Road Is classified as an arterial- classified as either arterial or in the land Use Plan. collector as designated by the adopted Land Use flan. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant _lias_app_1_i.ed-fo.r a—P-D-H-Rs -�- - -- designation, The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. 3 and are as follows: Designated by the adopted a) Land Use Plan as a Transition _Yes No The property is located in a 10 Year _Yes No Area, which can reasonably be Transition area which will probably be annexed expected to be annexed by a by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. municipality in the ensuring 10-20 years. I') Water and sewer lines should X Yes No The developer is proposing Hillsborough Yes No exist at site or be assured of water and sewer Installation as part of the development process. c) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No US 70 is classified as an arterial and Yes No of direct access to a street St. Mary's Road is classified as an arterial '- classified as either arterial or - in the Land Use Plan. collector as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. d) The full range of_urban services X Yes No See impact analysis _Yes No exist or are proposed at the time of development including fire, police, recreation, education, O commercial and cultural activities. �J ' O W Ca I ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)nued) Q Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Su2port Findings Findings O Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of-a zoning district designation. The applicant -—h a-s-app-l-1-ed-for-a — - - des g a .ion, • The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2. 11 and are as follows: a) Designated in LUP as Yes No Property is located on Commercial- Yes No Commercial or Industrial Node: ,_. Industrial HB-3 Node in Hillsborough ` in Eno or Hillsborough Township. Townships b) Water and sewer lines exist Yes No water and sewer facilities could be Yes No or are assured of extended to the site as evidenced by letter Installation. from Town of Hillsborough. c) Direct access to arterial �YeS No Direct access provided to US 70 and Yes No or collector street. -'' St. Mary's Road, arterial roads. '""- ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATiON/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning-Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings F..LiZd�.l:19;z pP 9 Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Deveiaz- men u. These Include: ------ 7.4.1 so located with respect to X Yes No Direct access will be provided to two Yes No major streets and mass transit arterials (see impact statement) . facilities and designed so as not to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts 7A.2 so located with respect to X Yes No Extension of water/sewer service from Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage Hillsborough. Cost for extension to be facilities that enlargement or borne by developer. extension will not result in highar rret public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to Yes No Letters regarding adequate service Yes No polIce, fIre and rescue services, provision have been received from police, and schools and parks so as to fire and rescue services (see 8.2.4.b). have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning 7.11.3 Site suitable for develop- Yes No Soil survey&topo indicate several streams Yes No mWnL without hazard from flooding, with the majority of the property suitable erosion, and soil subsidence or for development. slipping G G G G 0 0 o ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Q Planning Staff Planning Bbard Ordinance Requirements _ Findings Evidence Submitted To Sueport Findings Findings Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external _ r7e7l-st-io-rssh-fps-'-'a-re ,as—ful-lows: Access points on US 70 and St. Marv's Road a}1 . Access points provided to �( Yes No a.re designed to provide controlled traffic Yes No encourage smooth traffic movements. Sinale family development is flow with controlled turn- located behind multi-family so as to not affect ing ,movements and minimum the amount of traffic on minor streets. hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. a)2, Safe and convenient routes Yes No Applicant has indicated walks in the _Yes No provided for pedestrians multifamily and commercial zones. Planning and motorcyclists. Crossings staff recommends a sidewalk on one side of the road safety marked, located and in the single family district. controlled. a}3. Visibility provided at inter- --pLYes No Applicant has indicated sight triangles at Yes No buctions (pedestrian and vehicular) the intersections of streets and entrance In accordance with Article 6.8. drives. 04. 100-foot open space provided xYes No A 100-foot open space area is provided along Yes No along per-ianeter of PO-ii district. the perimeter .of the PD-ti-R2 and P©-N-RS districts Recreational use and off-street when the districts are not equivalent to the parking set back at least 75 feet adjacent zones. of district boundary.. a)5. Yards, fences, walks or X Yes No Applicant has Indicated that existing Yes No Vugetation provided to screen T vegetation will remain where possible. off undesirable views, light- Ing, noise, etc. Parking/ loading areas and refuse collec- Lion/Storage areas screened. ...............-_... .................. ... ....._.__..._... . ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.11 .3 standards continued: a)b. Maximum building X Yes No Maximum building height In residential Yes No height complies with ____ districts is 25 feet. Building height standards set forth proposed by-app-LLcan-t_i_s 22 f_eel-max.tmum ---- ----- - in Article 6.12.3 and as shown on elevation drawings. Article 5.1.1 a)7. Signs to be erected in Yes No Sign plans not submitted as part of appli- _Yes No accordance with Article 9. cation. Plans can be required as a condition Standards regarding "internal of approval. rulatianships" are as follows: b) l , 5Lreots, drives and parking Yes No Site plans indicate that streets, drives Yes No arez•: provide safe and con- and parking areas are so designed as to %,�. .* tL access for dwellings provide safe -and convenient access. and emergency vehicles, and do not create small block sizes. W2. Vehicular access controlled as follows. a)_ Streets serving 50 or X Yes No Private drives as shown on the site plans Yes * No less dwellings provide and which serve 50 or less dwellings provide direct access to parking/ direct access to parking spaces. service areas. t,)�e, b) Streets serving greater Yes No See Article $.2,4 and Article 7.14.3a)1 , Yes ' No than 50 dwellings provide `"— access to parking areas so located, designed acid ' - controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. b)3. Walkways form safe, con- X Yes No See Article 7.14.3a)2. above. Maximum _Yes _No veniant system of access to w distance- between- dwellings and refuse collection dwellings, facilities and does exceed 1001. O off-site designations. Maximum walking dl,tzlncc between dwe 1 I i ngs and parking; delivery and refuse collection W areas does not exceed 100 feet. C C ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS -(Continued) C . C Planning Staff Planning Board rA Ordinance Req.uIrements Findings Evidence SuL•nd tted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.14.3 standards continued: Walkways used as play X Yes No See comment on 7.14.3a)2 and b)3• Yes 140 areas or school routes ~' — —---- by cK—i1dTen'1ocated an designed to minimize contact with vehicular traffic, Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. b)4. Protection of visibility- See a)3. and 03. above. 05. Open space and spacing between buildings - See Article b standards. ......._..._............... ARTICLE 5 - OIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates coripllance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Board planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, tot tlidth, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building -----hv-igh-c and—let cove-r-:;ge, and development intensity. Thu applicant has applied fur a PO-H-R2 dt;:iynation. The standards for that district are set Forth in ArL'iclu 5. 1. and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Yes No dw(:l I i n u i t - 20,OOD' sq.ft. b) Minimum lot width - Yes No Planned developments approved on site Yes No IVA sq. ft. — basis. c) Requirg�Afront setback - Yes No Same as above. Yes No d) Ruquired side and rear - Yes No Same as above. Yes —No setbacks - N/A ft. e) maximum building height - Yes No Maximum building height shown on plan _Yes No 2S ft• provided by applicant is 25 feet. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity Standards is addressed in Article b. c o cr _ O O O ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliances "No" indicates noncompliance) O Oa Planning Staff - Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Find]nas Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those dt:ve lopment intensity standards which apply to gruup devel-opments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land Yes No Applicant's site contains 290.03 acres or Yes No area - 30,000 sq. ft. 12,633,7o6 sq. ft. b) Maximum gross land Yes No Article 5.1.1 of Zoning Ordinance. Yes No area - None sq. ft. c) Maximum floor area ratio - X Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is 960,161.65 Yes No _ .076 sq. ft. Applicant's plans Indicate floor "— "- Maximum floor area area will not exceed maximum_ permitted. permitted - Based on a. maximum floor area for the site and the number of units proposed the maximum � `I sq. ft, floor area per unit is 23112 sq. ft. d) iequired minimum open Yes No Applicant's site plan indicates open space Yes No space ratio - •82 area compiles with the land use requirements. Required minimum open space 10359 sq. ft. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board . Ordinance Requirements. Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.12 standards (cY(I L i nued) ---f)t�cquire minimum live- Yes No Applicant's site plan indicates it complies _Yes No a ility space ratio - with the liveability space ratio requirement '-7i3 Required as specified In the Ordinance. minimum liveability space - 8,843,594.2 sq. ft. g) Required minimum recreation X Yes No Applicant's plans indicate recreation Yes No space ratio - .022 areas totaling 705,672 sq. ft. —` Required minimum recreation space - � o� �z sq. ft. h) Rt�quired minimum open Yes No Applicant's submission indicates compliance Yes No space adjacent to with minimum spacing between buildings. No building wails requirements established for tertiary wails Primary wails ft. other than N.C. Building Code standards. Secondary walls ft. Tertiary walls ft. 0 o 0 0 ARTICLE 5 - DiMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance RegUI rements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings 00 Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building --13-e Lgb.t—and-1_ot_coue.r_age:, — --and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-H-115 designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5. 1. 1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per Yes No Yes No dwelling unit - N/A dwelt. Planned developments approved on site basis. b) Minimum lot width - Y No Same as above. Yes No N/A 5q. F t. ._ es ___._ c) Required front setback - Yes No Same as above. Yes No NIA ft. d) Required side and rear Yes No Same as above. Y es No setbacks - N/A ft. a) Maximum building height - -Yes No Maximum building height provided by Yes No 25 ft. applicant is 25 feet. Compliance with tot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article b. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements. Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.12 standards (continued) -- t Required minimum live- _Yes No Applicant's submission indicates 950914.8 Yes No ability space ratio - sq. ft. .52 Required minimum liveability space - A6A ?in IL sq. ft. �j) Required minimum recreation Yes No Applicant's plans indicate recreation areas Yes No space ratio - _036 totaling 51,400.8 sq, ft. i — Ruquired minimum recreation space - sq. ft. h) Required minimum open Yes No Applicant's submission indicates that _Yes No space adjacent to minimum spacing between building walls Is 18 feet. building walls The minimum spacing between building walls and off- street parking areas or streets is 5.9 feet for Primary walls 11 .4 ft. secondary walls and 11.9 feet for primary walls. Secondary walls —r aft. No requirements established for teritary walls other Tertiary walls ft. than N.C. Building Code standards. Article 6.16.1 requires that X Yes No Site Plan indicates a declaration in compli- _Yes No unit ownership of condominium ance with the "Unit Ownership Act of North developments be declared and Carolina" will be submitted for review and approval prepared in compliance with the by the County Attorney. "Unit Ownership Act of North Carolina." 0 ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates c(ji:ipllance; "No" indicates noncompliance) o ' o Planning Staff Planning Board CJt Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted. To Support Findings Findings o Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building _—hs-i•gh-t and—1-ot c-ovc--r-age; — and development intensity. The applicant has applied For a PD(C)-GC4 designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5. 1. 2 and aro as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Applicant proposes eleven (11) uses. Yes No dwLiling unit - 40,000 —" ^' Total land area is 454,330.8 sq. ft. "— sq. fL. - b) Minimum lot width - Yes No Not applicable to P.D. Yes No sq. f t, C) Required front setback - Yes No Not applicable to P.O. Yes No d} R.. Not applicable to P.D. quired side and rear Yes No Yes No setbacks - ft. e) Maximum building.height - X Yes No Applicant has submitted detailed building ____Yes No 45 ft. —` elevations and specified on site plan that the proposed building height is 35 . Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article b. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIME•NSIOUAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates com liance "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff - 'Planning Board Ordinance Requirements PI q �inrlS�a £vldence Submitted To Support Findings t=lndtnne - a Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6,12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Area of tract is 454,330.8 sq. ft. Yes No 425,600 sq. ft. — b) Maximum gross land _Yes No No maximum specified In ordinance. Yes No area - sq. ft. c) Maximum floor area ratio - Jfes No Applicant proposed 66,950 sq. ft. of Yes No _ .566 ____ floor area. -- Maximum Floor area permitted ?5:7051 sq. ft. d) Required minimum o en _Yes No Applicant proposes 386,181.18 sq.. ft, of Yes No space ratio - J r open space. ____ Required minimum open space - 322574_gf, sq. ft. ice+ ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board s Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence submitted to Support Findings Findings � Article 7.15.5 states that the x Yes _No. Applicant has specified maximum building Yes No maximum height of buildings shall __... elevations-of 35` on the site plan and be as set forth in Article 5 and submitted detailed elevations for the proposed Article 6.2. The maximum building structures. height permitted is 41; feet. Hrticle 7-1"576 requires that a—lan Yes No Applicant is proposing 104496.08 sq. ft. of Yes No area equal to .20 times the net land for pedestrian use and landscaping. The land area of the property be reserved required area is 90866.16 sq. ft. for pedestrian use and landscaping, and that it be improved and.maintained accordingly. Article 7.15.7 requires that off X Yes No Applicant Is proposing 294 spaces for off-street Yes No street parking be provided as set parking. The required number of spaces is 291. forth in Article 10. Off-street Individual spaces are designated on the revised loading shall be provided as site plan. appropriate to the needs of the occupants and protection of adjacent properties. Off-street parking spaces shall not be used for maneuvering space for vehicles being loaded and unloaded. Article 7.15.8 requires all Yes No Yes No electrical and telephone ] Ines to be '� "— Applicant has specified in narrative that all located underground, electrical and telephone lines will be located underground. Article 7.15.9 requires that all ,Yes No Applicant has not submitted sign details; Yes No signs be erected in compliance with however, Article 9 Signs provisions will be —' Article 9 standards and that no met. signs be oriented toward nearby residentially zoned districts. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Bbard Ordinance Rcouirements Findings EvIdance'Submitted To Support Findings Findings ^, Article 7.15.10 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: a)-I-.—Or-i-en-ta-t-1-on—of—perm-i-t-ted—uses dyes No - D-irect access to from the site is via US 70, No Yes No and structures shall be away —"" structures/uses are oriented to or near a minor _._. from minor streets In street in a residential neighborhood. residential neighborhoods. a)2. Vehicular access point shall be X Yes No Access to the commercial site is from US 70 Yes No designed to encourage smooth "— and Scotswood Boulevard. With the turn lane ` traffic flow t',rith controlled and deceleration lanes proposed on Hwy. 70 turning movements and minimum and the proposed traffic light at the hazard to vehicular and pedestrian intersection of St. Mary's Rd, and Hwy. 70, traffic. Merging and turnout lanes a smooth traffic flow with controlled turning shall be provided where existing and movements will be generated, anticipated heavy traffic flows In- dicate need, a}3, External yards of at least 35 XYes No External yards of 50' and 1100' have been shown for Yes No feet shall be provided at the property the northern and eastern property lines respectively. lines except where commercial/ External yards along the western and southern property industrial districts adjoin. Yards lines provide a 50' buffer. shall be landscaped as follows: a) Along collector, arterial X Yes No Applicant has submitted detailed landscaping on Yes No or frontage streets, nearest the site plan. The site plan shows setbacks of 15 feet to right-of-way 50' along US 70 and 100' along Carolina Ave. with shall be landscaped, general landscaping indicated. b} Along side yards adjoining --L yes No Applicant has submitted detailed landscaping on Yes No residential districts, the site plan; 115' or greater side setbacks are shown nearest 15 feet to property along adjoining residential districts and general land- lines shall be landscaped., scaping indicated on the site plan. Q C.1T W ........._......_.... . ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (Continued) O • O c� Planning Staff Planning Board r� Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings V1 Article 7.15.1003. Continued: c) Where lots in a residential _Yes No Not applicable Yes No district face the proposed PD(C) district, the nearest 10 feet to the right-of-way of an intervening street shall—be-landscapes . d) in all other yards, except X Yes No Applicant indicates 10' or greater rear setbacks Yes No adjacent to commercial or -' as shown and general .landscaping indicated on the Industrial districts, the site plan. nearest 10 feet to property line shall be landscaped. Required landscaping conceals _42es No Applicant has submitted site plan Indicating general Yes No extensive parking areas, service landscaping and screening of parking areas. areas and undesirable views. Walls, fences or hedges are X Yes No Applicant has specified screening provisions on the Yes No provided to screen against —" site plan. noise, lights or undesirable views. Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows: b) Facilities and access routes for Yes No Facilities for access, servicing etc. are Yes No servicing, maintenance, deliveries, separated from areas associated with pedestrian pick-up are so located as to prevent traffic. interference with pedestrian traffic. Buildings, service areas and X Yes No Applicant satisfies this provision as evidenced Yes No parking and pedestrian areas are by general layout of uses and access ways on site. located in a unified and organized arrangement for Provide for maximum comfort and convenience of occupants. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF D114ENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Staff Planning Board Planning Findings Ordinance Requi reax-nts Findings Evidence Subirri teed To Support Findings Article 6.24 standards (Con t i nued) f) The development shall conform with the requirements of — A r-t i-c-1..-1-2--Lands-cap-i-n g- and Screening. These standards are as follows: 1 . Street frontage land- Yes No General landscaping details are designated _Yes No scaping must include on the site plan which satisfy this requirement a 10-foot landscaped area planted with one tree per 40 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet in height, acrd and grass or ground cover. 2. Peripheral landscaping Yes General landscaping details are designated Yes No must include a 10-foot on the site plan which satisfy this requirement landscaping ar,, a 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 Applicant has not submitted detailed landscaping Yes No provide coverage of at plan; however general landscaping details are Mast 5% of any other designated on the site plan which satisfy this vehicular use area. requirement. The site plan specifies parking islands are to be planted. O O ClT U1 ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL RECIUI RE14ENTS (Continued) O O Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings -- 'Ci S Article 6.zh Standards (Continued) e) 3. No more than 10 X Yes No Applicant`s. stte plan complies with;-the Yes No parking spaces J spacing requirement and specifies parking allowed in a con- Lsl.ands w.1-1-1—be—landscaped. -- — tinuous row without division by land- scaped nx:dian strip. Every fourth row of Yes No Applicant's site plan complies with the Yes No parking separated by spacing requirement and specifies parking 8-foot nx:dlan with at islands will be landscaped. least one tree for each 60-feet of median I eng th. 4. Type _A screen is Yes No A Class A screen is required in some areas Yas No required. Standards as specified on the site plan. for that type include the following: a. 6' high opaque screen. b, 20' high intermittent visual obstructions from opaque screen. A Type'B screen is required �Yes No A Class 8 screen is required in some areas Yes No in some areas. Standards as specified on the site plan. .� _ for that type include the following: a. 15' high Intermittent visual obstructions r 3, • .. r, Cke I ;V * rt) 0 0 n 9 5 7 '`. STAZEKEST OF JUSTIFICATION Is . Preliminary Remarks Scotswood_ Planned. !Development is proposed on. a 330 acre site located north- . east of the intertction of U.S. Highway 70-Bypass and St. Mary's Road (SM 1002). The site i self has been a part of the lands of the Graham family, .-; originally of Hill6borough, since prior to 1900. A. H. Graham, Jr. and ,-,•,, John W. Graham now desire to. develop the property with the intent of pro.. viding quality residential land for the rapidly growing areas in and around. •,, = Fillsborough. Scoiswood is proposed to consist of 423 single-family lots, 216 townhouse units, and a. small community shopping center to accomodate the- needs of the residents. I, 1. THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS IT THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE PHYSICAL 0 DEVELOPMENT OFITHE COUNTY AS EMBODIED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE „ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. . a. Contormancle with the Land Use Plan: Scotssrood is located, in an area designated as the Ten Year Transition and Commercial. Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. IThe tract certainly TIAlifiee with the definitions of rt, these designations. This area is in the process of changing from rural to urban and is suitable for urban type densities when pro- :, vided withIpublic utilities.. The intersection af St. Mary's Road 1: and U.S. Highway 70 - Bypass, both classified as arterials, offers am appropriate site- for retail and other commercial uses. b. Conformaucel with the Zoning Map: The entire, site is currently zoned Rp.1 which is a rural residential •=' • district. clThe applicant is requesting that the tract be rezoned as , a planned evelopment. As a PD-if project Scotswood would meet all ... 1 the requirements of the R-2, R-5 and. GC-4 zoning districts, and the 1 standards of the appropriate Articles of the Orange County Zoning ,a. Ordinance. The proposed project design incorporates all screening 'P and buffer' requirements, setbacks, height restrictions, and inten- sity regulations. Planned development use calculations have been computed aUd included in the plan package. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED, DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO BE OPERATED SO AS , TO MAINTAIN OR. PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH; SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. '. a. Traffic Conditions: i . The design nd layout of the site provides access to/from U.S. Hwy. 70 - Bypass, St. Mary's Road, Baldwin Road, and Wopdlawn Drive. a All interio roads will.be dedicated to the North Carolina Depart- 2 anent of Transportation as public rights-of-way and be designed and c9ngtructedlto their standards for subdivision'roads. For more : specific information,ialease refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis filed as part of this application. t i • - , •- . ._ . . ..... ... ... . _ . . . _ . _ __ 1 000058 Based on the recommendations. of: the report the design provides for the- dedicasiont of additional right-of-way along St. Mary's Road for the ulltimate proposed width, left turn lanes at both the U.S.. Hwy. 70 a4 St. Mary's Road. entrances to the site, and the realign- ment of Ceroriym Avenue to alleviate traffic problems at its current . intersection with St. Mary's Road. Refer to the plans for details on how these items will be accomplished. . b. UtiLites/S�rvices: Water -- by Town. of Fiiigborough;. looped connections into existing water lines in St. Mary's and Miller Roads. Sewer --- hr Town. of Hillsborough; gravity sewer lines within the development running to a pump station and then by force main to an existinglmanhole at the.intersection of St. Mary's Road and Thomas 5'- ' Ruffin Road. Electric -= by Duke Power Company; underground. Telephone I by Centel Telephone Company; underground. Gas -- by Public Service Company of North Carolina, Inc. (if used). Refuse Collection -- Privately contracted. . Fire Protection -- by Orange County Rural Fire Department; fire hydrants lain. be provided within 500 feet of all residential units. Rescue Service -- by Orange County Rural Rescue Squad. Lacs Enforcement --by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . c.. Soil. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: Soil erosion and sedimentation control plans will be submitted for approval in accordance with the Orange County Erosion Control Ordinance prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of ' construction. All disturbed areas in each phase will be seeded • . immediate � l. upon. completion of final grading. ft d,. Relationship to Watercourses. Nancy Sill Creek (a.k.a.. Strouds Creek) runs through the develop- ment and is part of the headwaters of the Eno River. One-hundred foot:open space areas have been provided to either side of the creek to bdffer any impact of adjacent development. Storm drainage 1 1 easements 4ill be provided as necessary along the watercourses 'A feertt*+g inio the creek. SI 3. THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED, DE MED, AND PROPOSED SO AS TO MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE VALUE OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. a. Relationship to Surrounding Areas: The property is bordered by single-family residential areas, open fields, and commercial tracts along U.S. Hwy. 70. The layout was designed nat only to include the required buffers but to also pro- , transition between the commercial, high density residential are* and low density lots. This transition together with the re- ) y g tention of trees and the difference in elevation between properties will insure adequate buffering between off-site single-family . areas and Scotswood so as not to have any negative impact on those areas. The development proposed in Scotswood will,-be of excellent,' quality and appearance, and thus should not haue- any detrimental effect on the present value of the surrounding developed properties. I • 009059 Conclusion • In summary, we believe that the Scotswood Planned Development would be an important component in the growth. and development of this area of Orange County. This site lends all of. the necessary requirements of well planned project design and provides for all of the planting concepts and concerns of the county. Phasing. will certainly be an important aspect of the development. As always, phasing is dependent on a variety of subjects including economy,. lmarketiag, and surrounding development growth. Scotswood would. offer an excellent opportunity to provide a. grality residential environment consistent with the •expand4ng- growth of N171nborough and the surrounding develop ent areas. Prepared by: THE JOHN I. Mc. DAMS CONPPZ T, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS • Pt• • • 0 0 0 6 0 t.• •.„ '•4‘ SCOTSWOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS •.; • Prepared for: Jahn W.Graham I A.R.Graham, Jr. - 1 Cc) October, 1985 L531.00 1 ; • • • • • •. , • • Kirniey.Horn and Associates, Inc. , • , • 901 Janes Franklin Road.Raleigh.N.C.27606•(919)851-8260 • neletteWea Palm Beech.Tames.°name.Nashville.Dallas r '.. • tt ,L1* r..',. I . —KimlepliorrtandAssaciatessin= 901 Jones Franidin Road, Raleigh, N.C.27606 40,(319)851-82 Rektign.West Penn Bead%Tam ,Orlando.Nile.Oakes t., 1 1' I October 16, 1985 - 1 Mr. John W. Graham Post Office BoX 17424 = Raleigh, North t ari °Una 27619 t et' 4 ; , 1 Mr. A.Ii.Graha4n, Jr. , I 400 Wachovia Building .; • Durham, North Carolina 27702 Dear Sirs: . 1 We are pleased to submit this report on the traffic impact analysis of your proposed Scotswirod development near Hillsborough in Orange County. We have enjoyed working with you and are available to answer any questions you. may have concerning this report. . Very truly yours,. , ■ KIMLEY-iiORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I° ,', I , : i Alit.:44%in - ence J. M er, P.E.., AICP Associate , . LJM/mkb I 1531.00 • I - . -- - - . , . . , • > . e/ , - . ....• 1 , . r , , , • •1 ( 0 0 MOW' o r n • SCOTSWOOD TRAFFIC.IMPACT ANALYSIS L INTRODUCTION Scotswood is a proposed. mixed-use development for which planned developmen I t rezoning is being requested through the Orange County approval process. This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to support the zoning application.. Presented in this report are traffic generation, distribution, assignment, and resulting recommendations for transportation improvements to meet the anticipated traffic demands. This traffic impact analysis. is based upon a preliminary land use plan prepared or this development and presented in this report. The project is primarily residential in nature, with a small community shopping center also planned. IL LOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES The propoSed development is boated just east of Hillsborough in central Orange County. Figure 1 depicts this location and major existing and proposed thoroughfares.. • A. Thoroughfares Scotswood would be served by both existing and planned thoroughfares as shown in Figure 1. Thoroughfares serving the development include: I. US 70 Bypass is east-wesr. thoroughfare, serving northern Hillsborough aInd, central Orange County.- It provides direct -1- • - •, ._ gl Hrt q 1 ' 1 lk 001)0601 ,...1 ,-.■ 14. - - % Ci .9. *. RC I ! 0 ■ 0 42' .a.- $11P. 42. ea . • ze. ... ..., . .r.r.....;;„;-,-....... /;k-:.•,A-..", _• 11 ; , f",, , 00p. 1O' 0 •q , SCOTS 4,1- II °Jilts. '0 Bus LI ' , Eta I f4e ST, i Al,*419 ra: . .1 & • k .1 •.. KING ST. '0 i, -... z ' "A 0 1 - 0 _ T ) V.? HILLSBOROUGH ---iI- --4 CC r ..... tg. - • . i = - f.................*'") I°:,.........1 3 f:, • •i 1 % i • 1 ....t t t .4f . ,,`. 414S. . . % •7.0 t 1 , SU8 r.- 1 i .., i 0 aiir 1 ; 1 , 4.11,44'ro • °044444.416_ lb NT74,4ttit, 1)490,444, ' • 4. 4414, t, o \ % ' , *0-• 0 -.._ 0 ‘ ..4 ...._ Oci [i. . \ . , ik. rei 0 i _ A "t• -- wow iremminu SCALE • rnms. % MILES i 1 , 1 .- PROJECT ., Kirnleyl-forn SCOTSWOOD FIGURE 1 ',.. LOCATION 000064 tttalyaggb orn - e connections to 1-85 both east and west of Hillsborough.gh US 70 in 1 the vicinity of the project is currently two lanes.. Z. St., Marys Road (SR 1002) is a two-lane thoroughfare leading to downtown Hillsborough to the- west and to northern Durham County.and the planned Treyburn development to the east.. 3. NC 86 is a north south thoroughfare leading to Chapel Hill to the 1 south and to Danville, Virginia to the north. 4.. I-85 is-the primary Interstate route serving the.Piedmont section of North Carolina.. It connects Durham, Burlington, Greensboro, and Charlotte, as well as many smaller cities. II S. I-40, planned for completion.in 1987, will connect 145 with existing I.40 near Research Triangle Park, and will-also improve . access between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. I B. Local Streets Local street access. for Scotswood will be provided at US 70 by Scotswood Boulevard and at St.. Marys Road by Graham Drive. ! Secondary access points will be provided at Miller Road and at Baldwin Road. Local streets wilt be constructed to County standards and are planned to be publicly owned and maintained. i I i I C. Existing Traffic Conditions I 1 i Analysis of existing afternoon peak hour traffic volumes shows a mode rate degree of congestion at the intersection of US 70 and St. Marys Road. Based on the procedure for analyzing unsignallzed intersections, this intersection currently operates-at level of service C • -3- - - J .. ..• 1 i •.- - i • 000065 • Ofiffillat)Harn • ■••••••11101MIAIIVIMIMII101■111.10.1•••••■■■••••■•■•■111.01111MM.11111•■••1111/ • - for the St..Marys Road approaches and level ot service- A for the left turns from US 70.. Levels of service range from A through F, with A being the best or least congested. This Intersection has separate left turn lanes-for both US 70 approaches and no separate turn lanes for the St.Marys Road approaches. • D. Programmed Improvements The North Carolina Department of Transportation plans to widen 1-85 to. lanes by 1993 and to complete 1-40 by 1988. No improvements are programmed in the-Immediate vicinity of.the development. BL. PROPOSED LAND.USE The- proposed land use plan for Scotswood is shown In Figure 2 and summarized in Table I.below. TABLE.1 LAND USE SUMMARY Area. Land Use- (acres) Units Square Feet Single-Family Residential 296 423 Multi-Family Residential 22 220 I • Commercial(Shivping Center) 12 67,000 I Total 330 643 • IV. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Both average daily and peak hour trip generation were undertaken for the preliminary land use plan presented in Figure 2. Trip generation rates were based upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers Informational Report on Trio Generationl(Third Edition,1983). • 1 1 , . • - . :)0066 • . - . ; . `•, ',... 4 - •4t• .• :., .. • t .......................... ..** 146'1°.' --'''''"' -- ': - • .7. It -,t ..,, / i *, .1.• / \ .i I \\\\ .. ejiwo dr 4' i \ Jt 1 i• 1 '.. / r -.; •%. it/ \ ,„,_ I Ma=EIS- / 1 i 422 MOUE MUMS WW1 r I r r vo. if.=uut.m.,,,,,, i +PO , / N\, "°.j / . 0- -.1 . rmcicxel,e =ea.Avx sl.M110.6116 1 $141,0016. , 1 : I 1 • I .. .4..''' l'il .1.4e..L .,■ : . or .,, . . . . . . ''. 1 Klaihnloi40114 1 SCOTSWOOD , '. PROPOSE)LAND USE Rom a I , • . .• , . .. i 1 :+ . ' •i r , . ; t .. . _ _ . . ........ ._ ._.,. .. ,I 00'0067 ,, CallagejaHOrn } . Table 2. provides the resulting trip ends for the project for both Average I Daily Traffic(ADT) conditions and for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions.. Under fulk development,.Scatswood will have-5,700 trips to the site and 5,700 • trips away from the site on an.average day. The A.M. peak hour traffic will be 200 tr�ps.to the site and 400 trips away from the site. P.M.peak hour traffic will be 640 trips to the site and 300 trips away from the site. Trip generations for Scotswood is summarized in Table 2 below. j j TABLE 2 • TRW.GENERATION SUMMARY ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Single Family Dwellings 2,100 2,100 90 230 570 . 160 Apartments 650 650 . 20 90 100 50 ■ Shopping Center 2-,950 2,950 90 80 270 290 Total 5,700. 5,700 200 400 640 500 u. V. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND.ASSIGNMENT 1 The trip ends estimated in. Section-. IV were assigned to the streets. and � thocou gh es serving the proposed project. The distribution of trips by g direction. was derived from existing travel � patterns; projected future travel I •patterns, land the spatial distribution of employment and other travel i I r ! opportunities in the Research Triangle area. . 1 ! i Figure 3 shows existing (1983 and 1984) average daily and P.M. peak hour I traffic on the existing major thoroughfare system serving the project. Also shown are a additional traffic volumes that would be added by Scotswood. E ' Scotswood ould add 1,725 daily trips to St. Marys Road,east of the project and 3,450 trips to St. Marys Road west of the project. An additional 4,025 -6- • 1 . ' tAi p 1_ •)0068 I . 4s s1� i P i / s') ce I`r � illy y i�Fj O • ) 4. • ursaa..... .. i iiAl• i i a .01- • . ..Ifq xo +s / I. cr.MATS,001.2.. ,‘„t7.06 1..... 11•44.1011. It%\\\ *Ii DM•J V ante nommen j � LEGEND 1 tr e aoo CM n. Ao r ...Wan o gun 008044. A.i o K r+AYrf/sG s S p. y= N/. ' 410 SCOTSw0.s9 MOM w000 MOM • 1001.441arr 5C0 'VOOD t !RAMC A$S3� 3 ` / Y. of L i ii . �fl C ff aH©rn trips-would be added to US 70 east of the project and 2,300 trips to US 70 west of the project. These estimates are conservative, as it is likely that some trek=would go to the south via-Lawrence Road rather than using the - US 701St.. Marys Road interchange as was assumed here.. uk ... VL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED 14 A... Pro'ected Traffic Conditions Th I intersection of St..Marys Road and US 70 would continue to operate below capacity, at approximately level of service 8, with the proposed development in place and with the proposed improvements as described in the following section. B. Improvements Required A traffic signal will be required at the intersection of.US 70 and. St. • Marys Road to accommodate the full development of Scotswood, based on peak hour signal warrant (Warrant 11, revised Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. FHWA) and on capacity analysis with and without a.traffic signal. Traffic volumes will warrant a signal when the deve.lopment is between one-third and one-hall completed,/ so it is important that volumes be monitored as the-development progresses. In addition to the signal, a separate left turn lane should be provided on • the i southwest approach of St. Marys Road for traffic turning west on y.. US 7 Left turn lanes should be provided from both US 70 and St. Marys Road to e two major project access points as well as to the proposed shopping center entrance on US 70. Widening the adjacent _ thor Qi u hfares along the develo pe r. frontage will provide sufficient • pavement width for the turn lanes, except in the case of the turn lane 4- -k. J 000070 I -- _- _ ---__ -• - ---- -----w- • CaYkirfaHo rn r i -- '. from- US. 74 to the project entrance,. where the entrance is at the 1 wes umost-edge of the frontage. In that case; it appears that the ' mall can be widened on existing right-of-way sufficient to provide-the • taper and turn lane:. Design of the pavement widening and turn lane i striping should be coordinated with the NCDOT Division Engineer. It is anticipated that the ultimate cross-section for both roads will be- five lanes on a.90 foot right-of-way. 1 Carolina Avenue should be realigned so that it intersects St. Marys 1' Road.at least 200.feet from the intersection with US 70. Putting a cul- j de-sac at that end of Carolina: Avenue would accomplish the same I pure i se of removing that street from the US 70/St Marys toad it intersection. 1 1 A t lane cross-section will be adequate for all internal streets with the exception Scotswood Boulevard.. This entrance road should have- a four II e cross-section at least from US 70 to the entrance to the multi+-family area.. Turn lanes should be provided at Intersections, f Whil .the main internal collector streets, such as Graham Drive, do not a , dY require-four-laving,they should be wider. than other streets or in some l 1 way delineated as-major internal streets. Separate left and right turn lanes should be provided at the project access points at US 70 and St. i Marys Road for exiting traffic.. ( Care should be taken to provide proper alignment and sight distance and I the project access points, particularly at the St. Marys Road entrance. - 1 Some grading and clearing away tram the intersection may be required because of the steep slopes, and curvature on St. Marys Road in the 1 vicinity of the proposed access point. _9- ► Y • . i a ■ i . 00007t CZIkAgyo orn VII.. SUMMARY • The existing transportation facilities, with the improvements proposed above, will provide adequate transportation service for* both development and existing. traffic. The proposed access points with the recommended improvements will adequately serve development traffic in a safe and efficient manner: • • • • l I �tt I 1 i • - 1 -14- 1 ' F.-0-..0-- -072 1�8 � -•-- .rtill1T o � urug# TarwrrClerk 1r. HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ABatha•Johnwu asstr Supt. Water Wart, Lynwood J. Brown - James Pendrrgraph Horace.H. luhmcon• , ,_ Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd • ��'" L. D.Wagoner Remo. J. Smith • • a •.+.:_:. Chief of Police Rachel H. Stcsem, - Arnold W. Hamkn �! esk71 r.4 `, - Fire Chief . ' •tr • 4�-** Afr John Fortes: . . . A.,..4!: Et) . August 22, 1985 Mr: Don Willhoit, Chairman Orange County Commissioners - 106 E.. Margaret Lane • Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 - Dear Chairman Willhoit: ' . With. referen5e to the County public hearing on August 26th, on behalf of the Hillsborough 'town Board, I would like to reaffirm the willingness of the Town to provide water and sewer service to the proposed Weng, Scholar, Scottsuood, and Cornwallis Hills developments, as expressed by. the Board at its August. 12th - meeting.. Letterslof tentative approval were issued earlier for each of the • projects, and we feel that the commitments contained in these letters should be honored by the Town and County. Our willingness to serve. these developments is, ' of course, •subjecc to review and approval of detailed engineering plans by both the Town Engineer and State Division of Health Services.. -We expect. these engineering reviels to determine whether the proposed developments can be con- structed. in a manner consistent with the Town's current plans to maintain and improve water pressure to existing customers in the vicinity of the proposed' new developments. At its meeting on August 12th, the Town Board adopted a change to the Town's water and sewer extension policy which requires that all future applications for water-sewer service be reviewed by the Town Board. This review will be based on preliminary drawings and other information submitted by a developer with the application for a 'provai. Under this new procedure, the Town Board will determine whether to extend water-sewer service to the proposed development, based on con- sideration of the availability of treatment plant capacity and other potential impacts of the pr posed project. Tentative• Board-approval, subject to engineering • review and approval, will then be communicated to the County by letter. This new approval procedure will substitute for the letter approval procedure used to date. . i - •• . i . v • 1 - /1.... _ ..., 1 _____ • • , tg;eDr2on Willhoitl / . — ------- --..-- ---- -1)00073 -- •• ** / _ August 22, 1985 1 1 - • • 4 I trust thiS clarifies the Town's intentions with respect to the four developments curtlently under review by the County and makes clear the fact that all future developments will be subject to our new and hopefully im- proved, approval 'procedures. - Serely, •- . . a"lc -H. JA.f.* 0.._/ . . . .• . • Frank B. Sheffield,. Jr., Mayor _ FES/jc • . cal Town Board Members Ken Thompson, County Manager Marvin Collins, County Planning Director James Penderzraph, Town Water—Sewer Superintendent . . • - . . . . _ . . . . . • . • . . • • . . ' . . . • . . . • _ . . . . . . . - . .. . ' - ,, . , . 1 • . - . .. • • .... . 63"761...1"6"."6". -7.7 •- ........... ... ..-......,......... ., ... _...,.....,.-.....- O€)€ 74 y Moor DrlUI'r 1J t1 .b�? aTl g. roue ckrio Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Jotins.., HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27275 Comm&ssiuners Sept. Water la...‘ - l.,nwuuci J. Hro+.n Jas-PenoergI.. Huracc H JohnNon � Pr reet ilirn A. I..vd ..011W�a; '1� �r� 1. D. Wagun:i Ronu. I lmnh r _ R.,,art II tiled rn. L=y�,-a��, a/Polk. Arnold W. Ham., John.Forre,, TO: Orange Coul cy Board of Commissioners FROM: Hi:llsboroulgh Town Board. RE: Courtesy Review of Scotswaod Planned Development/Rezoning DATES November l2, 1985 On November 17, 1985, the Planning Board conducted a courtesy review of the Rezoning and Planned Development proposed for the Scotswood project. Subsequent1. the Town Board onjNovember 11, 1985, reviewed the comments prepared by the . Planning Board. Below is a list of conditions of approval recommended by the Town Board which incorporates the recommendations of the Planning Board. • • I . Require that substantial improvements be made to Hwy. 70 and St. Mary's Road prior to initiation of project phases having significant traffic impact. Such improvements should. include more than simply installing traffic signals. or turning lane at the intersection of Hwy. 70 and St. Mary's Road. Due to its size, the proposed project raises considerable concerns on the part of the Town Board about the overall impact of the project on. traffic safety and congestion, especially along Hwy. 70, in the Cameron Park School area, and in downtown Hillsborough. 2. Provide. curb Ind gutter along all streets.. 1. Provide sidewalks along both sides of the streets within the residential areas. Construct the lift station at the southeast section of the project of suffici.:1,- size to acco odate any future connections by property owners along Sc. Mary's Road. 1 Install sewer lines more than 100 feet from Nancy Hill creek. The preliminary . utilities plan indicates that sewer lines are to be installed at least 50-80 test from the creek. Members also asked. chat the lines be placed on a 6" sand base with additional protective measures to help prevent any leakage. 0. tnstalil- mercury lights throughout the e ro ct area tor additional security. p j ea as the project develops 7. Provide more recreation space than the proposed 6.0 acres at the north end of the single—family development. Spread out the open space/recreation areas in ordar co more adequately serve the single—family lots. Provide a "greenwey area;tong Nancy Hill creek, with a jogging trail and other recreational .ACtiviCieS. I ' I . ( . • Courtesy Review !of Scotswood Planned Development/Rezoning ,-g:(,3 November 12, 1985• Page 2 8. Install a traffic light iamoediately at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and U. S. Hwy. 70—Bypass. 9. Provide a minimum side and rear setback area. of 20 feet, rather than 15 feet for_each single—family lot. 10. Submit data concerning. the amount of impervious surface to be added. by project. b dddy the • 11. Require the developer to place on file with the Town of Hillsborough a petition for voluntary annexation for the proposed project area. 1 • • • • - • 0-00076 Sly ,,g�' - STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Greensboro, NC 27429-0278 November 21, 1985 JAMES G.MARTIN GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY Mr. Eddie Kirk Planner Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough, NI 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: This is in reference to the proposed Scotswood Development located on US70 Bypass and SR1002 (St. Marys Rd.) east of Hillsborough. Both. US70 and St. Marys Rd. ale shown on the Hillsborough 1967 Approved Thoroughfare Pla ' as major thoroughfares. Recommendations are as discussed below. US70 has a volume of aproximately 8,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of St. Marys Rd. on a two lane roadway. There will be an appreciable increase in left turn traffic from US70 at St. Marys Rd. and Miller Rd. (SR1555) . US70 should be widened to three lanes from St. Marys Rd. to west of Miller Rd. This will provide adequate left turn lanes at St. Marys Rd. , Miller Rd. , plus provide left turn lane storage at the new Scotswood Boulevard. Also right turn lanes will be desirable at St.Marys Rd. , US70 accesdI, and .Scotswood Boulevard. Access to the proposed commercial property on US70 should be designed for right turn only traffic movements. It is our feeling that left turns into and out of commercial area from US70 should be confined to proposed Scotswood Boulevard. The US70 — St. Marys Rd. intersection will eventual] , be signalized. The proposed access is located approximately 350' west of this intersection. Left turns into and out of this drive would complic=te the safety and efficiency of any future signal at the intersection. Carolina Avenue (SR1586) should be deadended and not intersected St.Marys Rd. at US70. The safety and efficiency of any future signal .at the US70- St. Marys Rd. would be decreased with present geometry. A left and right turn lane should be built on St. Marys Rd. at proposed Graham Drive. T1 is left turn lane will be used extensively and should hav= adequate length. A length of 300' plus tapers is suggested. The backslop= along St. Marys Rd. is in a cut section and the shoulder is inadequate. This area should be daylighted while building the left turn lane on St. Marys with an acceptable shoulder, ditch and backslope provided. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer MUMONIROMW • 000077 -2- A 70' x 10' sight distance is required where proposed subdivision streets intersect state right of ways. The sight distance triangles are also required at all internal subdivision intersections that the developer anticipates will be added to the State system. If we can be of any further help please advise. Sin ely, 441. ‘frieYtit4 . W. Watkins DIVISION ENGINEER JWW/DBIC/cb cc: Mr. T. A. Harris 1 000078 BiLLSBOROUGH VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 200s.w,-ammmamm RILLSBOROOGR,NORIO!CAROLINA 22278 Mos Foram Th Chief • October •7 , 1983 Orange County Planning Dept. From: John Forrest, Chief Orange Rural Fire Dept. The Orange Rural Fire Dept. can provide fire protection for the proposed Scottswood Subdivision if proper sized water lines and fire hydrants are installed at proper intervals. The developement will no catise any additional fire protection problems based on the plans I have reviewed. I ./ . A. • •, °00079 0 ' • t. e - Orange Coanbi leedcue.Squaci, inc. 1"/ 261 S.CauaroN ST:.EXT. HILLSBOROUGR.NORTH CAROLINA 27278 October Zl, 1985 • Orange county Planning Department Margaret Lane Ilillshorough, Borth Carolina 27218 Dear Sirs: The Orange County Rescue Squad will provide service for the 'newly developing Scotswood project which is located northwest of the intersection of- St. Mary's Road and U. S. Hwy. 70-Bypass. Orange County Rescue Squad cc: The John L. McAdams Company, Inc. ) Y . • • • • • • • .', • • • •i - - - • . . 000080 i • • LINDY PENDERG.RASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North- Carolina, 27278 1 Office.Phoner Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 " • Residence-Phone: 9294535 • TO Orange Count.. Pkanning Board. FROM:. Sheriff ' • • RE: Scoiswood [—nlE C E UV E [D) o- -7 • DATE!. October 2t,. 1985 , • - . When completed, Scotswood would require-,..addittonalf personnel and equipment.. The project would have approximately 639, residences; 635 residences x 3.5 (avenge) persons per household = 2,237 persons. to provide services for -- .:,..4=- 5,--27.„,-,- ., ,,r: :"':":j7.Z77-1?Mw-,... ...r .; 12,40=.13fr----4:;-;_ ;,,,- --.,+"-- v'-'.--• ...„ 635 riiiitendai-t,5,:-.(av angel; vehicles-fier•-• 'r...jesidence = 959 vehicles •., . '•-•:.,...':'Z'*' "4.1.1.' '--' 7 . going in and?out each day...Y Titi:s.does not f-nctude service vehicles. ....,.,-..:.' •-- ." -ft. .--....d. .., c.,...,...,.:-:-.-z:... - . ,.. ....., • There is no-.fndication as to- whit'type orix#STnessei.iiould. be located in-. the proposed aI,-,-,3_,-4.„.., ------• .,..;,....„ „,:--,,, shopping center. ---f,-...• p..7! - . . The Sheriff's Depaitment would.reqatre 3 additional-: personnel and Z additional - - .. . . . vehicles to provid'• adequate service to a. development of this magnitude. • ... . ., - . - .. - . . .. --' . . . i •.. -,- „ I ., . -i i.. • .• . ... .. _ . . _ _ .. . --__-- - i 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 000081 xrrrsBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA. 27278 ° q q it621 N coo' MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Office& SUBJECT: Proposed Scottswood Development DATE: November 21 , 1985 I have reviewed the plans for this proposal and have the following comments. The floodplain boundries and the drainage easements should Abe surveyed and plotted on the plat for accuracy. The topo maps should not be used as a basis for establishing these features. Additional drainage easments are needed on the smaller water- courses; I can point these out to you on the plans. If necessary, drainage easements will be needed between lots to carry runoff from some of the longer streets to the watercourses instead on channeling the water down the streets. The effects of the increased runoff from this devel- opment, particularly the commercial and multi—family parts, on the downstream property should be investi- gated. .) The erosion control needs more attention . The proposed single family will require more work, but adequate space seems to be available in most places to accommodate the needed controls . The one excep- tion is at the location of Cameron Circle along the stream at lots 317-322 and at the end of Argyll Way. Adequate room between the street construction and the stream does not appear to be provided. The commer- cial and multi—family parts have not left adequate room in the most Logical location for accommodating erosion control devices . The potential Locations for sediment ponds for both of these areas are taken up by either roadways or buffers. These need attention before the plans are approved and it. becomes difficult to change the plans . Is the existing pipe under U.S. _Z.D--adequate to carry the increased runoff from this site? 000082 O GE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LssoRovea swim CAROLINA.. 2.7278 11) CERTIFICATE. OF MAILING- ZONING ATLAS? AMENDMENTS ORANGE: CO.UNTY,, NORTH CAROLINA I,Eddia Kirk ,. Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Caro Line, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that an or about November 11 , 1985, I stet Led, by certified mai lF postage prepaid,. a Notice of the Pubic Hearing to be held on the FRanned Devgtopment . and rezoni�ta request f"r �R-1 tv P�-H Fit and PO—GC4 fair Scatswood- Deve Looment Locate¢ north of U.S. 7!7 Bypass 4n4 oast of Saint Ma rv'rRgad' i n H.; ba '�o�nsh to each property ciwner as required by Article. 2O Section-20.S.a of the Orange County. Zoning Ordinance. That notice Arai led specified the data, time, palace and subject a? the. Fub.l a Het:trin-s on the zoning classification change.. WITNESS=- far hand,. this the 11th- day ar November, 1985. EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER • • • r.' • • -- • 000083 . PLANNED. DEVELOPMENTS/SPECIAL USE PERMITS • Only those uses authorized i n• the- zoning district- to which the Planned Development request corresponds shall be Remitted. Na planned development shalt. be permitted except pursuant to the issuance of a. special use permit. A Soecie 1. Use Permit is issued where a particular Land. use• is permitted In a• district under specific provisions of- the. Orange ) County Zoning Ordinance. These. provisions . authorize the Board of Commissioners to issue the permit when it makes the general Land specific findings stipulated for the specific request.. The Board is also authorized to attach condtt.ions to the special use permit, conditions which may• require the installation of certain •improvements, place time limitations on the permit,. etc.. • 2 i ell. 7 : : •'n. • -Se *IT t t= . n ev.id,na ALt b taken, Following the close of the public. hearing, only evidence presented at the hearing will be examined by the Planning Board. and Board of Commissioners to decide. if' the evidence presented enables the Boards to make the required. findings. If the evidence sup PQ rts the' Cokui si •n. rs nt St iss e if g. a - use- permit. • . The applicant has the burden of establishing by evidence the' facts and. conditions required to support approval of' the app'lication_I agiutvet'= the burden _is Q these oo „ s 'n the t. ....P c 3�...� ta. i by c• ant =t i en• ubst. , ran - h'.- . .c• -ic m-.nn- r in wh ' . the • ro. .se. u - d•es nit satisfy t�1e enerat standards,nn—aro nds,_that the use will not promote the pub tic health, safety and welfare wi Ll 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, safeay and welfare and property values . The above procedures responsibilities are provided in Article 8 Special Usg Pgrmits, Section 8.2 General Standards of the Grange County Zoning Ordinance. - d 000084 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date NOVEMBER 25 1985 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: P0--6-85 BRADSHAW'S MOBILE ACRES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) PROJECT SUMMARY Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN FINDINGS - EVALUATION MEMORA DUM APPLICATION AGENCY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request . NEED: J . Thomas Bradshaw and Beth Bradshaw are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 94.30 acres of land located on the west side of White Cross Road (SR 1951 ) in Bingham Township . The property is referenced as Tex Map 35, part of lot 27A. The property is Located in an area designated Agricultural Residential in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning classification is Agricultural Residential (A—R) . The applicants are requesting the 94.30 acres to be rezoned to PD—HLAR. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow expansion of the existing mobile home park . An additional 75 mobile homes would be added to the existing park which contains 26 existing units. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the PD—H—AR rezoning request with the attached conditions. • •56.,!..!";-,!•,1",-!,•t-,"..75.-•,-*::-.?::•;:•;:.•7;'_'"-:::!:!:-.t-'..:":.C:' ,.::4f.:r!,4'.;.• ••1,•;zrt'—''''''" -:""••:.-••"! !.---"'"*"-'''-'.'-':',..'.4::"t:V:-.•-•:•--..z.-.-;.:";-.4-4?-;•,-.---,4-.5:•-•-••-',a.13-,•••,:.i.-,-.: .::.--:-••.... ..,.. . _.„-::.....,...„,,,,n.....:,,,N-,.= ..2.....-ix-- ,-s,....-...,...„,...IL-. ;,..,..,---,.;..4...-_,„_,...4.,,,,,,,•-„Iii..:....-,..7.4.i.1114-4-:-..F.Jc---e4:40-...„-Y-4.-.1-.;;73,- ..-4-=‘,..-4/ .-:-.--4,-4;:-.,...-;•-•=6'1,-..,-.--,-.---,-----k-iiz.,-,•—• 1,,,,,u.' - - - --:-.i- . -1.--..-_,:t.-.,..... 7':1•'::i"!••••':-.••••:--.1•-•r-:',1,-;;:::•,.:71-!:!`''-"2-j!'"--;':-*:! !--!....---•.7r-,:,!:!:!!. -;!•'!-C';..:.'' !!!!"... - - .•. ,- ....il! -':-:-IiIi-Er' 5 ._. ... ..- • ,69• i - . _•:.,. ... 7•:-.;---.-- • - . :P.•".•.:,?"-;• i - • -• S' ""•'' '.•. i.. - -•- .,-,,.e.7.. . . • ..51 . - • • ®*4€51 4* A.... ..r.t.C- --.. _ . • / • :.....••••;*:,,* ' ••-. •. -.:...".-.• . —'_:--i...--::::::-•- ' . • * . . 1VZ, ;,,z•. ..,. - ' ' •-• . . area -,5,::5 • / ." . • •• i ....--..-., - 0\\I: iIii 1.; .„ .. .. .. / 1.--...: :::::4".:": - •:: .-" -...... .• . " 0 - ,/- • .- .---- 0 %'. ,',/.. • \,VE, it -- ' -V.,/ :. - -- -—-A-6•°-fi - ••- - . \193 . i Z-42 AC I . . • ,_•-,---....,..:.,„-.,-‘.. , ..,•::: •7.• -. •• , . - —i•%Ili t. •:., gi ,1,•"'// i .- . ' ' •:. 1.:"...;:.::!!•,..m.,..................„......'"•^-'-''' '''.-. ...:.-:.---.:1-::.'.:*:::.':-- r.;.. .' .• '':- :.' •'''-':-.- : .1 Vs''). ••' ' 8i/ I. - • 1.'• .... . 0 pv . . , v.".....; ______„„......-.......„„...—.--:—.....,--...--.. f.:- /2 I \VI-I• • x is / ' • size "/ I ••..// • • if e'' BRADSHAW iS MOBILE ACRES - ,\ 6# —7 ' c.o. — . ../.;• ,.. t-. - • a /A' • ..... Loid• • 4 DEVELOPS: BETH BRADSHAW. N. = .'' 1)" # s'AC. 749', ii:7 ,' 90; , Present Zone: A...R. • " 7 ‘ 1 “.- Proposed Zone: PD-..fi-Allr. \ ..... .. LUP Designation: Agricultural Residential ,, c.,--- t, \ /' , . 66 .. . ••• 26 • - -;•. 1"1,400' . ... ,/Olt :. / . , .. 1 .. , . i... Pr _ . . . ..• .• • • . / , . f • . ,, ii• -..„ / .„. „,,,... ..., . . , ea,•• • - _ . . . _ , . • ..... . . _ •. ,... _ ,,.. . .. • .7,59. .• ..., ::•,- . . .• • . •• _ • • • /.. e • • • 5747..4: 4t.t::. ." •. . • • A R . - . • • _ r . . . . i• ...4 • . .. 4 A - R • . . .. .. • ra: • 4C. . i' 4:9 c.8.• ,. 0,.• . -.!• • .- .,- . •• - • ••-- - r/ . . ... . . • 1' , p. ..,, •• ! • • : 24 . • • • i 4 - 039rt 64 ..i..' " i • : - 1 i i // 36.61 AC. • • .. /,•• :,: t• • /• . 7, ' e . . . -. .. • ///r--- • i . ti tJ cs2)911 3i55/3:."D I s. I/ I I 3.54 AC. 4.98 AC. • . , . *••••, 1 .• • • \ , I ' i • : ; ••■9 —...... " \'■ ' .M. ) I A-R ....: ,,,,•--,, .,.3., or .,. / ii, : .-. -..s s. --z), I, ,• . S r— — ,//' it0S9 AC. ..42. / \-\ ..,..._„ 1/ • I. I •......" 7191 , 646 i . - 1 . / \•—- .„1„...----- -.....i '7.7 t , • _ SAC: // ! 71,‘,1 / azo I ......„......4 :11 , 38.26 AC. 1 // 1 i 1 : / -i• .. 32.04 Ac. ——--/ • I 0239 i / ■ • ......„-. 1 , -. ..‹ / I t I " 1 42 , ' \ i 1 • '1' *,, !/."-", . //9. p:3111 . ---,mg *%. I 1 , 62 . \• 1 , • -4- "?..,•;." \ \3 1 L // 294 AC. \i' I e- • •ve t /,' '.1.11..x,e VI\ • . ...• ,"o„;.,..,s, • _ .. . .... _. . . i - . 000086 RECOMMENDATIONS Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with ell required regulations and standards, the applicatioe must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner, that I . 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as rbmitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; I 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as • flinboided in these regulations or in the Compre- hensive 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. I No information has been received wich would establish grounds foi making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Staff has reviewed the application , the site pLan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations . Staff recommends approval o the request . The Planning Staff does, however, recommend the attach- ment of th1 following conditions to the approval . 000087 BRADSHAW'S MOBILE ACRES PAGE 2 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or Letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit . Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabili- zation ef all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units . 3 . ALL necessary easements to permit utility [electricity, tele- phone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County 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 . 4. Roads, parking areas , walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around enits 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 rules and regulations governing tenancy in the development which shall restrict accumulation of trash and rubbish outside of the mobile home units, shall restrict storage of goods outside of mobile homes and shall further prohibit the storage of junked or unregistered motor vehicles! The grantee shall file with the Orange County Planning Department a copy of the rules and regulations promulgated under this condition and maintain an up—to—date copy of the rules and regulations in the Orange County Planning Department . 6. ALL roads within the mobile home park including the section from SR 1951 through the existing park shall be hard surfaced in compliance with NC DOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards (12 .19 E Pavement Design) . 7. ALL roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. 000088 BRADSHAW'S'� MOBILE ACRES PAGE 3 8. Removal of snow and ice from the roads in the development and the sidewalks within the development shall be the responsibil- ity of the grantee. Such removal shall be completed promptly. 9. There shall be at least 2 parking spaces per mobile home unit in the d velopment. 10. Mailboxes which are clustered, shall be provided close to each entrance, but far enough into the development to prevent traffic problems on White Cross Road. A pull—off shall be provided 1 and the mailboxes set back off the main entrance roads. The entrance road and pull—off shall be of sufficient width to allow three or four cars to stop and get mail while others continue to pass . The mailboxes shall not be Located in a place) that would require cars to cross traffic, make unnatural turns or go against the flow of traffic. Cluster mailboxes shall be Located outside of sight triangles for the entrancey�ay. 11 . Prior tl the initiation of construction activity, final approval by the State must be obtained for the community well system and the spray irrigation wastewater disposal facility. 12. The recreation areas shall be constructed as provided in the application and submitted site plan, with changes as specified below: Concrete basketball court shall be constructed at grade Level and not elevated above grade. Minimum size should be 40 feet "long" by 42 feat "wide" (regulations courts are 5O feet wide) . "Long" Mere refers to direction perpendicular to the court's baseline! This "long" axis should be north—south . Three (3) feet of an unobstructed space around the court should be provided. Tot Lot shell include play equipment suitable for pre- schoolers, as well as younger school—age children , with at least twti (2) benches provided on the periphery as seating for adult supervision. Surfacing under the equipment should be clean , sdit sand . Defining the tot lot area with Landscape timbers will "hold" this sand in and prevent having to add additional sand materiel so often . Trash receptacles must be provided in the tot lot/basketball court areas . III The pedestrian paths and nature trail serving the individual units and the recreation areas shall be a minimum of 72" wide and be composed of surface materials recommended by the Orange County Recreation Department . A pedestrian path shall be provided to the mailboxes. 13. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the .. 1 00009 _ BRADSHAW'S MOBILE ACRES PAGE 4 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit . No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 14. Grading an the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted Landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 15. ALL plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the Ion—going work for the total project . The project shall at all imes mast the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 1 18 . The project must remain in unitary ownership and no lots can be sold to individuals . 17. A unit numbering system and corresponding unit Location shall be filed with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit . This system shall be used in obtaining and issuing any building permit . Any change in the unit numberin system must be filed with the Orange County Planning Departme t . 18. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 19. The fine It site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit . A copy of the final Site plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planningl Department. Grading and building permits , upon application , will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . 20. The development shell be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . e ■ • - 00UUJU ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 6,011 sf 0 , .4110.1111,^.. .irizT, it ° , . ...ii 6 * 0 ii.,•4 MEMO TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1985 SUBJECT: IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BRADSHAW'S MOBILE ACRES ' A. Water and Sewer Service: Water supply for this development is proposed to be by a community well system that must be approved by the state . A spray irrigbtion wastewater disposal facility is proposed to be located on the tract southwest of the proposed addition to the mobile home park. A Letter has been received from Mr. Robert Hallisey with the Water Supply Branch of the N.C. Department of Human Resources indicating the appropriate Location of proposed wells for the community water system (see Letter dated 11-7- 853 . If ! suitable water is not found at the locations indicated, the developer will need to explore other areas. A Letter has been received from Mr. David T. Adkins, a Water Quality Supervisor with the Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development . He indicated in his letter of November 8, 1985 that when adequate plans and specifications are submitted for the spray irrigation wastewater disposal facility, he may be in a position to make a favorable recommendation on the project (SEE letter dated 11-18-85 from Philip Post & Associates) . S. Traffic Impact : A 1981 (the most recent traffic data) traffic count at the intersection of SR 1951 (Butler Road) and SR 1952 (White Cross Road)1 immediately north of the project indicated 500 trips per ley . This project could possibly add approximately 502 trips per day to SR 1951 . According to the Department of Transportation sight distance Looking south from the entrance to the park onto SR 1951 is adequate . Sight distance looking north is only 425 feet and could be improved significantly if brush on the backslope to the north of the entrance was cut back and maintained. - I i 000991. Bradshaw's Mobile Acres Page 2 C. Recreation Facilities : Proposed recreation facilities include a 26,200 square foot residont recreational gardening area and a 55,300 square foot area including a 40' x 40' tot Lot , a 30' x 40' concrete basketball court and a pedestrian path through the development. D . School l Facilities: Students from this development would attend Grady Brown for grades 11(-5, Stanback for grades 6 G. 7, Stanford Jr. High for grades 8 & 9 and Orange High School for grades 10 13. According tlo Mr . Ralph Compton of the Board of Education all of the schools are operating at capacity except Orange High School which is presently in the process of building an addition . Using the proposed 75 additional mobile homes and a figure of .232 as a multiplier for 2 bedroom single family units there' will be an additional 17.4 school age children produced by this addition. There are 10 elementary age children attending Grady Brown School from the existing 26 units in the development . E. Police, Fire and Rescue Services : Letters have been received from the Sheriff's Department and Emergency Services concerning police, fire and rescue service for this area . The October 17, 1985 Letter from Bobby Baker indicates that fire protection will be'provided by the Eli Whitney Volunteer ire Department, and emergency medical services will be provided by the Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad. An October 18, 1985 letter from the Sheriff's Department indicates altotaL 15.15 man hours will be needed per year for police protection . O FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT � CD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: BRADSHAW'S MOBILE HOME ACRES Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b), Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) . (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, Including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) . Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application In question. The findings haves been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 8.E - Application submitted on Yes No Application and narrative provided _Yes No forces providing full and accurate description of proposed Use, including location, appearance and operational characteristics E.8 a) - Seven (7) copies of the X Yes No Site Plan prepared by Phil Post and Assoc. Yes No s i to plan prepared by a reg i s teved N.C. land surveyor or engineer containing: 1 . North point, scale and date XYes No Shown on site plan. _Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on.site plan. Yes No 3. Location and width of all ease- � cx:nts and rigi,ts-of-way within or adjacent to the site X—Yes No There are no additional easements or rights-of- Yes No way indicated. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff -Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro XYes No Loca.tion of exist-i.rlg and proposed mobile Yes No posed structures on the site homes are shown on the sbte plan. 5-L-ocz t-ion of al-1 areas on the s i to X Yes No There are no flood prone areas on the site Yes No subject to flood hazard or inunda- according to the FiA Flood Maps. tion as shown on flood maps or soil maps 6. Location of all water courses XYes No Water courses are shown on the site plan. Yes No on the site, including the direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography at 5 foot contour intervals has Yes No interval of five (5) feet based been shown. — ' on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, } Yes No Proposed fencing and parking has been shown. Yes No screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas 9. Access to site lncludipg •site __L yes No Access and site distance has been indicated. Yes No distances An all roads used for access 10. Elevations of all structures XYes No Typical mobile homes are shown on the Yes No proposed to be used in the — dvvelopment . site plan. H . Names and addresses of owners Yes No and applicants XYes No Provided in application. � 4p c- 12. 't fee, as set by the Board of X Yes No $490.00 application fee paid. ' Yes No County Commissioners Q r� ARTICLE B 2 tt SPECIFIC STANDARDSJALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes`.' indicates compliance; 1110" indicates noncompliance) C1y� Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article B.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision X Yes No Letter-shav_e_been_rece_i_v-ed_by the Yes Ito----- - for sewage disposal facilities, appropriate state agencies for the solid waste and water service community water system and spray irrigation wastewater disposal system proposed. Further approvals will need to be obtained .at the final plan stage. b) Method and adequacy of.police, X Yes No Fire protection, police and rescue Yes No fire and rescue: squad protec- are to be provided by the Eli Whitney Lion Volunteer Fire Department, Orange County Sheriff's Department and the South Orange Rescue Squad respectively. (See attached correspondence.) c) Method and adequacy of vehicle X Yes No The Orange County Planning Staff has Yes No access to the site and traffic projected an additional 502 trips per day conditions around the site for the project. This projection is based on 75 additional mobile homes times a multiplier of 6.7 vehicle trips per dwelling per day. The most recent traffic count is a 19$1 count at the intersection of Butler. (toad and White Cross Road which indicated 500 trips per- day. DOT recommends improving the sight distance looking north by cutting back the brush on the backslope to the north of the entrance. ARTICLE 8.13.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR £VALUATIONIPLANNEO DEVELOPMENTS Article 13.23.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Development ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings F4nd-1-ngs— -__.. Are icy l e 7.ij—indicates the applica- tion }Bust first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements i tic Iude 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site plan provided at scale of 1" = 104' Yes No property at scale of not less -- ' '— than 1" = 100' nor more than I„ = 20' . 20,3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with land development _Yes No property report, 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No Not applicable. No error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected —" pP --by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, If _Yes No Not applicable. Changed conditions not Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- ., alledged. —` ably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Property is located in an area designated , Yes No amendment will carry out purpose Agricultural Residential which allows single= — and intent of adopted Comprehensive family residential development at the proposed Plan density under lease arrangements provided certain criteria are met and a Special Use Permit is obtained. rJ tD O 4 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNr D DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) cc CD Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings F(ndinas Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. These include: — ----- - 7.4.1 so located with respect to X Yes No Direct access is provided via White Cross Yes No major streets and mass transit Road (SR1951). White Cross Road is a Facilities and designed so as not state-maintained road classified as a to create traffic on minor streets collector road. No minor residential streets in residential districts will be affected by this project as designed. 7.4.2 so located with respect to X Yes No Applicant proposes a community well system Yes No hater, sewer, and storm drainage and a spray irrigation wastewater disposal facilities that enlargement or facility to serve the site. Cost of extension will not result in installation is to be borne by the applicant. Higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to X Yes No Letters regarding adequate service _Yes No police, fire and rescue services, provision have been received from police, fire and and schools and parks so as to rescue services. The service level will not change have access in the same manner as existing zoning/density A s not proposed to change. as permitted under the existing zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for develop- L-Yes No Soli survey/topographic/flood maps indicate Yes No menL without hazard from flooding, small stream crossing site on remaining erosion, and soil subsidence or acreage not proposed for development. ' slipping ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATIGRO LANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.1 +.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external _- - r-e-lat-lonsh-i-ps—are-as-fol-l-oviv. a)1. Access points provided to Yes No All traffic will obtain access to the site Yes No encourage smooth traffic via White Cross Road (SR 1951). Applicant Flow with controlled turn- proposes to use the existing entrance to the site. ing movements and minimum No minor streets are affected by the proposed development. hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. a)2, Safe and convenient routes es No Applicant has indicated safe pedestrian Yes No provided for pedestrians � routes through the development. and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and controlled. a)3. Visibility provided at inter- X Yes No Visibility looking south from the entrance Yes No sections (pedestrian and vehicular) is adequate. Visibility looking north is in accordance with Article 6.8. 425 feet and could be Improved significantly If brush on the back- slope to the north of the entrance was cut back and maintained. 04. 100-foot open space provided Yes No Yes No along perimeter of PD-H district. -li- Adjacent property is slmilarly zoned and may— Recreational use and off-street be developed at the same densityin accordance with setback parking set back at least 75 feet requirements; 100' open space is,therefore, not required. of district boundary. a)5. Yards, fences, walks or X Yes No Applicant proposed to retain as much existing Yes No vegetation provided to screen "" — natural vegetation as possible. individual --- ----- off undesirable views, light- parking spaces and refuse collection are proposed ing, noise, etc. Parking/ with no specific screening required or provided. loading areas and refuse collec- tion/storage areas screened. C� ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) C a Plannina Staff Planning Board CZ Ordinance Requirements Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings UO Article 7. 111.3 standards continued: a)6. Maximum building. X Yes No Maximum building height in R-1 -district is Yes No height complies with 25 ft. Building height proposed by _ standards set forth app_U_c.an_t_i_s 1.3 fee_t_. in Articia 6. 12.3 and Article 5.1.1 a)7. Signs to be erected in Yes No Sign location and size is indicated Yes No accordance with Article 9. on the site plan. Standards regarding "Internal relationships" are as follows: b) l . Streets, drives and parking Yes No Site plans indicate that streets, ^Yes No areas provide safe and con- driveways and parking areas provide safe and convinent access venient access for dwellings for dwelling units and emergency vehicles. A private 20' two and emergency vehicles, lane road is proposed. Planning Staff recommends this road be and do not create small hardsurfaced in compliance with NC DOT Subdivision Roads Minimum block sizes. Construction Standards. W2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or X Yes No Private drives serving each unit are Yes ' No less dwellings provide shown on the site plan. -direct access to parking/ service areas. b)2, b) Streets serving greater _Yes No Not applicable. _Yes ' No than 50 dwellings provide access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. b}3, Walkways form safe, con- X Yes No -Pedestrian walkways are designed to provide Yes No venient system of access to dwellings, facilities and a safe, convinent and well marked system of designations. access to dwellings and internal facilities. Staff off-site Maximum vrdesign distance recommends that the pedestrian walkways be continued to provide access to the mailboxes. between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exce::d 100 feet. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS •(Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Reguirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7. 11 .3 standards continued: Walkways used as play Yes No See comment on 7.14.3 a)2 and b)3. Yes No areas or school routes _ --- --- by-chi-lzf•r�cr-l��a teal and designed to minimize contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately -marked and safeguarded. b)ti. Protection of visibility- See a)3. and b)3, above. b)S. Open space and spacing between buildings - See Article 6 standards. Cp ------------------- -.. O ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) O Planning Staff Planning Board O Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings O Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building h�-i-girt—and—l-o t—covc-rage y and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-H-AR designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5. 1. 1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Applicant has clustered units. Total lot Yes No duelling unit - 140.000 — area provides for 40,000 sq. ft. per unit, sq. ft. b) Minimum lot width - Yes No. Yes No NIA sq. ft --- — Same as above. �— — c) Required front setback —Yes No Same as above. Yes No NIA f t ____ d) Required side and rear _Yes NO Same as above. Yes No setbacks - N/A tt. — — e) Maximum building height - Yes No Maximum building height shown on elevations Yes No 2S, ft. provided by the applicant i.s 13 feet. Compliance with lot coverage and development Intensity standards is addressed in Article b. ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance, "Ho" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To _Support Findings Findings Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development _ applications. — -" Article 6.12 contains those devulopnient intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land Yes No Applicant's site contains 94.30 acres or Yes No area - 8Q,000 sq. ft. 4,107,708. sq. €t. b) Maximum gross land Yes No Article 5.1.1 of Zoning Ordinance Yes —No area - None sq. ft-. c) Maximum Floor area ratio - Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is Yes No _x!98 238,247 sq. ft. Applicant's plans indicate Maximum floor area floor area of 99,000 sq. ft. permitted 238,2 47 sq. ft. d) Required minimum open Yes No Applicant's plans indicate 3,973,000_ sq. ft. Yes No space ratio - gt4 of open space. Required minimum open space - 3 r �7r sq. ft. O O O O ilota: Sec; Appendix A for "Definitions". O O O ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUtREMENTS (Continued) ' O Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements. Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.12 standards (continued) f)—Requ-i-red-mi-n-'mum—i-i-ve- )(-Yes Applicant's plans indicate 3,30 ,800 Yes No ability space ratio - sq. -ft. ,75 Required minimum liveability space - 3,0802781 sq. ft. q) Required minimum recreation X Yes No Applicant's plans indicate recreation Yes No space ratio - .019 areas totaling 01,500 sq. ft. Required OnAem recreation space - I sq., ft. h) Required minimum open X Yes No Applicant's submission indicates that Yes No space adjacent to typical spacing between-buliding unit is building walls 70 feet. Primary walls 15 ft. Secondary walls 4,2 ft. Tertiary walls N A ft. Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions", 000103 PHILIEDI POST .p. Zil€:8,514 & ASSOCIATES 0 ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS #59501 November 18, 1985 Mr. Marvin Collins Orange Count ' Planning Department 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough North Carolina 27278 Re: Bradshaw Mobile Acres - Sewage Disposal System Dear Mr. Collins: This letter is intended to clear up any misunderstanding about the sewage treatment system for the subject property. I have been informed by Mr. Eddie Kirk that the staff may not recommend approval for the project because of the inadequacy of the letter fcom the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) concerning the system. Our office has submitted an application as well as a site plan to DEM or the spray-irrigation system. The application has been accepted, a site investigation has been performed by DEM, and a detailed soil investigation of the site has been per- formed by a recognized soil scientist. The results of the site and soil investigations were that the site is suitable for the said method of sewage treatment. In addition, DEM has informed us that this type of system has been approved and installed for a similar application in North Carolina, and is working extreme- ly well. A copy of the soil scientist's report is enclosed with this letter. • Understandably, DEM is unwilling to give any approval (pre- liminary or otherwise) for a system that has not been fully designed. However, it is not practical or reasonable to perform the detailed engineering design for such a system without first knowing if the development will be approved by the County. Section 8.2.4 a of the Orange County Development Ordinance states that we should provide " the method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities " for the site. The proposed method has been stated and deemed suitable by an expert soil scienti4 and a DEM representative. The capacity of the proposed system has been stated in our Development Report. The system as it rill be installed will obviously be adequate to serve the development or it will not be approved and constructed in the first place. (919)929-11735100EASTOWNEDRIVENIPOSTOFFICEBOX21345CHAPELHILL,NORTHCAROLINA27514 1 000104 PHILIP POST &ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS November 18, 1985 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Two 1 X It is t e position of the Applicant that we have met the letter and intent of the ordinance by our original submission. We hope thatl the enclosed soil report will lend additional support to the submission. In summary, DEM will not give any support or approval un- less final design drawings and specifications are submitted, and we feel that would impose unreasonable demands on the developer in this early planning stage of the project. We hope that any misunderstandings have been resolved regarding this matter, and that the Staif recommendation to the Planning Board concerning the sewage treatment system will be positive. Please call, me if there are any questions. Sincerely, 3 29, efty LJAQ Tony M. Whitaker cc: Beth Bra Shaw Enclosure TMW/dac ( ! o1O5 • AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION North Carolina State University SERVICE School of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Box 7625, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625 Telephone (919) 737-2675 • •MEMORANDUM Td: • FROM : A. R. Rubin, Extension Specialist Biological and Agricultural Engineering SUBJECT : Report of Investigation Attached is a copy of the report for the land application of waste at ARR:bb • PHILIP POST &ASSOCIATES, INC. RECEIVED CYTO 3 i s JOB #5150\_[ ; FILE ►,reA • • Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics A&T and N.C.State Universities,100 Counties and U.S.Department of Agriculture i 1 000106 < < • • SITE INVESTIGATION vx Bradshaw Mobile Home Park Orange County, North Carolina The Bradshaw family owns and operates a mobile home park in the western part of Orange County. The family is proposing to increase the number of trailer spaces at the mobile home park, and the county health department has determined that on-site wastewater treat It and disposal facilities for the additional trailers will not be Y5 permitted at the trailer sites. Wastewater from each individual trailer can be collected and treated at a central location. The option most suitable for centralized wastewater treatment is a preapplication facility, storage facility, and surface spray irrigation facility. The Bradshaw family desires to construct 100 additional trailer spaces. The waste flow from the 100 trailer spaces is determined to be 25,000 gallo s per day. The purpose of this brief report is to evaluate the potential of the land receiver site investigated as the wastewater receiver site and to describe limitations for utilization of the site. Climate The precipitation characteristics in Orange County place a few well-defined constraints on the design and operation of a land treatment facility using slow rate spray irrigation. The hydraulic loading rate, the storage requirements, and the land area requirements to assimilate the waste are all directly related to the amount of and distribution o annual rainfall. The climate in the Orange County area is temperate. The winters are mild and the summers are warm. The average annual precipitation in the area is approximately 45 inches. July and August are generally the wettest months of the year, while October and November are the driest. activiity during the summer contributes to the excess precipitation Thunderstorm a y g y4: rt during the summer I nths. Snowfall in the county is sporadic and light and remains on the ground only for a few days. For purposes of sizing this spray irrigation I � r t 000707 2 facility, the average rainfall is an inadequate measure because utilization of the average will render the design of the land treatment facility inadequate approximately 50% of the time. The rainfall used to calculate the water balance was 60.45 inches per year. This is the rainfall based on a 10-year return period and accounts for the variation in rainfall in the area. The rainfall data is included in the hydraulic budget which is addressed later in this report. Topography The proposed land treatment site is located in an area which is typical of the piedmont physiogeogkaphic province of the state. The site selected for investigation was gently rolling. The maximum slope encountered on the proposed wastewater receiver site appeared to be >5%.. A detailed topographic map of the site should be provided prior to the actual design of the waste application system. Wastewater receiver sites can easily have slopes of as much as 15%. Since the maximum slope encountered on the proposed wastewater receiver site for the Bradshaw Mobile Home Park- appears to be >5, slope or topography should pose little limitation to the design or operation of a slow rate spray irrigation system. Geology The geologic map of North Carolina indicates that the proposed waste receiver site borders an area called the Triassic Basin. The soils in the area are characteristically upland Piedmont soils formed from decomposition of metavolcanic rocks such as slates. There may be some remnants of Triassic Basin and slate belt soils in the area; however, the predominant soil material is derived from slates. The underlying geologic material is important since it determines the soil which forms on the land surface. Further, geologic material is important because excessive fracturing can lead to some contamination of groundwater. The slates generally form 000'0$ 3 heavy clay soils, and the clay mineralogy should preclude movement of waste constituents to the groundwater. Geology should pose little hazard to the design or operation of a slow rate spray irrigation system at the Bradshaw Mobile Home Park. Soils The soils information required to develop the design criteria for a slow rate spray irrigation system must address both the agronomic and engineering characteristics of the soils. This data is readily available in published literature. In addition to an examination of published literature, first-hand knowledge of the soils on the site must be determined by an individual familiar with land-based wastewater management. This on-site determination is critical to the design and operation of a slow rate spray irrigation system. The soil encountered on the proposed waste receiver site appears to be a Georgeville like sandy loam. This soil is considered well suited as a receiver for spray irrigation of wastewater onto the land. There are some minor limitations to the utilization of this soil as a receiver for pretreated waste. The primary limitation is the somewhat slower permeability of the subsoil when compared to that of the topsoil and the minor erosion potential of the topsoil and clay portion of the subsoil. This erosion potential has not been expressed on the site because the current land-use practice appears well suited for this area and watel movement over the site has been maintained very low. 1 A characteris i.c soil profile description for the Georgeville like soil is included as an attachment to this report. The Georgeville soil is the most restrictive of the soils encountered on the site. It also covers the bulk of the area intended as a receiver for wastewater. Selected properties of the Georgeville like soils encountered on the site are also presented in Table 1 below. • 4 000,109 Characteristically; the Georgeville like soil does contain appreciable quantities of clay material. The exchange capacity of the subsoil is high, while the sandy texture of the topsoil wid permit rapid movement of water into the soil profile. This rapid movement of water into the soil profile coupled with the high exchange capacity encountered in the subsoil renders these soils ideal as receivers for wastewater. Land Use The predominant land use on the proposed wastewater receiver site is pasture. If a permit is granted for a land treatment system, then the land must remain in either agricultural or silvicultural production. Forage and forest crops are ideal receivers for pretreated wastewater. Additional nutrients may be required on the site, however, if all forage crop is selected. The primary nutrient of concern is potash. Generally, the potassium level encountered in wastewater is significantly . lower than that required to meet the crop's need for potassium: Supplementation of the waste stream with potash and lime to adjust soil pH are necessary if the site is to be left in forage. Period soil testing is essential to- ensure that the recommended agricultural requirements for selected crops are met and that the site is operating within reasonable limits. Application Method The primary objective of slow rate spray irrigation is to alleviate or eliminate the surface discharge of pollutants. This is accomplished by irrigating pretreated wastewater at very controlled rates onto the surface of the soil where the nutrients present in the waste stream may be assimilated by the growing crop. Once wastewater is applied to the surface of the soil, it moves into and through the profile by processes called infiltration and percolation respectively. The waste application method most suited to this particular soil, vegetation, climatic, and topographic 000110 ( ( 5 condition is slow rate spray irrigation. The instantaneous application rate should not exceed .3 to 35 inches per hour and waste application should be accomplished no more than 2* to 3 hours per week. Waste application should be.accomplished no more frequently than once every week. The application of wastewater onto the soil surface should not exceed (the recommendations provided in the water balance calculation. The water balance caictklation allows for an application of 41.54 inches of water per acre year. This is the equivalent to approximately .8 inches of water/acre/week. If applications are maintained at .3 to .35 inches per hour and waste application is accomplished no mo e than 3 hours per irrigation event, then this will provide a satisfactory method for handling wastewater. During periods of excessively dry weather, the waste application could be accomplished more frequently than once per week. The water balance calculation is based on an worst rainfall condition encountered over a 10-year period. This condition is not indicative of the rainfall in the county and ome adjustments can be made to the waste application to allow for these variations in antecedent soil moisture and rainfall. Slow rate spray irrigation is the most accepted and tested method for land treatment. It is well suited to a variety of conditions. The spray irrigation system can be designed to achieve high levels of waste treatment at a minimum of cost. The vegetation selected for growth on the site must be capable of removing nutrients from the waste stream and of transpiring water. Both forage and forest crops are ideally suited for meeting these requirements. The nutrient removal potential, however, of a forested system is somewhat limited. Further, the crop grown on any irrigation system must be removed to remove the nutrients which have been applied to the soil. The removal potential for a forested crop is reasonably high just as is the nutrient removal potential for a forage crop. Unfortunately, 00011 6 forage crops can accept significantly higher waste constituent loadings than can forest crops. A mature stand of fescue can receive up to 300 lbs. of nitrogen.per acre per year, while a mature forest can receive and utilize approximately 200 lbs. of nitrogen per acre per year. Similarly, phosphorus applications onto a forested site may be less than that onto a pastured. site. The nutrient uptake, however, is only one means of nutrient balance in the system. The other means of achieving a nutrient balance iz through fixation and transformations which occur in the soil. Nutrient transformations such as the conversion of nitrogen to nitrogen oxide and subsequent transpiration occurs much more readily in a forested system than a foraged or pastured system. Based on the anticipated waste flow of 25,000 gpd and typical wastewater characteristics of 25 ppm-Nitrogen, 10 ppm-phosphorus, and 60 ppm-organic matter, the land area required to assimilate each of these hydraulic and process constituents is calculated below. These calculations are Hydraulic Load: 25,000 gpd x 365 days/yr = 8.1 ac. 27154 gal/ac/in x 41.54 in/yr The nitrogen load, phosphorus load and organic load generated at this facility are determined based on the 25,000 gpd hydraulic load and average wastewater characteristics. Each is calculated below. Nitrogen: .025 GD x 8.34 x 25 ppm-N x 365 days/yr = 1902.6 lbs-N/yr Phosphorus: .025 MGD x 8.34 x 10 ppm-P x 365 days/yr = 761 lbs-P/yr Organic Load: .025 MGD x 8.34 x 60 ppm-Organics x 365 days/yr = 4566 lbs-Organics/yr 000112 {` • 7 The assimilative capacity of these constituents is determined for a potential land treatment site by assigning an assimilative capacity to the selected crop to be grown on the site. Assimilative capacities vary for each crop. The range in nutrient uptake for various crops is from 600 lbs/ac/yr of nitrogen uptake for bermudagrass to 200 lbs. of nitrogen/acre/year fora forested site. Depending on the crop selected, the assimilative capacity will vary. Assuming the stand of fescue will remain on the site, then the area required to assimilate the process constituents in the waste stream is calculated as Nitrogen: 1902.6 lbs-N/yr = 7.61 ac. 250 lbs-N/ac/yr Phosphorus: 661 lbs-P/yr = 6.3 acres 100 lbs-P/ac/yr Organics 4566 lbs-Organics/yr = 2.3 acres 2000 lbs-Organics/ac/yr The constituent requiring the largest land mass for assimilation does appear to be the hydraulic load. Based on the data available, a land treatment site containing approximately 8 acres will be required to assimilate the most restrictive of the constituents encountered at the site Since the site appears to contain well over this land area, the site does not appear limited as a receiver for wastewater. The water balance calculation used to determine the hydraulic load is based on both field measurements and published data A double tube infiltrometer was used to determine the volume of water which will move through the soil under near saturated conditions. Saturated conductivity is greater than unsaturated conductivity, but given the long delays between waste application, there have been no problems associated with I S i,1) 1j3 8 this method for determining acceptable hydraulic loads. This test was conducted over a three-day period to ensure that the soil conditions were near saturation at the time of the measurement. Based on field and lab analysis, the monthly drainage through the soil was determined to be approximately 4.5 inches. The volume of rainfall used to calculate the water balance is a statistical iteration using a mean+ standard deviation condition. This will allow for 90% of the rainfall conditions in the area. The maximum loading onto the site should be approximately .8 of an inch per acre per week and the hydraulic application rate should not be excessive if the water balance calculation is used appropriately. Antecedent moisture conditions should not limit the use of the site unless the soil has been saturated or the ground is frozen. The waste application is conservative. Conclusion A slow rate spray irrigation of the Bradshaw Mobile Rome Park in Orange County, North Carolina appears to be a workable alternative. . The system could be designed to apply approximately .8 inches of water/acre/week and the rate should not exceed .35 inches per hour. If the system is designed appropriately, it should provide long-term treatment and renovation of the wastewater generated at this facility. A preapplication treatment system must be provided which adequately treats the waste and stabilizes it in an acceptable manner prior to irrigation on the land. In addition, some surface storage will be required to allow for waste generated during periods of excessive rain, freeze, or the sporadic snowfall conditions. Wastewater should not be applied to the soil when the soil is saturated or when it is frozen. Careful operation o this facility should provide a long-term acceptable wastewater treatment system for the Bradshaw Mobile Rome Park. I 1 I 1 000114 9 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION Georgeville Soil Ap 0-7" yellowish red loam; weak fine- granular structure; friable; manyfine roots. B21t 7-13" red clay loam; moderate fine angular blocky structure; friable to firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; common fine roots. B22t 13-40" red silty clay; common medium distinct reddish yellow mottles; moderate medium angular blocky structure; firm, sticky, slightly plastic. 40" - boring terminated CO 25 10 SELECTED PROPERTIES OF GEORGEVILLE SOIL Core. Sample CEC pH Lime K20 1 7.3 6.0 N/R 40-60 lb/ac 2 7.2 6.1 N/R 40-60 lb/ac 3 6.9 6.1 N/R 40-60 lb/ac 4 7.3 5.9 N/R 40-60 lb/ac • 000116 Table 1. SOILS INFORMATION Depth "A": 8" Water Loss "A": 12.9% (say 13%) Irrigation Cycle time: (1) Irrigation time .5 Days (2) Drainage time 3.0 Days (3) Re-aeration time 3.0 Days (4) Total 6.5 Days (say 7 days) 4+M 000117 Table 2. Proposed Bradshaw Mobile Home Park - SRSI Georgeville Soil Orange County, North Carolina iT? Waste Total B.T. Drainage Runoff T1 T2 Rainfall Irrigation Storage Storage J .93 4.46 .34 6.32 6.66 3.40 3.26 .2 4.39 F 1.40 4.46 i .47 5.86 6.33 4.73 1.60 1.86 6.25* M 2.48 4.46 .33 6.94 7.27 3.26 4.01 - .55 A 3.30 4.46 .37 7.76 8.13 3.71 4.42 - .96 M 4.34 4.46 .35 . 8.80 9.15 3.53 5.62 -2.16 J 5.10 4.46 .48 9.56 10.40 4.78 5.26 -1.8 J 4.96. 4.46 .46 9.42 9.88 4.57 5.31 -2.05 A 4.34 4.46 .51 8.80 9.31 5.10 4.21 - .95 S 3.00 4.46 .66 7.46 8.12 6.59 1.53 1.73 O 2.17 4.46 , .35 6.63 6.98 3.47 3.51 - .25 N 1.20 4.46 .37 5.66 6.03 3.67 2.36 - .10 D .62 4.46 .52 5.08 5.60 5.15 .45 2.81 4.19 41.54 (3.46) k'. 1 I 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date NOVEMBER 25. 1985 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Z-12-85 WILOWOOD SECTION IV DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH PROJECT SUMMARY VICINITY MAP FINDINGS EVALUATION MEMORANDUM APPLICATION AGENCY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 ' Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a rezoning request submitted by Wi ldwood Corporation . - NEED: Wild,00d Corporation is requesting a rezoning of property Located west of NC86 and Sections 1 , 2 and 3 of Wildwood Subdivision and south of the Southern Railroad right—of—way. The property is known as part of Lot 4 and Lot 26 on Tex Map 45 for Hillsborough Township . The parcel contains 28 .8 acres or 383,328 square feat . The property is designated Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential-4 (R-4) . IMPACT: Rezoring of the property will allow for expansion of the Wildtood Subdivision and development of minimum 10,000 square foot residential lots . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the R-4 rezoning request . . • - .... . ... •■•••••".'•—••. • • 1 - I . .. 1 - -: ---""I'Mtrt420------ 2.1 -.... 4„.›),•\_.,„__. , WILDWOOD SECTION Br .. _ 1.-—'•-„:,. '" . . . ... ..,...,, \ 7--"-":-:NN 1 . : APPLICANT: WILOW000 CORPORATION .: ,_ .... . LUP: Ten Year Transition I '"--- -- •''''- Current Zoning: Residential-1 , ..,.. ..---...........,, _ .., - _., --as\ Proposed Zoning: Residential-4 _. ....—,..„..._ -...,_ . -, • . _ -,„ ' -..•;.;‘, .-... . . •:-,,.--, ......., ... ... ...---- ,..---- ......„ -....„, . • •,.. -r.-_-_•:,.. ....... , , .2s j -,....,_ -....., s•-••• 334 AC --•••• j.,1:, ....„.. .--, ,.. .....- . . . !ilk; •••.„ - -... . ......, ' *0 37,67 AC • .'" ■".......T::.....................„..s........., • . . ' -.... \ rs, . ', PD.C.-•Cr,64 \., • ...•' ..,_ .. . • ., ! ...- -...,,,......„:,-.., ' .\ .. \ • .., .• ,.". ..,. 21-''•44'. E.,10 • . • .....„., "---,....... (1'9)/ •--...... - :, • /7;1 ..",;:685:Ac:.; .0 ....'/.09AC. Aic•:::*it 3 A,: • •?0?),47-- .._ oceassamee \ .. ,z,\, , . .,_ . \ ... •:----.-. -------• i -fteurz ....;-•• ; . . • -... N ' •• ....•• . '27 V4SAGE , • , 7. i 111#"104 / .1.,.. . .9 .. , col ...-• • J t - -2:139 , i I mower •cv,.•,,, . 1.96 '(.13APA .% •\-/ .- . --I- 'I --•.:.I.. 0 . , ' . ' 1.11ACI,.;.\ .....l•' II '.108)°,./C6„---.. ---• - 124) ',. 1..ICCIl - -T:--......... iizt,- .- 4,,, .../ • :.: •' --- .',. *c. .-,. ----„1.0AC -•-• -- '.-11•-- ac. . ... , 1A-4 ..-.......,. --- -2;C-1.97AC• -.., RA:l.rTc AD— '.:595114.... . -... I : • 1 1 • :t...:,.....j — ,.... 1 ... .. ...r. AC.CAI- 0) --- ,s, : \'•, ,',.....•/.. '-'.e. 20Sej /-N-15-'' 1 ... %, ,F-T4i ,5 ; AS' • 8 ,__,_ . , a . •..",.•..L_,„.... .S. •, ....„..........„,. • r--.--_....4re --,-...'/ ' ; '', ', • \X 1 - ---. • X'', ' l'-'.• ■.., N. \ I ye.".....: . : , I ■ - • 1 ! 1 ...I ,t„,„0.1._444.6.4.....,..... .1%a .t.4.04k; • : . SEE; ;MAP 43A 1 ; • MAP --, .Ac / •-• 547 _ 25 , ;4713% IF- ", : -pH*"••-:.-.-; **".••• ' f• , • '• . I\ 4,. gi 41,11.. 5, 4.".9 `: - . . • .. . "R-1 •----... • ..f. / i`i 2-i . • . 2.,,4,7. ''''''''.."'"...„,...... \ .....ti...1.,, cEr.,,,„,,..\,s.V ; ,--...‘2"- . -s, ji . • , I ''.. 1.....\, • • • r ';,,- ..,...,;,.,,,i j;", .: i. %3_1'8.. BO. ! . 1 . •L-:, 17'.. .4-_.7.1.1=0 • ,t; '',•- .-.. ! 1 I i . • .1■""7--1 -•'-'13'" — .„......, 73CS 1 • SE:2...a2 __.------_ ....:1 7 . -• . , 45-el IL"....."''''''''''.."■:..... *--•••,,„,........„.......1,.... 1k . .•;.%, 451 15 9c" • L . . 1 1 1 3 94 S.; SAL R-5 i. . )', >4.4.• • - . • • . . . i R-4-.9.... .......„ ....., • - - -_•••4•KII----------- I --- - 1 ..... ...OP:110afeS, Itr...... .' f. ---..........„.......4„........iffi . ,o 1 ac /6c J., 3E 'AAP 499-.....--- -,-ir----I= , I - SEE MOP 1 -.• I . • .,tt . i 4154 • : ,410PAI 04A1. ' 4............ . .1 . . , SEC 41 ' : I 9i.i OV/000 -0 I ,VE- I• / ?D - , • Ac:i . 1 . . 393, sav-I . 1,...- ' .• . 29 541E I.27;'I .. - . It••i ,SrE asx/ --I /1 ...._, - 11.0 le:"= . ... : I • - I &vow awee. • . i.:-374c. ..;7:.,,,, Et it-. ..."F * C-r • I ,....." ,s--...is•:-.0 A,:,^ =;..''': F.:: ' I . .; ,ISTcpca. .... 's / ......, ; 24 / .... ; ',);;'2 / 2T 7 7,24:. .sz.,• ....„. i • :.•-"-..... . , Weil I- 0 ..... ..,,. .. , . Iliaitel& • .:3 . ' I 1 -: •... • — • t .7.il.:•... • -7, -- - i'l.:: 2 .-...: .• IV, ____ I ' ._ _ . . . C ; MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Z-12-85 WILDWOOD SECTION IV GENERAL INFORMATION, APPLICANTS: Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough P.O. Box 765 Hillsborough, NC 27278 LOCATION; Located west of NCB6 west of and contigous to Wildwood Subdivision Sections 1 , 2 and 3 and south of the Southern Railroad right—of—way in Hillsborough Township REQUESTED ACTION: Approval • of Residential.—4 Rezoning Request PURPOSE: To allow for development of single—family housing Lots containing a minimum of 10,000 square feet . LOT SIZE: 28 .80 or 383,328 square feet . EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant wooded tract SURROUNDING LAND USE: NORTH — Southern Railroad Right—of—way EAST Wildwood Subdivision Sections 1 , 2 and 3 SOUTH — WiLdwood Subdivision Section 1 and undeveloped, wooded land WEST Undeveloped, wooded Land LAND USE PLAN: Designated Ten Year Transition Area in the Land Use Plan ZONING: The property is zoned Residential-1 . The Ten Year TransTransition Area plan category allows a range of ition zoning districts from R-1 to R-13 . FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT p PERTAINING TO p APPLICATION; Z-12-85 WILDWOOD SECTION IV . tV BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF RECO14MENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FQR EVALUATION/REZONING. ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "Not1 indicates Noncompliance PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED ON BOARD SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Ordinance Requirements FINDINGS The application mus.t comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include: 20.32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No . property at scaie of not less 1"-1001 T than 11= 100" nor more than 1'- ` 20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property 20,3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment' 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if X Yes No Applicant. indicates that site Is adjacent Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- to property being developed at R-4- and bly necessary to promote public R-5 residential densities. health, safety and general welfare* 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Applicant indicates the property Is located Yes No amendment will carry out purpose within a designated Ten Year Transition Area. and intent of adopted prehensive Plan. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Requirements I Article 4.2 indentifies the. criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning-district - des-i grrat-io-n—RESIpDEN7 Al.t-hs applied for a (1-4) designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.3 . and are as follows; a) Designated by the adopted Land X Yes —No Property is located within a Ten Year Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, Transition area. which can reasonably be expedted to beannexed by a municipality in the ensuing 10-20 years. b) Water and sewer lines should . Yes No Water and sewer services are available from Yes No exist at site or be assured of the Town of Hillsborough via lines installed installation as part of the to service Wildwood subdivision Section 1-3. development process. c) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No Site has-direct access to Mc 86; an Yes No of direct access to a street arterial, via extension of John. Breckenridge 1 classified as either arterial Drive and proposed Oakdale Drlye Extension, both or collector as designated of which service or will service Wildwood Subdivision. t by the adopted Land Use Plan. i •tV n001 24 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BILLSBOROITGH NORM' CAROLINA. 27278 so, 'sr 0 ,—.4111111111.,•„ (: ci t V it '41V7 4/ 1 ..._ F 4. 04 11'76 Coll.„ MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: SUSAN SMITH, PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1985 SUBJECT: WILDWOOD SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE The Town of Hillsborough water and sewer system currently serves Wildwwod Subdivision Section I—III . An 8" gravity sewer Line bisects the property and connects to a pump station located immediately south of the Southern Railroad right—of—way and a S" force main which continues north into Hillsborough. A 12" water main serves the property from the north. A 6" water main extends into the property from Joppa Oaks subdivision. This project would require the extension of water and sewer Lines into the site. An R-4 rezoning of the 29.8 acre tract would result in the development of approximately ninety—eight (98) units. Assuming three bedrooms per unit, the project could generate the need to treat 44,100 gallons of water per day. This represents 1 .47% of the total water treatment plant capeclity of 3.0 MGD and a 3.2% increase over current use of 1 .4 MOD. LROADS/TRAFF C The site would be served by access to NC 86, an arterial, via John Breckenridge Road, Walter Clark Drive and proposed Oakdale Drive extension which establishes the northern boundary of the site. The 1984 traffic count for NC 86 at its intersection with SR 1710 [Old #10) is 7000 trips per day. A projected 98 units would result in an additional 656.6 trips • per day, bringing the total trips per day generated by WiLdwood Sections I— IV inclusive to 1816 . 1 000125 John Breckenridge Road and Walter Clark Drive currently serve as sub—collector roads. The addition of ninety—eight (98) dwelling Units utilizing both these roads, in addition to Oakdale Olive extension , would not adversely impact the service Level of the roads. No further improvements are required or NC 86 to accomodate the traffic increase. RECREATION FACILITIES Under the Land Use Intensity (LUX) system an R-4 rezoning does not require the provision of recreational space. The 2.82 acre recreational area which serves the existing Witdwood subdivision is so Located as to be accessible to serve this site. It includes an open area, picnic tables and pedestrian paths . Applying the recreational space requirements for planned developments to Sections I — IV inclusive I(R-4=.03; R-5=.036) , a total of 2.817 acres of recreational area would be required. The existing recreationa area satisfies these requirements. SCHOOLS School—age children living in the development would attend Grady Bruin Elementary School, Stanback Middle School, Stanford Junior High School and Hillsbroough High School. According o Mr. Ralph Compton of the Board of Education , all the schools with the exception of Orange High School are operating at capacity. Using a multiplier of .718 for 3 bedroom single—family units, an estimated 70 school—age children will be generated by this project. POLICE. FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES. Services tR the site will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Company and Orange Rescue Squad. Courtesy review responses have been received f lom the service agencies which indicate an ability to adequat Ly serve the site. TOPOGRAPHY The physical characteristics of the property present significant development constraints in terms of topography and geological formations. Considerable attention must be paid to theise constraints in the clearing of the property, constructiob of roads and construction of residences, particularly in the issuance of grading and building permits . 000126 WATER/WASTEWATER CALCULATIONS — HILLSBOROUGH 1 . Current Water Treatment Plant Capacity 3.0 MGO 2. Current Wastewater Plant Capacity. . .. . 2.0 MGO 3. Current Use a. Water 1 .4 MGD b. We tawater 8 MGD d (a)4. Approve Oev Lo P�ants Estimated Water U s e (b) ( High/Medium Scenarios ) a. Wildwood Section III a 12.97 acres, R-4 zoning o Assume 11 .02 acres developed (c) o TOTAL: 44 units 19,800/13,200 GPO b.. Weng Property o ' 41.8 acres,- R-3 zoning o Assume 35.53 acres developed (c) a TOTAL: 106 units 47,700/31 ,800 GPO a. Scholar Property o 12.4 acres, R-3 zoning a Assume 10.54 acres developed (c) o TOTAL: 31 units ... ..... 13,950/9300 GPO d.. Meadowlands (`I) 300,000 GPO a. Wood's Edge (e) a TOTAL: 52 mobile homes (2 bedres. per unit) 15,600 GPO f.. Cedar Creek Condominiums a ' TOTAL: 160 units- 72,000/48,000 GPO g. Cornwallis Hills o TOTAL: 111 units 48,950/33,300 GPO TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 519,000/451 ,200 GPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT: (f) (g) o (REMAINING CAPACITY 1 ,108,100/1 ,148,800 GPO o % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 64% /62 % WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT: a REMAINING CAPACITY 681 ,000/748,800 GPO j a % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 66% /63 000127 5. Proposed Developments High/Medium Scenarios a. Siotswood o 41-0 single- family units184,500/123,000 GPO o 216 multifamily units (2 badrms per unit] . ... , ... . 64,800 GPO o ESTIMATED USE .. ... 249,300/187,800 GPO b . WiiLdwood Section IY of 28.80 acres, R-4 zoning: o Assume 24.48 acres developed (a) o TOTAL: 98 units 44,100/29,400 GPO TOTAL ESTIMATED USE 293,400/217,200 GPO WATER TREATMENT PLANT; o REMAINING CAPACITY 787,600/931 ,600 GPO a % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 74% / 89% WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT: (h) o REMAINING CAPACITY Of) (g) 387,600/531 ,600 GPO a % OF PLANT CAPACITY USED 81% / 73% (al Assume 150 gallons- per day (GPO] per bedroom. [b] High scenario— 3 bedrooms per dwelling unit; medium scanari1a— 2 bedrooms per dwelling unit. Both scenarios. were used, unless a site plan specified the number of be.droom�s per unit. Assumed 2 bedrooms per mobile home. (c) SubtracFted out 15% for roads. - (d] "Sewer System Fesibility Study for Centre! Orange Study Area". 1E C Maguire, Ina. May, 1985. (a) Subtracted out 5 mobile homes for which building permits have been issued. (f]' Assumed1150 GPO of wastewater (per bedroom] is treated. (g] These figures do not account for groundwater infiltration into the sewer lines. (h] These figures do not reflect the amount of wastewater treatment capacity earmarked for the EfLand area . The initieLlcapacity set aside for the Efland area will be 55,000 GPO, and wilt eventually be expanded to 325,000 GPO. II 000128 ORANGE COUNTY PLAN/SUNG DEPARTMENT 331LLSBOROUGEL NORTH CAROLINA. 27278 .0sts ite „ WI-, •P REQUEST FOR . • AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ATLAS me (I), the undersigned, do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested: It is desired and requested that the property described below be rezoned from R,71 ,INelIMINIIIIy■=1,WTH/10 to R-4 The property is located on the West side of State Road # N.C.86 which is named I N.C.86 . The property is located in Hillsborough I Township, Tax Map 45 Block Lot 4 & 26 . It has a frontage of feet and a depth of feet, and contains 28.80 acres. Applications for a change to the Zoning Atlas shall contain the following: a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred feet to the inch nor more than twenty feet to the inch showing the land which Ls proposed to be rezoned. . I • b. A legal description of the land. c. The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a-detai-led explanation of such error in the Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. d. The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County genezal.4, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfere. e. The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpolse of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. f. All other circumstances, factors and reasons w2ich applicant offers in support o the proposed amendment. We (I), the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true to the best of our (my) knowledge and that the application as submitted is complete. Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough NAME OF APPLECANT(S) SIGN '- OF APP 4 T(S)- P. 0. Box 765, Hillsborough, NC 27278 /0 — (919)732-2361 DATE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPZICANT(S) 000129 List of all individuals firms or cor.orations ownin• cor.orations r° • ownin g• property adjoining or within five hundred 500) feet of the property sought to be rezoned: TAX NAME ADDRESS MAP BLOCK LOT .watAto 5E • t ♦t •: - I Gr .i A..!A. ( - _ I I t I• �.MSa Vr a.r\cL , C , )c. �5 �, `Ill borm.E.cl�.,.2'-3)-R 1 1.141, ,�.le,S 16D 1—a-A1 �---acya C°t„SS—`t' - - _-• .r - alb ���Ja al t % i , t • tea'. / . t.Y1.T "S I t I t. 1 , • \ 1 • r■ 1 t 11 ti .- _ ._ 1�".��,ii e. an . . l,J&d0. _, , . cV, �I -R rV1- �! C) \ t t. 1 t 1 1. /) i. -.B .iIal"' _ Sad I t I t I , V'Vt ae1 •t 1 l r,±y, a A�_ t , I t !3 T k �-le-S r a c-, , , I is pi i T 3 .e s ate. iS_aO4 I IL 1 , /G, - A/Li .. . .a' . ' ! ' ac') . t t t t I t '' z 10/42 . t . , 1 1 li1.YI111 i445 t n cr-rma am r-;yQ , , V, c,vt a _ 1 �� 1 23.....C AL t,j.'S-I CCU \ 1 1t 214 tl .. ' • -- c- 1l t 4 t t ate ' � • n► � !�r � 3 t , 1 . , , . _ _ I . _ A 11 t ,, - t 1c 3f'i'1 L .r'1,,e.. — • 4- '334rhaa-ct. Vi rH_s . a..01- L G e- Drive. lJ1 ee 7. r GJ ,e.•,_ • 1 f • 1 - . .: .... .„.., 1 . .: • • - • •• • .• • _. .- -. . .„ :,, .1.Y041,13 -- • . - ...6 . .,„ •. ,: .Apple Creek Realty, Inc. . ..- timidBoone Village • P.O. Box 596 1 Wititabiircingh, N.C. 27278 • (919) 732-6151 27 Rt. 5, 1011 Wade Hampton -Jim Manning . .it. Lot 28 " Jot. Johnston-Jim Hopper • . . Lot 29 " 116 " " - Diane Riggs Lot 30 ' " 11 11 - C..hcAts eolo, Lot 31 " 11 11 - ts-Ilkakoczod. Coreat-cdri&"‘ Lot 32 " n n ... t I II Lot 33 " ; n 0 - , , t I Lot 34 " n n - Lot 35 " - n 11 - . , % • . . Lot 36 " n It - Cer-haAQAN -Rober÷3 , . . . • . ..... Lot 37 n 102 Wade Hampton -Jeff MOrgan, . Lot 38 " 104 u 11 -Wxrdirlrlek5 .-A*4 Lot 39 " . 106 " 11 -1111Ftw_ Lot 40 11 108 n n -Greg Golombisky Lot 41 " 110 " " -Nick Walker Lot 42 " 112 u " -Boyd Hudson Lot 43 11 101 Geo. Anderson-CePica Lot 44 " 103 " " -Vernon Strope Lot 45 11 105 11 " - Morris Turner Lot 46 " 101 " II .Ned,0011iP$ . Lot 47 " 109 u 11 _ ex4 Vt*rs. .Kosly‘vv,.... OK 1,...le.s'r iihoks-NkrL4. 1..0".e-s. Lot 48 11 111 " It ..C.41.c-i D.es--s ho-on Lot 49 " 118 " " -Chris Dersham Lot -50 " 116 11 it - Tim Killian Lot 51 " 110 Charlie Tew -Danny Dorsett Lot 52 " 116 " " -John Lusth Lot 53 " 114 " " -Mark Reeves Lot 54 " 11g " 9 -Greg Pedersen Lot 55 II 110 1' " -Brian Henry Lot 56 " 108! " " -Alice Lewis . Lot 57 " 104, " " -Eddie Andrews Lot 58 " 104 " " -Michael Shanks Lot 59 "- 102i 11 " -Harold Hallman Lot 60. " 1041 Geo, Anderson-Jane Fleener Lot Si. " 102 " " -IrvA.:ng Rac—.is Lot 62 " 117 Wade Hampton --li .6t. ‘ nt-V c- r v t . Lot 63 n 119 " 1 -Randy Hildebran Lot 64 " 120 " u -Toni Hill Lot 65 " 118 " H -Rick Jackson Lot 66 It 116 11 " - Brent Lybrand ' Lot 67 " 114 " " -John Evans • • • . . . - • i•-• . ..........._..... ...___ _ ....._. . . _ . .. . .. . ..• -' ••• -.. •.. ,•,. : . -.2...--.•*:.:•::...::•:::-..: 7.---„ .-... . , ii.i.::. , : • ./..•:...'';...q.t.:: •::“:•:;:..• .:.*.Q:::-.!..:.t..n.:....* •,-':•:`•••• • - .. ..21 -k...:::%, • . .••••• . .... ....... ..,T.,:',1,-.: ".--..:;'''''', ''''''4•'• .. .,,..•*. ..';•.:. - ..... .... - —.-..— '°'''c'rs. ..:::174...7,:%Z. L ' • • .. . ..3.r. :•.1:4. iltii li.'': Rt.. 5 Wade Ham•ton Rd. . . . . -.?..-te,..:74-. • -• a .1 III . II •c`f:I.T.•,.• ° ' a •• • Enock-Hard crt-.. e . . n . m II OSe . •1 •,...r2..,_.,_.M.._....._...g_an .- . • . 7-7r- ebbie Crumb --.7t,•.::. ';'.4.-,,,,i..-•...z?: .a.ou- /4 I. .1..5.0 „ a . . _ cri-r7"--- -- ' 1, 11 11 ..,444(ZTX . • 17‘ z rt.vi.5.... ..... ., ,......i.71.61 1 :."14..?.*,,::::°,• .• 0 -1r .. . ....... . _.................._ . 11 •a ,r- ------Trerii7M-FirtS -3. -- f . . o 7 : n : ii. ,• 0. 4 .7•7 : 0_ -. ._ * .. tot 77 u 133 II II Max-Hoz ex.,, _ . • 0 7 „ fiver . • Lot --7• I, . 11 11 ieS • ' :r er • .I ot :0 11 a a • -icharp mitp I%-ot 8 sir *; 'Na ter C ark Dr. Lot :2 11 109 ir-------rr----- Te , Norman 1- ot : , 11 5 11 11 awes winsorrolisot - - . Isot : a Wade ant on Rd. . .. . . .. — 17-0i--87----nr---71 -51"---- 11 ariirr Wm' M1131{ .1 . .... - .. • Wa er ' ark o . ". Lot 89 1 " " Martin :room ., , ' o • . 11 11 . ot .. e -rlow • • . 167-§------r. ii ----1 . anders —7: - - 0 •, si Is it tot 9 • 11 11 richael Sermar - "---* , o •• 1 1 a , . :Tomer Shumate o • I 7-'°— -o • • - I,. . is 0 a: . - -eo. 4 •erson I • • . 9 . , .. I eir 0 ii I . - a 11. •. v ' A 0 • II .... 6 II II• 0 • 11 It Ilesamolmes.esmael 41Mommi••■•■■■•■■•••■■■••••••••■ ). • It J• . 0 5 11 11 (" ............6 - 0 e•I 11 •1 11 ••• ......A......, 1. ntlrin!,....1 0 5 I .1 . 11 11 . e.-..w mith -o X0. 11 i 11 a '' ohen lot /0 " '- • II 11 Arlftwrommtrmt • o is; 1 .1 • it it ? . . lm ravis o o• 11 • Walter Ciar.- -r. .01.....assowsmerosamossoiroamm■ a ; I OU: onnor . . • • • • - ' - . • REZONING REQUEST'CHJ3CKLIST AMa wi1dwood Corp of Hi 11sborough• ADDRESS 'P. 0. fox •765;' KR sborouah- NC'27278 - • ' OWNER'S N .�-=—: f - R-1 Total number of scrag 28-.80 - Current land use Undeveloped Wooded Current zanin� - Type of rezoning i�aquested R-4 Propa�ed land use nol_e_fam3.jv rg5idantial 45 Block Number of lots 4.& 26 '•Proposed Water Supply: Publie�_Community____,_ - Tax map 1 ------ - _ . -. .. -- Public )( Community individual septic tank Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: .- -- Access onto state road N.C.86 Average daily traffic-count on the state.road Describe: existing Poorly drained areas �_.__ critical areas: Flood prone areas None Streams None other,;sensitive areas None wooded - -Describe land uses in: General Area Residential sin :le roil undevelo ed j& R-5 single family/ Adjacent parcels of land North-undeveloped R-4 west-Und veto ed R-1 East-tlevel - South-Undeveloped 'R-1 ' E0 1 000133 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 Wildwood is a §ingle-family subdivision located off New N.C.86, south of Interstate 85, just outside of Hillsborough. The idea of Wildwood was conceived by the Wildwooc Corporation of Hillsborough in late 1982 and development of Section I was s arted in the Spring of 1983. The construction of homes in Sections I and II is now nearing completion. Section III, which is the property between the Oakdale Drive Extension and the Railroad is currently zoned R-4 and is scheduled for single family homes similar to those in Sections I and II. This request is for a rezoning from R-1 and R-4 of the remaining 28.80 acres owned by Wildwood Corporation. This acreage, to be known as Section IV of Wildwood is anticipated to be developed with homes in the $60-$70,000 bracket. Section IV 1 • . will complete the Wildwood subdivision. ACCESS Vehicular accesi to the subdivision will be from an arterial street (N.C.86), as I designated by the Land Use Plan. In addition, a right of way for the proposed Oakdale Drive Etension, (a collector street) has been dedicated within this project. UTILITIES Water and sewer lines are in place in the completed sections of Wildwood. As a part of the land development approval process, detailed plans will be submitted to the Town of Hil sborough for approval of public water and sewer line extensions. LAND USE PLAN This property is located within a 10 year transition area, as shown on the Orange County Land UselPlan, and as such, has been identified as appropriate for Medium Density Residential Development, with provision of the necessary public facilities. PROPOSED USE The proposed R-4 rezoning request for single-family homes served by municipal water and sewer facilities will provide community housing convenient to major transportation corridors and employment centers. This residential use will be ..2... PROPOSED USE (continued) compatible with surrounding residential and rural land uses. A cohesive continuation of the Wildwood subdivision is permitted within the Land Use Plan. LOCATION The 28.80 acres of property requested for rezoning is located west of N.C.86 and south of 1-85. The close proximity of 1-85 and N.C.86 offers convenient and safe transportation to employment centers and service areas. Wildwood Subdivision is located one-quarter of a mile south. of a commercial-industrial node on N.C.86 as designated by the Land Use Plan. TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS The site has ac ess to N.C.86 via John Breckenridge Drive and Walter Clark Drive (via Oakdale Dr ve Extension). Left turn lanes were added at the applicant's expense on N.C.16 at the intersection of N.C.86 and John Breckenridge Drive and N.C.86 and Walter Clark Drive to handle the increased traffic. Traffic flow within the project will be on public streets built to N.C.D.O.T. standards. PUBLIC SERVICES All public services are available or will be made available to the site Wildwood is served by a 12" water line and an 8" sewer line. These will be extended in accordance with the Town of Hillsborough's policies and specifications. The extension of these water and sewer lines will not only serve this development, but may also prvide services to portions of abutting property on the west side of the developmJnt. ZONING Wildwood Section IV is now zoned R-1. This type of zoning provides low density residential development in areas where water and sewer are unavailable. The proposed R-4 zon"ng will provide a logical expansion of the existing subdivision by taking advant ge of existing or extended public water and sewer lines. . • • 1 1 , - (01)1)131.i .. -3- Lying and beinglin Hillsborough Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and consisting of 18.80 acres as shown on the plat prepared by ENT Land Surveys, Inc. , and more particillarly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point (said point 1 being the southeast corner of that property conveyed to Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough, Inc., by Mary Ruth Woods} and running thence North 86° 43' 30" West 658.14 feet to a point; thence North 01° 12' 25" East 249.86 feet to a point; I thence North 02 °17' 55" East 1966.73 feet to a point in the southern right-of- way line of Oak ale Drive Extension; thence with the southern right-of-way line of Oakdale Driv Extension South 67° 24' 25" East 437.75 feet to a point; thence I South 10° 18' 23" East 1098.84 feet to a point; thence South 01° 34' 51" West 1004.52 feet to the point and place of the Beginning. . . 00 ' 3 �. ,..A _. _ -•_ - , , _ _�.....,� • .__...,.,.....:_ , . NORTH CAROLINA WATER/SEWER =E9SIQ4 EASEMENT/AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY THIS EASEMENT/AGREEMENT, dated the day of , 1984 by - T. • 'and between Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough, Inc., a N. C. corporation, hereinafter called Owner; and the Town of Hillsborough, a municipal corporation •141 East Orange Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, hereinafter called • ;Town; . S E T H' ARTICLE I. General. Any pronoun need herein shall not be given a. literal construction if such interpretation would frustrate an otherwise clear { • intent when considered in the context in which used. • After this Easement/Agreement has been duly executed by each party in duplicate, the same shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their 'successors, in perpetuity;'otherwise, this document, and each and every clause and phrase thereof, shall be and remain null.and void. ARTICLE II. Easement: In consideration of the promise of the Town to permit the Owner to connect to the•Town system an extended water and/or sewer system to serve the property of the Owner; and in further consideration of the promise of the Town to maintain'said 'ir..s and apparatus from and after completion of construction and installation as hereinafter specified, the Owner does hereby give, grant, and.convey unto the Town, and its-successors and assigns, a perpetual right and easement over, upon and through the property or properties specified ai-Sc1s eda a •incorporated herein.to ntain'one or more underground water•and/or sewer lines and apparatus over, ;upon and through the lands of the Owner; •• Together with the'perpetual right and easement to go upon said lands } •enawer the same is reasonably necessary for the purpose of inspecting, 1•••intaining and repairing said lines and apparatus; provided, however, that in. repairing said lines, said Town shall remove all surplus earth, shall make • (level the surface of the ground above said lines and apparatus, and shall !intere£ere as little as is reasonably possible with any plants, fences, or other improvements upon the Sand of Owner. To have and to hold said rights and easements to the Town, and its successors, in perpetuity. ARTICLE III. Water/Sewer Connections. And further, for said considerario id Owner does unconditionally acknowledge and agree for themselves and their(1) _ . ... . _ _ • 0... 1_37 .... ......- •.... - -- , . r - -- '-:-"`". ' -7-'77 . ' ' • - , . . . ..- '• SCHEME A 1 I . Lying in Hillsborough Township. Orange County, North Carolina- . - I Any and all public and/or private streets, made, and/or Water and/or • newer eaaement areas as shown on the existing plats of all existing phases of Wildwood subdivision now recorded in the office of the Register-of Deeds of Orange County. N. C.; together-with any and all such areas to be shown on any : ! • i and all other subsequent phases of subdiviMion and/or develqpment.of the 149.3 acres of land of Wildwood Corporation of Hillsborough, Inc. an described I, ., and conveyed by General Warranty Deed dated June 30, 1983 from Kendrick IEstates Investment Corporation, which deed in duly recorded in said Registry I -- I in Deed Book 424, Page 170, the description therein being incorporated herein ' by reference. . ! , . 1 • . • Iz . I . , . I• , • I , . I ' ' - • 1 . • ! ' I . . . I . ; i . I i . . . . ! 1 , i . • • , . , . ..-----. • • 1 .---'- '-- (6) • . . - • _ - - - . . . 000138 Mayor CI own. 6 Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727U Agatha Johnson Supt. Water Works Commissioners James Pendergraph Lynwood J. Brown Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd ,kix r. L I. D. Wagoner ♦* '{y Remus J. Smith rr#a Chief of Police C+z.Z,r Arnold W. Hamlett Rachel H. Stevens i Fire Chief �: ; ��*� John Forrest y, October 11, 1985 Orange Count Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Sir: - • • This is to state that water and sewer utilities are available to the proposed Wildwood Section IV. The utilities presently services the existing sections of Wildwood and would be extended to serve Section IV. This ex ension would be to Town and State specifications. Sincerely, J Agatha/Johnson, Town Clerk I 000139 &tun id Willsher $ Mose Twos HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 21278 as+m+Malawi &ft Watr Winds W.Pied k yth �.1 i r, C.E.Rosemead Ala A.1 ``I of ,1 . Wsgoner limo H.jabs= Dr.IOm Demos ■ Mee/Pace Reams J. a E C E I V E Arnold W.Hamlet 111'. D TO: Orange County Planning Dept. - FROM: Hillsborough Planning Board RE: Courtesy Review of Rezoning Request for Wildwood Section IV DATE: November 15, 1985 On Nofvember 14, 1985 the planning board conducted a courtesy review of the rezoning request for Wildwood Section IV and recommended that the 28.80 acres be rezoned to R-2, or at the most, R-3. While the board recognizes that existing Wlildwood Sections t .tI;I are zoned P-4 and R-5, the topography of the site and the impact of traffic on existing neighborhoods in Wildwood raises concerns as to the overall impact of the proposed development. The board is particularly concerned about road conditions (i.e. construction as well as capacity to handle more traffic), erosion control and increased traffic at the project site. - 000140 A Orange County leedcue Squad _Inc. = P 261 S.CHURTON ST.,Err. niso` HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 October 15, 1985 Wildwood Corporation, of Hillsborough, Inc. P.O. Box 765 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Sirs: The Orange County Rescue Squad will provide emergency medical coverage to the 28.80 acre tract behind Wildwood Sections I and II known as Wildwood Section IV. Orange County Rescue Squad • ‘242AZ.S 44:1 Doris S. Cecil, Secretary JS:dc _ _ LINDY PENDERGRASS OOP"4 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278. Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 TO: Orange County Planning Department FROM: Sheiriff DATE: October 16, 1985 RE: Protective services for additional 100 units plus Wildwood Sub-division For the past year October 1, 1984 to October 10, 1985, the Sheriff's Department has responded �to.8 incident calls at the Wildwood Sub-division, the 135 homes now located there, Each of the 8 incidents required an average of 45 minutes to arrive and clear. Total time..for the 8 incidents is 6 hours,. Our performance is based on this equation:- 8 ilncidents a 135 home's. =-•.05 incidents per home. With the additional units: .05 x 135(present) + 100(additional) will add an anticipated 11.7 incidents to respond at Wildwood. . These additional unite-'will rrecpure total"8'.81.man. hours::.i : Ff Considering house checks for-vacationers• iii,the'COiripteti.Showever, our man hours could exceed way beyond:- expected. Example:.-:.10 of-23a,•23.5 houses request house checks. If each house is checked twice, dai.ly,..the total is 1 hour per day, and we could add more man hours-. :r: r_ ,;:; ' We will also see an average -popul=ation.. n crease. vf=.3.5 x 100 = 350 persons in this area which could increase our. work load. . We can provide! protective services for 'these. new:units. However, should the work load go beyond our anticipated projection-,:we 'will have to add additional personnel in this area, - • .4 1 000142 HILLSBOROUGH VOLUNTEER.FIRE DEPART ENT 206 South Charon sweet HILLSBOROUGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27278 John Forrest,fire Chief 10/17/85 To:Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Dept. can provide fire protection to Wil. -•d Section 4 with no problems. John,/ , t, g' . .N OR GE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH U001 43 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 „ow ... ill(„..„ "'et awl` CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , Sqsan J. Smith , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 8, I maited, bi certified mail., postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public HeaTing to be heLd on the Wit4wood Section IV rezoning fruphstuatillizligaic to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. -• The noticeimaiLed specified the date, time, pLace and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning ctassification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 12th day of November, 1985. SUSAN J. SMITH ZONING OFFICER I — I WA" O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date NOVEMBER 25. 1985 Action Agenda Item # SUBJECT: Z-13-85 P & S SPORTING GOODS, INC. DEPARTMENT: PLANTING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH PROJECT SUMMARY VICINITY MAP • FINDINGS EVALUATION MEMORANDUM APPLICATION • AGENCY COMMENTS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 868-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a rezoning request submitted by P & S Sporting Goods Inca NEED: P & S Sporting Goods Ina. is requesting a rezoning of property lace ad south of NC 54 and approximately 550' east of Marrow MiLL Road. The property is known as part of Lot 28 on Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township . The parcel contains 4.54 acres or 197,762.4 square feet . The property is Located within an area designated Agricultural- Rasilential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The present zoning of the property is Agricultural Residential (AR) . The appLiicant is requesting a rezoning to Local. Commercial-1 (LC- 1 ) . IMPACT: Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zone for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use. RECOMMENDATION: Apiproval of the LC-1 rezoning request . O �4 A r 81, 4446 116 AC. ; ft f•i 416 AC. 6 05 Ac. ' '—. a}519 A R ..-,��27+ 1. '6° —` . •• �1?ta'+al• '+. _ C-� AC.4 u>t�nl. sti Esc} �A B{ll AC ' , ,�it,.l 13 39AC AC (13) •12)1, rr r4NI S r —.LL}1C 1.24 AC. i ► t Sur htA " • y 4392 123Ar, 10.7 AC. f ' } tt 84 1 5,24 AC. j MA L (AIRI) 14l .}) = =`jCr .� �t,t e+ r•,.t Mn, 6914 A-R 7 A(Q 'Q 1. (• 'lJ A.R .7951 3743 L58• 3971 -�..�2J,�- -.. Y r F 108 M tR AC . .. ,f +, ,f APPLICANT: P& S SPORTING GOODS nc.s�;✓' LUP: Agricultural Residential Rural ,'art ( C1,(�L) Neighborhood Activity Node Current Zoning: Agricultural-Residential i Proposed Zoning: Local Commercial-I Scale: F'= 400' O D , dr .•.n, I tiF M in (t 4t 41 , 0001.47 ORANGE COUNTY .PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ~t rte`• MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Z-13-85 P & S SPORTING GOODS INC. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. P. 0. Box 400 • Carrboro , NC 27510 LOCATION: Located south of NC54 approximately 550' east ofSR1958 Morrow Mill Road in Bingham Township REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Local Commercial-1 Rezoning request PURPOSE: To allow for development of 4.54 acres of commercial use . LOT SIZE: 4.54 acres or 197,762.4 square feet EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant, partially wooded tract SURROUNDIN LAND USE: NORTH — NC 54 and undeveloped land . EAST — P & S Sporting Goods Inc. SOUTH — Undeveloped, wooded land and single residence WEST — Undeveloped subdivision LAND USE P N: - Designated Agricultural—Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node in the Land Use Plan ZONING: The propsety is zoned Agricultural—Residential. [A—R) . The Agricultural Residential plan category provides for development under the Agricultural— _ . 000148 3 Residential (A—R) and Agricultural Services (A—S) 'zoning districts . The Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Plan category provides for development under 1th Local. Commercial (LC-1 ) and Neighborhood Commercial-2 (NC-2) zoning districts . •t' • 000149 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: SUSAN SMITH , PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1985 SUBJECT: P & S SPORTING GOODS INC. REZONING DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS The property is served by on—site eater and sewage disposal systems. Expansion of existing systems requires approval of engineeredIpLans by both the Orange County Health Department and State Division of HeaLth Services. (See 10-30-85 Letter from Orange County Health Department) . ' I ROADS/TRAFFIC The property is served by NC 54, an arterial. A 1984 traffic count for NC 54 indicates 6000 trips per day at its intersection with Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) . Traffic generation estimates for permitted uses at this site (based on a maximum floor area of approximately 22,750 square feet) range from1235 trips per day for an office use to 815 trips per day for a freestanding retail use. The requested zoning district generally provides for uses considered Low traffic generators which generate less than 200 vehicle trips per day. POLICE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES. Services to the site will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Company and Orange Rescue Squad. Courtesy review responses have been received from the service agencies indicating an ability to adequately serve the site . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE PLAN AND zONING ORDINANCE _ . _ _ • _ 000150 The property is Located within the BH-1 Rural Neighborhood activity node. The rural. neighborhood activity node designatio'n corresponds with the Local Commercial-1 and Neighborhood Commercial—I/ zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 at any activity node at nine (9) acres, except in nonEtransition area where the maximum is five (5) acres. The maximum amount of area zoned NC-2 at any activity node shell'. also not exceed nine (9) acres, except in rural non—transition areas where the maximum is five (5) acres. There are currently 3.0B acres zoned NC-2 and no acreage zoned LC-1 at this activity node. PERMITTED USES The purpose of the Local.—Commercial.—I zoning district is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial' uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Uses permitted by right in this district include: — single family dwellings — day cere, nursery, kindergarten — family care home — rehabilitative care facility — church — community center — schools of music, dance and art — assembly facility (greater than 300) banksland financial institutions — beauty and barber shops — social clubs — health services (under 10,000 sq. ft.) — laundry and dry cleaning services — motor vehichle services stations — night clubs and bars — offices and personal services (few customers or clients, low traffic volumes, no adverse impacts beyond space occupied by building) — recreitionat facilities (profit) 1 — repair services (electronic and appliance) — retai ! trail., sales and rental of convenience goods, merchandise and equipment (few customers, Low traffic volume, no outside storage and no adverse impacts beyond space occupied by the building) Rezoning of 4.54 acres provides for expansion of the existing facility. I Alternatively, the size of the parcel may allow for subdivision of the property into individual acre lots for development dependent on the suitability of the soils for on site wastewater facilities. Both expansion of the existing facility ort development of other principle uses on individual Lots must 'comply with applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the Land Use Intensity system (floor • 000;51 area, open space etc.) , landscaping and screening, parking and signage. • • • Ii FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-13-85 PES SPORTING GOODS INC. ; BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" Indicates com Nance• "No" lndicates Noncompliance PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED ON BOARD SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED' : Ordinance Requirements FI NDI NGS' The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include: 20.32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes �!o property at scale of not less I11-100, than i `- 100". nor more than V- ` 201 20.3.2 b) Legal description of Xyes NO Description provided with application Yes No property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error. alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment •20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, If Yes No Changed conditions not alleged. Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- bly necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare.; C 20.3.2 e) Manner In which proposed X Yes No Property is locaied.within an .area:; Yep , No amendment will carry out purpose designated A ricultural-Residential' �-► Node- and intent Pion. C�J ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Requirements yea Article 4.2 Indentifles the I criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning-district ----j- dasignation. The apps cant ha5 . applied for a LOCAL COMMERCIAL -1 (LC-1) designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.3 and are as follows: Yes —No Property is located within a Rural Neigh- Yes No a) Locaped.withl•n'the Carrborb •J6int boyhood Activity Node. Planning Area or area designated as Commercial Transition, Rural Community or Rural Neighborhood Activity Modes. b) Uses would serve a market area X Yes No Uses permitted In an area zoned Local _,Yes No population confined to the immediate• 'r'- Commercial-1 are limited to ,local service type area and would generally not serve commuters. and retail type operations and to low scale or persons outside the surrounding offices. neighborhood. X yes No Site is to be served by on-site water and Yes __No c) Lot size for individual uses """' wastewater facilities as approved by the shall be appropriate to the method Orange County Health Department. of water supply and sewage disposal. d) Normally, the maximum amount of land X Yes' ' No There— Ii inonpropecty..•currentby- zoned 11C-1 at _Yes No zoned LC-}:at. any node shall not exceed` within this activity node. The appllcant proposes nine acres, but 5 acres shall apply in to rezone less than the 5 acre minimum. rural areas with lower population density. a) all sites designated LC-1 shall have: 'X Yes' No The site has, direct access to. NC 54, a road Yes No direct access to an arterial or collecTor. classified as an,arterlal .in the Land Use Plan. 0001 55 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Date: October 18, 1985 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orang County as hereinafter requested. 1 . The property is located on the South side of S.R.#N.C. Rt. 54 ( 60O feet.. Sr4<txecgiNieltemet):xlme:incimaxaxStxit east of and S.R.# 1958 It is known as Lot(s 28 , /Mack , of Orange County Tax Na P 26 - Bingham Township. It has a frontage of 443 1 feet and a depth of 480 feet, containing. 197.919 square feet or 4.54 acres . 2: It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Agricultural/Residential Dist. to Local Commercial-1 Dist. • I 3. The following information has been attached in support of the appliczition for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - Required on all applications) . *a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one ( 1 ) inch equals one hundred ( 100) feet nor more than one ( 1 ) inch equAls twenty (20) feet showing the land which is proposed 1 to be rezoned. *b. A legal description of the land. - c. The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed- amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed 1 reasons how the proposed amendment will, correct the error. d. The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to- the promotion of the public health, saf ty and general welfare. *e. The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the int int and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. *f. All lother circumstances, factors and reasons which the appli- cant1 offers in support of the proposed amendment. 4. A list of all individuals , firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred .(500) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of October 1985 • Date I certify that all information furnished in this app 3 accurate to the best of my knowledge. rfiarl711*.i "R f ..5..6m4r:rtc.. .6001:6 tric, Applicant(s) : --, - - - - - - -- ' ..- - :,-.. ,.61_,„,„_......■ Address : post Office Box 400 - Carrboro, N.C. 27510 . Phone: (919) 929-2143 l REZONING REQUEST- CKLIST eL., kNGpSS '; P,.O-. Box 400, Carrboro, N.0. 27510 OWNER'S NAME Partially occupied by } Open -_Septic Field' AR Total number of acres 4:55 'Current land use Current zoning,,, — Type (LC-1)Propoded land use #528 Offices and Pe o£ rezoning ;aquested Local Comm rsonal Services 28 Yo seed Water Supply: Public„_„_ommunity____,_ - -- Tax map # 26 Block # -" Number of lots � P -- — — Individual septic tank i individual X Proposed Sewage Treatment:: Public : Cammctnity @ Orange Grove Rd. is 1984 Access onto state road # Nr._ 4 AverageA�daily traffic, count on the sfiafia roa fi,•OOO d DDeseribe existing ; critical areas: Flood prone areas None Poorly drained from ,None ; '�' Drainage runs from northh to south -across. ; Streams None Other,;sensitive areas the 'lot C the eastern one-third point. : Describe land uses in: General Area Scattered residences.; business and agricultural uses. Adjacent parcels of land To the east Is the existing office and 'warehouse. Be and is a residence . across the Highway (Route #54) is a satellite disk business and several residences and mobile homes, the west is vacant and. to the south is. an agricultural. use (,open. field)'. 000 1 5 7 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION Subject property is located in a Rural Community node contained in the County's adopted Land Use Plan and centered at Orange Grove Road (SR #1958) and N. C. Route 54. Its cluarter mile radius extends beyond this property thereby encompassing it as a part of the node. The proposed uses, offices, would provide a source of employment for persons in this section of the County. The Owner of the subject property also owns the adjacent property which is zoned GC-4 which presently contains a mail order facility and the offices of several corporations of the Owner. The Owner row proposes to expand the office facility totally within the parcel now zoned GC-4. Parking and the septic drainage field serving these offices are proposed on the subject property, adjacent to the existing facility. Present County Regulations require that these uses occupy land zoned in the same manner as would permit the principal use generating the parking and/or septic field. Thus this rezoning request is being made. This property has been inspected by the County Sanitarian who has found that the size and configuration of this lot is appropriate to the method of water supply and sewerage disposal serving the uses proposed for these lots. This request is to rezone 4.54 acres of land to Local Commercial (LC-1). Since there is no additional land zoned LC-1 within this activityl node, the proposed rezoning is within the five acre limit set fo rural areas where a lower population density exists. The criteria for establishing Local Commercial Zones requires that such sites shall have direct access to a street classified as an arterial or a collector. This parcel is fronting on NC Route 54 which is an arterial designated in the County's Adopted Land Use Plan. In summary, this request conforms to al I criteria set in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for application of Local Commercial - 1 (LC-1) Districts. I t is respectful ly requested that the County Board of Commissioners rezone this property accordingly. • . . (0)(00-t 58 PHE, INC. CARRBORO, NC. PROPERTY DESCR I PT ION Beginning at a point in the centerline of N. C. Route 54 - approximately 600 feet of the intersection of Orange Grove Road, SR #1958 which is the northwestern corner of the property owned by Population Planning Associates, I nc.; thence along the Southern Right-Of-Way of NC. Route 54 South 78° 30' 30" East 439.5 feet to a point; thence South 07° 16' 13" 542.54 feet to the southern boundary of subject property; thence N 83° 09• 30" W - 53.39' to a point in said southern property line; thence fol lowing said property line, N 59° 11 ' 30" W 170.40' ; thence N 67° 19' 30" W - 140.45' ; thence N 67° 17' 30" West 132.0 to the Southwestern corner of said property; thence N 11° 44' 04" East, along the Western line of said property, 436.13 feet to the point of beginning. I . List of all individuals, firms or cor .orations ownin: cor .oratio0001511 ownin: •ro.ert . ad 'oinin: or within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought to be rezoned: TAX NAME ADDRESS MAP BLOCK LO Warren, Ralph Mr, Etal Rt. 1, Box 149C, Chapel Hill 26 14 Durham John R. I Route 1 Chapel Hill 26 14 A Curl, Madeline CI, P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26 15 ....___ Crawford, Ernest! W. 705 Hanover Dr. Shelby 26 17 Walton, Leslie A.! 616 Hunter Lane Durham 26 27 Monitor, Inc. I 605 Eastowne Dr. Chapel Hill 26 27 • Kirby, Tessie Mae Rt. 1, Box 153 Chapel Hill 26 6-' Kirby, Tessie Mae Rt. 1, Box 153 Chapel Hill 26 6-' Kirby, Tessie Mae Rt. 1, Box 153 Chapel Hill 26 6-' Kirby, Raymond Henry Rt. 1, Box 152 Chapel Hill 26 13 Durham, Joe W. I Rt. 1, Box 151 Chapel Hill 26 11 • Duncan, Lillian D. Rt. 1, Box 154 Chapel Hill 26 12 • Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 1 Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 2 Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 3 Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 4 Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 5 Curl, David L. P.O. Box 10 Carrboro 26-C 6 1 1 Warren, Ralph Meyo Rt. 1, Box 149-C Chapel Hill 30 1 Cheek, Marvin Emmett Route 1 • Chapel Hill 31 . 7 Eddleman Danny P.O. Box 2294 Cha•el Hill 30 1-B i • • ___.-. 000-1-60 i .- .. • I • ,, - --:„ :- ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS --,- October 18, 1985 Sheriff Lindy l Pendergraff ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. 144 East Margaret Lane Hi I Isborough, North Carol ina 27278 RE: PHE, INC. - CARRI3ORO, NC. Dear Sheriff rendergraff: We have be n asked by the Orange County Planning Department to obtain a letter from you stating whether or not you are able to serve an area for which we have requested a rezoning from Agriculture/Residential to Local Commercial 1. This project involves expanding the existing 32,000 square foot facility occupied by PHE, INC. by construction of an additional two-story office building containing 16,000 square feet. The location of this property is shown on the attached vicinity map. - This building will have two connecting links to the existing building and 153 parlking spaces will be provided, partially on a paved lot and part!ally graveled. There are currently 130 people working .--..: at this facility. The new facility will expand this employment -- by 45 people to a total of 175. . •-. We respectfully request that you advise the Planning Department of your abi ity to serve this project.. They have asked that • we obtain this letter no later than Wednesday, October 23, 1985. • if we can b of assistance or if you would like for us to del iver your letter, i please have your secretary give us a cal I and we : will be happy to do so. Sincerely yours, V'. ..., C PA A Robert N. An erson, Jr., AICP RNA:gb • CITY PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATES 121 SOUTH ESTES DIME • SOY 22t0:1 • ( HAPEI. HILL. N r. 27514 • TELEPHONE 919-929 71 . . . . . range county 300 W.Tryon Street Hillsborough.N.C.27278 732-8181 732-9361 ext.305 o/4 HEALTH DEPARTMENT Chapel Hill line 967-9251 968-4501 Mebane line 227-2032 Durham line 688-7333 688-7331 Carr Mill Mall, Suite 225 f 100 N.Greensboro Street Carrboro,N.C. 27510 rt.L12nai-L.--1)5 942-4168 Jerry Robinson,M.P.A. Director October 30, 1985 Ms. Susan Smith Orange County Planning Department E. MargaretilLane Hillsboroug , N. C. 27278 Re: Sewage Disposal System for Population Planning Associates Expansion Dear Susan:1 I recently did an evaluation on the above referenced site to determine if the site could handle a sewage disposal system on-site for the proposed expansion. I met Mr. James Ford of City Planning and Architectural Associates. The site was preliminarily approved for the expansion given that the following conditions are met: 1. The facility can have no more than 200 employees at any time. 2. Engineered plans for a low pressure pipe sewage disposal system must be submitted to the Orange County Health Department and to the State Division of Health Services (DHS). 3. The property lines relative to the site are properly marked on site. Once these conditions are met, the plans will be reviewed for approval by the Orange County Health Department and DHS. A valid improvements permit can be issued after approval is granted by both agencies. Please call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. ncerely, , r 47; Ron Holdway, H.S. 40 cc: City Planning and Architectural Associates Attn: Mr. James Ford 121 S. 'Estes Drive Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 000182 LI N DY PEN DERG RASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 TO: Orange County Planning Board FROM: Sheriff 1) DATE: October 21, 1985 E C E!V RE: Expansion of PHE Inc„ Carrboro PHE Inc. expansion will require no additional personnel or equipment from this Department. PHE Inc. has full-time security plus secur..i-ty:,alarms. This Department checks the `•e an average of 10 minutes buildings at night, but this reg03.res :very T�ttle� i:'-imer; .- __.. , .,, .f rff. r -- •-t; - r per check. =r,r• e. J~ r , f •fir` .•7 f.f-.St` . • r -I rl jr • • ORANGE COUNTY 11 1 6 3 HILLSBOROUGH a EC ; I NORTH CAROLINA /0-92-9 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Susan 'th, Planning FROM: Bobby (Bakker, Emergency Services 04..4 SUBJECT: Fire and Emergency Medical Coverage DATE: October 21, 1985 In referencl to the P.H.E. office building located on the southside of highway 54 west,lapproximately one half:mile: west of highway 54 and Orange Grove road intersection, the area in...9uestion receives-;fire protection from the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department.; The`emergeicy..medical services is provided by Orange County Emergency Medical Services and South Orange Rescue Squad- If I can be of further assistance, please let me know:.: c.:;* YEJ9gD iO*-074-9.5"-9. • [k , � f � t - • 00(0164 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .41:14aN ,r17, I6-"L'71 CERTIFICATE OF NAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I ,. Susan L . Smith ,, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, 00 HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 8, I mailed, by icertified mail , postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the PS Sporting Goods Inc . 1 to each Property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 12th day of November, lsas. SUSAN J. SMITH ZONING OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY 000165 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data November 25. 1985 Action Agenda Item j SUBJECT: Z-14-85 (REZONING REQUEST) JAMES L. HILL DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes • No Attachment(sl Information Contact: EDDIE KIRK PROJECT SUMMARY VICINITY MAP PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS EVALUATION MEMORANDUM APPLICATION AGENCY COMMENTS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hilt — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To r ceive pubLic comment on a proposed rezoning request submitted by James HiLL . NEED: James L. HILL is requesting a rezoning for 0.57 acres or 24,809.2 square feet of land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751 in Eno Township . The property is Located in an area designated Twenty Year Transition Area and Commercial Transition Activity Node on the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning of the property is Rural Residential (R-1 )J . The applicant is re u etin that the Lot be rezoned to Community Commercial III q g (CC-3) . IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow a community commercial use at this intersection . RECOMMENDATION: Delnial of the CC-3 rezoning request given that the potential impacts of the uses permitted by right in the district and the constraints imposed on the site by its relationship to the road network suggest a planned development rezoning is more appropriate. i • I .. .... . . • .....O...•............"". ...••••■•■••••■■•■ / ; . . \ /ERFD (---s, 'at irmr„ 9 ASS'C1 000168 ;43 313a k I 27.; .9-i..ii' -1871 a 85 13 s.... -. a• 1527 Ac.o.c. ra? - • lei - _ • . , \N. . 21.03 AC.TWA i\---/ ' 17• ." N852.000 • ""—•••• _;sn_ . \ • ;.6.41IC.CAL. 6.48 AC. (129 7938f. , . 191 15 rtat57 A\' \ . \ • 7 t ; I 2 \ 1 - 1 ' . • I . JAMES L. HILL • W.66 DEVELOPER: JAMES L. HI LL. N . ).67 AC.CAL 32, Present Zone: R-1 1171 0 ; Proposed Zone: CC-3 .... 'N0 TR'''PK 1. LUP Designation: 20-Yr Transition -e.5 . (14 SPACES) ' Commercial Transition -........ _.... Activity Node ....... ---........... i. I" - 400' N . ••---...,:...--..„........-.... / ASO . . 05161102. DU P ' i -AT I .O•d.C. ,.......-- ‘ Mt 103 tteL4?' . !a-0._ '....) ,..) ........... .............WI OMNI= • .. .. .." ."..''' I1i 1 3.85 X. 357 AC.Ie.• __,...,........• ...........— — ................... ...............'......e............. I I ..„........... ..... ...•••"7.7"'"•..... ....* I ...... .......... ...... .......... ........ I• 0177-if q C. L.4 . 1 ..... ...'"". .. 3T8pc• ',Z; 288 / • C 8271 I I 'Awl re, . • roZ6243 1;92 93'93 !,r,..4 ...- 28 / •• .153 I I --ago!. 574c. tti.7t. 0 CO 10 24 a._ 743 II 1041 454t. Z Z 4:r Cr 1 40 0 , Ill ) 630 OW t I 11 12.AC- I I R P T -1----- --i --1- ,E;;;',, ,6 ACCAL. I 04,, I . i; - u a 79,z.; I tO i I •.......................... 0 • _ ■•7 EVISED_ SHIP q I I •.......... ... 1 • 1 -- .-- . __: 6: 8 - • ... .._ , la • 0 .6. . " • 5 . • 1 0 . ANGE COUNTY N.C . 1 . 7.,MAP! FAARCH,5,1*-70 q•401.0 'J0, ;..:3 SC L. A =• ! =40 . - NIA?: 25 10 I OWN - ., ? " _ . .. . _. ... . . , i 1 I ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT , HILLSBOROUGEC COC:167 NORTICCUROLINA 27278 () 4:1111-:3,1 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1985 SUBJECT: Z-14-85 (REZONING REQUEST) GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: James L. Hilt P. D. Box 3113 Durham, NC 27705 LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751 in Eno Township REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of a rezoning request from Rural Residential (11-1 ) to Community Commercial-3 (CC-3) . PURPOSE: To allow commercial development of the .57 acre tract. LOT SIZE: 0.57 acres or 24,829 .2 square feet EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING: The property in question is zoned R-1 . Zoning designations are identified below for surrounding property. North — Hwy. 70 with property zoned GC-4 across the highway. SOUTH — Duke Forest zoned R-1 EAST — Existing commercial uses zoned GC-4. WEST — Hwy. 751 and R-1 property along the highway . LAND USE PLA: Designated 20—Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node . I _ 1 _ _ . 010_16 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK - DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1985 SUBJECT: JAMES L. HILL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS A. Water and Sewer Services: A 16 inch water Line that serves this area presently runs along Highway 70 from Durham. A handwritten Letter from Mr. J. M. Cable, Assessment Engineer for the City of Durham, has bean received confirming the avaiLability of water. 1 An B inch gravity sewer line, which will extend into Orange County from Durham and would serve this Lot , has been approved by the Durham City Council. This Line is proposed to be constructed in Late spring or early summer of 1986. A letter Prowl Mr. William C. Walker, Jr. , water and sewer engineer for the City of Durham, has been received confirming this proposed Line. B . .Traffic Impact : • The property is Located at the intersection of US 70 and NC 751 . /t has a total of 77 feet of road frontage; 64.3 feet abuts the sight distance triangLe for NC 751 and 87.47 feet abutelUS 70. A strip of property owned by Duke University separates this parceL from NC 751 . The cLoseness of this tract to the intersection and the smaLL amount of road frontage Limits access points and couLd cause traffic congestion it this intersection . The Latest traffic count information is dated 1982. This information indicated a count of 5800 trips per day on Highway 70 at the Durham County line • and 4600 trips per day on NC 751 . Traffic generated by development of the site couLd range from 129 trips per day for an office use to 1040 trips per day for a fast food restaurant. C. Police, Fire and Rescue Services : The Eno Volunteer Fire Department , Sheriff's Department and Orange óounty Rescue Squad have all commented on poLice, fire and rescue service for this tract. The Eno Volunteer Fire Department and Orange County Rescue Squad have indicated IMPACT STATEMENT FOR JAMES L. HILL REZONING 09P468 PAGE 2 their willingness to serve this Lot with no problems, as indicated by Letters written October 17, 1985 and October 18, 1985 respectively. The Sheriff's office indicated by letter written October 17, 1985 that this rezoning did not need Law law enforcement approval. O. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE The property is located within the Eno-3 Commercial Transitionlactivity node. The Commercial Transition activity node designation corresponds with the full range of commercial zoning districts from Local Commercial—L (LC-1 ) through General Commercial—IV (GC4) . The Zoning Ordinance establishes the maximum amount of Land zoned Community Commercial—III (CC-3) at any activity node at twenty—nine (29) acres, except in rural, non—transition areas where the maximum is fifteen (15) acres. There is no acreage zoned CC-3 at this activity node. PERMITTED USES The purpose of the Community Commercial—III zoning district is to provide suitably Located and sized sites for commercial; office and service use s including l imi t ed automotive, convenience, durable goods, and other similar uses. Rezoning of the site would allow for development of the property flIor those uses permitted by right in the district. Development of the site must comply with applicable requiremments of the Land Use Intensity system (floor area, open space etc.) , landscaping and screening, parking and signege. .........__................. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO p APPLICATION: Z-14-85 (Rezoning Request) James. L. Hill , BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS S.UBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF o RECO14MENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATIONIREZONI NG ("Yes" Indicates com i iance• "No" Indicates Noncompliance j PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED ON BOARD SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS RECOMMENDED Ordinance Requi rements FINDINGS The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- meets. Those requirements include: 20.32 a) Map showing affected y�Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 111=501 than I '= 100" nor more than 1'= 20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with application Yes No property ' 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged X Yes No No error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20-3.2 d) Changed -conditions, if X Yes No Yes No No changed conditions ai ledged. any, which make amendment reasona- bly necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Property is located In a 20 Year Transi- Yes No - amendment will carry out purpose tion Area and Commercial Transition Activity Node. and intent of adopte.A. Plan. ARTICLE 4 DISTRICT STATEHENTS Of INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identities the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for A Communit Commercial-3 (CC-3) ! designation. the cr ter a or that district are set forth In Article 4.2.10 and are as follows, f ')—To-be-applied-t e dV o-1.0 -community-commerclai-typelopmen s p, _A_ No The property is located within a Teri Year Yes No on sites that are within areas designated by the adopted land Use — Transition area. -"' =� Plan as Commercial Transition Activity Nodes. b) Now developments of a slmllat nature should be controlled by the R Yet No Proposal Is not located in the Chapel-lilt) Yes Ro '• appropriate Planned Development designation in the Chapel 1111) _ Joint Planning Transition area. * joint Planning Transition area. c) Uses would serve a market area population extending to major K Yet No The CC-3 district atiow4s uses which would Yes No ! segments of the count and Its municipalities. — serve the market area population. d) Generally, for property designated Transition In the adopted Land '-�S Yat Na Applicant has obtained letters from the City Yes No + Use Plan urban services such as water supply and sewerage would of Durham concerning public water anll sewer. exist or be made available as part of the development process. for t f property located in other areas, the water supply and sewage disposal shblt be appropriate.to the uses proposed and the site conditions. e) Lot size for Individual uses would be appropriate to the method of R Vat No lot is Is Inappropriate for septic tanks _Yes No water supply and sewage disposal. '—` — and can only be developed with public water + and sewer. F) Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned CC-3 at an node shall $ Yes No Title would be the first parcel zoned CC-9 In Yes No i not exceed 29 acres but 15 acres shall apply In tural areas where thill activity nods. population density Is lower and dlsI. lbuted more wide y than In the - Transition Areas. + i g) Ali propertyy to be designated for new development under this Yns No U.S. 70 and 751 are classified a arterlais ' Yes No classtficattan shat) have direct access to major collector streets In-the Land Use Plan. as designated by the adopted Lend Use Plan. + • L •L ^ . 1 . . .000172 V. ... ammmmmp . MIMES HILL. • P 0. Sox 113*** Durham, forth Carolina *** 471-8668 October 9,1985 Board Of County Commissioners Orange County, N.C.. Dear Sirs; Application is hearby made to re-zone form R-1 to ;7- -- - a 0.57 acre lot at the corner of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751 in Eno Township, Orange County.. This property lies in an area which. has been designatea7as being in a commerciall transition n84,. . Much of the adjoining property has already- been re-zoned tor* The changing uses of adjoining - property makes Residential o this lot highly incompatible with. the developing nature of this area. The highest and best use for the property would be. of a commercial nature. Also not to be overlooked would be the greater tax base potential for Orange County. Water is already available from a Durham water line on U.S. 70 in front of the prOperty. City sewer service has been approved by the Durham City Council in. June, 1985 (letter attached) .. Requirements pursuant to Article 20,Section 20.3.2 from the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are attached. Sincerely, . ., J mes L. Rill - ,... . - • . , . .• i .• ..,/ . - -- .. , I. -, • . . . . - • . . ..- .. , . ._. . .. • , . . . -• - , - • 000 ORANGE COUNTY, -NORTE CAROLINA 73 APPLICATION FOR CRANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION • Date: /7d""/0.ia£S' TO. TEE- BOARD OP COUNTY. COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORM CAROLINA • The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County- as hereinafter requested.. . I. The property is located on the 964TH side of # itS. 70 ( Street/Road) . 1=2*. 0.5.10 and Sgs=4 A..'C?S/ . It is known as Lot($) /1ki - , Block 08103 , of Orange County Tax Nap l 2A- Township. It has a frontage of feet and a depth of feet, containing . square f et or 04 acres. 2:: It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from j—/ to . 3. The foilewing information has been attached in support of the applicatiion for changing the Zoning Atlas (4 - Required on all applications) . • m. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one ( 1) inch equals- one hundred ( 100) feet nor more':than- one ( 1) inch equals twenty (20) feet showing the land which is proposed , to be rezoned. LegaL description of the land. e. The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be coicrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanatiom of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. d.. The changed or changing conditions,, if any,. in the area or in. the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. (..„,'*e. The manner in which, the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. w/*f. All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the appli- cant offers in support of ,the proposed amendment. . - 4. A list of all individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought for rezoning is- attached. The List is current as of OC.or Qi Pig‹-. (Date) I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to th hest o pqowledge.Applicatl.ti�res) : �,Cl i . Address: y. , ? ((1., • C • a•i1n Phone: I.I.71-Ig Ga[o.9 • Q1101altll individuals, firms or cor.orations cor.oratious • ownin: •ro.ert lad 'oinin: or within five hundred (500) feet of the property souahc !to be rezoned:. TAX . MAME ADDRESS MAP BLOCK LOT Robert E Micol Rt.1 So. 700 Va . -s-- N C • a E. Nicol J- R - 25 a% g, Pa-e - 1101. N. Miami Blvd. Durham N.C. 25 Robert. E Nicol Rt.2 Box- 700 Valdese N.C. Victor E. Micol 301 Elred St. .lraidoqp_N C , 25 47 Charlie Miami. 49 0 Giovanni E.Micol Rt.2 Box 585,Durham,N.C. 25 • 50 Giovanni E. Micai Rt.2 Box 585-,Durham, N.C. 25 51 141 Triangle Investment Oro 4- 1812 Cha.el Hill Rd D James M. Batson Box 2623 Durham N.C. 1 Fred E. Roberts P. 0. Box 230-3 Durham N.C. James L. Hill P. O. Box 3113.Du_ la. N C . L _ - z „del_ 1..4 ac. - . Duke University Durham, N. C 25 106 •Mae C Couch west Hills Dr. ,Durham, N.C. 25 -7 Richard 41% Tine' 5105 Hillsborou-h Rd. D . 1,11 Walter S. Paschall 5143 Hillsborough Rd.Durham 25 JORB Richard X. Tilley 5105 Hillsborough Rd. Durham 25 108C Clay W. Rowland 8r.3929 Neal Rd. , Durham,N.C. 25 1.3 , • • • .).1/ .g 4 w1wea Derr Au6r,aerstr that I w"red so rr 586° r z'E piveate Il ewi as this glut lbos lbs . .5(69 013E +6 a 87.47' andpa slteatveran evmamrlr aYswa eMsea;Gal w I .kH4� shuden fevead sa lus Omeet[r eumoasys a our t ad)oveae aquae w ow"O ttt WA that a euoerere sa s �bJ,' adlsawa easeseer aoassws4ss�eta paeatw smanL To rim beat d ar bawled"all—swop is ere is a . t r treed sleta. Z....nn self iv tlrbsar,Masi Cwosdes. 0.5b`7 AG. z �aq�t11 CARQ f Z SEAL If � a t BEGINNING at s monument. said monument being In the northeast property Una of butte Z d eo Qniverstly and being In the Una of the State Highway Commission sight dislance suament (project 4802),said eesement being for a eight apemen at the southeast Intersection of N.0. Hwy. 751 and U. G. Hwy. 70; running thence along said sight easement North 51 tt degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds Last 84.30 lest to a monument, being a control corner. 2 10 .7I• tt ' running thence South 81 dagreee 32 minutes 32 seconds Cost 87.47 feet to an Iron pipe: ? running thence South 09 degrees H minutes 27 seconds West 182.97 fast to an iron pipe; N 8'4a ZJ to f'tej t running thence South 09 degrees 17 minutes 28 seconds West 50.43 tat to an Iron pips; + running thence North 14 degrees 23 minutes 01 second West 108.7L tat to an Iran pipe. running thence North 01 degree 31 minutes 48 seconds East 50.20 feet,to a monument; running[bocce North 01 degree 38 minutes 00 acon a Eat 113.23 lase to a monument. Mt2 being the point and place of SEGINI . SURVEY FOR ._ JAMES L. HILL r Lott BLOCK, ffigj_ NINA G. HILL PLAT NAMES R.HOWA90 NESTEA TOWNSHIP, ENo PLAT BOOK, Z° ePACE f6µ COUNTY, oRRNGe: WILLIAM JERRY AUTRY ' DATE, APAIL Z7,1914'5006 RAINTREE ROAD 1 IRON SET o TAX MAPt Z.S o'R.L.S. 1385 IRON FOUND ® SCALE, I""��"1 w ISO* zc+o DURHAM, N.C. 2771E MONUMBNT (�} CA REZONING REQUEST-CHOCIMIST OWN.$ S HAM AIMS �. . �� ' W �..�.dtL"� ADI_}RESS,,.j . 'a 6tx_ i �3 1?�. '"1 Al CurrepC goning; x of ac�ed�I,�;Z ,Gurrapt }.and use Type of rezoning requested C.. 'ropodat� land use sYl .... Tax ;nap (Fy,2,'Dlock v I Number of lgta L .-p oFoeec� Water, $ugplY; Pu lic, om�nut}#CY,_._.____—_. Individua�.�-,_,Propoaa swags—TreatmeRt; public_ C+ ity--- --11fe*dual ep�ia-tank- l4f '• — Desoriba axis in Access onto atate road # ,.uc..?y/ Average daily txaf#ic.;count Qa tUa scats load a g s Poorly drained areas criUtal areas: Flood prone areas Streams an sittva #fags -Describe land uses in; General Area -7j Adjacent parcels of la CC _ � Jr 00017r ENO FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. RT. 1, BOX 274 DURHAM N.. C... 27705 CAST'ORANGE:- m au moo= 10157RM-7 Cffa,r6L. /7 /7ers-"' • Z,/./ dist cem-ce„,2.4/! plate, • • • •1 ; •, • 000. 0 LINDY PENDEFGRASS' Sheriff of Change County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone Hillsborough 732-2431 OCtober LT, 1.8S Chapel Hill 9424300 Residence Phone 929-5535 • • • • James L.. Hill P.O. Sox 3113 • Durham, North Carolina 27705 Dear. Sirs When rezoning property from R.r;.teki:CC-3 it. is not necessary to have Law Enforcement • • S'i erely, te... L! r •:.: ti. r; .'1' Lindy- Pendergrass. Sheriff �_'_' - :: ; - . Orange County : � � ••K_-.4 _u-t yr is. . �-4 .-y� 1T� •1,11 J'•F'r;_ 4�_ • ._ :=•` r'lrM.,"YV4'.. .4'. • •� ref' • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 009 (. OP gauge- County- cue Squad, inc:a. 261 S.CRURTON ST..EXT. WITI.gBOROUGEL NORTR CAROLINA 27278 October 18, 1985 Mr. James L. Still P.O. Box 3113 Durham, N. G. 27705 Dear Mr. Mill, Orange County Rescue Squad will provide emergency medicaL Services for the area described, corner of US 70 and 757.., Orange County tax map #25,- Lot #104. Orange County Rescue Squad. JS:dc • �II r , , r 1 - p p Y 000180 • QIA of A,O9 CIT'Y' OF DURHAM e- :-y r NORTH. CAROLINA_ a 18 .Zvi, "CITY t F'MEDICINE" "r77y p �l$ September- 5, 1985 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Warril i'3 SiOYAR ENGINtLCRtN4 DIVISI let CITY HALL PLAZA OURp1AMt.NORTH CARMAN* ZTf0H- n James. $ill Realty P. 0. Boat 3113 Durham, MC- 27705 Dear Jimmy:. . Re: Sewer Service - Tax Map 25 - Eno Township. Lot #104 The Durham City Council at its •June 17, 1985 meeting ordered sewer to be installed in Rillsborougb. Road that will serve the above referenced property. e A / William C. Walker Jr., PE. fi Water &, Sewer En- -r Wat r/tom u � 1 • • • • • 1 • i ♦ - 1. •/ I i I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ... 000182 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIILLSBOROT/G8 NORTH CAROLINA, 27278 4.6figiLLre,... a Ei ifF, t •*"1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I ,Eddie Kirk .,, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about November 8, 1985, I mailed, bylcertified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the Rezoning request from R-1 to C1173Ituifillij...U.,,,agsalcd at the southeast corner of US 70 and 751 inlEno Township to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the Eltji day of November, 1985. I /244 .g'f ( EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER i i 1 I . . ;183 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data NOVEMBER 25. 1885 Action Agenda SUBJECT: PROPOSEDILAND USE PLAN AND ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH ISSUE STATEMENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTIS Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 888-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 • PURPOSE: To receive public comment on proposed Land Use Plan , Zonin! Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations text amendments. NEED: These amendments are proposed in response to concerns raised by the Boards, staff and general public. Issue statements preceed eachIproposed amendment . These amendments include the following: tal Land Use Plan — Orange County Highway Classification System (hi 'Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 — ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AND SCHEDULE — provision of revised zoning district criteria for access (cl Zoning Ordinance, Article 22 DEFINITIONS — provision of revised street definitions Ed) Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 — Establishment Of Dimensional Requirements Section 5.1 .2 — Schedule For Non—residential. Development — revisions to the floor area and open space ratios for industrial zoning districts. (e) Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 — APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS — provision for easement over or ownership of land adjoining or not—adjoining parcels for development to satisfy impervious surface and undisturbed area • 000 1 84 PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN. AND ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 25, 1985 requirements for property subject to Water QuaLit Critical Area (WUCA) and Protected Watershed—II (PW—II overlay zoning districts . (f) Zoning Ordinance, Article 8 SPECIAL USES and Article APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS — provision to the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to accomodat : requests for modifications of impervious surfac: requirements for property subject to the Protects. Watershed—/I (PW—II) overlay zoning district. (0 Subdivision Regulations, Section III— PRELIMINARY PLAN provision for the submittal of twenty—seven (27) copies o the Preliminary Plan for Board, agency and staff review. (h) Subdivision Regulations Section 111—0 PRELIMINARY PLAN provision of an eighty—five (85) day review period for preliminary plans by the Planning Board. IMPACT: Amendment of the Land Use Plan and development ordinances will address concerns raised and will result in improved ordinance administration . RECOMMENDATION: Approval of amendments . eta1186 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND PLAN AMENDMENTS STREET STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS ISSUE: During the review of development projects submitte over the past eighteen months, concerns were raise regarding the adequacy of current development ordinanc provisions which address road classification , carryin! capacity and access requirements . Draft amendments ti the street definitions, district application criteri end road classification provisions are attached whic • address these concerns. The Ordinance Review Committe recommends that the proposed amendments be submitted ti public hearing as drafted . The Committee els, recommends that the Planning Board refer th i trelopment of additional standards of evaluation an pact analysis methods to address "quality" issue: such as carrying capacity and the desirability o developing areas along certain highly classified road to the Transportation Committee for consideration . 1 000186 ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN 2.6 TRANSPORTATION — ORANGE COUNTY HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . . .As the Orange County Land Use plan is concerned primarily with those areas outside the corporate and planning boundaries of urban areas, the flocus of the classification schema is the rural road network. A modified version of the N.C. Highway Functional Classification System was used by the Orange County Planning Department to describe the County's Road network. The system describes pert p of the road network according to the Level of service they are intended to supply based on the factors of access and mobility. Th 6 classification of roads reflects the integration of road types in providing transportation service throughout the County . The classification scheme used describes roads according to the following catlegories: Interstate, arterial, minor arterial, collector, su6collector and local. The Interstate and arterial highways provide the best service (shortest travel times) to and from important employment, shopping, educational and population centers. They are characterized by relatively high travel speeds with minimum interference to through movement. Collector roads provide areas with access to the iaajor road system. gutatilsgtoaccsAs_ o ab tin. . . , er ' -s and . 1.s. onna no: o.ds wit co t. . r arterial roads!, Local roads are least important in terms of traffic movement, but provide the greatest service in terms of Land area, in aggregate proiriding Large Land areas with access to more important roads. In term of total. road miles, local roads will account for the largest proportion of road miles in the County given the Large land areas they serve, white arterials will account for the smallest proportion . The classification of roads in Orange County is presented on the following page and on the Orange County Highway Classification System Map which follows this section . I Highway Functional Classification : Concepts: Criteria and Procedures U.S. Departm nt of Transportation: Federal. Highway Administration . July 1974. Page 2 000187 HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM INTERSTATE-- 1-85 */-40 ARTERIAL -- US 70 NC 88 NC 57 NC 54 US 15-501 NC 49 NC 157 NC 751 SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road) SR 1733-35 (Weaver Dairy Roadl SR 1737 (Erwin Road) SR 1777 (Homestead Road) SR 1919 (Smith Level Road) SR 1942 (Jones Ferry Road) MINOR ARTERIAL -- SR 1002 (St . Mary's Road) ISR 1005 (Greensboro Road) SR 1009 (Old NC 86) SR 1730-31 (Whitfield Road) COLLECTOR-- SR 1001 (Walnut Grove Church Road) ' SR 1003 (Guess Road) SR 1004 (Corbett Ridge Road) SR 1004-1357 (Corbett Ridge Road) SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) SR 1007 (Mebane—Oaks Road) SR 1102 (Dodson 's Crossroads North/South SR 1113-15 (Arthur Minnis Road) SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) ASR 1117 (Oak Grove Church Road) SR 1120 (Mt Willing Road *SR 1133 (Oakdale Drive) SR 1142 (Bowman Road) SR 1144 (West Ten Road) SR 1177 (Dairytand Road) SR 1308 (Lebanon Road East/West) SR 1343 (Mill Creek Road) SR 1352 (Carr Store Road) SR 1364 (Lynch Store Road) SR 1507 (Wilkerson Road) SR 1538 (New Sharon Church Road) SR 1543 (Little River Church Road) (SR 1545 (Saw Mill Road) ISR 1548 (Schley Road) ,. SR 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road) SR 1567 (Pleasant Green Road) SR 1569 (Cole Mill Road) SR 1710 (Old NC 10) * PROPOSED ADDIITIONS 000188 Page 3 SR 1718 (Mt. Sinai Road] SR 1723 (New Hope Church Road) SR 1939 (Poythrass Road) SR 1940 (Damascus Church Road) SR 1951 (White Cross Road) *SUBCOLLECTOR -- SR 1111 (Union Grove Church Road] SR 1113 (Arthur Minis Road) SR 1118 (Vernon Road) SR 1119 (Nick's Road ) SR 1125 (Chestnut Ridge Church Road] SR 1126 (Borland Road) SR 1127 (Borland Road) SR 1128 (Kimbro Road) SE 1129 (Davis Road] SR 1130 (Ode Turner Road) SR 1134 (Dimmocks Mill Road) SR 1137 (Bush Cook Road) SR 1138 (Yarborough Road) SR 1139 (Hebron Church Road) SR 1179 (Albert Road) SR 1179 (Union Grove Church Road) SR 1181 (Ben Johnston Road) SR 1181 (Ben Johnston Road) SR 1306 (Lebanon Road West] SR 1310 (Frazier Road) SR 1312 (Richmond Road) SR 1322 (Forrest Avenue) SR 1324 (Brookhollow Road) SR 1328 (Faucette Mill Road) SR 1332 (Coleman Loop] SR 1332 (Highland Farm Road) SR 1334 (Coleman Loop) SR 1335 (Kenion Road) SR 1340 (High Rock Road) SR 1351 (Govenor Scott Road) SR 1360 (Lee's Chapel Road) SR 1368 (Wade Loop) SR 1369 (Wade Dead End) SR 1504 (Hurdle Mills Road) SR 1506 (Cavinass Jordan Road) SR 1506 (Hurdle Mills Road) SF 1508 (Hawkins Road) SR A 1517 (Law's Store Road) SR 1524 (Holly Ridge Road) SR 1538 (New Sharon Church Road) SR 1543 (Little River Church Road] SRS 1546 (Olin Road) SRS 1548 (Schley Road) SR 1551 (Phelps Road) 5F 1553 (Walker Road] SR 1560 (Crawford Road) * PROPOSED ADDITIONS 000189 Page 4 diR 1551 (Lawrence Road] BR 1562 (Palmer's Grove Church Road) SIR 1566 (Linden Road) SR 1568 Etii lLet Road] 311 1573 (Bivins Road) SR 1573 (Terry Road) S1 1577 (Hurdle Mitts Road) S 1593 (Little River Drive Extension SR 1595 (Dumont Drive) SO 1709 (Lawrence Road) SR 1712 (University Station Road SR 1713 (Mt . Herman Church Road] from Old NC 10 to US 70 SR 1727 (Eubanks Road) SR 1729 (Rogers Road) SR 1730 (Turkey Farm Road) SR 1732 (Sunrise Road) SR 1791 (Mt. Moriah Road) , SR 1916 (Parker Road] SRI 1944 (Hatch Road) SR 1945 (Neville Road) SR 1946 (Bowden Road) SR 1948 (Ferguson Road] SR 1950 (Carl Durham Road) SR 1958 (Morrow Milt Road] SR 2047 (Ridgewood Road) i 1 _-- 000 19j PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND PLAN AMENDMENTS STREET STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS I ISSUE: During the review of development projects submitte over the past eighteen months, concerns were raise regarding the adequacy of current development ordinanc provisions which address road classification , carryin capacity and access requirements . Draft amendments t the street definitions, district application criteri and road classification provisions are attached whic address these concerns . The Ordinance Review Committe recommends that the proposed amendments be submitted t public hearing as drafted. The Committee Ells recommends that the Planning Board refer th development of additional standards of evaluation an J impact analysis methods to address "quality" issue such as carrying capacity and the desirability o 4,veloping areas along certain highly classified road t the Transportation Committee for consideration . 1 I 000192 PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS (REPLACE EXISTING SECTIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS) 4.2.3.b3 (R-2,3,4) All property to be designated for new development under this classification shell have frontage on a street cLassified .s either arterial, minor arterial, collector or sub—coLlector . y the Orange County Zoning Ordinance or shell be adjacent to .m existing zone of equal or higher density which has frontage on a street classified as either arterial, minor arterial, collector or sub—cottector. New streets may be proposed end constructed during the development process to meet this requirement. 4.2.4.b3 (R-5,8,13) ALL property to be designated for new development under thi- classification shall. have frontage on a street classified a- either arterial, minor arterial, collector, or subcollactor b the Orange County Zoning Ordinance or shalt be adjacent to a existing zone of equal or higher density which has frontage on street classified as either arteriat, minor arteriat, cotlecto or subcolLector. New streets may be proposed and constructs. during the development process to meet this requirement. 4.2.8 .b5 ALL property to be designated for new development under this (LC-1 ) classification shaLl have frontage on a street classified a. either arterial, minor arterial or colLector, as defined by th. Orange County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed an constructed during the development process to meet thi - , requirement. 4.2.8.b5 (NC-2) ALL property to be designated under this classification far ne development shall have frontage on a street classified as eithe arterUal, minor arterial, or collector, as defined by the °rang - County, Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed an constructed during the development process to meet thi - requil4ament. 4.2.10.67 (CC-3) ALL property to be designated for new deveLopment under thi . classification shalt have frontage on a street classified a. either arterial, minor arterial or collector, as defined by th. Orange County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed an . constructed during the development process to meet thi . requirement. 4.2.11 .b3 (GC-4) ALL property to be designated for new deveLopment under thi = classification shall have frontage on a street classified a, either arterial, minor arterial or collector, as defined by th. OrangelCounty Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed an constructed during the deveLopment process to meet thi , requirement . — I 4.2.115 .b5 (0/I) ALL property to be designated for new developoment under this classification shall have frontage on a street classified as eithelr arterial, minor arterial or collector as defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed and constlructed during the development process to meet this requirement . 4.2.21 .b3 (I-11 All property to be designated for new development under this classification shall have frontage on a street classified as either arterial, minor arterial or collector, as defined by the Orangs County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed and constructed during the development process to meet this requirement . Access to rail service is desirable but not required. 4.2.22.b3 (I-2) ALL property to be designated for new development under this classification shall have frontage on a street classified as either arterial, minor arterial or collector, as defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed during the development process to meet this requirement . Access to rail service is desirable but not required. 4.2.23.b3 (1—3) ALL property to be designated for new development under this classification shall have frontage on a street classified as either arterial, minor arterial or collector, as defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. New streets may be proposed and constructed during the development process to meet this requilrement. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. , , 1 000194 (NEW DEFINITIONS] Access 1 ) Abutment of an individual Lot on a road that is eith: r dedicated to the public and constructed to North Caroli a Department of Transportation standards or appropriate to n standards, or private and constructed to Orange Coun ' y private road standards. Ifk2) butment of an individual Lot on a street proposed a d Uonstructed during the development process and whi .h intersects a road classified as either arterial, minor arterial or collector or sub—collector. Street. Minor Artel4a1 Minor arterial streets interconnect with and augme t the principal arterial system, providing service to trips of modera ,e length at al lower service level . Thepe streets carry between 2,500 a d 10,000 trips per day. Residential aninon—residential access should • e restricted if alternative access from a street of Lower classification is possible. Street , Subcollector Subcollector streets provide access to abutti g properties,1 and are also designed to connect minor or Local streams with collector or arterial streets. These streets carry between 210 and 1 ,000 tips per day. Residential access should be restricted if alternativelaccess from a street of lower classification is possible. Nonresidential access should be restricted if alternative access from a street of higher classification is possible. Street . General Factors For the purposes of these regulations, .terms relating tolstreets are defined as follows. I Determination of the classification of a street shall be by th following criteria: 1 ) The 4assification shall be based upon the projected volume of traffic to be carried by the street, stated in terms of th. numbei' of trips per day; 2) The type of access allowed shall be based on the type of Lan . use. 3) Whenever a proposed subdivision street extends an existing stree that currently terminates outside the subdivision or the propose. subdiiiision street is expected to continue beyond th subdiiksion at some future time, the classification of the stree will de based upon the street in its entirety, both within an outside of the subdivision . i . - - - 0001f:5 (REPLACEMENT DEFINITIONS) ILL,,e&I.,, ikrtjgier Arterial streets carry high volumes of traffic, usually an a continuoub route. They carry the major portion of trips, entering and Leaving an urban area, as wall as the majority of through movements desiring tp bypass a central city. These streets carry between 7,500 and 40,000j trips per day. Residential and non—residential access should be restricted if alternative access from a street of Lower classification is possible. Street, Collector Collector streets penetrate neighborhoods and are designed to carry traffic between minor, local and subcollector street systems channeling it into the arterial systems . Collector streets provide land access service and carry local traffic movements within residential' neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas. These streets carry between 800 and 3,000 trips per day, . Residentiallaccass should be restricted if alternative access from a street of Lower classification is possible. Street . Local Local streets provide access to abutting properties. They filter Local traffic to small residential subdivisions from subcollectors and provide access to minor streets. They serve at ' least ten (10) but not more then thirty five (35) dwelling units and are expected to handle between seventy five (75) and three hundred and fifty (350) trips per day. Residential, access is not restricted. Nonresidential access is restricted. Street. Minor, Minor streets provide direct access to abutting residential properties. They serve or are designed to serve not more than twenty five (25) dwelling units and are expected to handle not more than one hundred (100) trips per day. Residential access is not restricted . Nonresidential access is restricted . 1 000197 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 5.1 .2 — SCHEDULE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO — EI , I-1 , I-2 AND 1-3 DISTRICTS ISSUE: Two inquiries have been made regarding the development and/or expansion of industrial establishments in Orange County. Both persons have encountered difficulty in complying with the maximum floor area ratios contained in Article 5.1 .2, particularly those which apply in Existing industrial (El) and Light Industrial. (I-1) zoning distriets. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FLOOR AREA RATIOS (FAR] Maximum floor area ratios which apply in industrial zoningldistricts are listed below. The ratios have been applied to a 3—acre parcel to illustrate the variation in permitted gross floor area. PERMITTED GROSS ZONING DISTRICT FAR FLOOR AREA (1 ) Existing Industrial. (El) Loti-by—lot . .083 8,233 SF Light industrial (I-1 ) Lot-by—Lot .063 8,233 SF Planned Development .072 9,408 SF Medium, Industrial (I-2) Lot -by—tot .283 36,982 SF Plalitned Development .325 42,471 SF Heavy Industrial (I-3) Loti-by—lot .400 52,272 SF Planned Development .459 59,982 SF NOTE: (1 ) Number of square feet of floor area derived by multiplying Land area x floor area ratio (FAR) applying to the Lot. OPEN SPACE RATIOS (OSR) Open space ratios also influence the amount of Land which may bel developed in industrial districts, particularly in 1-2 and I-3 districts. By definition , open space includes all Land area not covered by buildings. It includes Landscaped and/or Lawn areas as well as parking and vehicular access areas. k - - - - 000198 Open space ratios which apply in industrial districts are Listed below. The ratios have also been applied to a 3—acre parcel to illustrate variations in required open spacel REQUIRED ZONING DISTRICT OSR OPEN SPACE (1 ) Existing Industrial (El) Lo —by—Lot .83 108,464 SF Light industrial (I-1 ) Lot—by—Lot .83 108,464 SF Plnnned Development .82 107,158 SF Medium industrial (I-2) Loi—by—lot .74 96,703 SF Planned Development .73 95,396 SF Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—Lot .72 94,090 SF Plerned Development .72 94,090 SF NOTE: 1 (1) Number of square feet of open space derived by multiplying Land area x open space ratio (OSR) applying to the Lot. FLOOR AREA VS. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS The actual amount of land which may be covered by building is determined in El and I-1 districts by the FAR. In contrast, the OSR determines building coverage in I—G and I-3 districts— The table below illustrates this difference through application to a 3—acre parcel. PERMITTED GROSS. BUILDING COVERAGE ZONING DISTRICT FLOOR AREA—FAR LIMITATION—OSR Existing industrial (SI) Lot—by—Lot 6,233 SF(6.3) 22,216 SF(17.0) Light IndustriaL (I—I ) Lot -by—Lot 8,233 SF(6.3) 22,216 SF(17.0) PD 9,408 SF(7.21 23,522 SF(18.0) Medium industrial (I-2) Lot—by—lot 36,982 SF(28.31 33,977 SF(26.0) PD 42,471 SF(32.5) 35,284 SF(27.0) Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—Lot 52,272 SF(40 .0) 36,590 SF(28.0) PD 59,982 SF(45.9) 36,590 SF(28.0) NOTE: Areas shown in blocks represent building coverage limitations imposed by ordinance provisions. 000 Values shown in ( •) represent percent of total area which could be occupied by building or maximum allowable floor area. The application of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR] and Open Space 1 Ratio (OSR) as well as the comparison of area Limitations imposed by each indicates the following: 1 . The OSR indicates the amount of lend to be Left in open space; i .e., Land not covered by buildings. The FAR sets the limit on the amount of Land which may be covered by buildings. The sum of the two ratios should equal at Least 100% in order to account for total lot area. Where the sum does not exceed 100%, the ratios are out of balance and should be considered for adjustment. Where the sum exceeds 100%, the ordinance - provisions seek to direct the building upward instead of outward. SUM OF FLOOR AREA ZONING DISTRICT AND OPEN SPACE RATIOS Existing Industrial (EI) Lot—by—Lot 0.893 or 89.3% Light industrial (I-1 ) ILot—by—Lot 0.893 or 89.3% PO 0.892 or 89.2% Medium Industrial (1-2) Lot—by—Lot 1 .023 or 102.3% PD- 1 .055 or 105.5% Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—lot 1 .120 or 112.0% PD 1 .179 or 117.9% 2. The difference between the OSR for —1 and the FAR for 1-2 is 14,766 square feet. The difference between the FAR for 1-2 and 1-3 is 15,290 square feet. The original intent of the ordinance draftsman was apparently to increase the FAR by nearly equal 1 increments, but he altered the provision a provide a much Lower density or building coverage Linitation (6.3% vs. 17.0%) . 3. Because the 06R for 1-2 districts Limits building coverage to 33,977 square feet, the difference in square footage between the OSR and FAR (3,005 square foot for Lot—by—Lot development] would have to be utilized via a second floor. The same requirement would apply in 1-3 districts with the difference of • 15682 square feet (FAR minus OSR) applied to second • 000200 I floor development. The obvious distinction is that ab increase in the building "footprint" is allowed between I-1 and 1-2, but the 1-2 district represents the point at which buildings are directed upward. The "footprint" remains basically the same for 1-2 and 1-3 districts, but further encouragement of second floor utilization is prompted by the difference between the FAR and OSR for 1-3 districts. FAR REQUIREMENTS VS. ZONING CRITERIA Article 4.2.20.63 indicates, as one of the criteria for application of an Existing Industrial (E1) district designation, that the use will not have adverse impacts • beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. A similar provision is also contained in Article 4.2.21 .0 for the Light Industrial (I-1 ) district . Article 4.3, Permitted Use Table, also indicates that manufacturing and processing operations where no adverse impacts occur beyond the immediate space occupied by the building are permitted in the EI and I-1 zoning districts. Such provisions seem to run counter to the FAR where significant amounts of additional Land are being required via a very Limited Floor Area Ratio (6.3%) . If adverse impacts are confined to the building space, it would seem advisable to allow a greater building coverage in Ei and I-1 dilstricts . In contrast, Articles 4.2.22 (I-2) and 4.2.23 (I-3) state that performance- standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the lot (I-2) or zoning district (I-3) boundaries. Article 4.3, Permitted Use Table, contains similar wording. The provisions of 4.2.22 and 4.2.23 are also at odds with the apparent intent of the LUI system. If adverse impact e may be anticipated at the Lot or zoning district boundaries, it would seem that greater lot area requirements via a more restrictive FAR or OSR would apply. This would indirectly provide more of an open space buffer to mitigate adverse impacts. PROPOSED ORDINI‘NCE REVISIONS FLOOR AREA RATIOS Attached are two sketches which illustrate the existing (6.3%) land proposed (20.0%) FAR requirements for EI and /—1 districts. Under the current ordinance provisions, approximately 76 percent of a three—acre Lot would remain in landscape/yard area . Under the proposed amendment, 62 percent would remain . A figure of 20.0 percent was selected as a base or . . . _ . 000'.?01 starting point for the El and I-1 districts, since it was nearlylequivalent to the current ordinance Limitation for open space of 17.0 percent. It is also similar to the building coverage requirement currently in place in the Research Triangle Park (25%1 . The FAR was increased by increments of 10 percent for 1-2 and 1-3 districts respectively ( Lot-by-Lot] . A five percent increase in floor area was awarded far application as a Planned Development. Application of the proposed standards to a • three-acre Lot is illustrated below. • • PERMITTED GROSS ZONING DISTRICT FAR FLOOR AREA • Existing Industrial (El) LotTby-Lot 0.20 26,136 SF Light Industrial (I-1) • Lotlby-Lot 0.20 26,136 SF PD 0.25 32,670 SF • • Medium .Industrial (1-2) Lot-by-Lot 0.30 39,204 SF PD 0.35 45,738 SF Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot-lby-lot 0.40 52,272 SF PD 0.45 58,806 SF • OPEN SPACE RATIOS To insure compatibility between Floor Area Ratio and Open - Space IRatio, the base or. starting point for 'OSR was established at 80 percent for El and I-1 districts. The intent of the current ordinance provisions to direct the building upward in the 1-2 district was retained. This was accomplished by use of a 2.5 percent incremental. decreaee in permitted building coverage or OSR. The ratios result in a more gradual. restriction on building coverage while permitting an increase in overall. floor area- REQUIRED ZONING DISTRICT OSR OPEN SPACE • • Existing Industrial (E1) • Lot-by-ilot 0.800 104,544 SF Light Industrial (I-1 ) Lot-by-lot 0.800 104,544 SF PO 0.750 98,010 SF Medium Industrial (I-2) Lot-by-Lot o .725 94,743 SF PD 0.700 91 ,476 SF • 1 . RUIPPAMMTTAN., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 000202 • Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—Lot 0.675 88,209 SF PO 0.650 84,942 SF FLOOR AREA VS. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Comparison of the proposed FAR and OSR restrictions applied to a three—acre Lot is shown below. Values presented in are percentages of total. Lot area occupied by building (in case of OSR1 or minimum floor area allowable (in case of FAR) . PERMITTED GROSS BUILDING COVERAGE ZONING DISTRICT • FLOOR AREA (FAR) LIMITATION (OSR) Existing Industrial. (El] Lot-lby—Lot 26,136 SF (20.0) 26,136 SF (20,01 • Light Industrial. (/-1 ) Lot—by—Lot 26,136 SF (20.0) 26,136 SF (20.0) PD 32,670 SF (25.0) 32,670 SF (25.0) Medium Industrial (I-2) Lot—by—Lot 39,204 SF (30.0) 35,937 SF -(27.5) PO 45,738 SF (35.0) 39,204 SF (30.0) Heavy IndustriaL Lot—by—Lot 52,272 SF (40.0) 42,471 SF (32.5) PO 58,806 SF (45.0) 45,738 SF (35.0) A proposed revision to Article 5.1 .2, Schedule for Non—Residential Development, is attached which reflects the above mentioned proposals. • • • - - . . _ n ExistiJfq ordinance 5,1.2 Jt:ulttAt6t: l�t)!t NtJJJ•titG:31t1fit4 liVlilrt3!'M1itt1' IJJT IlV 1014 1'tJtNtJ4t3 !1L'VOJAPMt{NP / �, Hill. ItLQ. ilia;l. swu "IN. aims MAN. tiROS.3 ut*. 14811. • 1UQ.•Hill. "IN. toil' ttlT V1101IT ANTI IttiAlt MAX. 0[717-11. 1AUD AI+J:A Will AltLA {� MAX. i't+IX3(i OE'i It Jt{+A{:L :'I:isLSY'k11M`I nitCsA 1154 WIJY{Y{ JJJi'Ctlnt tt su9unt'kc:i lll:it:tlT (PJl'tl UJtl,Y} .0IJLY) I= AltLA t1A'k'IO itA't't43 1.AWISC'AVU ltVPIt3 --• [A'J' --40,(700 1'1-11 's0 20 25 22 .850 .124' _ All PO 4a.DtJt1 150 - - 25 WOOD 22 1130 .O4 22 .050 .04 [AT 40,000 130 40 20 �25 itl 1.0 40 01110 130 - - 25 00 00o 22 050 .04 Ifyr 20,000 too 30 15 25 - 24 .060 .O3 .55 la 25 45'(100 - 26 .076 .112 .53 -��I'lI 2U/t1t113 1(1-11 - ....-__ 20 .000 .Ot 431 [AT 15,600 ion 30 .15 25 ' t, I[t I'D 15-000 100 - - 25 301.000 -- _ 90,- -•-1-110 .OU- -.47 ....---_._..�---- -:- - ��M t.0'P 101000 75 25 10 25 - - 33 .123 .79 .30 t fat tyy 101(1011 75_ _- 26 15,0000 35 .141 .712 .36 lark' 7.50(} 50 -._.. 20 10 25 - 30 .174 .77 .34 t+5 Pit 7tstill 5o-.. - _ 25 10,000 - 40 .2Ut1 .76 .32 ---• - '°- .246 .75 .30 LOT 56000 5o 20 0 25 43 WJ 1'It 50110 23 ?,()()a - 45 --,203 .?4 - - .27 i t 14 LO - - -, ru 3 000 50 25 S.000 - 50 .400 .72 .16 • - Ix l 1.-171' ° 75 � 15 15 25 � - 30 .100 .00 .43 y,f1 25 421,344 32 .115 .79 .40 . (9 9 aoratt} 40 .200 .76 .12 ; NCL IdrP 2.000 20 50 _ 35 0 421 344 42 .230 .75 .31 i 7f J All 2,000 + • 1 ;9.9 acrun} igyp»._.2,41!10 •20�X50 45 0 - 50 .400 .72 .26 , hU l,0ut1 - - 45 425,600 1.2?3,544 52 .451! .72 ,25 (129.'3 aerne_ -4 %cir 411,6(10 ?5 Z5 - 45 - - 53.492 .71 . .24 ti t9, 4U,tttltt - 45 425,601} N0 NANIt111M 55 .666 .71 .23 "»`m j-60.006-"'-'1�- �!= 45 - - 51 .4`32 .71 .24 X25 10 35 - - 40 .2a0 .74 •.30 ttl i'1, UUD1)�� - - 35 200 000 Ito MAXIMUM- 42 .270 .75 .31 la w ItYP 00,000 lU,l $,1 '347 +t5 - 21 .063 .03 - ...._ .._..�.... c:.•:-::::»:r...:s:r'»s••r:.:: •.tra�rsr-rs•'crv.••-:.r-fnc.•nv-�•'---'e-»•.....v.n23...r-....063 alk3 �... -.,.......»�.� l td3T -00,000'-^•200 -56 50 45 - - _ _ Ptl utt,{W0 - - - 45 00,000 N01tnRTHIIM 25 .072 02 12 IAT 20,000 l0A S0 y 45 - - .45 .2133 .14 .29" Pu 2t},1JUU - - 45 200,000 624,144 47 .325 .73 .27 (14,9 narun} "IAYP 211.000.».. 10n So - 45 - 5o .4170 .72 .26 ' 1,111 20,000 (A 0• 0 45 623,!44 No MAXIMUM 52 .459 _w .72 .25 14.9 ttores)• ' - -�TdPf 4tl,000 2pf1 50 20 95 - - - s3 • A8 - .. - Q wr 464,000 200 so. �50 45 .0611 Pito i�rr - _25 - - - .0125 - -� ' 8-1.1.114 A:J AIMA4:N41' 0311101:10JA1. a. I.AtiU tlal: 111THII.StTY IIA•1.11J - - - - • - - - • • 00°2°4 .10 Existing Ordinance • • • • 4.2.20 Existing Industria1-(El) .District a) Ilitent The purpose of the Existing Industrial (E1) district is to pro- vide a district to be used only during the application of zon- • i#g, to previously unzoned Townships, to accomodate existing • industrial uses .not located in areas designated as Activity • Nddes by the adopted Land Use Plan. • 14- Application Criteria This District will only be applied to accomodate existing in- • dUstrial uses located in areas not designated as Activity Nddes in the adopted Land Use Plan (at the time of the application of ' tile zoning ordinance to previously =zoned Townships.) It is further intended that this district shall not be applied tcLi any use that has adverse impacts beyond the immediate space otcupied by the building. 4.2.21 Light Industrial-I (I-1) District a) Intent • The intent of the Light Industrial-I (I-1) District is to provide. aopropriately located and sized sites for limited - (e' • industrial uses engaged in manufacturing, processing, creat- ing and assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of • adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the • building. - - - - - _ 1 _ 1 _ _ . .. _ __ _____ . . . . __ __ • b) Application Criteria . (0 00 2 0 , 1 This district will us”Ally be applied where the following (r- Conditions exist: • 1. The site is located outside of the Chapel Hill Joint Plaan- ing Area and within an Industrial Transition Activity node or a aural Industrial Activity Node. . • .- I • 2. Lot size for individual, uses shall be appropriate to the Method of water supply and sewage disposal. - ' 3. litccess would consist of direct vehicular access to streets designated either arterial, or collector by the Land Use Plan. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. 1 4.2.22 . Medium Industrial-TX (I-2) District I . . a) Intent The intent of the Medium Industrial-II (I-2) District is to • Provide locations for enterprises engaged in manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, clean- ing, and assembling of goods, merchandise or eqpipment, Per., . formance standards will be used to insure the absence of ad- ' verse impacts beyond the lot boundaries of the use. 1 - Application Criteria 1:- • . This district will usually be applied where the following Conditions exist: 1. Site is located outside the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area, but within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan • as Industrial Transition Activity Node. 1 . 2. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or be made available as part of the development process. I - 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to a street Classified as either arterial or collector. Access to rail 1 service is desirable but not required. 4.2.23 Heavy Industrial-III (Z-3) District . I - a) : Intent • The purpose of the Heavy industrial-III (I-3) District is to Provide locations for enterprises engaged in a broad range of Manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, Painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment. Performance standards will be used to insure the absences of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district boundary. 14 Application Criteria ...--, _ __ . . 4-9 000206 This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exists: 1. Site is located outside the .Chanel Mill Joint Planning Area, but within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan ai:andustrial Transition Activity Node. • 2. Water and sewer mains exist at the site or be made available . an part of the development process. • ' • 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to a street classified as either arterial or collector. Access to rail - • • savrice is desirable but not required. 4.2.24 Agricultural Service (AS) District • a) Intent • The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AS) District is to privoide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural non-farm, non-residential uses which support the horticultural, - ilvicultural, and agricultural uses of the AR districts. . • b) Application Criteria • 1 • This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is within areas designated by the adopted Land Use Plan as Agricultural Residential. . 2. hot size for individual uses would be appropriate to the • method of water supply and sewage disposal. • 3. Nollrmaly, the maximum amount of land zoned AS at any location skLA11 not exceed ten acres. . 4.2.25 Public interest (PID) District a) Intent The purpose of Public Interest (Pia” District is to preserve an protect certain public land and private educational lands, deemed environmentally sensitive and of major scientific re- selarch significance from the impacts of development. In add- - ition, these lands will be managed in ways that will prevent any intentially generated adverse impacts from affecting • surrounding property. • b) Application Criteria This district will be applied to the following: 1. All Duke Forest lands, the Eno River State Park, all Univer- sity of North Carolina lands, and all other public or private edhcational lands deemed to be environmentally sensitive and of major scientific or research significance. - . • . • 000207 - Existing Ordinance 4.3 Permitted Use Table • pa Z s2!33! 241 39 331 .U! .c'_:!IC=M3•:.�5!=•il CT!zr:•,VI!r3f ASi 2.1.!..j-31 t Prace53irq 3� I - I e -ieuta 'Alter a ;s I ? - • ,••Adverse rapac-s 1 - .• tundia Vie* • • . 1 • Co=giad 3•i Me 3 i_ . •- •- •• •• r. 2 ?alnifelC-..3rizal L - • , . • :i:u3 'Thera No •' - . • - • e 3eyond :'..e : - • 3caand3Cj49 w: e . Lac : •, •, . ' A3 4amiiz3C..,trin$ i : ' - - , • P:xassia, Caet3• i • • • Adverse ;mart= . rc r 3eye ed «e . . , . _ - . , • :oai.a9 3i.s=3r., i ! • o•, - 3otiatarizs . • i.iala::32:3313418Ss331 PJ.31 WI.;:.,C.2 =:G:3;c-V::-V a Z2!:3s AS.D:1;Proi. . s - . • . i I • . I • • I - -12 • • I . _ 1 _ 10-111,11c. LoT Az4 3• 2301 Lt*A 14t, Allr--4, 0• (20 -Ac.c• C 2.0174,) c*- 1125,Zr tolurzlex-le.I 1-0Lt3it-14-, d:t.,EA- .4-6"- ( !Sofa) • Lia-iro...e...6„plf46/1/4itaar Aar..-6, 0002C8 1 . 13& .z.- -, (6z0.6) 1 -1-11■1(.. i /1--lfi- 14t;LY- 71:214Z.---, zap% CPeocosst7) WCIZKtra.•—itP-E.4. 12410 = 16, 1.41-e>tf /..4.4-!za =--le P:f4FC.cge5 P4.12.446 Rsfp.Vzot-- I srAr..e-leretptanz= 46 • ;;;;;.e.F5 . LOA461146 F.E4:01e-e-.1:1 r.--.'1 -e.26,..E./lot o ' . I ( ' . _ ........._.____._._____.______.__.....e......... . • ' • . . _ - .hits4.. -14.1v&•. •. • IT-7.--78, 1 s . .t.., . • 602_____„.. ,...4 ! I V'e..rzie-i146 4 . 6, . n 7 n • - ,/ i ? , • -11 .,/,/ , ,./ , ,/, .. . : ."--,- / ,/,---7--- 1 • ._ - „- . / • ... • „. „. . , .„. , I 1 , . I .-' 1501t_blu G 417-E-6. ---r- ///,- 1/41 . / P* / / • 'T ■ '' / - / . 4'1 1. c. . • / - - cl 7 I , • • tl i " // / .'. / // .. ' •. : / '7 / // / / • - -4- 1 • __ 1 „ r tr Tors L L,p-p' �>; -.0 o 4-C. 1e)ILD tl.1 G &or--4 C. t or (/•4.'%a1 • Orpi- w.r. - P.L. 1:'17.1G/1.G Gir•IG-, `'. ; • 13,a90) 000200 _. . : r.404,0SCA?It:.IG/`f4,,cz .6tZ i 2. ?1. .4C...:7�."7%) 1 T" GI~t?- la , !':::21/;7 _ 1.0- ._.'"77.,!`':S' .._p ._ = 4.8 i ..1.aYC ___ —; wuG_ 1em= I /�► -:-E. _••4s p -�• _ _--:_... i • . . 'I ii , t...__, 1 - . - . • 7 x E 1 k . /,-, /� t • / Sc.m.x�l NCB / c9 1 fie.= / i • x r I J •.,/ . I- , I' ■ `�/:-.- ■LE' 1" _ -0 .............................. t' Proposed/Ordinance Revisions 5.1.2 lii:ltlSllttt,li Yt)0 Nt►11-It olllitiUtNgIA3t'MIart 1,U'1' WY 102-1 t%Akltlt:U ULUt:I+UI'NUNT Wit. Ituo. 11tg. 311113 tSYil. GROSS MAK. GROSS HttQ. 14111. luS(t..-im1. ! Him. lA'P• 009' Vltt3tlt' ANtl NUAlt HAIL. llr= LAW)'MOM LAND Altu,% ►a MAX. VIAOjt OPI,tI'SPAi:M !'Vii-ESTUNI AlIZA USE WHY1.1I St3'i'IMCK St3TUAUKS Itt.t6lt't' o'il'y 9Ni•Yl {pts+a 0111Yf lJJl AREA IU►t'!O Ict1•Y1i1' :,1:NO::L•A1 13 1WHO O 1JYt' 40,000 ISO 40 20 25 - 22 .050 .04• - a Ali Ill 40.01111 1511 - - X25 !10,000 22 .1154 1.04 1141 IM' •40,{100 1711 40 2Q 25 - - 23 .050 .84 = � _•_ PO 408000 130 - - 25 00.000 - 22 050 .04 I'M 20,00n 100 30 15 25 24 .OGO .03 .55 ttil !'It 70+000 lots _ - - 25 45,000 = 26 .076 .02 .53 f lt�tYl' 15,000 100 30 .1§ 25 20 .000 .01 .413 R k! L•IS__1 ►!41410!!-_lots - - 25__ 10_Q00 - 311 -•1110 -•OU .43 ----- -- - LO9' 10,000 75 25 10 25 - - 33 .123 .79 .30 Itt Pt'► !11211!041 75_ - - 28 15,0110 35 .141 .111 .36 - Ayr 7,500 5o 20 10 25 - - 30 .174 .71 .34 7!5110 5u_ 25 in,000 40 .200 .76 .32 5.00(( so 20 0 25 - - 43 .246 .75 .30 Jill 111 6,alit) so - ' 25 7.000 45 .203 .74 .27 41113 IA•C - - = - - - - - - - - . t•u 3,0(10 50 - - .25 5,000 _ 50 .4110 .72 .IG 75 15 t5 25 - 30 .100 .130 .43 . !fit t•ys - - - - 25 421,344 32 .111 .79 .40 ! ._.. - 14.9 aarusl , i NC2 Jar 7,000 211 SO 35 0 40 .200 .76 .32 {t PO 2,0110 - - 35 - 421,344 42 .230 .75 .31 41,6'1' 7,000 20 _541 - 4S 0 - 50 .400 .72 .26 o. l '1 45 425,600 1,271,544 52 .45411 .72 .25 - (129'4 acrae ti jx:4^'lttl' 40,p0n ?5 15 -45 53 .402 .71 .24 Pill •1011100 - - 45 425,GU0� NU MAX 11•-11114 55 .566 .71 .23 taxc goon i _ 7y--'3 45 - - 51 .4}2 .71 .24 . ttt:ti t -IdYr 5,0!1!1 ^'5ti 25 19 35 -�- 40 .2018 ?f) .39 Utz '3'M 51(100 - - 35 2002000 NO MA311NUM, X42 .2311 ,75 .31 .tdst' OQ,rOO 201) rl+1 5tt 45 - - 23 .80 - ! •••••• •ST::.'•t •:iLT-r-9 rTf'1t�r.+r•re•TP•t+-n.-fnN^*•nt-F•*••••-+y.aa.•s.n ,.r.r��.•r•4V41 •6� •••- _ .4a 45 ins 0(1,t�(1N - - 45 OO 0011 NO NAXTHUM 25 412 ItYI' 20,000 200 50 - 45 - - 45 ..3011. .725 •281" 1'413 20.000 - - - 45 200,000 634,144 47 :350 .700 '27 114.9 aarual k 13 1aYt' 20,t1Uu^ 1110 50 - 45 - 59 .400 .fi75 .26 PU 2(1,000 b 0' 0 45 . 623,144 NO HAM M 52 .450 .650 .25 _ 114.9 uarosl _ A3 TdPi'�40.0[10 2t111 -r9 20 45 - • � IA'r400,000 2&T 50 ....Sit 45 - - .0611 - - P11t 10T 5110,0811 - - - 25 • .0175 - ! ' SM41•t AS AtUAt1KHT 1101DI:IPt•IAI. �1y�?� ` t .._____ •- • • -- •- • -• - - •- -• • • • 000211 MDK, INC. P.O.BOX 2831-CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 (919)9294260 (919)929--,9420 September 6; 1985 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 106 E. Marnaret Lane • Hillsborough, NC 27278 . Dear Mr. Collins: . . I am writing to you regarding two sections of the zoning ordinance which I feel should be amended: 1. the impervious surface ratios (ISR/s) for EI and I-1 2. the land use• intensity ratios (WI' s) for El, I.,11 1-2 and 11,-3. 1 1. The progosed amendment (Table 9; 6.23.4 Maximum ISR/s) would permit ISR1S for El and I-1 of 12.0% in the P14-/I without public sewer and wafer (PWII 14/out), but up to 30% if public sewer and water was available (PWII With). • Since I-us an industry whose • impacts are completely contained within the walls of the build- inn, there should be some provision to allow the ISR of PWII 14/out to approach the ISR of PWII With. I believe MDK is in a very unusual ' situation and should be exempted fro6 the stringent 12% restriction i of PWII W/out, for the following reasons: a. MDK is at the northwest edge of the University Lake .(UL) watershed over 5.75 milies from University Lake b. MOM ip only 400' from the Cane Creek (CC) watershed c. MDK is only .30 mile from being in neither UL or CC watershed d. MOM is and operates as an- I-1 with no impact beyond the wialls of the building, including uses of water. Our water uses are confined to normal employee toilet and clean-up functions. 1 e. MOM is completely surrounded by three large AR lots which - contain a total of two residences only: 1) North -- Duke University, 104.927 acres, part of the ' Duke Forest, used for forest management only. 2) South & West -- Carwile, 31.45 acres, residence only 3) Fast -- Jim Moore, -57.45 acres, residence only Therefore including MDK1s 3. 1 acres this is a total of 1 196.927 acres on which there are only 2 residences and a 9, 9001 sp ft I-1 building. Surely the area can accomodate a 9600 so ft addition to MDK1s facility. For all of the reasons outlined above, I believe that the ISR for El/I-1 should be amended to 30% whether public .sewer and water is - available or not. K-LINE for"0".0-27& "S"Trains . . • • - - - -- - 000212 MDK, INC. P.O. BOX 2831-CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 (919)929-4260 (919)929-8420 September 6, 1985 Mr. Marvin Ccllins, Director • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborouahl . NC 27278 • 2. The LUI's for Industrial lots aopear to be reversed, the greater the impact an industry has on the environm'ent. (/-2 & I- 3), the greater the maximum floor area ratio: EI 6.3% I-1 6.3% 1-2 26.3% 1-3 40.0% I feel that a light industry whose adverse impacts are completely . contained within the walls of the building (EI or I-1) should be permitted tcl utilize a greater portion of its land area than those industries whose impacts may extend to the lot boundaries or the zoning district boundary. • I feel that El' s and I-i' s should be permitted to build on up to 40% of the lot area since there is no adverse impact on the surrounding area. Conversely, I-3's should be limited to only 10-15% of the lot .area, thereby ensuring a large land area surrounding this type of industry. • As you may know, in 1981 during the implementation of the zoning ordinance MDK applied for and received EI zoning. This EI clas- sification convinced me to keep MDK in Orange County since the use would be conforming and allow for expansion. To that end 'a 5100 sq ft addition was completed in 1981 and a 9600 sq ft addition is now required. It is quite clear that MDK would not have built the addition in 1981 if the .prospects for future growth had:ndt been assured. EI appeared to give that security. Now, the addition of LUI's and Impervious Surface Ratio restrict- ions not only restrict any present or future growth, but in fact define MDK' s existing facility as non-conforming (9, 900 sq ft on 3. 125 acres) Surely this is not the 'intention of the County, the Board ofl Commissioners or of the Zoning Ordinance. The LUI and ISR amendments proposed above address these discrepancies and would allow for the orderly growth of MDK, INC. herein Orange County. Thank you. Sincerely, #10,40,4.1y77,_ MDK, INC. Maury D. Klein President K-LINE for"0".0-27&"S"Trains CALVIN A. MELLOTT P.O. Drawer 336 Carrboro, N.C. 000213 27514 • October 10, 1985 Mr. Marvin Collins Planning Director' • Orange County, N.C. , 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Ca rolina 27278 Dear Mr. Collins, As you are aware I own property on Eubanks Road at the N.E. intersection of S.R. 1727 and S.R. 1723. (approximately 20 acres) The property is zoned 1-1 and has been subdivided into six building lots rangirfg in. size from 80,500 sq. ft. to 107,750 sq. ft We would like to begin our building program that would involve an office warehouse distribution building. However we feel that the existing floor area ratio is much too small and results in a very inefficient use of the land. Since the zoning rdenance in 4.2.21 specifies that there be no adverse impact beyond the immediate space occupied by the building it seems reasonable that by increasing the floor area ratio we could keep within the intent and also much more efficiently utilize the existing land. We want to build our first building on lot #5, which is 107,750 square feet in area. (2.5 acres) Our proposed building is 20,000 sq. ft. and is a single story office • warehouse combination. This would be a F.A.R. of 0.19. - Please accept this letter as a formal requioa. to change the F.A.R. on our subdivision from .063 to .19 for the above stated reasons. We are in the process of having an illustrative plan drawn up for the whole , subdivision showing the more efficient land use and the reasonableness of this request. We will submit it to you as soon as it is completed. Please let me know what other steps I need to take to accomplish this request. Thank you for your help in this matter. - Yours truly, • Calvin A. Mello - - - Of 9s f .wG -C,' VAZfI 000215 SATISFACTION OF WATERSHED STANDARDS OFF-SITE ISSUE: To provide for an approach which involves the use of a perpetual easement over or ownership of off site property to satisfy the impervious surface and . undisturbed area requirements for water supply watersheds as provided in the Orange County Zoning I . Ordinance. This amendment would address the needs of the Orange Grove Rural Fire Department for expansion of their facilities within the Cane Creek water supply watershed . PROPOSED AMENDMENT: ARTICLE El APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADD SECTIONS 6 .23 .9 AND 6 .24.9 Satisfaction of Watershed Standards Off—Site Where property proposed for development cannot meet .41e impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements prescribed in the Ordinance, an applicant may satisfy these requirements off—site within the same water supply watershed as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan . For the purpose of this subsection , "off—eite" shall be defined as: al) Property in the same ownership as and either adjoining or separated from the tract being developed. b) Property owned by another individual. either adjoining or separated from the tract being developed. Property used to satisfy undisturbed area requirements must adjoin the property under development. In the case of (b) , an easement must be provided which shall LL run with the Lend of the subject property (and) 2. be perpetual in nature (end) 3. expressly prohibit any improvements or alteration of the use of the property in a manner which has the effect of making the land 000216 conveyed in the easement unsuitable for use to satisfy the impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements. The property subject to the easement shall be r?3tained in its natural state as existed at the tlima of the calculation of the impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements. The property subject to the easement may not be conveyed or used to satisfy the impervious surface and/or undisturbed area requirements for any other development application. The easement shall be so stated as to provide for the aforementioned and shall be approved in form by Oange County. 000217 MODIFICATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ISSUE: An inquiry has been made regarding the expansion of an exiisting industrial establishment in Orange County . The owner has experienced difficulty in complying with the impervious surface ratio (12%) required for a site witiin a protected watershed and served by well and septic tank. The problem may also exist for other residences, businesses or industries. Draft proposals of the Research Triangle Council of Governments included provisions for flexibility through special use permit procedures. The proposed ordnance amendment is based on the TJCOG proposals . EXISTING ORDIN NCE PROVISIONS There are no existing provisions for modification of the impervious surface ratios. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS 8 .8 .28 Modification of Impervious Surface Limitations 8.8.26 .1 Additional Information In addition to the information requested in Subsection 8.2Iand 8.8, the following shall be supplied as part of the application : A) A site plan which shell include the following: 1 ) The dimensions and acreage of the lot to be built upon or otherwise used; 2] The site layout of the entire project, including existing and proposed buildings and their uses, and its relationship to surrounding properties; 3) The Layout of ell off—street parking and _ Loading areas, including the location of entry and exit points, the internal .vehicular circulation pattern, the location and dimension of required parking and loading spaces, and the materials of which such facilities are constructed. ) The location , dimension and method of construction of all existing and proposed streets and highways, 5,) The location , size and name of all existing 000218 plant materials to be retained and proposed plantings and screenings, including areas to preserved as vegetated buffers along drainageways and undisturbed areas for runoff infiltration . 6) Title; north arrow; scale; names of owners, developer and person responsible for plan preparation ; and the data that the plan was drawn or subsequently revised. 7) Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. ) Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. ) Existing end proposed topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum b) Statement from appropriate public service agencies oncerning the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment, including :the approval of 6 secondary wastewater treatment site in the event of failure of the primary septic tank system. C) Building plans for all existing and proposed 6uiLdings, including floor plans and cross—sections showing the proposed use of all portions of such buildings. 01 Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning the provision of fire, police load rescue protection to the site and structures. 1 E) Detailed plans for controlling the first one—haLf [1/2) inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces, including the capacity of infiltration , retention , detention or other control measures. F) Design , layout and construction specifications l'or runoff control measures, including methods for protecting undisturbed areas during and after construction . 61 Identification and protective measures for erodible soils [1( factors greater than 0.36 in Orange County Soil Survey) , alluvial soils, steep slopes [greater than 15%) , floodpLains and wetlands. • H) Inventory of all hazardous materiels produced, stored, used on—site or tranported to or from the site as defined by EPA's Hazardous Substances or 00021-9 Priority Pollutants Lists. I] Design and constructions specifications for storage racilities for hazardous materials, including spill containment measures and contingency plans for 6n—site containment and clean—up of spills. J) Sedimentation and erosion control plan . 8.8.26.2 Standards of Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding an application for this modification and use: Al The site plan .submitted meets all requirements specified in subsections 9.8 a) and 8.8.26 .1 a) . B) ALL applicable requirements of Article 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 have been satified with the exception of the impervious surface ratio for which modification is requested. C) F ' ire police and rescue services, and water supply I and wastewater treatment methods are adequate to serve the proposed uses and facilities. 6 .23.4 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watershed (Revise second paragraph to read as follows) In order to promote infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil and to .minimize direct end immediate run6ff into streams and water supply impoundments, imp6rvious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios — Sectlion 6.23.4. Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratios may be requested, however, as a Class A Special Use in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of this Ordinance. In no case shall a modification be granted for property located in a designated Water Quality Critical Area, and no modification granted under the provisions of Section 8 shall exceed the ratios established in Section 6 .23.4 for the Protected Watershed (PW—II) District by more than five percent (5%) . Impervious surface calculations for an individual development shall be cumulative for original construction and any subsequent additions, and calculations of impervious surface coverage for inde6ridual lots shell include that portion of a rigi*of—way between the centerline of the street and the abutting property Line of the lot. 000220 6.24.6 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watersheds (Ra,1sions proposed are the same as for Section 6.28.4) I � • I 1 1 0002422- 001214 000041 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: MARV N COLLI4e6PIANNING DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1885 SUBJECT: REVISED MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SCHEDULE Recent directives by both the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners have indicated a desire for complete development applications on which to base approval decisions. Among the applications which have from time-to-time • been incomplete are those involving major subdivisions. The incompleteness of an application may be based in pert on the review period currently employed by the Planning Staff, the inability of review agencies CNCOOT, Health Department , etc.) to respond withiri prescribed time periods, or the failure of the applicant to secure and provide required . information . Inasmuch as the causes -Oor incomplete applications are severeCin' number, this memorandum will attempt to establish new guidelines for submission of major subdivision proposals which insure application completeness. Inasmuch as problems have been experienced predominantly with preliminalry plats for major subdivisions, this proposal addresses only the application schedule for such plats. Likewise, the Joint Planning schedule for preliminary plat approval is not addressed, since the drafting of the original schedule incorporated applicable time limitations for approval. CURRENT PROCEDURES Agency Review Agencies which must comment on subdivision applications (see Section /II-0-4-a, Subdivision Regulations attached) and problems encountered to date include the following: 1 . District Engineer of NCOOT Developers had initially submitted subdivision plats to - - • 000215 000223 000042 NCDOT directly. Now, NCDOT will not accept such plats unless submitted by the Planning Department. Upon receipt, NCDOT review takes from 10 to 18 working days (14-24 calendar days) to complete. 2. Orange County Health Department (or applicable public utility provider in case of public system connection — OWASA, Hillsborough, Orange—A Lamanca, etc.) . The Orange County Health Department receives applications for Lolt tests directly from the developer. Given the present work load of the sanitarians, completion of the lot tests will require from 14-21 calendar days. Public utility providers such as OWASA end the Town of Hillsborough will accept applications for review directly. The time required for such review will also vary from 14-21 calendar days. 3. Oranges County or Chapel Hi lL/Carrboro Board of Education . Responses from Boards of Education have rarely been received. Only recently was a comment received, that being In regard to the proposed Scotswood rezoning. The response came from the Orange County Board of Education and was received approximately 30 calendar days after the request for comment . 4. OrangeiSail and Water Conservation District tgenerol soils description and interpretation) . Subdivision plats were submitted at one time to the Soil and Water Conservation District for review and comment. Due to the Lack of response, this practice was discontinued. Since the submission is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations, it is being initiated again . 5.. Erosion Control Officer (sediment control and stormwater management). Preliminary subdivision plats are currently reviewed by the Erosion Control Officer upon submission by the applicant. The normal review period varies from 4 to 14 calendr days depending upon the complexity of the develo went. Other agenies which comment on preliminary subdivision 9 � P Y plats but whi h are not Listed in the Subdivision Regulations include either the Town of Hillsborough or Carrboro (under courtesy review procedures) and the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (also under courtesy review] . A response is sought from Hillsborough since the County administers its regulations within the Hillsborough extra—territorial area. A response is likewise sought when the development is adjacent to 000224 000210 • 000043 or in close proximity to the ETA or is to be served by water/sewer facilities of the Town. The Town of Carrboro is asked to comment because of its inclusion in the Joint Planning Area. Though not a part of the adopted JPA agreement, Carrboro was extended this opportunity (as was Chapel. Hill) prior to the agreement adoption. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council was first asked to comment on Wirldwood Subdivision . Following that opportunity, it asked that it be allowed to continue with subsequent applications where Zoning lOrdinence standards required the provision of recreation epees and improvements as part of a site/subdivision. Application Deadlines The Subdivision Regulations currently provide for a seventy (70) day period within which the Planning Board must take action on a i)raliminary plat (See attachments — Section I11-0-1 and III—0—4—b)l. Failure of the Planning Board to take action is deemed approval!. of the plat. The current deadline for receipt of preliminary subdivision plats is set approximately seventeen (17) days before the regular Planning Board meeting date (see attached 1985 Approval. Schedule) , Considerable work is carried out with an applicant prior to thatItime, however, through review of sketch plans, review of preliminary plat, etc . If the subsequent application is complete !nd all agency responses are received prior to distribution of the Planning Board agenda, the application is placed on the agenda for action by the Board. If Eat agency responses havelnot been received, the application is held over until the next regular meeting date, increasing the approval period from 17 to 47 days. An advantage to this, approach is the potential for having two (2) Planning Board meetings within the 70—day period! (if postponement of a decision is desired for further study] . This is possible, however, only if the application ie presented at the first regular Planning Board meeting following application submission. The Subdivision Regulations also provide that the Board of Commissioners take action on the plan within thirty—six (35) days of the date of submission , or the data of the first meeting at whiCh the plat appears on the Board of Commissioners agenda. Currently, plats are forwarded to the Board of Commissioners end considered within two (2) weeks of Planning Board action . This permits at Least one (1 ) other Board of Commissioners meeting to take place (within the 36—day period] should deferrsl be desired for further study. Failure to act within the specified time period constitutes approval of the subdivision plat . 1 •• 000225 000217 000041.4 PROPOSED PROCEDURES Based on the above review periods and application/approval deadlines, an alternative approval schedule has been developed. The schedule seeks to establish the following: 1 . Permits the Staff to accept/reject a subdivision application on the basis of completeness (5—day period) . Completeness is based on all application forms. being provided and accurately completed, all fees paid, the required number of plate submitted, and the plat contaiing all required information , and all supporting materfsls/documentation being present and complete. 2. Permit the staff to forward all plats (and other appropiriate materials] to review agencies and places those agencies on notice that comments must be received or the application will go forward with a positive recommendation . A 30—day review period is proposed, . based on current response times and to allow all responses to be available for Planning Staff review at one paint . The only exception to the above procedure would be the submission of a subdivision proposal to the Health Department. Since that agency charges fees, for site/sebdivision analysis, an applicant would deliver the' plot directly to the Health Department . The Planning Department would, as part of the review process, provide a "notification" form to the Health Department indicating that formal application had been made and a 30—day review - and comment period was commencing. For each agency, n request for comment" or "notification" forms would be prepared (see attachments) which identify the project, state the deadline for receipt of comments, and identify the 7—lay ordinance Limitation within which the Planning Department/Board is operating . 3. Permits the Staff to review agency responses (7—dayl period) and incorporate any recommendations into the plat or supporting application material (through individual staff work or Development Review Meetings) . 4. Permits the Staff to develop agenda materiels (7—daylperiod) for distribution to the Planning Board as well as have necessary plat revisions made by the applicint or his/her surveyor. Also permits Staff to distribute agenda materials earlier. The length of time for a preliminary subdivision application to reach the Planning Board from date of acceptance would be 49 days. A draft three—month schedule has been prepared and included as an attachment which reflects the above proposal. The schedule would allow 21 days to remain in the 70—day approval - . . ■ 000226 0000418 period. If the Planning Board wished to postpone action on a subdivision pending further study, two options would be available: 1 . The Planning Board could request that the appLic4nt waive the 70—day requirement to allow for further study. For any waiver, the Planning Board should postpoge reconsideration to "date certain" or a specific meeting time at which action would be taken. 2. If the applicant refused waiver, the Planning Board could schedule a special meeting (within the remaining 21 days) to take action on the proposal or, if unable to obtain agreement on a special meeting, take . immedi te action . In the latter case, the Planning Board could deny the request or add conditions of approval which jsought to address the concerns voiced at the meeting. . - I In either case, it would be incumbent upon the Planning Board to have Legitimate concerns about the subdivision proposal which had not bean adequately addressed through Staff or agency review. Likewise, the Planning Board must adhere to ordinance requirements/limitations. Conditions cannot be added end/or actions taken which are not permitted by the Subdivision Regulations. The review/approval process must set forth what is expected of the applicant, but it must offer a degree of "predictabilit in terms of when/what action will be taken . RECOMMENDATION Approve the revised administrative procedures procedures and time schedule for approval of major subdivision preliminary plats. Direct Staff to advise surveyors and review agencies of changes in time schedule and initiate changes to become effective October 24, 1985. CC: County Manager • • • • DISTRIBUTED 1 of willisitartragil Town Cleat Peel P.Was= HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ada Johnson Comairsheas Sept.water worts W.Pod Martin ww It ir•T t•;r C.R.Rosemond Sono Sox Alien A.Lioye1 e a� Y • I.D.Wagoner Dr.Tom Demon Chief of Pate Remo J.Smith �". Arnold W. .• +.-f' TO: Orange County Planning Dept. PROM: Hillsborough Planning Board RE: Courtesy Review of Rezoning Request for Wildwood Section IV DATE: November 15, 1985 On November 14, 1985 the planning board conducted a courtesy review of the rezoning request for Wildwood Section IV and recommended that the 28.80 acres be rezoned to R-2, or at the most, R-3. While the board recognizes that existing Wildwood Sections 1iZ1I- are zoned R-4 and R-5, the topography of the site and the impact of traffic on existing neighborhoods in Wildwood raises concerns as to the overall impact of the proposed development. The board is particularly concerned about road conditions (i.e. construction as well as capacity to handle more traffic), erosion control and increased traffic at the project site. • • • • BONUS PROVISIONS BONUS NO. 1 � . c. #2 V-44, , PAS 1 Planning Advisory Service ri .® American Planning Association 1 1313 E.60th St. • Chicago, IL 60637 312-955-9100 - . Reference . . .. • • . Packet • • Loan Materials for PAS Subscribers . INCENTIVE ZONING • Contents: L;. 4:-. , Chapter 8: "Incentive Zoning," Zoning and Land Use Controls. . Patrick Bohan. Co lentary: "Incentive Zoning," Land Use Law. Robert S. Cook, Jr.' ' September 4, 1982; pp. 4-7. • - I Regulations ontained herein are provided as a source of ideas and illustrations.They are not - I QQ� offered as mddels.Since state laws vary substantially on these matters,you-should work with your local attorney in drafting your regulations. CHAPTER 8 Incentive Zoning SYNOPSIS § 8.01 Introduction [1] Background [2] Incentive or Bonus Zoning Defined [3] Distinctions [4] The Density.Banns Through Increased FAR • [5] Objectives of-Incentive Zoning • [6] Objection ti to Incentive Zoning § 8.02 Example of Incentive Zoning . [1] New York's Special Zoning Districts [a] Generally [b] The Special Theatre District [c] Special Greenwich Street Development District ' [2] San Francisco's Downtown Development Bonus System • • [a] Background;Distinction • [b] Objectives (cl Size of Bonus [3] Other Bonus Plans § 8.03 Constitutional and Other Legal Issues [1] Generally [2] Constitutional Objections [a] "Taking"by Unreasonable FAR • [b] Relation to Police Power [c] Denial of Equal Protection [3] Lack of Delegated Power [a] In General [b] Application to Bonus Zoning • (Zoning Law) (.• • • •Mk- I • 1 • § 8.01[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-2 - • z4 § 8.01 Introduction ' [1]—Background • F3` Traditional zoning ordinances are essentially prohibitory in na- . ture. Their purposes are: to prevent the intermingling of incompati- - • • ble uses;t to protect against invasions of light and air caused by urban . congestion;2 to curb development where public services are insuf- . . .ficient;3 and to limit the density and scale of neighborhoods.' The •. 4 fl t See Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365,47 S Ct 114.71 L Ed • 303 (1926). . See also Toll,"Zoning for Amenities," 20 Law &Conternp Prob 266(1955). • 2See: . United Stater: Gorieb v. Fox,274 US 693,47 S Ct 675, 71 L Ed 1228.(1927). . New York Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 NY-288, 150 NE 120(1925). • . 3 See: '. Connecticut:Bertram v. Zoning,Comni'n, 136 Conn 89, 63 A2d•308 (1949). Massachusetts'Town of Marblehead v. Rosenthal,316 Mass•124, 55'NE2d 13 • (1944). . ' 4 Traditional devices for controlling density are limits on building height(Welch•,.' - V. Swasey, 193 Mass 364,79 NE 745(1907),aff'd 214 US.91,29 S Ct 567,214 L • A• Ed 923(1909)),and regulation of courts,front,side and rear yards.Also important are tiebniques which are based on the relationship between lot area and some other rc - unit,such as a dwelling,family,living room or bedroom.See e.&„Carey v.Cassidy, . w . - 163 A2d 793(RI 1954).Also,see Toll, "Zoning for Amenities,"20 Law&Con- tempt tempt Prob 268,272-273 the author discusses minimum lot regulaa- tions as follows: . • "The controls give the planner a virtually immediate and quite accurate idea . of allowable density levels.All that he must know is readily available: lot area sizes and family sizes or average number of persons per room in question.Note, : however,that the techniques are applied to residential areas and not to commer- cial districts. '. • "These methods of density regulation have been criticized for the economic al inequities they encourage by putting a premium on homes principally for the large II or affluent family,thus allowing a zoning ordinance to exercise Iess than direct influence over building development.At bottom is the vexed question of"snob • zoning" and the earlier inquiry as to what it is our communities desire as a physical setting.Probably the most readily identified and intelligible answer today , comes from the wealthier dormitory suburbs whose residents quite clearly and 'f understandably prefer economic class homogeneity with its attendant symbols. The ample house on a spacious lot is such a mark.The proof of reasonableness sought by the courts here is a test of fact.Beyond this are challenging problems • in social philosophy which cut across class lines and through many other areas of zoning controls." (Footnotes omitted.) ? . . C FF M I't ii•^ 8-3 • INcENTivE ZONING § 8.01[2] failure of traditional zoning to take an affirmative approach toward land use control has resulted in irregular and fragmented growth of urban areas and the lack of adequate amenities,such as parking and open spy.s In recent years, there has been an increasing effort by urban plan- ners to encourage private developers to make cities more attractive, . - j and to provide increased public amenities and conveniences. One of • the land use techniques that has been successfully employed to ac- complish this objective is incentive or bonus zoning.6 Incentive zon- ing has encouraged otherwise uneconomic development in accord- ance with urban design policies selected by the municipality.' [2]—Incentive or Bonus Zoning Defined Incentive or bonus zoning is a land use control technique by which a builder or developer agrees to provide certain amenities that the For regulations designed to regulate the cubic content of a building,or the ratio between floor area and lot area(the FAR)as important density control devices,see Frischkorn Construe. Co. v. Lambert, 385 Mich 556, 24 NW2d 209(1946).The FA technique is discussed in § 8.01[4] infra. 1 - R_ 5 See Benson,"Bonus or Incentive Zoning--Legal Implications,"21 Syracuse L Rev 895 (1970) where the author notes that "the failure of traditional land use control can be seers in the dreary,monotonous suburban developments which have sprung up around every major city in the country,or in sterile,monolithic office buildings in which hundreds of people work and through which hundreds more pass daily and in which no provisions have been made for parking spaces,food service, public rest rooms,public telephones, or simply a place to sit down." 6 See Costonis, "The Chicago Plan: Incentive Zoning and the Preservation of -Urban Landmarks," 85 Hary L Rev 574(1972). 7 For a general discussion of incentive zoning theory and techniques,see Marcus and Groves, The New Zoning:LegaL Adniintttrative, and Economic Concepts and Techniques(Praeger Publishers, 1970)[hereinafter called New Zoning];6 Powell on Real Property, 1(865.4(Matthew Bender&Co.);Freilich,"Awakening the Sleeping Giant:New Trends and Developments in Environmental and Land Use Controls," 1974 Institute on Planning. Zoning and Eminent Domain 1 (SW Legal Found, Matthew Bender&Co.);Marcus, "Mandatory Development Rights Transfer and the Taking Clause:The Case of Manhattan's Tudor City Parks,"24 Buffalo L Rev ! I 77 (1974); Costonis, "'Fair' Compensation and the Accomodation Power: An- _ tidotes For the Taking Impasse in Land Use Controversies,"75 Colum L Rev 1021 (1975); Elliott and Marcus, "From Euclid to Ramapo: New Directions in Land Development Controls," 1 Hofstra L Rev 56(1973);Benson."Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications," 21 Syracuse L Rev 895 (1970). . - (Zoning Law) • r-0 ...1---1-4".1""'"' ',, y .v., • • F.7:. § 8.01(2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8--4 (• municipality would not otherwise be able to construct itself, usually • because of the P rohibitive cost of eminent domain.Amenities include non-revenue producing building features, such as public plazas, parks,covered pedestrian space, theaters,off-street parking, arcades and on-site subway access.®In return,the developer is given permis- sion to use his property in a manner not otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance; for example, to construct his building with more • floor area than is normally permitted.9 Incentive zoning is thus a eat trade-off between the developer and the municipality, resulting in both increased developer profit and public amenities.to s'{ n See San Francisco Planning Code§ 122. Also see Elliot and Marcus,"From Eucl d-to'Rarnapo:New Directions in Land . Development Controls," 1 Hofstra L Rev.56;•61 (1973). 9 See,&g.,.San Francisco Planning Code§ 122. • The San Francisco plan establishes a special district in the downtown area whereby a builder receives a bonus in the form of a larger floor area ratio(hereinafter called FAR]than normally permitted. Bonuses are given in return for the devel- • oiler's providing certain enumerated features in his building,such as a pedestrian mall or a covered plaza.. - 10 See Preihelt,"Awakening the Sleeping _ ceiling Giant:New Trends and Development in Environmental and Land-Use Controls,"1974 Institute on Planning.Zoning and • Eminent Domain 1, 45 (SW Legal Found, Matthew Bender& Co.). The author_ SSA,. states: "Bonus or incentive zoning is actually a sophisticated form of barter.A devel- oper,for instance,will want to construct a building higher than a zoning ordi- • 'kE nance allows,or otherwise use his in such a way that the density will • �.' property� Y tY {'{ - be greater than the municipality allows. On the other hand, the municipality desires amenities which it usually cannot afford to construct itself, usually due • to the prohibitive cost of eminent domain Bonus zoning is thus a means of achieving both developer profit and municipal amenities. New York and San Francisco are excellent examples of cities which have enacted comprehensive ordinances detailing the trades each city is willing to make, in exchange for a . legitimate theatre,off-street parking,a public plaza,multiple entrances,or access to rapid transit.Each amenity,or combination,allows a certain density increase, as by increasing the floor-area ratio.Thus,increased density,which is generally • s=' considered undesirable,is offset by an increase in public amenities directly related to the density,or by public facilities such as theatres or observation decks which the municipality has found to be so desirable as to be willing to accept the problems inherent in additional population." • • r 1, -.. .. i I • VE ZONING § 8.01[3] • 8-5 INCENTIVE [3]--Distinctions Incentive zoning should be distinguished from two other regula- tory devices: conditional and contract zoning's and builder exec- tions.i2 Conditional and contract zoning, like incentive zoning, are de- signed to allow more favorable uses of property. Since the rezoning of property may cause hardship to neighboring property owners or be a burden to the municipality,33 the applicant agrees to certain restrictive conditions that will ameliorate any negative effects of the change."In contrast, the award of an incentive bonus is usually an • administrative determination made by the planning cotamission or similar local body responsible for interpreting and administering the applicable zoning ordinance.15 Incentive inning involves general leg- 11 Conditional zoning may be described as a zoning change which permits use of a particular property subject to conditions not generally applicable to other similarly zoned land.See Scrutton v.County of Sacramento 275 Cal App2d 412,79 Cal Rptr 876(1969).In conditional zoning,the property owner covenants to perform certain conditions, perhaps including restrictions on use,dedications of land or physical improvements to the property.The municipality,however,makes no commitments to rezone. In "contract" zoning, however, the landowner enters into reciprocal - agreements with the local governing body.The owner promises to restrict the use - of his property in return for the municipality's promise to allow the rezoning. Contract zoning agreements have been held illegal by most courts as an ultra vires bargaining away of the local government's police power.The recent trend,however, is to uphold the validity of conditional zoning.See Church v.Town of Islip,Note 13 infra For a detailed discussion of"Conditional and Contract"zoning,see Ch.5 supra. 12 For a detailed discussion of"Builders' Exactions," see Ch. 9 infra. 13 See,e.g.. Church v.Town of Islip, 8 NY2d 254,203 NYS2d 866, 168 NE2d 680(1960),where the New York Court of Appeals upheld the right of a municipal- s ity to condition the rezoning of property upon the prior filing bythe.property owner of restrictive covenants.The court declared that the imposition of reasonable condi- tions, when necessary to ameliorate the potentially deleterious effects of a zoning change on neighboring property, is a proper exercise of the local government's zoning powers. The Church decision is fully discussed in Ch. 5 supra. 14 See Church, Note 13 supra Scrutron. Note 11 supra. See also Bucholz v.City of Omaha, 174 Nab 862, 120 NW2d 270(1963). Also,see Comment,'The Use and Abuse of Contract Zoning," 12 UCLA L Rev 897, 898(1965). 15 See Svirsky,"San Francisco:The Downtown Development Bonus System,"in The New Zoning 139, 158 (Marcus&Groves, eds., Praeger-Publishers, 1970). (zoning Law) I • - • . C;;' k , § 8.01(3) ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-6 • islation by the local governing body to create the incentive scheme, • but does not generally require a concomitant private agreement as • in conditional or contract zoning.16 . Local communities usually derive their power to exact dedications . of land from subdividers,or fees in lieu of dedication,from state land dedication statutes.37 Traditionally, land subdividers have been re- . - quired to provide specified utilities, pave streets,=$ and build side- • walks and gutters. More recently, local planning boards have been Ali • • given authority to exact dedication of park and recreational land from developers,as a condition*precedent to approval of subdivisions . or the granting of permits.19 Incentive zoning, unlike dedication • 16 Under recently enacted amendments to the plaza incentive provisions for • • commercial and residential buildings, New-York City requires developers to post : • a bond, City securities or a suitable undertaking to insure the continued mainte- . nance of required.plaza amenities such as trees and seating.City Planning Commis- . . ;; - sion Report CP 22784B, Urban Open Space, Zoning Resolution Section 12-10 • Definitions; City Planning Commission Report N 760066 ZRY, Urban Design - . Guidelines—Residential Plazas,Zoning Resolution,Sections 26-00 et al and 37-00 • • et al. See Krasnowiecki,"The Basic System of Land Use Control:Legislative Preregu- . lation v. Administrative Discretion" 3, 17-22 (Marcus & Groves, eds., Praeger • Publishers 1970), for some of the•legal issues involved in incentive zoning. - . 17 See,e&, Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek,94 Cal Rptr 630,484 P2d 606(1971),app dism'd 404 US 878(1971). . 1a See, eg;, Matter of Brous v.Smith,304 NY 164, 106 NE2d 503 (1952): • 19 , &. e • art California: Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of • Walnut Creek,Note 17 supra (parks). Connecticria Aunt Hack Ridge Estates,Inc.v.Planning Comm'n of the City of• Danbury, 160 Cone 109, 273 A2d 880(1970) (parks). • New York Jenad,Inc.v.Village of Scarsdale, 18 NY2d 78,271 NYS2d 955,218 g NE2d 673 (1966)(parks). l4 4 Wisconsin:Jordan v.Village of Menomonee Falls,28 Wis2d 608, 137 NW2d 442 • (1965)(parks and schools). • Contra: Florida:Admiral Devel.Co.v.City of Maitland,267 So2d 860(Fla 1972)(parks). New Jersey. West Park Ave.v.Twp.of Ocean,48 NJ 122,224 A2d 1 (1966)(fee to finance schools). Vim. See generally Curtin,"Requiring Dedication of Land by Developers," 1974 Inset- tune on Planning: Zoning and Eminent Domain 57 (SW Legal Found, Matthew ? Bender& Co.). . • m , . f • • , . .. .......... --- ----4z ii.•tin �-n�"4'•: . , . , . r v GA�'t t . 8-7' INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.01[4] requirements,usually benefits the land owner or developer,since the value of the bonus equals or slightly exceeds the cost to the developer of supplying the public benefit.20 In contrast,a dedication may result . in economic loss to the developer by requiring him to provide various facilities as a condition to subdivision approval.21 [4]—The Density Bonus Through.Incased FAR The most common example of incentive zoning is an increase in density22 in the form of bonus floor area.22 In return for providing See Ch. 9 infra for comprehensive discussion of builders' exactions. 2°See San Francisco Planning Code§122. Also,see Costamis, "Tiie.Chicago Plan:Incentive Zoning and the Preservation. of Urban,Landmarks,"'SS Hary L Rev 574. 576(1972).The author in discussing incentive zoning-plans notes that "Although these programs differ widely among themselves,they are all pre- • • mised upon a trade between the city and the developer,The city relaxes its zoning bulk restrictions, thereby allowing the developer to build more profitably by including more rentable floor area in his project than the prevailing zoning . otherwise permits.In return the developer must either provide public l enable a amenity, i such as a plaza.at his own expense or make a cash payment a ' city to finance the purchase of a public improvement. } "How does the city derive the additional floor area that it allocates to the developer?If the city seeks an amenity,it simply creates the floor area ex nihilo and bestows it upon the developer as a so-called'zoning bonus.'The amount of the bonus is calculated to equal or slightly to exceed in value the cost that the developer incurs in providing the amenity." (Footnotes omitted.) I 21 Despite the possibility of economic loss,the theory behind judicial approval of subdivision dedication and fee exaction requirements is the belief that the subdivider actually realizes a profit from governmental approval of a subdivision because the • subdivision makes his land more valuable. It has therefore been held that the subdivider has the duty to comply with reasonable conditons for design,dedication, improvement and restrictive use of the land.Ayres v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal2d 31, 207 P2d 1 (1949). 22 In Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365.47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed a 303(1926).the United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of local govern- t ments to promulgate zoning regulations on the theory that the concentration of ■ population had increased,and would probably require further restrictions on the use .. of private property in urban areas. Today, "density" control in urban areas is • becoming more important than the regulation of uses.See Mandelker,"The Basic Philosophy of Zoning:Incentive or Restraint,"in The New Zoning 14, 19(Marcus & Groves,eds., Praeger Publishers, 1970). A municipality's power to regulate density rests on a grant of such power from (Zoning (sin) , tit t ( -.in.- �-._..� ;• - � - . �-'••ter I 8-45 INCENTIVE ZONZONING § 8.02[3 . • • The city of Madison, Wisconsin, encourages subdividers and de- velopers to provide open spaces by means of flexible minimum lot requirements.ss - In Lexington, Kentucky,builders of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)who provide extra recreation areas are entitled to floor area ' bonuses." Developers of PUDs in New Castle, Delaware, are en- See also the following ordinances which offer bonus floor area for setbacks at upper floor levels in order to provide more light and air at street level: Baltimore Zoning Ord § 6.4-2(c). Seattle Zoning Ord §§26.32.80,26.32.90. Denver Zoning Ord§ 10-4(3)(b)• See also Boston Zoning Ord § 15-2,which allows a floor area bonus if extra parking spaces are provided. • ' 63 Madison Zoning Code§28.08(1XcX1), (2).The section states: "1.Subdivisions Containing Qualifying Permanent Open Spaces In the R1 and R2 districts, where a land owner, developer or subdivider provides qualifying t.� • permanent open spaces as a part of a recorded subdivision containing lots for single-family detached dwellings,inimum lot area and minimum lot width twenty percent(ings, the lots within such subdivision may have a r t 20%a)less than herein otherwise required for the district or districts in which subdivision is located. Provided,however,in no case shall the total area of lot area reduction be more t -- than the total area of the qualifying permanent open spaces.Qualifying perma` tient open space shall be land located within a subdivision at a location,size and shape as specifically approved by the Plan Commission and shall have an area of not less than four(4)acres or ten percent(10%)of the subdivision,exclusive of street and alleys, whichever is the greater. Further. a qualifying permanent open space shall be a private recreation area where the ownership and mainte- nance responsibilities for such open space shall be assumed by the property owners with the necessary legal authority to discharge said responsibilities and where the use of such area for open space use shall be perpetuated by recorded covenants running with the land for the benefit of the owners within such subdivi- sion. "2.No use shall be established or hereafter maintained on a tot recorded after the effective date of this ordinance;which is of less area or less width than prescribed'herein for such use in the zoning district in which it is to be located. However,in the R5 and R6 districts,where the owner or owners of a zoning lot agree by a recorded covenant in favor of the City that the building coverage on a zoning lot shall not exceed 0.3,the lot area requirements for dwelling units and lodging rooms for the district in which such lot is located may be decreased by . twenty percent(20%).'. 6°See Lexington, Ky.-Fayette County Zoning Ord. §§ 13.527, 13.522. Section 13.527, which pertains to useable open space and screening, states: ; (Zoning La. • (. ^� = . § 8,02[3] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS g-46 couraged to construct low or moderate income housing by the award • of density bonuses.65 The PUD technique,it should be noted,is itself • Fw "Proper useable open spaces shall be devoted to.recreation needs of the project for active and passive use.At least twenty(20%)per cent of the total area shall be devoted to such properly planned permanent useable open space. No area smaller than five thousand(5,000)square feet shall be considered as useable open space. Appropriate screening for visual and noise barriers shall be provided as required by Article 20." - ,,, The bonus provision,which is found in § 13.522, reads: "The total floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the maximum floor area permitted in the zone in which the project is located,unless specific permission is given by the Commission to exceed said permitted floor area by no more than • one(1%)per cent for each one(1%)per cent additional recreation area that is • provided over the minimum required hereinbelow by Section 13.527 but in any case not to exceed the maximum floor area by more than ten(10%)per cent." • " See also General Policy Statement of Birark4Supervisors of San Joaquin County, Cal(1970)to guide the local planning commission in the granting of approval of PODs pursuant to Ord 850 of the County Zoning Code.Among the guiding princi-• • pies listed are the following incentive provisions: "7. Rfghts•of--way for equestrian,cycling,inking and other types of trails and scenic ways may be dedicated in 'fee' to the County through a space ex- >5 change by reduction in lot sizes on an equal square foot basis,providing that , the requirements as to area and location meet the requirements of the . Punning Commission as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Rights-of- - way for water courses and other similar channels are not acceptable for space exchange under Planned Unit Development. However, the portion of the right-of-way that is usable as a trial or similar way may be acceptable,but • must be approved by the County Planning Commission. • "10.Commercial development is encouraged to make a variety of uses of the i, setback requirements by trading space through the development of open plazas, pedestrian malls, tot lots and other public spaces and uses with adequate planting. "11.Industrial development is encouraged to make a better use of required open • space by varying the setback and other requirements,if it can be shown that the development results in a more efficient and effective use of space. Zero setbacks of buildings may be approved providing requirements of parking and access can be met and the adjoining property is not adversely affected." 63 New Castle,Del.County Code(Zoning) §23.80(c)(3).The statute provides: Via, "For each unit of publicly or privately subsidized housing(housing constructed • pursuant to a federal, state, local or private low or middle income housing program), the developer shall be permitted to build one unit of non-subsidized `` housing over and above the number permitted as a result of the application of the B lx PP standard of maximum average gross residential density, including bonus units, I $< but subject to the aforesaid maximum average gross residential density of nine • - `• }fi 'Gam.,.. w i �`�� . _ ._._ - - .. 1 8-47 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.02[3] a form of incentive zoning because it encourages economical use of • land for the benefit of the developer,the occupants and the neighbors t , of the PUD.66 I acre.A low or middle income housing program is one under dwelling waits per " which(1)the rental or purchase costs of housing are reduced by for rent or a below market interest rates,or by continuing direct subsidy payments interest,and(2)there are regulations which reasonably assure that the dwelling I units will be occupied by families or individuals whose incomes would otherwise be insufficient to permit them to occupy housing of equivalent quality and size." "Gross residential density" is described in §23.80(1XbX1), as follows: } "The maximum allowable average gross residential density for DPUD's shall be seven dwelling units.per acre of-land; except, that higher densities may be allowed in accordance with the bonus provisions contained in this article.In no ■ event shall the.average gross residential density exceed nine dwelling units per acre.However,in areas zoned R 1-A and R-1-BB at the time of the introduction fi of the zoning ordinance for a DPUD the maximum allowable average gross residential density for a DPUD shall be three dwelling units per acre of land; except,that higher density may be allowed in accordance with the bonus provi-, sions contained in this article,but in no event shall the average gross residential , density for such DPUD'S exceed four dwelling units per acre." - 66 Planned Unit Development(PUD)has its basis in the concept of clustering, - a zoning technique that differs from the normal Euclidean grid pattern in that buildings are grouped in certain areas, and the remaining land is left open for other purposes.The clustering concept is broadened in the PUD to include a variety of uses--ire., residential, commercial, industrial—within a single development The intermixing of a variety of uses in a PUD requires careful, extensive and early planning to tailor the development to the land and its surroundings. Local ordinances,passed pursuant to general enabling statutes permitting cluster- s ing and PUDs,have been judicially sanctioned as a means of avoiding the"cookie cutter" approach of Euclidean development and promoting the "self-contained ,• • community,"See Orinde Homeowners v.Bd.of Supervisors,90 Cal Rpm 88,11 Cal App3d 768 (1970). See also Cheney v.Village 2 at New Hope,Inc.,429 Pa 626,241 A2d 81,82-83 (1968),where the court described the PUD concept as follows: "Under traditional concepts of zoning the task of determining the type,density and placement of buildings which should exist within any given zoning district devolves upon the local legislative body. In order that this body might have to ? speak only infrequently on the issue of municipal planning and zoning,the local legislature usually enacts detailed requirements for the type,size and location of buildings within each given zoning district, and leaves the ministerial task of enforcing these regulations to an appointed zoning administrator,with another administrative body,the zoning board of adjustment,passing on individual devia- tions from the strict district requirements,deviations known commonly as vari- ances and special exceptions. At the same time, the overall rules governing the (Zoning earl • • 4 . yes r1.1F- ..Nr • } Y . § 8.02[3] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS or S 8-48' dimensions,placement,etc.of primarily public additions to ground,e.g.,streets, sewers,playgrounds,are formuihred by the local legislature through the passage • of subdivision regulations.These regulations are enforced and applied to individ- ual lots by an administrative body usually known as the planning commission. • "This general approach to zoning fares reasonably well so long as development . takes place on a lot-by-lot basis, and so long as no one cares that the overall appearance of the municipality resembles the design achieved by using a cookie • • • cutter on a sheet of dough.However,with the increasing popularity of large scale residential developments,particularly in suburban areas,it has become apparent • to many local municipalities that land can be more efficiently used,and develop- ments more aesthetically pleasing,if zoning regulations focus on density require- ` ments rather than on specific rules for each individual lot.Under density zoning, xL: • the legislature determines what percentage of a particular district must be devoted • to open space,for example,and what percentage used for dwelling units.The task • of filling in the particular district With real houses and real open spaces then falls • upon the planning commission usually working in conjunction with an individual • large scale developer.See Ch intro v. South Brunswick Twp., Planning Bd., 77 • NJ.Super.594, 187 A.2d 221 (1963).The ultimate goal of this so-called density or cluster concept of zoning is achieved when an entire self-contained little • community is permitted to be built within'a zoning district, with the rules of • density controlling not only the relation of private dwellings to open space,but ' also the relation of homes to commercial establishments such as theaters,hotels, restaurants, and quasi-commercial uses such as schools and churches." - For a detailed discussion of PUDs,see Part V infra. Cluster zoning'is discussed in Ch. 12 infra • • • • •t _ ry4 • • iffie hoc' Yn4 _ 4. I i - ' i 8-49 INCENTIVE ZONING 8.03[1] § 8.03 Constitutional and Other Legal Issues [i]-...Generally • In the landmark decision of�Uage of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,1 , the United States Supreme Court established a general test to deter- mine the constitutionality of zoning ordinances. Under that test, a zoning ordinance which is shown to be clearly arbitrary and unrea- sonable, and to have no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, will be declared invalid? Implicit . in Euclid is the principle that zoning is a legitimate method of .• protecting the general welfare, and.that the concept of "general - welfare" is continually•changing and growing.3 Although it is still too early to determine the validity of bonus zoning schemes," it . would appear that Such plans will be sustained because of their tendency to benefit the public welfare.5 1 272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed 303(1926). 2 272 US at 395. 3 Justice Sutherland stated(272 U.S. at 386-387)that: i __ "Building zone laws are of modern origin.They began in this country about twenty-five years ago.Until recent years,urban life was comparatively simple;but with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have devel- • oped,and constantly are developing,which require,and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in ta. I - urban communities.Regulations,the wisdom,necessity and validity of which,as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained,a century ago,or even half a century ago,probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained,under the i complex conditions of our day,for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic a I regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways,would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable.And _ in this there is no inconsistency,for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies,the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world,it is impossible that it should be otherwise." fi . 4 See§ 8.02 supra for examples of bonus zoning plans. ., to be distinct front the s The "general welfare" has been judicially recognized traditional objectives of zoning legislation.which is the protection of public health, safety and morals.The expansion of the meaning of"general welfare" in terms of legitimate ace of the zoning power is illustrated by the increasingly favorable atti- tude of the courts toward zoning for aesthetic purposes. that is zoning to protect or enhance community appearance.See, e.g.. People v.Stover,12 NY2d 462,240 (Zoning Law) ■ - ( ' . _ z„!, £7y rte'.' .•� i-S�... 6.. -�.. r. ?.5.:� yr I; 1 , . ( . . • § 8.03[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-50 • Several constitutional and Iegal challenges to bonus zoning plans can be posed. Specifically, it can be argued: (1) that such_plans are p ) 17 4 NYS2d 734,191 NE2d 272(1963),where the New York Court of Appeals sustained . ; . .on aesthetic grounds as ordinance prohibiting the erection of a clothesline in a front or side yard facing a street.The court stated in pertinent part, 12 NY2d at 466-468 that: . "There are a number of early decisions,both in this State(see People ex rei • • . - Wineburgh Adv Co. v. Murphy, 195 N.Y. 126)and elsewhere(see,e�. Varney • & Green v. Wiiliamr, 155 Cal 318; City of Chicago v. Gunning System, 214111. •. I . 628; City of Passaic v. Paterson Bill Acting Adv &Sign Painting Co. 72 N.'J. L 285;Bryan v.City of Chester, 212 Pa.259),which hold that aesthetic conrtirlPr- adoas are not alone sufficient to justify exercise of the police power. But since 1930 this court has taken pains repeatedly ttrdeclare that the issue is an open and • • ' 'unsettled'one in New York.(People v.RubenfekL 254 N.Y.245,248-249;see, . also,Perlmutter v. Greene, 259 N.Y.327;332;New York State Thruway Auth. • { v. Ashley Motor CL 10 N Y 24 151, 156 457.) In addition, we have actually recognized the governmental interest in preserving the appearance of the commu- • pity by holding that,whether or not aesthetic considerations are in and of them- • • selves sufficient to support an exercise of the police power,they may be taken into account by the legislative body in enacting laws which are also designed to k • promote health and safety.(See,e.g.,Mauer of Wulfsohn v.Burden, 241 N.Y. - 288, 303; Downey v- Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 230; Perlmutter v, Greene, 259 N Y.327,331-332,supra:Baddour v. City of Long Beach. 279 N.. ' I Y. 167, 174 Matter of Pre hell v. Leslie, 3 N Y 24 384,389; New York State • k. . •_ Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Cs,. 10 N Y 2d 151, 157, supra.) 'AEsthetic considerations',this court wrote in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington (257 N. Y. 221, 230, supra), "are, fortunately, not wholly without weight in a practical • world. "Once it be conceded that aesthetics is.a valid subject of legislative concern, the conclusion seems inescapable that reasonable legislation designed to promote - ' that end is a valid and permissible exercise of the police power.If zoning restric- Lions'which implement a policy of neighborhood amenity'are to be stricken as ' . ? invalid,it should be,one commentator has said,not because they seek to promote • 1 'aesthetic objectives'but solely because the restrictions constitute`unreasonable devices of implementing community policy.'(Dukeminier,Zoning for Aesthetic ,. Objectives:A Reappraisal,20 Law&Contemp. Prob.218,231.)Consequently, . whether such a statute or ordinance should be voided should depend upon I whether the restriction was'an arbitrary and irrational method of achieving an attractive,efficientl y'functioning,prosperous community—and not upon whether the objectives•were primarily aesthetic.'(Dukeminier,loc.cit.)And,indeed,this ' view finds support in an ever-increasing number of cases from other jurisdictions - S. which recognize that aesthetic considerations alone may warrant an exercise of f; the police power.(See,e.g.,Berman v.Parker, 348 U.S.26,33;General Outdoor Adv Co. v.Department of Public Works,289 Mass.149,187-188,app.dsmd.297 U. S. 725; Sunad. lne, v. City of Sarasota. 122 So. 2d 611 [Fla.]; State ex rel. • ,L4 . . , z . • • • x I • . 8-51 INCENTIVE ZONING §•8.03[2] • an unconstitutional"taking"of property;6(2)that in particular cases • bonus zoning bears no rational relation to the exercise of the police • power;' (3)that such zoning constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws;a and (4) that the various state enabling acts do not . authorize municipalities to enact bonus zoning provision.9 • [2]--Constitutional Objections . (a]- "°rig"by Unreasonable FAR. Incentive zoning plans, in order to encourage builders to include public amenities in their construction projects, commonly award bonuses in the form of in. • • creased floor area ratio(FAR).t°Most builders will not benefit from such a plan,however,if the underlying or"residual"FAR.(the FAR _ to which the builder!will be subject if he does not choose to provide - , • amenities) differs little from the bonus FAR. Thus, there is the • danger that sortie municipalities may reduce the residual FAR to an . . ' ! excessively low level so as to encourage developers to apply for the bonus.tt . • . Civello v.New Orleans. 154 La.271,284-285;Best v.Zoning Bd.of Adjustment, 393 Pa. 106,116-117;State ex rel.Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. Wieland 269 •b - - •• Wis.262,271-27Z cert.deli.350 U.S.841; Churchill&Tait V.Rafferty, 32 P. L 580,app.dsmd.248 U.S.591;see,also,8 McQuillan,Municipal Corporations r [3d ed.] § 25.31.) As Mr. Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous court in Berman, put it(348 U. S.,at p. 33): • "`The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.s**The values , it represents are spiritual as well as physical,aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy,spacious as well as clean,well-balanced • as well as carefully patrolled. a a • If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well . as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way,.. For a detailed discussion of Aesthetic Zoning,see Ch. 16 infra. - 6 See§8.03[2] [a] infra r See§8.03[2] [b] infra. 9 Sea§8.03 [2] [c] infra • 9 See§ 8.03[3] infra. . 1C As noted previously (see § 8.01[4] supra), the FAR regulates the physical volume of a building.The FAR is the ratio which the floor area within a building bears to the area of ground covered by the building.More floor area generally means more rentable space for a developer and thus potentially higher-profits on his investment. as In San Francisco,for example,residual FAIL in office districts was reduced to (Zoning Low) i 4 ' . �i. ''' �^ ., . . . . . A . �F . . . ■{/`. § 8.03[2 ZONING ANA L,atv�b USE CONTROLS 8-52 ",.` If the residual FAR restrictions become so stringent that the developer cannot properly use his property for any reasonable purpose,12 a challenge on the ground of an unconstitutional taking , fourteen from the pre-existing range of sixteen to twenty.See§8.O212J supra. This tr particular reduction in the residual FAR would not appear to be so excessive as to }` open the way for a successful court challenge. See Benson, "Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications," 21 Syracuse L Rev 895, 897(1970). . 12 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that"private ' (shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. property ] Pu 't' Coast.,Amend. V. • 4 A"taking"may result when restrictions on a landowner's free use and enjoyment of his property are sufficient to amount to a"confiscation"of his property. See 2 . Nichols On Eminent Domain. § 6.1(1].(Matthew Bender & Co). If a taking is involved,due process requires that compensation be paid to the property owner.See Pennsylvania Coal Co v.Mahon,260 US 391-415,43 S Ct 158,67 L Ed 322(1922). Among the standards that have been devised by the courts to distinguish between . ' valid police power regulation(including zoning)which requires no compensation, ' and a taking of property for which compensation must be paid,are the"physical invasion" test, the "noxious use" test, the "diminution in value" test and the • "arbitral-enterprise"test.See Sax,"Takings and the Police Power,"74 Yale L J 36 • (1964). 4 The"physical invasion"test requires compensation when the government takes _ physical possession of affected premises,See, e.g, Transportation Co v. Chicago, *'€j • 99 US 635,.98 S Ct 635,25 L Ed 336(1878). • Under the"noxious use"test,the court examines the nature of the property use - which is limited by a governmental regulation.If the affected use is deemed prejudi- cial to public health,safety and morals the government may validly regulate it,and '_ . any resulting decrease in value is-not compensable.See, e.g. Hadacheck v. Sebas- tiara.239 US 394, 36.S Ct 143(1915)(the state without payment of compensation may prohibit the operation of a brickyard in a residential neighborhood on the •grounds the yard is offensive to public health). Under a corollary test,however,if the purpose of the regulation is to secure some benefit for the entire community at the expense of the landowners rather than to prevent a nuisance,there is a taking. • See, cg., State v. Johnson, 265 A2d 711, 716 (Me 1970); Morris County Land • Improvement Co.v.Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills,40 NJ 539,554-556, 193 - A2d 232,241-242 (1963). s • The standard most often used to distinguish a taking from valid regulation under '$ the zoning power is the"diminution in value"test.No compensation is required if I. the value of existing property is diminished somewhat by government regulation. • If there is a substantial reduction in value,however,compensation must be made. . `' - See Pennsylvania Coal Co.v. Mahon supra. A recent modification of this test has . limited the original rule. Under the new approach, where the regulation seeks to • preserve the status quo rather than to improve the public condition,the impact upon • the value of the land for its potential use does not constitute a taking.See,e.g.. Just . A I. . - . • .. . . . . . _ .. - ..(. _-uS��.'��'�.��T: tr. . ._ . • 1 . - -_ - K4f • C 8-53 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.03(2] • may arise.13 An attack on such grounds-may, however, be difficult to sustain. As a general rule, the mere showing of a diminution in r v.Marinette County, 56 Wis 2d 7,201 NW2d 761 (1972)(no taking found where shoreland zoning ordinance forbade landowners from placing fill on their wetland property without a conditional use permit). Under the "arbitral-enterprise test (see Sax, supra at 62-63), when the state resolves disputes between competing P Pe g Private parties in its arbitral capacity, any resulting decrease in value of the landowner's property requires no compensation. • - On the other hand, when the government uses private resources for the public benefit, it acts in its enterprise capacity, and must compensate the owner for the taking.See,eg.Morris County.Land Improvement Co.supra, where the township restricted use of plaintiff's land to public recreational,wildlife sanctuary,and sewage treatment plant uses.Since the regulated properties had been added to the govern- . P 4 rya F Pte► $ meat's resources in severat of its enterprise categories, there was a taking. .;. Fora detailed treatment of the taking issue in the context of zoning and land use controls,see Pail V infitiz. 13 See Arverne Bay Construction Co. v.Thatcher, 278 NY 222, 15 NE2d 587, - - 117 AIR 1110(1938).To sustain an attack upon the validity of a zoning ordinance, an aggrieved property owner must show that enforcement of the ordinance and its restrictions would preclude the use of the property for any purpose to which it is • ' reasonably adapted. •. _ - , For similar holdings,see: - _ - California Mid Way Cabinet Mfg.Co.v.County of San Joaquin,257 Cal App2d . 181, 65 Cal Rptr 37(1967). • • Connecticut:Vartelas v.Water Resources Comm'n, 146 Conn 650, 153 A2d 822 • - (1959). Idaho:Ruark v. City of Caldwell, 87 Idaho 557, 394 P2d 641 (1964). • - Indiana:Indiana Toll Road Comm'n v.Jankovich,244 Ind 574, 193 NE2d 237 ' f+; (1963), app dism'd 379 US 487(1965). Massachusetts Campbell v.City of Boston,290 Mass 427, 195 NE 802(1935). • Missouri: Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City,321 Mo 969, 13 SW2d 628(1929). Oklahoma:Phillips Petroleum Co.v.Corp.Comm'n,312 P2d 916(Okla 1957). s - Pennsylvania:Valley Hills Civic Ass'n v.Bd.of Adjustment,414 Pa 367,200 A24 408 (1964). Washington: Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wash2d 400, 348 P2d 664, 77 ALR2d 1344(1960). Also,see Benson,"Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications,"21 Syracuse L Rev 895, 897(1970), where the-author quotes from Professor Mandelker who. at a Zoning Conference at the New School for Social Research,May 15-17, 1969, commented that: . "(T]he more the residual zone is away from what ought to be on the spot,I think the greater opportunity there is going to be for a successful attack on the underly- ing residual zone.. .. [A]s the project moves along at the much higher densities or intensities.... the underlying residual zoning, I think,will become more and more open to attack." (Zoning Lawn • ., t _ § 8.03[2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-54. ' value is not enough to prove that a zoning regulation is confisca- tory.14 Moreover, a zoning ordinance generally will not be held . unconstitutional merely because it prohibits a landowner from using r or developing his land in the most profitable maniier.ls . • Y • 14 See,e.g Planning.Matter of Golden v. Bd.of Town of Ramapo,30 NY2d 359, 381, 334 NYS2d 138, 154, 285 NEld 291, 304, (1972) app dism'd 409 US 1003 (1972) where the court stated: "Every restriction on the use of property entails hardships for some individual owners.These difficulties are invariably the product of police regulation and the =* pecuniary profits of the individual must in the long run be subordinated to the c. needs of the community. +* °The fact that the ordinance limits the use of,and • ,? may depreciate the value of-the property will not render it unconstitutional, however,unless it can be shown that the measure is either unreasonable in terms . of necessity or the diminution in value is such as to be tantamount'to a confisca- „ • See also FI'FH,Ltd.v Superior Court ofLos Angeles County,15 Cal3d 508,125 Cal Rptr 365 (1975),cart denied 96 S Ct t495(1976). t5 See,n&. Guaclides v.Borough of Englewood Cliffs,11 NJ Super 405►78 A2d . • 435(1951).A zoning amendment changed all multifamily dwelling districts within a borough to single family zones,with the exception of a small area at one end.No apartment houses or other multifamily structures had ever been built in the bor- ough.The New Jersey court held that the amendment,as applied to a large tract :-11 • of land upon which houses could be built only at high cost,did not constitute an ,' unconstitutional taking of property. ' + ~" See also: Arkansai City of Little Rock v. Sun Bldg. and DeveL Co., 199 Ark 333, 134 . SW2d 582(1940). r California:Metro Realty v.County of Eldorado,222 Cal Appld 508,35 Cal Rptr 480(1963). Kentucky Blancctt v.Montgomery,398 SW2d 877, 10 ALR3d 1220(Ky 1966). •, Cf.Roark v.City of Caldwell,87 Idaho 557,394 P2d 641(1964),where the Idaho { Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance that restricted the height of structures • and limited the use of land adjacent to an airport to agricultural uses and single•` family dwelling was tu�nstitutionaL Declaring that there would be a loss in value to the affected property if the restrictions were enforced,the court found a taking of private property for public use in the constitutional sense. Moreover,since no ,--,. 4 compensation had been provided for the taking of such property,the ordinance was ' declared invalid. r beyond the mere diminution of As a general rule,where the zoning action goes beyon � s ' market value and instead has the substantial effect of depriving the landowner of 1 , any reasonable or beneficial use of his property,i.e.,there is a de facto prohibition - of all uses of the property so as to amount to a complete diminution in value,there • may be a taking of property in violation of constitutional guarantees.See,e.g. Fred rt •, sx :fir .e.._.;. .''ti-;.917"1;: "twal ,40 ,-- f,. Rt # 3, Box 3, Western Park Ilillsborough, NC 77778 ,.-. November 75, 1985 Orange County Commissioners 106 Margaret Lane , '1111sborough NC 77278 !$. RE: Zoning Orinance Text Amendments ,-, ,-, I am writing to voice my support for items c., d, and e. of the Zoning ,.? Ordinance Text Amendments being proposed this evening. As a resident of Orange County I know how difficult it can be at times for individuals and businesses to expand existing structures. This may it. occur even when all indications are that an addition is both reasonable and in the community interest. 1 I believe just such a situation currently exists with respect to NDK,Inc. and its inability to build an addition to its facility at Dodsons Cross- roads. Therefore, I support the above amendments to the zoning ordinance for the following reasons: 1. They would allow MDT: to expand without having to leave Orange County, end; ... 7., 2. They would allow the county to deal .rith other situations that may 1 arise in the future. The current zoning ordinance does not adecuately allow for consideration of exceptional cases. t Sincerely, i i i Keenan A. Williams .- -•• SOS [ . .P - - . . 1 , , • : , . t . . . , • . 501 Brandywine Road .. , Chapel -Hill, NC 27514 . . f 2 - November 25, 1985 . 1 • . i . Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom of the . Orange Courty Courthouse - 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 . - • RE: Proposed Changes to the Zoning Atlas • I would like to express support for the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments, sections c, d and e, which ,. . you will be discussing at your meeting this evening, Monday, November 25, 1985. f . . • The current law does not currently provide for allowances to be made for changes in existing structures built prior to the present zoning ordinance. This has proven to be a difficult situation in my neighborhood of Heritage Hills to homeowners who , want to add on their homes, but cannot because of the limitations -. ., t of the law concerning land use intensity and impervious water surface requirements. . , . . • . . Yours very truly, . ,.. ..',..e4.4.2.6., el: ",: waif) , -1 Louise V. KoWalsky r . , , , . , • 1 , ; . 1 1 150 Dogwood Acres Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 November 25, 1985 Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse • 106 Nargatiet Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Proposed Auerdments to Zoning Atlas of Orange County Amendments 8c, 8d, Be • As a real ant of Orange County, I wish to advise that I support the propoded amendments to the Zoning Atlas, and urge you to act on them favorably for two reasons: 1) The changes could help NM, INC expand its operation, hire additional employees and remain in Orange County. 2) The changes could benefit residents and businesses in the future, since it is not unlikely that other lisituations will arise involving exceptions. At the Present time, the zoning ordinances provide no avenue for such exceptions. Very truly yours, &41"‘4:- C-166444114.-- Brent C. Chambers 1 112 Cheshire Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom - Orange County Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Propose Changes to the Zoning Atlas As residents, of Orange County, we are urging you to adopt the proposed chabges to the Zoning Text Amendments, section c, d, and e. The current zoning ordinances do not adequately allow current • requests for building additions to be dealt with responsibly. Of special concern is dealing with requests from persons and/ • or businesses with existing structures. MDK,INC. , a manufacturing company in the county, currently employs approximately 45 people, Almost all of these people are citizens of Orange County. MDK has been unable to add a sorely needed addition to the existing structure because • there are no provisions in the current laws to allow exceptions to requests that do not meet the prescribed land use intensity and impervious water surface requirements. The request made by MDK is vital to its continued operation and growth in Orange • County. It is a shame to put laws into effect that have so little regard for positiv e. growth in Orange County. We again urge you to adopt the above aniendments. Sincerely, Lillian P. Bobbitt John B. Bobbitt • N � of i _t /• PURpose. of z.c/ voisAgicf /Accoachm% 4 C�RR�Nf' aNl oAc�iiuea.c. sechotil -7. 1 ' is to piou;cle A�PI?opRiA��/y /oCA�ed A� Sa ec� sips '- 11,0 d .catmed.0/ ,tires des%9oecl A swig i 0 for/AA.' pi f4e rreith lent o[/ A 4 1`1'491 .1 4'4 will coil ven"owe 900 IS t►N d pailsow►e/ sr Av%r...t`, /rThi.W C etka. h . lls es.' &gold *A . d9 -.NAAke/ hAtP porkl/b4) co,,f Ne d' 4* . bine ddAle. ARM p,vol Lvov Ici ganeCA/1 y Ao 1 settee: em o n c'-hR.r o It. 1Dus oa/si swum,a/d%mC ' 941a21oe R. -74Q Porrd Ilse IT r4S S df- ,! an Os 141 L AM s okhv ) pis .����� AD/ � c is e so,�E A'ssNe ps PA) ASiC�n�Tib ! . fi b osi aess Biqa o� / e cJy ceo'C r' piti`j , not iii kreepiNt- . i of A / �/jdSiNeS'S Az de'1JaPR"L� • lifi-th ilie li,J7LI, I d c I'M if 6 -,e U2ifeJCta 4� A - c-'f el iviAlci- - y -fig . . 3, --1; sueorf p, chip., .1 Alive a nolio a'414 44 'Lcda led � ,2�.hues co 4) 1Ai f ,�ar•'C suRVP ' ( Z sNl 10 w:idfes /eAki�� -!li w,n�n ,'crPS,an, J f W ,is A 2e3iLN/ of We A4cA fr fire o74Nv2' ( !� /'�y conk a ,a.,e � oil� t,�vete_. ��,++yfNa t'f{nc,iG o life IA) t ` •le9A 1 4' c Se.' bi ! �3pP20viN'� P i"ipii dM/Q1L fit N1 AS A. COhfI7 %,x- USe. /) A tc—/ d ait<< 1d Ash -��,o� -�/�2 P/3/i" Botdn� A" ' We Courtly Re neyrA f s AQ E!e Su�E' uC;. $ ec' 'eal/1) it A ,,vo 0fI/Ls Rea f R 15 �' M �jo gda�Ress off` csr�►At h� is ,v,J Cattyc,`5 ide. eJU Gam.. C r R 94 i cu l ,,,„ , s ,"da 4 j . lAayc S��le �„yMeulOjl �af'a� Rater/. Aa1 11 J1is i /0125- eloy" //�Or/dr r . $ni s.2•Afl A /o/8s- for-9 10 $ ,f&so it,,ati.) 1'h' S 1014-i907 tom• -4.-pA!Rdy ar e 00,-,4-71-- lot. , ___ I . BONUS PROVISIONS • BONUS NO. ]. • c. #2 • • • PAS Planning Advisory Service rel American Planning Association 1313 E. 60th St. - Chicago, IL 60637 312-955-9100 Reference • • • • Pa6kt Loan Materials for PAS Subscribers • • • INCENTIVE ZONING • • Contents: • Chapter 8: "Incentive Zoning;" Zoning and Land Use Controls.- -Patrick Rohan. Commentary: "Incentive Zoning," Land Use Law. Robert S. Cook, Jr. ' SJ.tember 4, 1982; pp. 4-7. • • • • • • • . • • • • :•,-441.-. . - Regulations Contained herein are provided ès a source of ideas and illustrations.They are not - offered as mdidels.Since state laws vary substantially on these matters,you should work With your local attorney in drafting your regulations. • • • • • - _ . CHAPTER 8 Incentive Zoning - .• SYNOPSIS § 8.01 Introduction • [1] Background [2] Incentive or Bonus Zoning Defined [3] Distinctions [4] The Density.Bimus Through Increased FAR • [51 Objectives otIncentivc Zoning [6] Objecdoni to Incentive Zoning § 8.02 Examples of Incentive Zoning [1] New York's Special Zoning Districts • [a] Generally [b] The Special Theatre District [c] Special Greenwich Street-Development District • [2] San Francisco's Downtown Development Bonus System [a] Background;Distinction [b] Objectives • [c] Size of Bonus [3] Other Bonus Plans § 8.03 Constitutional and Other Legal Issues [1] Generally [2] Constitutional Objections [a] "'Taking"by Unreasonable FAR [b] Relation to Police Power [c] Denial of Equal Protection [3) Lack of Delegated Power• [a] In General [14 Application to Bonus Zoning (Zoning tow) 8-1 • "*.' :2 ' . . • . ' 1 8.01[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-2 • § 8.01 Introduction I • • [1]—Background . Traditional zoning ordinances are essentially prohibitory in na- • ture.Their purposes are: to prevent the intermingling of incompati- • • ble uses;l to protect against invasions of light and air caused by urban '• congestion;= to curb development where public services are insuf- ficient;3 and to limit the density and scale of neighborhoods." The ...R." I See Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed • 303 (1926). . See also Toll, "Zoning for Amenities."20 Law& Contemp Prob 266(1955). •. z•" United Stater Gorieb v. Fox, 274 US 693, 47 S Ct 675, 71 L Ed 1228(1927). New York Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241'Nnt.•288, 150 NE 120(1925). 3 See: `. .. . Connecricue Bartram v. Zoning,Comni'n, 136 Conn 89, 63 A2d 308(1949). • Massaehosertr Town of Marblehead v.Rosenthal, 316 Mass 124, 55'NE2d 13 • (1944). • a Traditional devices for controlling density are limits on building height(Welch v.Swasey, 193 Mass 364,79 NE 745(1907),aff d 214 US 91,29 S Ct 567,214 L Ed 923(1909)),and regulation of courts,front,side and rear yards.Also important are.techniques which are based on the relationship between lot area and some other • - _ unit,such as a dwelling,family,living room or bedroom.See e.g..,Carey v.C'9ssidy, 103 A2d 793(RI 1954).Also,see Toll,'"Zoning for Amenities,"20 Law&Con- � tempt Prob 268,272-273(1955)where the author discusses minimum lot regula- . tions as follows: Spa ' "The controls give the planner a virtually immediate and quite accurate idea , of allowable density levels. All that he must know is readily available.lot area - sizes and family sizes or average number of persons per room in question.Note, however,that the techniques are applied to residential areas and not to commer- cial districts. •• "These • methods of density regulation have been criticized for the economic V inequities they encourage by putting a premium on homes principally for the large or affluent family,thus allowing a zoning ordinance to exercise less than direct • • influence over building development. At bottom is the vexed question of"snob • zoning" and the earlier inquiry as to what it is our communities desire as a • ' physical setting.Probably the most readily identified and intelligible answer today comes from the wealthier dormitory suburbs whose residents quite clearly and . , ' understandably prefer economic class homogeneity with its attendant symbols. The ample house on a spacious lot is such a mark.The proof of reasonableness . sought by the courts here is a test of fact.Beyond this are rhallenging problems in social philosophy which cut across class lines and through many other areas t r of zoning controls." (Footnotes omitted.) : k : — is ;.; . . <; ; • + ,,,,,....".C.40.7----....�°—tee .J}AM1G'c-', 8-3 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.01[2] • failure of traditional zoning to take an affirmative approach toward land use control has resulted in irregular and fragmented growth of • urban areas and the lack of adequate amenities,such as parking and • open space.5 In recent years, there has been an increasing effort by urban plan- • ners to encourage private developers to make cities more attractive, and to provide increased public amenities and conveniences. One of the land use techniques that has been successfully employed to ac- complish this objective is incentive or bonus zoning.6 Incentive zon- ing has encouraged otherwise uneconomic development in accord- ance with urban design policies selected by the municipality.' [2]--Incentive or Bonus Zoning Defined Incentive or bonus zoning is a land use control technique by which a builder or developer agrees to provide certain amenities that the For regulations designed to regulate the cubic content of a building,or the ratio between floor area and lot area(the FAR)as important density control devices,see - • Frischkorn Construe. Co. v. Lambert, 385 Mich 556, 24 NW2d 209(1946).The FAR technique is discussed in § 8.01(43 infra. 5 See Benson,"Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications,"21 Syracuse L Rev 895 (1970) where the author notes that "the failure of traditional land use control can be seen in the dreary,monotonous suburban developments which have sprung tip around every major city in the country,or in sterile,monolithic office . buildings in which hundreds of people work and through which hundreds more pass daily and in which no provisions have been made for parking spaces,food service, . public rest moms, public telephones, or simply a place to sit down." 6 See Costonis, "The Chicago Plan: Incentive Zoning and the Preservation of Urban Landmarks," 85 Hary L.Rev 574(1972). 7 For a general discussion of incentive zoning theory and techniques,see Marcus and Groves, The New Zoning:Legal.Adminiarmtive, and Economic Concepts and Techniques(Praeger Publishers,1970)[hereinafter called New Zoning];6 Powell on • Real Ptoperry. ¶865.4(Matthew Bender&Co.);Freilich,"Awakening the Sleeping Giant:New Trends and Developments in Environmental and Land Use Controls," 1974 Institute on Planning. Zoning and Eminent Domain I (SW Legal Found, Matthew Bender&Co.); Marcus, "Mandatory Development Rights Transfer and the Taking Clause The Case of Manhattan's Tudor City Parks,"24 Buffalo L Rev 77 (1974); Costonis, "'Fair' Compensation and the Accomodation Power: An- tidotes For the Taking Impasse in Land Use Controversies,"75 Colum L Rev 1021 (1975); Elliott and Marcus, "From Euclid to Ramapo: New Directions in Land Development Controls," 1 Hofstra L Rev 56(1973);Benson, "Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications," 21 Syracuse L Rev 895 (1970). - (Zoning Law] • I . �� :erdr_" • § 8.01[2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-4 • municipality would not otherwise be able to construct itself, usually - because of the prohibitive cost of eminent domain.Amenities include • non-revenue producing building features, such as public plazas, ,parks,covered pedestrian space, theaters,off-street parking,arcades and on-site subway access.s In return,the developer is given permis- sion to use his property in a manner not otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance; for example, to construct his building with more • •floor area than is normally permitted.9 Incentive zoning is thus a trade-off between,the developer and the municipality, resulting in both increased developer profit and public amenities.19 • • - • a See San Francisco Planning Code§ 122. • Also,see Elliot and Marcus,"From Euclid•to.Ramapo:New Directions in Land Development Controls," I Hofstra L Re;.54161 (1973). . . • 9 See, eg:. San Francisco Planning Code§ 122. • The San Francisco plan establishes a special district in the downtown area -whereby a builder receives a bonus in the form of a larger floor area ratio(hereinafter • called FAN than normally permitted. Bonuses are given in return for the devel- oper's providing certain enumerated features in his building,such as a pedestrian mall or a covered plaza.. • 10 See Freilich,"Awakening the Sleeping Giant.New Trends and Development in Environmental and Land-Use Controls,"1974 Institute on Planning.Zoning and Eminent Domain 1,45 (SW Legal Found, Matthew Bender& Co.). The author states: "Bonus or incentive zoning is actually a sophisticated form of barter.A devel- oper,for instance,will want to construct a building higher than a zoning orch- • name allows;or otherwise use his property in such a way that the density will be greater than the municipality allows. On the other hand, the municipality desires amenities which it usually cannot afford to construct itself, usually due • to the prohibitive cost of eminent domain. Bonus zoning is thus a means of . achieving both developer profit and municipal amenities. New York and San ,. Francisco are excellent examples of cities which have enacted comprehensive p ordinances detailing the trades each city is willing to make, in exchange for a • legitimate theatre,off-street parking,a public plaza,multiple entrances,or access to rapid transit.Each amenity.or combination.allows a certain density increase, as by increasing the floor-area ratio.Thus,increased density,which is generally considered undesirable,is offset by an increase in public amenities directly related . to the density,or by public facilities such as theatres or observation decks which the municipality has found to be so desirable as to be willing to accept the y problems inherent in additional population." • • • •• 4�. µ' • • 8-5 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.0113) [3]—Distinctions Incentive zoning should be distinguished from two other regula- tory devices: conditional and contract zoning31 and builder exac- tions.12 Conditional and contract zoning, like incentive zoning, are de- signed to allow more favorable uses of property. Since the.rezoning of property may cause hardship to neighboring property owners or• be a burden to the municipality,33 the applicant agrees to certain restrictive conditions that will ameliorate any negative effects of the change.14 In contrast, the award of an incentive bonus is usually an administrative determination made by the planning commission or similar local body responsible for interpreting and administering the applicable zoning ordinance.15 Incentive zoning involves general leg 11 Conditional zoning may be described as zoning change which permits use of a particular property subject to conditions not generally applicable to other similarly zoned land.See Scrutton v.County of Sacramento 275 Cal App2d 412,79 Cal Rptr 876(1969).In conditional zoning,the property owner covenants to perform certain conditions, perhaps including restrictions on use, dedications of land or physical improvements to the property.The municipality.however,makes no commitments to rezone. In "contract" zoning, however, the landowner enters into reciprocal agreements with the local governing body.The owner promises to restrict the use of his property in return for the municipality's promise to allow the rezoning. Contract zoning agreements have been held illegal by most courts as an ultra vires • bargaining away of the local government's police power.The recent trend,however. is to uphold the validity of conditional zoning,See Church v.Town of Islip,Note 13 infra For a detailed discussion of"Conditional and Contract"zoning,see Ch.S supra. 12 For a detailed discussion of"Builders' Exactions," see Ch. 9 infra 13 See, e.g, Church v.Town of Islip,8 NY2d 254, 203 NYS2d 866, 168 NE2d 680(1960),where the New York Court of Appeals upheld the right of a municipal- ity to condition the rezoning of property upon the prior filing by the property owner of restrictive covenants.The court declared that the imposition of reasonable condi- tions, when necessary to ameliorate the potentially deleterious effects of a zoning change on neighboring property, is a proper exercise of the local government's zoning powers. The Church decision is fully discussed in Ch.5 supra 14 See Church, Note 13 supra:Seruaon.Note 11 supra. See also Bucholz v.City of Omaha, 174 Neb 862, 120 NW2d 270(1963). Also.see Comment,"The Use and Abuse of Contract Zoning," 12 UCLA L Rev 897, 898(1965). 15 See Svirsky."San Francisco:The Downtown Development Bonus System,"in The New Zoning 139, 158 (Marcus&Groves. eds., Praeger-Publishers, 1970).. (Zoning Law) • • • • • • • § 8.011[3] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-6 illation by the local governing body to create the incentive scheme, but does not generally require a concomitant private agreement as • in conditional or contract zoning.16 • Local communities usually derive their power to exact dedications of land from subdividers,or fees in lieu of dedication,from state land dedication statutes." Traditionally, land subdividers have been re- • • quired to provide specified•utilities, pave streets,18 and build side- walks and gutters. More recently, local planning boards have been • • . given authority to exact dedication of park and recreational land from developers,as a condition precedent to approval of subdivisions or the granting of permits.19 Incentive zoning, unlike dedication • 16 Under recently enacted amendments to the plaza incentive provisions for • commercial and residential buildings, New.,York City requires developers to post a bond, City securities or a smrable undertaking to insure the continued mainte- .nanc a of required plaza amenities such as trees and seating.City Planning Commis- sion,Report CP-22784B, Urban Open $pace. Zoning Resolution Section 12-10 • 'Definition. City Planning Commission Report N 760066 ZRY, Urban Design Guidelines—Residential Plazas,Zoning Resolution,Sections 26-00 et al and 37-00 et al. See Krasnowiecki,"The Basic System of Land Use Control:Legislative Preregu- lation v. Ave Discretion" 3, 17-22 (Marcus & Groves, eds., Praeger Publishers 1970), for some of the Iegal issues involved in incentive zoning. - 17 See.ag, Associated Hone Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of •Walnut Creek,94 Cal Rptr 630,484 P2d 606(1971),app dism'd 404 US 878(1971). • 18 See, e.g, Matter of Brous v.Smith,304 NY 164, 106 NE2d 503 (1952). 19 See, e.g: California Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of. Walnut Creek,Note 17 supra (parks). Connecticut Aunt Hack Ridge Estates,Inc.v.Planning Comm'n of the City of Danbury, 160 Conn 109,273 A2d 880(1970)(parks). New York'Jenad,Inc,v.Village of Scarsdale, 18 NY2d 78,271 NYS2d 955,218 NE2d 673(1966)(parks). 1 Wisconsin:Jordan v.Village of Menomonee Falls,28 Wis2d 608, 137 NW2d 442 (1965)(parks and schools). • • Contra; Florida:Admiral Devel.Co.v.City of Maitland,267 So2d 860(Fla 1972)(parks). New Jersey. West Park Ave.v.Twp,of Ocean,48 NJ 122,224 A2d 1 (1966)(fee • to finance schools). See generally Curtin,"Requiring Dedication of Land by Developers," 19741nsri- • lure on Planning Zoning and Eminent Domain 57 (SW Legal Found, Matthew Bender& Co.). • • • . . r .. 8-7 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.01[4] requirements, usually benefits the land owner or developer,since the • . value of the bonus equals or slightly exceeds the cost to the developer of supplying the public benefit-2°In contrast,a dedication may result • in economic loss to the developer by requiring him to provide various facilities as a condition to subdivision approval.21 [4]--The Density Bonus Through Increased FAR The most common example of incentive zoning is an increase in density22 in the form of bonus floor area,23 In return for providing See Ch.9 info for comprehensive discussion of builders'exactions. 20 See San Francisco Planning Code §122. Also,see Costonis, '".The.Chicago Plan;Incentive Zoning and the Preservation of Urban.Landmarks,"'85 Mary L Rev 574,576(1972).The author in discussing incentive zoning_plans notes than "Although these programs differ widely among themselves,they are all pre- wised upon a trade between the city and the developer.The city telexes its zoning bulk restrictions, thereby allowing the developer to build more profitably by - including more rentable floor area in his project than the prevailing zoning otherwise permits.In return the developer must either provide a public amenity, such as a plaza,at his own expense or make a cash payment that will enable the _ city to finance the purchase of a public improvement. "How does the city derive the additional floor area that it allocates to the developer?If the city seeks an amenity,it simply creates the floor area ex nihilo and bestows it upon the developer as a so-called'zoning bonus.'The amount of the bonus is calculated to equal or slightly to exceed in value the cost that the developer incurs in providing the amenity." (Footnotes omitted.) 21 Despite the possibility of economic loss,the theory behind judicial approval of subdivision dedication and fee exaction requirements is the belief that the subdivider actually realizes a profit from governmental approval of a subdivision because the• subdivision makes his land more valuable. It has therefore been held that the subdivider has the duty to comply with reasonable conditons for design,dedication, improvement and restrictive use of the land. Ayres v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles,34( ma 31, 207 P2d 1 (1949). 22 In Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed 303(1926),the United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of local govern- ments to promulgate zoning regulations on the theory that the concentration of population had increased,and would probably require further restrictions on the use of private property in urban areas. Today, "density" control in urban areas is becoming more important than the regulation of uses. See Mandelker,"The Basic • Philosophy of Zoning:Incentive or Restraint,"in The New Zoning 14, 19(Marcus &Groves,eels. Praeger Publishers, 1970).. A municipality's power to regulate density rests on a grant of such power from (zoning Law) • .sue • 8-45 - ItYCBNTIVE ZONING 8.02[31 4. P, The city of Madison, Wisconsin, encourages subdividers and de- velopers to provide open spaces by means of flexible minimum. lot requirements.63 . In Lexington, Kentucky,builders of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)who provide extra recreation areas are entitled to floor area. • bonuses." Developers of PUDs in New Castle, Delaware, are en- See also the following ordinances which offer bonus floor area for setbacks at upper floor levels in order to provide more light and air at street level: Baltimore Zoning Ord § 6.4-2(c). Seattle Zoning Ord §§ 26.32.80,26.32.90. • Denver Zoning Ord § 10-4(3Xb)- See also Boston Zoning Ord § 15-2, which allows a floor area bonus if extra parking spaces are provided. ' 63 Madison Zoning Code-§26.06(1XcXI), (2).The section states: "1.Subdivisions Containing Qualifying Permanent Open Spares In the RI and 1 . R2 districts, where a land owner, developer or subdivider provides qualifying permanent open spaces as a part of a recorded subdivision containing lots for single-family detached dwellings, the lots within'such subdivision may have a minimum lot area and minimum lot width twenty percent(20%)less than herein otherwise required for the district or districts in which subdivision is located. _ Provided,however,in no case shall the total area of lot area reduction be more i __ than the total area of the qualifying permanent open spaces.Qualifying per?na- neat open space shall be land located within a subdivision at a location,size and shape as specifically approved by the Plan Commission and shall have an area of not less than four(4)acres or ten percent(l0%)•of the subdivision,exclusive- of street and alleys, whichever is the greater. Further, a qualifying permanent open space shall be a private recreation area where the ownership and mainte- nance responsibilities for such open space shall be assumed by the property owners with the necessary legal authority to discharge said responsibilities and where the use of such area for open space use shall be perpetuated by recorded covenants running with the land for the benefit of the owners within such subdivi- sion. "2.No use shall be established or hereafter maintained on a lot recorded after the effective date of this ordinance, which is of less area or less width than prescribed-herein for such use in the zoning district in which it is to be located. However,in the R5 and R6 districts,where the owner or owners of a zoning lot agree by a recorded covenant in favor of the City that the building coverage on a zoning lot shall not exceed 0.3,the lot area requirements for dwelling units and lodging rooms for the district in which such lot is located may be decreased by twenty percent(20%)." c 64 See Lexington, Ky.-Fayette County Zoning Ord. §§ 13.527, 13.522. Section 13.527, which pertains to useable open space and screening, states: (Zoning 1_1w, ~ ''... T'wMhG .0._ Y :7 III -•. T § 8.02[3] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-46 .tr • couraged to construct low or moderate income housing by the award of density bonuses."The PUD technique,it should be noted,is itself . "Proper useable open spaces shall be devoted to recreation needs of the project for active and passive use.At least twenty(200)per cent of the total area shall if • be devoted to such properly planned permanent useable open space. No area • smaller than five thousand(5,000)square feet shall be considered'as useable open screening space. Appropriate screening for visual and noise barriers shall be provided as required by Article 20." • • - The bonus provision, which is found is § 13.522, roads: .� "The total floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the maximum floor area • permitted in the zone in which the project is located,unless specific permission • . is given by the Commission to exceed said permitted floor area by no more than • r:? one(1%)per cent for each one(1%)per cent additional recreation area that is • - provided over the minimum required hereinbelow by Section 13.527 but in any case not to exceed the maximum floor area by more than ten(10%)per cent." • • See also General Policy Statement ofBoarittlf Supervisors of San Joaquin County, ' Cal(1970)to guide the local planning commission in the granting of approval of • PUDs pursuant to'Ord 850 of the County Zoning Code.Among the guiding princi- - plea listed are the following incentive,provisions: • - "7. Rights-of-way for equestrian, cycling,hiking and other • • types of trails and scenic ways may be dedicated in 'fee' to the County through a space ex- • change by reduction in lot ci7M on an equal square foot basis,providing that the requirements as to area and location meet the requirements of the . • Planning Commission as approved by the Board of Supervisors.Rights-of- : • ' • _ _ way for water courses and other similar channels are not acceptable for space exchange under Planned Unit Development. however, the portion of the right-of-way that is usable as a trial or similar way may be acceptable,but • must be approved by the County Planning Commission. "10. Commercial development is encouraged to make a variety of uses of the setback requirements by trading space through the development of open r plazas, pedestrian malls, tot lots and other public spaces and uses with • • adequate planting. • "11.Industrial development is encouraged to make a better use of - pm ged required open • space by varying the setback and other requirements,if it can be shown that the development results in a more efficient and effective use of space.Zero setbacks of buildings may be approved providing requirements of parking and access can be met and the adjoining property is not adversely affected." 88 New Castle,Del.County Code(Zoning)§23.80(c)(3).The statute provides: ' • "For each unit of publicly or privately subsidized housing(housing constructed . pursuant to a federal, state, local or private low or middle income housing ' program), the developer shall be permitted to build one unit of non-subsidized housing over and above the number permitted as a result of the application of the standard of maximum average gross residential density, including bonus units, but subject to the aforesaid maximum average gross residential density of nine 4 • p . i __ .r- S7. r Vic;'...0 ... . Q:: s + ',,,, 7. i,. :- 8-47 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.0201 a form of incentive zoning because it encourages economical use of • land for the benefit of the developer,the occupants and the neighbors • • of the PUD.6s dwelling units per acre.A low or middle income housing program is one under ' . which(1)the rental or purchase costs of housing are reduced by direct grant,by below market interest rates,or by continuing direct subsidy payments for rent or interest,and(2)there are regulations which reasonably assure that the dwelling units will be occupied by families or individuals whose incomes would otherwise be insufficient to permit them to occupy housing of equivalent quality and size." "Gross residential density"is described in §23.80(1)(bxl),as follows: • "The maximum allowable average gross residential density for DPUD's shall be seven dwelling viiits.per acre of.land; except,that higher densities may be allowed in ac curdance.with the bonus provisions contained in this article.In no event shall the:average gross residential density exceed nine dwelling units per • acre.However,in areas zoned.R i--A and R-1-BB at the time of the introduction of the zoning ordinance for a DPUD the maximum allowable average gross residential density for a DPUD shall be three dwelling units per acre of land; except,that higher density may be allowed in accordance with the-bonus provi- sions contained in this article,but in no event shall the average gross residential • density for such DPUD'S exceed four dwelling units per acre." 66 (. Planned Unit Development(PUD)has its basis ht the concept of clustering. a zoning technique that differs from the normal Euclidean grid pattern in that • buildings are grouped in certain areas,and the remaining land is left open for other purposes.The clustering concept is broadened in the PUD to include a variety of uses—i.e., residential, commercial, industrial—within a single development. The intermixing of a variety of uses in a PUD requires careful, extensive and early planning to tailor the development to the land and its surroundings. • Local ordinances,passed pursuant to general enabling statutes permitting cluster- ing and PUDs,have been judicially sanctioned as a means of avoiding the"cookie cutter" approach of Euclidean development and promoting the "self-contained community."See Orinde Homeowners v.Bd.of Supervisors,90 Cal Rptr 88, 11 Cal App3d 768 (1970). See also Cheney v.Village 2 at New Hope,Inc.,429 Pa 626,241 A2d 8l; 82-83 (1968),where the court described the PUI)concept as follows: "Under traditional concepts of zoning the task of determining the type,density and placement of buildings which should exist within any given zoning district devolves upon the local legislative body. In order that this body might have to speak only infrequently on the issue of municipal planning and zoning,the local • legislature usually enacts detailed requirements for the type,size and location of buildings within each given zoning district, and leaves the ministerial task of enforcing these regulations to an appointed zoning administrator, with another administrative body,the zoning board of adjustment.passing on individual devia- • tions from the strict district requirements,deviations known commonly as vari- ances and special exceptions. At the same time,the overall rules governing the (Zoning LUwl • • • y' • is 8.02[3] ZONING AND LAND USE COr r rRot.s 8-48 dimensions,placement,etc.of primarily public additions to ground,e.g.,streets, sewers,playgrounds,are formulated by the local legislature through the passage • of subdivision regulations.These regulations are enforced and applied to individ- ual lots by an administrative body usually known as the planning commission. • "This general approach to zoning fares reasonably well so long as.development takes place on a lot-by-lot basis, and so long as no one cares that the overall appearance of the municipality resembles the design achieved by using a cookie • R,< cutter on a sheet of dough.However,with the increasing popularity of large scale �•' residential developments,particularly in suburban areas,it has become apparent to many local municipalities that land can be more efficiently used,and develop- meats more aesthetically pleasing,if zoning regulations focus on density require- - meats rather than on specific rules for each individual lot.Under density zoning, the legislature determines what percentae of a particular district must be devoted to open space,for example,and what percentage used for dwelling units.The task of filling in the particular district With real houses and real open spaces then falls upon the planning commission usually working in conjunction with an individual • large scale developer.See Chrinko v.South Brunswick Twp., Planning Bd., 77 • NJ.Super.594, 187 A.2d 22I(1963).The ultimate goal of this so-called density or cluster concept cep of zoning is achieved when an entire self-contained little • community is permitted to be built within a zoning district, with the rules of density controlling not only the relation of private dwellings to open space,but also the relation of homes to commercial establishments such as theaters,hotels, restaurants, and quasi-commercial uses such as schools and churches." wo, • For a detailed discussion of PUDs,see Part V infra. Cluster zoning is discussed in Ch. 12 infra • • • • • • • • • �1,• • E z • • • • 4 _ .. r.; a 8-49 • INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.03[1] § 8.03 Constitutional and Other Legal Issues [1]—Generally - - I In the landmark decision of Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,' . • the United States Supreme Court established a general test to deter- • mine the constitutionality of zoning ordinances. Under that test, a zoning ordinance which is shown to be clearly arbitrary and unrea sonable, and to have no substantial relation to the public health, . safety, morals or general welfare, will be declared invalid.2 Implicit ' i in Euclid is the principle that zoning is a legitimate method of protecting the general welfare, and that the concept of "general welfare" is continually changing and growing.3 Although it is still � - too early to determine the validity of bonus zoning schemes,' it • % would appear that such plans will be sustained because of their tendency to benefit the public welfare.5 1 272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed 303(1926). ( 2 272 US at 395. `t 3 Justice Sutherland stated(272 U.S. at 386•-387) that: - - _ "Building zone laws are of modem origin.They began in this country about (f - urban life was com tivel sim le;but • sweaty-five years ago.Until recent years, � Y � p • • with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have devel- - aped,and constantly are developing,which require,and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in • urban communities.Regulations,the wisdom,necessity and validity of which,as u applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that-they are now uniformly sustained,a century ago,or even half a century ago,probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained,,under the complex conditions of our day,for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street nJ railways,would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable.And • • in this there is no inconsistency,for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies,the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise." 'See§ 8.02 supra for examples of bonus zoning plans. 5 The "general welfare" has been judicially recognized to be distinct from the - traditional objectives of zoning legislation,which is the protection of public health, safety and morals.The expansion of the meaning of"general welfare"in terms of legitimate use of the zoning power is illustrated by the increasingly favorable atti- tude of the courts toward zoning for aesthetic purposes, that is zoning to protect - or enhance community appearance.See.e.g.. People v. Stover,_12 NY2d 462. 240 (Zoning taw) • \ 3. .r- .c't te. +r.-a . • § 8.03[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-50 • • Several constitutional and legal challenges to bonus zoning plans can be posed. Specifically, it can be argued: (I) that such plans are . - NYS2d 734,191 NE2d 272(1963),where the New York Court of Appeals sustained .on aesthetic grounds an ordinance prohibiting the erection of a clothesline in a front or side yard fatting a street.The court stated in pertinent part, 12 NY2d at 466-468 R: than, "There are a number of early decisions,both in this State(see People ex teL . neburgh Ada Co. v.Murphy. 195 N.Y. 126)and elsewhere(see,e.g. Varney &Green v. Williams. 155 Cal 318; City of Chica go v. Gunnin g System. 214 I . • ` S 628; City of Passaic v. Paterson Bill!Wring Adv. &Sign Painting Co. 72 N. J. L 285;Bryan v.City of Chaster,212 Pa.259),which hold that aesthetic consider- ations are not alone sufficient to justify exercise of the police power. But since ' 1930 this court has taken pains repeatedly to declare that the issue is an open and • 'unsettled'one in New York.(People v.Rubenfeld. 254 N.Y.245,248-249;see, • S • also,Perlmutter v. Greene, 259 N.Y. 327;332;New York State Thruway.Auth. . v. Ashley Motor Ca, 10 N Y 2d 151, 1i6-i,57.) In addition, we have actually reeognized the governmental interest in preserving the appearanco'of the commu- nity by bolding that,whether or not aesthetic considerations are in and of theca- • selves sufficient to support an exercise of the police power,they may be taken into account by the legislative body in enacting laws which are also designed to promote health and safety.(See,e.g.,Matter of Wulfsoim v.Burden, 241 N. Y. 288, 303; Downey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 230; Perlmutter v. • Greene, 259 N.Y.327,331-332,supra;Baddour v. City of Long Beach, 279 N. . Y. 167, 174, Matter of Presnell v. Leslie. 3 N Y 2d 384, 389; New York State '_ Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Ct. 10 N Y 2d 151, 157, supra.) `AEsthetic considerations',this court wrote in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington (257 N. Y. • - 221, 230, supra), "are, fortunately, not wholly without weight in a practical ' world. - . "Once it be conceded that aesthetics is a valid subject of legislative concern, . the conclusion seems inescapable that reasonable legislation designed to promote • that end is a valid and permissible exercise of the police power.If zoning restric- • dons'which implement a policy of neighborhood amenity'are to be stricken as invalid,it should be,one commentator has said,not because they seek to promote 'aesthetic objectives'but solely because the restrictions constitute'unreasonable - q. devices of implementing community policy.'(Dukeminier,Zoning for Aesthetic • Objectives:A Reappraisal,20 Law&Contemp. Prob. 218,231.)Consequently, whether such a statute or ordinance should be voided should depend upon whether the restriction was'an arbitrary and irrational method of achieving an attractive,efficiently functioning,prosperous community—and not upon whether . - the objectives were primarily aesthetic.'(Dukeminier,loc cit.)And,indeed,this ' view finds support in an ever-increasing number of cases from other jurisdictions which recognize that aesthetic considerations alone may warrant an exercise of • the police power.(See,e.g.,Berman v.Parker. 348 U.S.26,33; General Outdoor ' Ada Co.v.Department of Public Works.289 Mass. 149,187--188,app.dsmd.297 ° U. S. 725;Sunad. inc. v. City of Sarasota, 122 So. 2d 611 [Fla.]; State ex reL • & ,r LM--',. -_"..may St :6 �". • 8-51 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.03[2] • an unconstitutional"taking"of property;6(2)that in particular cases bonus zoning bears no rational relation to the exercise of the police power;' (3)that such zoning constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws and (4) that the various state enabling acts do not • authorize municipalities to enact bonus zoning provision.9 [2]—Constitutional Objections [a]—"Taking" by Unreasonable FAR. Incentive zoning plans, Rv in order to encourage builders to include public amenities in their construction projects, commonly award bonuses in the form of in- creased floor area ratio(FAR).'0 Most builders will not benefit from such a plan,however,-if the underlying or"residual"FAR(the FAR to which the builder,will be subject if he does not choose to provide amenities) differs little from the bonus FAR. Thus, there is the danger that some municipalities may reduce the residual FAR to an excessively low level so as to encourage developers to apply for the bonus." l • Civello v.New Orleans 154 La.2771,284-285;Best v.Zoning Bd of Adjustment, _ 393 Pa. 106, 116-117;State ex ref:Saveland lurk Holding Corp. v. Wieland 269 Wis.262,271-272,cert.den.350 U.S.841;Churchill& Tait v.Rafferty, 32 P. L 580,app.dsmd.248 U.S.591;see,also,8 McQuillin,Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], § 25.31.)As Mr. Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous court in Berman, put it(348 U. S.,at p. 33): - N "`The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.***The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical,aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community t i should be beautiful as well as healthy,spacious as well as clean,well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. * * • If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.'" For a detailed discussion of Aesthetic Zoning, see Ch. 16 infra • 6 Sec§ 8.03[2] [a] infra 7 See§ 8.03[2] [b] infra. a See§ 8.03 [2] [c] infra 9 See § 8.03[3] infra. 10 As noted previously (see § 8.01[4] supra), the FAR regulates the physical volume of a building.The FAR is the ratio which the floor area within a building bears to the area of ground covered by the building.More floor area generally means more rentable space for a developer and thus potentially higher profits on his investment. 13 In San Francisco,for example,residual FAR in office districts was reduced to (Zoning Law) •4 t j . -'i• R- - • C' § 8.03[2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS• 8-52 • If the residual FAR restrictions become so stringent that the developer cannot properly use his property for any reasonable purpose,72 a challenge on the ground of an unconstitutional taking fourteen from the pre-existing range of sixteen to twenty.See§8.02[2]supra This particular reduction in the residual FAR would not appear to be so excessive as to open the way for a successful court challenge. See Benson, "Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications," 21 Syracuse L Rev 895. 897 (1970). 121"he Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that"private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Conn.,Amend. V. A"taking"may result when restrictions on a landowner's free use and enjoyment of his property are sufficient to amount to a"confiscation"of his property. See 2 Nichols On Eminent Domain § 6.1(1].(Matthew Bender & Co). If a taking is involved,due process requires that compensation be paid to the property owner.See Pennsylvania Coal Co v.Mahon,260 US 393;415,43 S Ct 158,67 L Ed 322(1922). • Among the standards that have been devised by the courts to distinguish between valid police power regulation(including zoning)which requires no compensation, • and a taking of property for which compensation must be paid,are the"physical invasion" test, the "noxious use" test, the "diminution in value" test and the - "arbitral-enterprise"test.See Sax,"Takings and the Police Power,"74 Yale L J 36 (1964). The"physical invasion"test requires compensation when the government takes .; - physical possession of affected premises.See, e.g. Transportation Co v.Chicago, 99 US 635, 98 S Ct 635, 25 L Ed 336(1878). Under the"noxious use"test,the court examines the nature of the property use which is limited by a governmental regulation.If the affected use is deemed prejudi- cial to public health,safety and morals the government may validly regulate it,and • any resulting decrease in value is not compassable. See. eg:, Hadacheck v.Sebes- tian,239 US 394,36 S Ct 143(1915)(the state without payment of compensation - may prohibit the operation of a brickyard in a residential neighborhood on the grounds the yard is offensive to public health).Under a corollary test,however,if the purpose of the regulation is to secure some benefit for the entire community at the expense of the landowners rather than to prevent a nui'arc".,there is a taking. See, a&, State v. Johnson, 265 A2d 711, 716 (Me 1970); Morris County Land Improvement Co.v.Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills,40 NJ 539,554-556, 193 A2d 232,241-242(1963). The standard most often used to distinguish a taking from valid regulation under the zoning power is the"diminution in value"test.No compensation is required if g po pensa req the value of existing property is diminished somewhat by government regulation. xs If there is a substantial reduction in value,however,compensation must be made. See Pennsylvania Coal Co.v.Mahon supra. A recent modification of this test has limited the original rule. Under the new approach, where rite regulation seeks to preserve the status quo rather than to improve the public condition,the impact upon y`. the value of the land for its potential use does not constitute a taking.See,eg.. Just • r. .. _ . .. _ .. . _ . 8-53 INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.03[21 may arise.t3 An attack on such grounds may, however, be difficult to sustain. As a general rule, the mere showing of a diminution in v.Marinette County, 56 Wis 2d 7,201 NW2d 761(1972)(no taking found where shoreland zoning ordinance forbade landowners from placing fill on their wetland property without a conditional use permit). Under the "arbitral-enterprise test (see Sax, supra at 62-63), when the state resolves disputes between competing private parties in its arbitral capacity, any resulting decrease in value of the landowner's property requires no compensation. i On the other hand, when the govertument uses private resources for the public benefit, it acts in its enterprise capacity, and must compensate the owner for the taking.See,ag.Morris County,Land Improvement Co.supra, where the township restricted use of plaintiff's land to public recreational,wildlife sanctuary,and sewage treatment plant uses.Since the regulated properties had been added to the govern- • ment's resources in several.of its enterprise categories, there was a taking. For a detailed treatment of the taking issue in the context of zoning and land use controls,see Part V infra 13 See Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher,278 NY 222, 15 NE2d 587, 117 ALR 1110(1938).To sustain an attack upon the validity of a zoning ordinance, • an aggrieved property owner must show that enforcement of the ordinance and its restrictions would preclude the use of the property for any purpose to which it is • reasonably adapted. - For similar holdings,see: California:Mid-Way Cabinet Mfg.Co.v.County of San Joaquin,257 Cal App2d 181, 65 Cal Rptr 37(1967). Connecticut Vartelas v.Water Resources Comm'n, 146 Conn 650, 153 A2d 822 (1959): Idaho:Ruark v. City of Caldwell, 87 Idaho 557, 394 P2d 641 (1964). y• Indiana:Indiana Toll Road Comm'n v.Jankovich,244 Ind 574, 193 NE2c1 237 (1963), app dism'd 379 US 487 (1965). • Masmchusettr Campbell v. City of Boston,290 Mass 427, 195 NE 802'0935). Missouri Bellerive Inv.Co.v. Kansas City, 321 Mo 969, 13 SW2d 628 (1929). Oklahoma:Phillips Petroleum Co.v.Corp.Comm'n,312 P2d 916(Okla 1957). Pennsylvania:Valley Hills Civic Ass'n v.Bd.of Adjustment,414 Pa 367,200 A2d 408(1964). Washington: Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wash2d 400, 348 P2d 664, 77 ALR2d 1344(1960). • i I Also,see Benson,"Bonus or Incentive Zoning—Legal Implications,"21 Syracuse i I L Rev 895, 897(1970), where the author quotes from Professor Mandelker who, at a Zoning Conference at the New School for Social Research,May 15-17, 1969, commented that: "flihe more the residual zone is.away from what ought to be on the spot,I think the greater opportunity there is going to be for a successful attack on the underly- ing residual zone....[Ms the project moves along at the much higher densities or intensities..-. the underlying residual zoning, I think,will become more and more open to attack." (Zoning Law) ' l • § 8.03[2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-54 value is not enough to prove that a zoning regulation is confisca- • tory.14 Moreover, a zoning ordinance generally will not be held unconstitutional merely because it prohibits a landowner from using or developing his land in the most profitable manner.rs • } 14 See,eg.. Matter of Golden v.Planning Bd.of Town of Ramapo,30 NY2d 359, • 381. 334 NYS2d 138, 154, 285 NE2d 291, 304, (1972)app dism'd 409 US 1003 (1972)where the court stated: fi • "Every restriction on the use of property entails hardships for some individual owners.These difficulties are invariably the product of police regulation and the pecuniary profits of the individual must in the long run be subordinated to the needs of the community.** •The fact that the ordinance limits the use of,and may depreciate the value of.the property will not render it unconstitutional, however,unless it can be shown that the measure is either unreasonable in terms • . . of necessity or the diminution in value is such as to be tantamount to a confisca. a 2: Lion." • See also HMI,Ltd.v.Superior Court of Los,Angeles County, 15 Cal3d 508, 125 • Cal Rptr 365(1975),cart denied 96 S Ci 1495(1976). 13 See,a&,Guaclddes v.Borough of Englewood Cliffs,11 NJ Super 405,78 A2d 435(1951).A zoning amendment changed all multifamily dwelling districts within a borough to single family zones,with the exception of a small area at one end.No apartment houses or other multifamil y structures had ever been built in the bor- ough.The New Jersey court held that the amendment,as applied to a large tract of land upon which houses could be built only at high cost,did not constitute an • unconstitutional taking of property. • See also Arkansas City of Little Rock,v. Sun Bldg. and Devel. Co., 199 Ark 333, 134 . SW2d 582(1940). California Metro Realty v.County of Eldorado,222 Cal App2d 508,35 Cal Rptr 480(1963). Kentucky, Blancett v.Montgomery,398 SW2d 877, 10 ALR3d 1220(Icy 1966). • 43` Cf. Roark v.City of Caldwell,87 Idaho 557,394 P2d 641(1964),where the Idaho • Supreme Court ruled.that a city ordinance that restricted the height of structures • and limited the use of land adjacent to an airport to agricultural uses and single • family dwelling was unconstitutional.Declaring that there would be a loss in value to the affected property if the restrictions were enforced,the court found a taking of private proms` public blic use in the constitutional sense. Moreover,since no compensation had been provided for the taking of such property,the ordinance was • declared invalid. . :• As a general rule,where the zoning action goes beyond the mere diminution of market value and instead has the substantial effect of depriving the landowner of • any reasonable or beneficial use of his property,d,e.,there is a de facto prohibition of all uses of the property so as to amount to a complete diminution in value,there may be a taking of property in violation of constitutional guarantees.See.e.g., Fred • • • • P M xi • • I 1. UR."it.""85 Vi Knight - 2. PD-5-85 Scotswood 5. Z-13-85 P &. S Sporting Goods, Inc. 6. 2i-14-85 James Hill 3. PD-6-85 Bradshaw Mobile Acres Z-12-85 Wildwood Section IV T. Land. Use Plan and Ordinance - 4. i Text Amendments NAME I-.__.. _._._.. __. _. E M N O. • C. D- ,. , .. .__ ... - __._. . .%, — - _ J__ ..-_G. f�:E.T'E tin 9 T. i- - - ...._.. .....3 .._. _ . ..__.. _' _ C. be_rs he 1 tr. - ..._ _._ _ . ..._ - ....1 8. i _ II ii 10. �QCS _ - - �— . . '� . _•_L - -t ._ .V L',, .Z._ _.. .. _._... . .4_____..._, - 1 A 14. F/3 "1". II _ 1i • i f • ,I a .---- _ I. 16. _ . ...... . ... u r i. -004 ._ .4d . 41Pd____ ._ _______ 23.__ Fr:61,4 _ /1,1E4( - -- - . v.. c� 25. — -- II 1 26. _ %V ' IIrli ,,. . Za -; _ --- , MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY MEETING hUVEMBER 25, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Planning Board on November 25. 1985. 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. CONALfMkgagtaajammta Chair Don Willhoit. and Commissioners Shirley Marshall:1 Moses Carey, Norman Walker and Ben Lloyd. allAMATICEMMEML Geoffrey Gledhill. EIRREMBOSMIESERIEREMEL Chair Alice Gordon. and members Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Steve Kizer, Peter Kramer, Frank Pearson, David Shanklin, Carl. Walkers and Steve Yuhasz. ETAIMMIXEMASEERIEnim Members Margaret Miller, Sharlene Pilkey. and Betty M. Margison. finVEggEWLL County Manager Kenneth R. Thomson, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. Director of Planning Marvin Collins and Planner Susan Smrth. a. PUBLIC HEARA.V ITEMS 1. WP-4415 VIC KNIGHT MURAL RESIDENTIAL TO COKKERMAL 'MAMMON ACTUITEMMEL pasmuctumma Planner Gene Bell presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for a 3.12 acre tract Owned by Gary Richardson and located on the east side of N.C. 86 approximately 1.2 miles south of 1-85. The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan designation of the property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Ttansition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Node. The applicant cites changed or changing conditions as the reason for the amendment. Various non- residential uses in the area are mentioned as justification for the reason for the amendment. The changing nature of this area was addressed in the "Central Orange Area Study" in 1983, the result being: (1) Redesignation of the node from Commercial Transition to Ocauercial-Industrial Transition, and (2) Expansion of the node (in accordance with the location criteria in section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan) to encompass the nonresidential land uses. Analysis of a Land Use Plan amendment requires that the requested designation be compatible with the applicable Locational Criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan. The locational criterion for hydrology. flora & fauna, energy use and historic and cultural sites is compatible or consistent for the Ccauercial-Industrial Node. The location criteria for land slope is borderline. Calculations based on measurements taken from USGS topo maps indicate slope of slightly over 14%. The same soil conditions, public services/utilities. agriculture & forestry and population density exists in both the 10 and 2b year Transition Areas as for the Commercial-Industrial hbde. The propbsed amendment is not consistent or compatible with the transportation 4tem or the existing land use plan. The recommendation from the Planning Staff is that the Land Use Plan amendment application for redesignation from Rural Residential to 10 Year Transition/Commercial-Industrial Transition Node be denied because (1) the "CtilertirginnzrA:: adequately giVsts= nonresidential dde7eloedepmn Study" 1 criteria for the requested Land Use classification. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD None. 2 PBBSENDITOW BY THE APPLICANT Vic Knight read a letter from Gary Carleen Richardson as stated below: "Members of the Orange County Planning Board and Hillsborough Residents - With your permission and consent I would like to change the listing of my property from Rural Residential to Commercial-Industrial. My wishes are that my property be developed and used for the beautification, progress, growth and prosperity of Hillsborough. This is my heritage, the place of my birth, of which I am extremely proud. My hopes and dreams are to see the land be developed to its highest potential. I take pleasure and am happy to relinquish a part of my heritage for the town's growth, beautification and development which can be enjoyed by many future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Most appreciative. Miss Gary Carleen Richardson." Mr. Knight stated that this land is part of Miss Richardson's background and that she is concerned about the growth that will take place and interested benefit NS F1 CITTZE! • None. ' Z. PD-5-85 SOOTSWOOD (RESIDENTIAL-1 TO I DIP DEVELCOMMT HOUSING R-2 IM-----k5ANP—Eraitantr&gtiffaLgaitMWWI Those people who wished to comment on this item were sworn in by Chair Wilihoit. Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John N. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. for 331.12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypas and St. Mary's Road northeast of Hillsborough. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classific tion is Residential-1. Collins pointed out on a map the location of the proposed project using as points of reference Highway 70, Orange High School, Cameron Park School and St. Mary's Road. He indicated the type of zoning ' surrounding the proposed development. The applicants are requesting three different zoning designations: (1) 290.03 acres - PD-R-R-2 (2) 129.5 acres - PD-H-R-5 (3) 10.43 acres - PD'-GC4 Collins pointed out on a large scale map the location of the three different zoning areas. The commercial portion would be located at the intersection of Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road and would consist of a grocery store, drug stoke, and other small shops. Two accesses to this area are proposed from Highway 70. The estimated population of the development when built-out, based on the 1980 per hOusehold population of 2.6 persons per household and based on the 626 dwelling units proposed, would be 1,765 persons. Impacts of the development include: (l)Water and Sewer Services - the applicant is to provide water and sewer lines within the development. The plans have been reviewed by the water superintendent for the Town of Hillsborough who has given approval of the plans. The water pressure seems to be adequate to serve the property. On November 18. 1985; the Hillsborough Town Board agreed to provide water and sewer service to the project. The Orange County Planning Staff looked at the capacity of the Hillsborough water treatment plant and the sewage treatment plant to determine what impact this development would have on those facilities. The current water treatment plant capacity is 3.0 MGD with 1.4 MGD being used. Given development that the Town has approved over the past 3 , year it is estimated that 519,000 GPD additional water will be used by these projects. This would increase the usage to 64% which represents an increase of 17% above what it is now. The Scotswood development and Wildwood Section Iv' would take another estimated 283,000 GPO which represents 74% of the water treatment plant's capacity. Scotswood would use 247,000 GPD. In terms of the sewer treatment plant, the increase in usage would increase from 66% to 81%. • Commissioner Marshall asked what impact could be expected with the additional 325,000 GPD promised for the Efland sewer and Collins indicated the 325.000 GPD would absorb from 15 to 17% of the capacity putting it near capacity for the sewer treatment plant and at 90% capacity for water treatment. 12/_ raffic Impacts - the traffic count for St. Mary's Road for 1981 indicated 2000 vehicle trips per day. Highway 70 Bypass east of NC 86 has 7.800 vehidle trips a day and about 8.800 trips a day just east of Lawrence Road and Highway 70. According to the traffic impact analysis prepared by the applicant's engineer, Scotswood would generate 5,700 trips to the site and an equal amount from the site on an average day. It would add 1,725 daily trips east of the project on St. Mary's Road and 3.450 trips west of the project on St. Mary's Road. An additional 4,025 would be added to US 70 Bypass east and 2.300 trips to US 70 west of the project. (3) Recreation Facilities - the applicant has proposed a swimming pool, two tennis lanurts, and a recreation building to serve the multifamily dwellings and proposed a total of 16.2 acres for this purpose. In the single family development there will be approximately six acres designated as a recreation area. The remaining ten acres would be designated along the creek which runs through the property and has been initially designated for passive • recreation. This creek is included in the floodplain which runs along the creek. (4) School Facilities - The number of estimated school- age children for the Single family developmnt would be 294 school-age children. For the multi-family development it is estimated that 42 school-age children would be added bringing the total for the project to 336. The students in grades K-5 would attend Cameron Park School, the children in grades 6-7 would attend A. L. Stanback, the children in grades 8-9 would attend Stanford Jr. High and the children in grades 10-12 would attend Orange High School. The Orange County Boa'rd of Education has indicated that all schools except Orange High are operating at capacity. (5) Police, Fire and Rescue Services - The Orange Rural Fire Department has indicated they can provide fire protection with proper sized water lines and Eire hydrants at proper intervals. The Sheriff's office has indicated they will require three additional personnel and two additional vehicles to provide adequate protection. The Orange County Rescue Squad can presently provide service for this development. The Town of Hillsborough, in a letter dated November 12, 1985 to the Board of Comissioners, expressed a concern about the traffic safety and congestion along Bighway 70 especially in the Cameron Park School area and in downtown Hillsborough and recommended as a requirement for approval of the project substantial improvements to Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road. Other conditions of approval include: (1) provide curb and gutter along all streets, (2) provide sidewalks along both sides of the streets within the residential areas, (3) construct the lift station at the southeast section of the project of sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along St. Mary's Road, (4) install sewer lines more than 100 feet from Nancy Hill creek. The Preliminary utilities plan indicates that sewer lines are to • be installed at least 50-80 feet from the creek. Members also asked that the lines be placed on a 6" sand base with additional protective measures to help prevent any leakage, (5) install mercury lights throughout the project area as the project develops for additional security, (6) provide more recreation space than the roposed 6.0 acres at the north end of the single family .. 4 development, and spread out the open space/recreation areas in order to more adequately serve the single-family lots. Provide a "greenway area" along Nancy Hill Creek with a jogging trail and other recreational activities. (7) install a traffic light immediately at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and Highway 70 BypasS. (8) provide a minimum side and rear setback area of 20 feet rather than 15 feet for each single-family lot. (9) submit data concerning the amount of impervious surface to be added by the project, and (10) require the developer to place on file with the Town of Hillsborough a petition for voluntary annexation for the proposed project area. Collins presented the staff's recommendation. He explained that the applicant must comply with specific standards for a planned development and that given the three different types of development the applicant must comply with the specific standards for each of the three types. In addition to the standards for a planned development, all the other development standards contained in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance must be met. The planning staff has found that the applicant does comply with all the requirements for approval and, therefore, recommends approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions as listed below: 1. The grantee of this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County. in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an anicunt equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully executed construction f 1 contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other i-- pedestrian welkWays; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; landscaping and mulching. ,:..:. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the devel- opment and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility proviOer. 4. The grantee Shall promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the develop** and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry 1 of Deeds. 5. Roads, parking areas. walkways, street signs. utilities, recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around units shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained andlperated in a safe manner. 6. Left and right turn lanes shall be provided on St. Mary's Road at proposed Graham Drive. • 7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right-of-way with a 41' paved cross section. Hamilton Way shall extend directly north to Baldwin Road and Cameron Circle realigned to curve into Hamilton Way at a 90 degree angle , instead of connecting to Baldwin Road. This would provide an efficient collector system Using Graham Drive and Hamilton Way. 8. Torn lanes to the east and west shall be provided on Graham Drive at the intersection withISt. Mary's Road. 9. Curb and gutter shall be provided along all streets. 10. A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the street along all streets in the PD-H-R2 I zone with curb cuts for the handicapped at street ' intersections. ( V PT Y . : . s 11. Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90 foot right-of-way, containing a 65 foot cross section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot wide median. This would allow appropriate room for heavier vehicles. 12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevard into the multifamily and Oommercial areas. 13. The driveway off Scotswood Boulevard into the commercial section is inappropriate for the entrance of trucks. The radii should be reworked in this area to all easier truck access. 14. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue and the entrance on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) abandoned. 15. A stubout to the western property line shall be provided from Scotswood ,, Boulevard. This stubout shall be located to connect directly to the southern corner of Greentree Drive. 16. A stubout 0 the Guy Baldwin Jr. property shall be provided with the location to be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. 17. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub-out streets. 18. A third laAe shall be provided along US 70 between St. Mary's Road and , Miller Road (SR 31555) . 1 19. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrance to the commercial area shall be restricted and only right turn movemnts permitted. 20. A traffic light shall be installed at the intersection of St. Mary's Road and US 70 during the development of the first phase. (This provision may be satisfied by direct action of wpm) . - 21. All roads Shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange COunty. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. 22. A 10-foot min-access easement shall be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining Carolina Loop. This easement shall be labeled so as to , prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto Carolina Loop. 23. Mercury lights shall be installed throughout the development as each phase develops. 24. The lift station at the southeast section of the project (lift station #1) shall be of Sufficient size to accommodate any future connections by property owners along St. Mary's Road. 1. 1. 25. Prior to paving streets, utility service laterals shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground.1 ' 26. All utility lines shall be installed to state standards. 27. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan including easements to adjoining property. All required easement documents shall be recorded before final plat approval. 28. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be approved prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 29. The following recommndations apply to the recreation area and facilities. 1 ' a. Provide a minimum of 15 acres recreational purposes (active and passive) . The passive recreation area would include the open space area along Nancy Hill Creek. b. A minimum of seven (7) acres are to be developed for active recreational purposes to include the following: - Tot lot/playground area with play apparatus for children, ages pre- school to 14 (i.e. swings, slides, clinber, whirl) and benches for adult supervision. - One full-length basketball court - Picnic) area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tables, 5-7 : individual picnic tables scattered throughout the woods with 1 trash receptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables. - Bicycle paths throughout I - • , . 6 ° - Openelgrassed play area. - Adequate night lights for safety and security reasons - Appropriate landscaping. c. Provide 10 Iparking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre recreation area. d. Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. as open space/passive areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designated "open space area) to these areas from both Graham Drive andlCameron Circle. Install bridges across the creek at either end and nddways in conjunction with the public walkways. A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated coterminous with the open space area. e. Multifamilyirecreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area (i.e. tables, trash receptacles, grills) . f. Provide 13 Oarking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities. g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons. h. Wherever liossible, provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps. Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes no greater than 5%. 30. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the site plan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil and Erosion specifications. In addition, Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the ongoing work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 31. Grading on j the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, exis ing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 32. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 33. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the initiation of construction activity. 34. That all strictures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 35. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall , be recorded by the developer. 36. The final Site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletion* and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. A copy Of the final site plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 37. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with or fulfillment of the above conditions and the Orange County development regulations and ordinances. 38. If any of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this approval shall be Void and of no effect. Marvin Collins qualified the recommendations, indicating that IL because of the ck of time to review the new information that has been received by the Planning Staff which addresses concerns about the availability of raw water in the northern portion of the county. including Corporation Lake, Lake Ben Johnson and Lake ()ranger he would recommend at least a 30-day continuation of th‘ public hearing which would allow ample time for the Planning Staff tb review the report and assess the raw water resources available. gtgNES-QEQMICErzEgnanIVMSEKMEEKBQM V A 7 Commissioner Marshall noted that in the conditions of approval no 0 reference was male to the specific problems brought out by the Erosion Control Officer in his memo dated November 21, 1985. She suggested that the changes be made on the Plan before approval in order to satisfy soil and erosion control needs. Collins indicated that the condition which requires that the soil and erosion plans be approved by the Erosion Control Office would be sufficient becauSe it would allow him to address those concerns. Commissioner Marshall noted it extremely important that the plans = ..1 be changed before approval by the Board and Collins indicated this would be addressed at the same time the public hearing is continued. Chair Wilihoit asked about the impervious surface ratio and Collins noted that the Town of Hillsborough asked that such information be provided t although the area is not in the protected watershed area of Orange County. Commissioner Marshall requested that wherever the conditions indicate "existing vegetation" that the type of vegetation and amount to remain be specified. Commidsioner Walker questioned the necessity of the 100 foot buffer along Carolina Avenue and Collins explained that the 100 foot buffer is required along the property boundary regardless of what it adjoins. Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked how the single family area plan was different from the project that was presented in the late 1970's for the same area and Collins indicated he was unfamiliar with the other plan. He asked if a repot* had been made on the thoroughfare plan for Hilldborough. e and if so. if a copy could be obtained. , Barry !Jacobs also asked how much of the 100 foot buffer on each side of Nancy Hill]. Creek is in the floodplain and Collins explained, as shown on the plan, that the floodplain in some places extends beyond the 100 foot buffer and in other areas the floodplain is located within the 100 foot buffer. The lop foot buffer generally includes the floodplain with the exception of the Southeast portion. ' CommisSioner Marshall asked why the condition regarding voluntary annexation recommended by the Town of Hillsborough was not included in the - conditions. Collins responded that since the County is not involved in annexation and since it is a municipal policy. the County should not be involved. Commissioner Walker asked about the location of the Durham Loop and I its affects on the project. Collins indicated that the location of the loop is not known at this time. maimpauly_TBEjougam - John McAdams, facility engineer, presented Larry reisner, engineer with Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. who made a report op the traffic impacts. He referred to the traffic impact analysis report which is in the permanent agenda file. He noted the proposed Scotswood development is served by several thoroughfares. Other future road I developments that may have an impact on the proposed development would include the widening of 1-85 to six lanes and 1-40 which is currently under• construction. There is a thoroughfare program being studied for the Hillsborough area and Central Orange County. He mentioned that Highway 70 has a 100 foot right-of-way that could be used to widen the road. The development would access onto US 70 and St. Mary's Road. The total development would i generate 11.400 total trips with 5% of this total traffic occurring during the first phase of the project. The second phase would generate 70% of the total and the third and fourth phases would generate about 12% each. In all cases the existing volume and proposed volume would be under the capacity of the road. Regardingithe improvements that would be required to accommodate the traffic, the app icant is in agreement with those recommendations outlined by NCDOT. Specifically, (1) that a traffic light be installed at the full buildup of the de4elopment. (2) left and right turn lanes at all the project • 8 entrances. (3) a,left turn lane from St. Mary's to Highway 70 West. and (4) Carolina Avenue le changed to a cul-de-sac. ChairlWillhoit asked if First and Second Avenues were paved and Meisner indicated there are no access points to these roads from the proposed development. Commissioner Carey asked about the four exits onto St. Mary's Road and McAdams indicated they are proposed to be 600-800 feet apart. Peter Kramer asked if the traffic from Treyburn along St. Mary's Road had been taken into account. McAdams responded that the impact of that traffic had been considered to some extent, but that the traffic traveling St. Mary's Road from Treyburn to Hillsborough had not been considered because most of the residents are expected to be employed in Durham. Peter Kramer asked that the traffic from Treyburn along St. Mary's Road to Hillsborough also be reviewed. Barry Jacobs asked upon what criteria the assessment that most of the traffic on St. Mary's Road would come to Hillsborough rather than away was based and Meiser indicated it was based on the attraction of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and On the number of alternate routes available to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area rather than through Hillsborough. Barry Jacobs asked the distance from Lawrence Road to Scotswood but did not receive an answer. McAdams indicated he did not know the difference between the plan as submitted in the 1970's and the plan as submitted for Scotswood at this time. He indicated, in response to a question from Chair Willhoit, that the project would be !phased in within a ten year period. Commissioner Marshall requested that the beginning and completion dates be placed on the site plan for all, future projects to come before the Board. Chair Willhoit asked about the water pressure situation and McAdams indicated their studies show that water pressure would be adequate for the project including all proposed improvements. Chair I Willhoit asked if there was any proposal to provide additional classrooms for the schools and McAdams indicated there was no proposal for such. He noted the approximate value per house would be $75.000. Chair rillhoit pointed out that at the current $718 per pupils it would take a $130,000 house just to break even. McAdams assured the Board that the impervious surface ratio data would be provided. He pointed out that the design of the development included a 200 foot buffer zone on both sides of Nancy Hill Creek and that a special effort was made po minimize the traffic impact on adjoining properties. He made comments on the proposed conditions of approval: (1) With reference to #7 that the 41' paved cross section be reduced to 37'. (2) With reference to #9 that curb and gutter not be required for roads in the development because there is no stipulation that Curb and gutter is required by the County or NCDOT. The elimination of curb and gutter is in line with the intent of environmental sensitivity. Provisional curb and gutter adds to the cost of the project. (3) With reference to #10 that sidewalks not be required on the • cul-de-sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are not required. • (4) With reference to #20 that the traffic light be installed by NCDOT based on their criteria. (5) tith reference to 29b. Madams questioned providing the ights, stating it is usually done by the municipality. He con on the recommendations of the Town of Hillsborough with regard to the sewer line being installed at least 100 feet away from Nancy Hill Creek and noted the applicant would prefer not to be required to do this because of the slope on both sides of the creek. ? • 9 With reference to the comments made in a letter from NCDOT, McAdams indicated the applicant does concur with everything as stated in the letter. Planning Board member David Shanklin asked about mail delivery and McAdams indicated that the single family dwellings would be served by a rural mail route and that in the multi-family dwellings a mail gazebo would be provided. Therel will also be dumpster locations within the multi-family area and a private collection service for the single-family area. KM210.--gLaMEMMIELCITURE Tom Metzer, resident of the vicinity of the proposed project, expressed concern about (1) adequate water resources. (2) human services, including law enforcement. (3) classrooms, teachers, etc., and (4) roadways. He commented that the traffic pattern in that area has increased over the last six years. Ron Hyatt, member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, expressed concerns about the proposed recreation area. With regard to the 1 size and locationv all the proposed recreational area along Nancy Hill Creek is in the floodgain and would not provide for those activities of an active nature. He asked that consideration be given to another three acres south of the designated recreation area that would be more suitable. This would provide additional safety and lend itself to a variety of activities. The type of soil along the creek has been described as wetlands which may be the type of soil that would need additional support. Mr. C. D. Snith, area resident, questioned condition #2 which states "landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units" and if this was in fact a mobile home park. Marvin Collins indicated that reference should be deleted. Smith indicated the residents in the area of Crawford Road would prefer to have tbe hones facing St. Mary's Road so the present homes would not have to look at the backside of the proposed homes. He requested that the development be corpatible with what is now on St. Mary's Road and that there be 150 foot wide lots facing St. Mary's Road. He voiced no objection to the development, but ' ants to be proud of what is built. Joyce Brown questioned the adequacy of the water supply for the development, the raffic problems and the amount of noise and pollution of the air. She asked *f the present sites for garbage disposal would be adeqpate, questioned the increased toxins at the landfill and the impact on the land values. She stated that taxes are already extremely high and development of this kind will inflate present prices and values in the area. She asked that the County stop and see what new projects have been approved and look at the impacts on the environment and the quality of life. Jane Gaede, resident of Highway 70 near St. Mary's Road, voiced opposition to the project. She listed four (4) major concerns: (1) traffic - Highway 70 is already dangerous; allowing additional traffic on the corner of Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road would make an already hazardous situation severely dangerous. (2) water - adequate water supply, (3) schools - already crowded and the additional tax base from the development would not pay for additional facilities necessary. and (4) crime - will increase the demand on the Sheriff's Department to provide protection. She expressed concern that Hillsborough willibe ruined if development is not stopped. Mr. C J. Andrews, representative of the Hillsborough Historical Society, expressed concern about the traffic problem on East King Street and Churton Street. The Historical Society is concerned for the people who come to visit Historic Hillsborough and walk from one area to another and the 1 dangerous situation that will be produced by increased traffic. Ms. 1.4Vian Roberts, resident of Carolina Avenue which borders the proposed developinet, does not object to development but does oppose the Scotswood project because of the magnitude and impacts on the traffic and schools. On the proposal to rezone single family housing area from R1 to R2, most of the other homes bordering the project are built on one acre lots. I a-a : 10 She questioned the use of the buffer zones and if these would maintain or -2; . enhance the value of contiguous property as required for a Special Use Permit. She expressed concern about the increased traffic that would be placed on St. Mary's Road which is already dangerous. She expressed dismay that the traffic impact report states that the intersection is not yet at capacity. The development call for Carolina Avenue to be closed at the west end which would route traffic back in front of the existinl homes on Carolina Avenue. Ms. Roberts asked if this increase in traffic on the dirt road would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. There are already seven buses that travel on this road daily. The addition of 300+ children would add to that traffic. She asked that the Board of Commissioners think very seriously about the impact that a development of this magnitude will have on the citizens of the area. She is not against development but prefers it to be limited to one house per acre so that it is more compatible with the adjoining property as well as to lesseri the impact on traffic/ schools and water consumption. Mayor !Frank Sheffield expressed concerns about the development that : mainly stem from the size of the project and the additional services that will be required. With regard to the traffic impact it seems that there must be a traffic problem biefore the road improvements are in place and it would seem that the road improvements should be in place prior to or concurrent with the ''' development. He agrees with the citizens that stated that Highway 70 is already at capacity and is a crowded highway. Be noted this would aggravate ' • the dangerous situation in front of Cameron Park School. With regard to water consumption/ it is true that the TOwn currently has water and sewage treatment capacity to handle the project but the concern is that this will use a fairly large portion o4 what is remaining and that it, coupled with several other projects that are planned or already approved/ would essentially use up most ( if not all the available capacity. He expressed an uncertainty that the Town 7., would have the resources to expand the plant. The other problems in the long runt would be the raw water shortage problem. Plans need to be in place to assure raw water supply to handle this project and future projects. The infrastructure and support facilities that are necessary for a project of this size need to be in place or taking place at the current rate of development. Sheffield explained that, at the time the project was discussed by the Town Council, they had not included in their water and sewer policy the requirement of annexation. The Town Council has since adopted that policy and is requesting voluntary annexation of this development. John McAdams indicated the applicant would readily petition the Town of HillsboroUgh for annexation on a phased-in basis. Marvin Collins made reference to an earlier question from Barry T, Jacobs about the previous proposed plan for this property and stated that in 1980 the development was for 247 single family lots with an average lot size of one acre. ' Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked that Chapter VIII on t, incentive zoning from the ZomireLand LADO Use Controls Book by Patrick Rohan pages 2-7 and 45- 4 be entered into the record. These excerpts are on file in the permanent genda file in the Clerk's office. Jacobs explained that .. incentive zoning I delineates the fact that planned developments are a form of incentive zoning by which a municipality attempts to negotiate a type of clustered housing and the most efficient use of land on a particular development. It is relevant in terms of the purpose for a planned development ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner •Marshall to continue the public hearing on the Scotswood development to January 6, 1986 to allow additional time for the Planning Staff to evaluate 1 the new information about the availability of water resources and to possibly develop a plan for staging of development in order to address the concerns in , that area/ to look at the data available for the raw water usage by the public utility providers which may change the recommendation/ to review the • 11 recommendations ade by the Erosion Control Officer and review the conditions to make them more specific, and to show handicapped parking and ramps on the plat. Commissioner Carey asked that information be provided on the type of soil in the proposed recreation area and Chair Willhoit requested that the impervious surface calculations be provided. Mr. Graham, developer, explained that the first proposal for that area in 1979 was for one acre lots because they had planned to use septic tanks which proved to be unfeasible. Marvilja Collins spoke to the issue of those lots in the proposed development which backed up to other houses. The Board announced that the continued public hearing will be open for additional qUestions and comments from the Board and also for receipt of additional public input. VOTE: UNANIMOUS: 41,1="; 40 — 4P' GU_IA _ 7,D% It Djoy 1 Ai klk011 Ak- — 4i e" J_4LA.4_ Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment a proposed planned Idevelopment rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request. J. Thomas Bradshaw and Beth Bradshaw are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 94.10 acres of land located on the west side of White Cross Road in Bingham Wship. The property is located in an area designated Agricultural Residential and is zoned AR. The applicants are not changing the density in that district. They are requesting a PD rezoning to allow for the cluster of units on the 94 acre tract. The application does comply with the specific and general standards in the ordinance and the planning staff recommends approv61 with the attachment of the following conditions to the approval: 1. The grantee bf this Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determin0 on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areask streets and other vehicular traveiways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units. 3. All necessa4y easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television hy any cable television provider franchised by Orange County 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 utiliiy provider. 4. Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and mulching around units shall be maintained as conEltructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 5. The grantee shall promulgate rules and regulations governing tenancy in the development which shall restrict accumulation of trash and rubbish outside of the mobile hoMe units, shall restrict storage of goods outside of mobile homes and shall Ifurther prohibit the storage of junked or unregistered motor vehicles. The grantee shall file with the Orange County Planning Department a copy of the rules and regulations promulgated under this condition and maintain an up-to-Idate copy of the rules and regulations in the Orange County Planning Department. ,I 12 6. All roads within the mobile home park including the section from SR 1951 through the existing park shall be hard surfaced in compliance with NC DCT Subdivision Roads MiniumiCtostruction Standards (p.19 E Pavement Design) . 7. All roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange Cotinty. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. 8. Removal of snow and ice from the roads in the development and the sidewalks within the development shall be the responsibility of the grantee. Such removal shall be completed promptly. 9. There shall be at least 2 parking spaces per mobile home unit in the development. 10. Mailboxes which are clustered, shall be provided close to each entrance, but far enough into the development to prevent traffic problems on White Cross Road. A pull-Off shall be provided and the mailboxes set back off the main entrance roads. 1 The entrance road and pull-off shall be of sufficient width to allow three or four cars to stop and get mail while others continue to pass. The mailbixes shall not be located in a place that would require cars to cross traffic.' make unnatural turns or go against the flow of traffic. Cluster mailboxes shall be located outside of sight triangles for the entranceway. 11. Prior to the initiation of construction activity, final approval by the State must be obtained for the community well system and the spray irrigation wastewater disposal facility. 12. The recreation areas shall be constructed as provided in the application and submitted si e plan, with changes as specified below: Concrete basetbafl court shall be constructed at grade level and not elevated above grade. Minimum size should be 40 feet "long" by 42 feet "wide" (regulations courts are 50 feet wide) . "Long" here refers to direction perpendicular to the court's baseline. This "long" axis should be north south. Three (3) feet of an unobstructed space around the court should be provided. Tot lot shall include play equipment suitable for pre-schoolers, as well as younger schoolf-age children, with at least two (2) benches provided on the periphery as seating for adult supervision. Surfacing under the equipment should be clean, Soft sand. Defining the tot lot area with landscape timbers will "hold" this sand in and prevent having to add additional sand material so often. Trash receptacles must be provided in the tot lot/basketball court areas. The pedestrian paths and nature trail serving the individual units and the recreation areas shall be a minimum of 72" wide and be composed of surface materials recommended by the Orange County Recreation Department. A pedestrian path shall be provided to the mailboxes. 13. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Biwa following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. NO sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development. 14. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. 15. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and appioved by Orange County. In addition. Orange County shall inspect the installation of control devices and the on-going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 16. The project must remain in unitary ownership and no lots can be sold to individuals. 17. A unit numbering system and corresponding unit location shall be filed with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit. This system shall be used in obtaining and issuing any building permit. Any 1 13 change in the unit numbering system must be filed with the Orange County Planning Department. 18. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 19. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes, deletions and additions through the final approval of the project are incorporated heein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Department. Grading and building permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 20. 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.1 I I I •t OAP,: II tit 4.10 Steve Fuhasz asked the applicant if all the conditions for approval were acceptable and she indicated they were. PRESEZUMNFROM THE APPLICANT Beth Bradshaw stressed the need for additional mobile home park spaces. She outlined the convenience of a mobile home park including recreational facilities for the children, nearby shopping, etc. Fritz Brunsen from Phil Post and Associates, engineering firm, indicated the location of the proposed development on a site plan. The water will be supplied by wells drilled on the site. It was found that the land was not suitable for septic tanks. The on-site wastewater system will be a type recommended by the Department of Environmental Management and suitable for disposal of sewage from the proposed number of units. There is no reason at this time to putt the mobile homes that are presently on the site onto the new system. This particular site has more than the 100 foot buffer as required in the ordinance. CoOmissioner Marshall asked if the wastewater system could be sized for future connection of the existing mobile home units if the need arises. Brunsen responded the system could be built large enough to handle the existing mobile home units if that was a stipulation of approval for the project. Barry Jacobs asked for an explanation of the enforcement history for the property in question and Susan Smith indicated there were no violations at this site. MIMICS OR QUESTIONS FROM crrizENs Vickie Cecil asked the distance from the road to the units on the upper side and Susan Smith indicated the units were set back at least 300 feet, not including road right-of-way. Nation was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourx this item to January 6. 1986 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOIE: UNANIMOUS. li.---E12-.4813011MOD_SECTION Iv (RESIDENTIAL-1 RESIDENIM-4) Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment a general rezoning ! request submitted by Wildwood Corporation. Wildwood Corporation is requesting a rezoning of property located west of NC86 and west of Sections 1. 2 and 3 of Wildwood Subdivision and south of the Southern Railroad right-of-way. The parcel contains 28.8 acres and is designated Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 and the applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential-4. Smith referenced the impact analysis: (1) Water and Sewer rvice The Town of H411sborough water and sewer system currently serves Wildwood Subdivision Section I-III. An 8" gravity sewer line bisects the property and connects to a pump station located immediately south of the Southern Railroad right-of-way and a 6" force main which continues north into Hillsborough. A ',- iff . -i° :i. . 14 12" water main serves the property from the north. A 6" water main extends into the property from Joppa Oaks subdivision. This project would require the extension of water and sewer lines into the site. An R-4 rezoning of the 28.8 acre tract would result in the development of approximately ninety-eight (98) units. Assuming three bedrooms per unit, the project could generate the need to treat,44,100 gallons of water per day. This represents 1.47% of the total water treatment plant capacity of 1 3.0 MGD and a 3.2% increase over current use of 1.4 MGD. (2) BagdaLnelha The site would be served by access to NC 86, an arterial, via John Breckenridge Road, Walter Clark Drive and proposed Oakdale Drive extension which establishes the northern boundary of the site. The 1984 traffic count for NC 86 at itslintersection with SR 1710 (Old 410) is 7000 trips per day. A projected 98 units would result in an additional 656.6 trips per day. bringing , 4, the total trips per day generated by Wildwood Sections I- IV inclusive to 4, 1816. ,-' John Breckenridge Road and Walter Clark Drive currently serve as sub- collector roads. The addition of ninety-eight (98) dwelling units utilizing both these roads, in addition to Oakdale Drive extension, would not adversely impact the service level of the roads. No further improvements are required on NC 86 to accoOmodate the traffic increase. (3) Bapreation Facilities Under the tend Use Intensity (WI) system an R-4 rezoning does not 1. require the prolias ion of recreational space. The 2.92 acre recreational area which serves the existing Wildwood subdivision is so located as to be accessible to serve this site. It includes an open area, picnic tables and pedestrian paths! Applying the recreational space requirements for planned ;- developments to Sections I - IV inclusive (R-4..03; Rir5=.036), a total of 2.817 acres of reicreational area would be required. The existing recreational u area satisfies these requirements. (4) Schools School-age children living in the development would attend Grady Brown Elementary School, Stanback Middle School, Stanford Junior High School and , Hillsborough High School. According to Mr. Ralph Compton of the Board of -,, Education, all the schools with the exception of Orange High School are ' operating at capacity. Using a multiplier of .718 for 3 bedroom single-family units, an estimated 70 school-age children will be generated by this project. 4' (5) Policej_Fir and Rescue Services Services to the site will be provided by the Orange County tt 1 Sheriff's Department, Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Company and Orange Rescue Squad. Courtesy review responses have been received from the service agencies which indicates an ability to adequately serve the site. (6) Tapograpby The physica1. characteristics of the property present significant development constraints in terms of topography and geological formations. Considerable attention must be paid to these constraints in the clearing of the property, construction of roads and construction of residences, , particularly in the issuance of grading and building permits. 1 •cv.I.onik# 0.). It•Lao •s.N. WA, Y:L. t411 •) tist.144 __. OA Pit, OA :L.4110R., :6410 Barry Jacobs asked for an explanation of why the planning staff found the recommendation from the Hillsborough Planning Board unsuitable in , this case. Susan Smith indicated that the position of the Orange County , Planning staff ia that the existing sections of Wildwood Subdivision are , developed at R-4 and R-5 densities and it would be consistent to continue with , , t that density for e remainder of the tract. gz—INk44 ilk 4 vo_ .4,_mm. AAII , Fritz Brunsen, Philip Post and Associates, indicated on a map the 4 location of the R-4 and R-5 areas. The existing Section II is zoned R-5 and , 15 Section I is zoned R-4. Be noted that because of the slope of the land, nothing would be built on those lots which proved to be too steep. Cal=raLEMgaLtaightgmum None. 7(43-85 P & !S SPORTING GOODS/ INC. Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public comment a rezoning request submitted by P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. for rezoning of property located south of 14:54 and approximately 550' east of Morrow Mill Road. The parcel contains 4.54 acres. The property is located within an area of the County designated Agricultural-Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The present zoning of the property is AR. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to LC-1. Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area mined for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use. Smith referenced the impact analysis and made the following points: (1) Water and Wastewater Systems - the property is served by on-site water and sewage disposal systems. Expansion of existing systems requires approval of engineered plans by both the Orange County Health Department and State Division og Health Services. (2) BoOdsaraffig - the property is served by NC 54, an arterial road. A 1984 traffic count for NC 54 indicates 6.000 trips per day at its intersection with Orange Grove Road. Traffic generation estimates for permitted uses at this site range from 235 trips per day for an office use to 815 trips per day for a freestanding retail use. The requested zoning district generally provides for uses considered low traffic generators which generate less than 200 vehicle trips per day. (3) PoAcei Fire and Rescue gervices - Services to the site will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Department and Orange Rescue Squad. Courtesy review responses have been received from - service agencies indicating an ability to adequately serve the site. (4) t t• *•± 41 • •, - - Since the property is located within the Rural Neighborhood activity node, that rural neighbochodd designation corresponds with certain kinds of zoning districts. There are two types of low density low-impact type commercial districts permitted in that particular activity node. They are Local Commercial-1 and" Neighborhood Commercial-II. The Zoning Ordinance also establishes a relationship between the amount of land zoned a certain way in an activity node and in case of this activity node the Ordinance specifies the maximum amount of land that may be zoned LC-1 is nine (9) acres except in rural, non-transition areas where the maximum is five (5) acres. This would be considered a rural, non-transition area. There are currently 3.08 acres zoned NC-2 and no acreage zoned LC-1 at this activity node. (5) Permitted Uses - The purpose of the LC-1 zoning district is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. The kinds of uses permitted include: - single family dwellings • - day care, nursery. kindergarten - fanny care home - rehabilitative care facility - chOrch - community center - schools of music, dance and art - as#embly facility (greater than 300) - banks and financial institutions - beauty and barber shops - social clubs - health services (under 10.000 sq. ft. ) 16 4 - laundry and dry cleaning services motor vehicle services stations - night clubs and bars - offices and personal services (few customers or clients, low traffic volumes, no adverse impacts beyond space occupied by bOilding) - recreational facilities (profit) - repair services (electronic and appliance) - retail trade, sales and rental of convenience goods, merchandise and equipment (few customers, low traffic volume. no outside storage and no adverse impacts beyond space occupied b the building) Smith indicated that the rezoning of a 4.54 acre tract as proposed would provide for the expansion of the existing facility or developuent of other principle !uses on individual lots. Both would require that the applicant would comply with many of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including land use intensity system which sets out maximum amounts of floor area open spaced pedestrian space and other types of services. Also it requires that the site be landscaped and provide parking. The Planning Staff J. recommends approVal of the request. CCE EN]LQR CIOESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF CCICISSIOICRS OR PLAMINO BOARD, Planning Board member Steve Kizer stated the reason there is not more property zoned LO-1 in this activity node is because the parcel containing the corporation's building is already illegally zoned GC-4. This happened five (5) years ago when the County zoned the property. He reiterated that LC-1 provides for a comuercial use that is designed to serve a population in a rural neighborhood with convenience goods and personal services. The intent of this designation was to provide for the local convenience store which P & S Sporting Goods iS not. It does not serve the local population, but is a national company. Also, the traffic count is estimated to be more than that permissible in 1 LC-l. He asked that the Planning Staff reconsider their recommendation of approval because the proposal does not fall within the LC-1 designation in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. CCOWNTS CELQUESTIONS FROM mums IN THE N]DIEE Cheryl Atwater voiced opposition to the rezoning request. She noted she is against the products that are sold at Adam and Eve and asked that the County Commissioners review the literature on these products. She asked that those in the audience against the rezoning to stand and twenty people responded. 1 • Mr. R. D. EMerson spoke in opposition of the rezoning request. He compared the present Adam and Eve facility to a waste treatment plant. This rezoning in no way would better the ccauunity. He would be shocked to receive a catalog and sees no way the products sold could better his family. Dan Eddlemanladdressed the intent of the LC-1 district and read the location criteria as stated in the Zoning Ordinance which indicates the user serve a market area population of the immediate area and generally would not serve comuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed use of P & S Sporting Goods is not in keeping with the intent or the spirit of the local businesses in an LC-1 district. Their ads appear in national magazines. Hy approving this rezoning the County would be setting a precedent in approving this business as a complying use in LC-1 district. He asked that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners assure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Jeanette Jones pointed out that P & S Sporting Goods is an existing business which is requesting a rezoning to expand that business. They do hire employees from this area and the building is attractive and landscaped. There is not at present a traffic problem and this rezoning would not have an impact. She spoke in support of the expansion which would bring in more '." . A : - 17 revenue for the County and provide jobs. The issue is the rezoning not the morals or what they sell. Allen Coon pointed out that the sale of pornographic material for a profit is no better than prostitution. He feels the County has a moral ' responsibility to check on the type of business that goes in there. . Ralph Warren spoke in opposition of the rezoning. The strip development that is occurring should be stopped. The pros and cons of what is sold need to be considered and the legal points that Dr. Kizer mentioned need to be reviewed. Ms. Lee spoke in support of the rezoning. 6., 7-14-giBEZONING Ig,QUEST FROM JAMES L. E1LL Planner Susan Smith presented for public comment a proposed rezoning request submittO by James Hill. The rezoning is for .57 acres on land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751 in Eno Township. The property is located in an area designated Twenty Year Transition Area and Cbmmercial Transition Activity Node. The present zoning of the property is Rural Residential 1. The applicant is requesting that the lot be rezoned. to Community Commercial III. Approval of the request would A! allow a community commercial use at this intersection. Smith commented on the potential impacts imposed by the request: (1) Water and Sewer Services - the City of Durham has indicated it would serve the site with public water and sewer services either in place or to be tl extended to the site. (2) Traffidjmmt - the property is located at the intersection of US 70 and NC 751. It has a total of 77 feet of road frontage; 64.3 feet abuts the sight distance triangle for NC 751 and the remainder of that abuts US 70. A strip of propdrty owned by Duke University separates this parcel from NC : 751. The closeness of this tract to the intersection and the small amount of road frontage limits access points and could cause traffic congestion at this .intersection The latest traffic count information dated 1982 indicates a count of 5800 trips per day on US 70 at the Durham County Line and 4600 trips per day on NC 751. Based on possible uses at this particular site, traffic generation could be as high as 1040 trips per day for a fast food restaurant and as low as 129 trips per day for an office use. (3) Police. Fire and Rescue Services, the Eno Volunteer Fire Department ,r. and Orange Count Yi Rescue Squad have indicated their willingness to serve this lot with no problems and the Sheriff's office indicated that this rezoning did ,I. not need law enforcement approval. (4) BAlatic6hip between Land Use Plan and Zoning. Ordinance - The Commercial Transition activity node designation corresponds with the full range of commercial zoning districts from LC-1 through GC4. The Zoning 1 '•.t Ordinance establishes the maximum amount of land zoned Community Commercial- , III at any activity node at 29 acres, except in rural, non-transition areas where the maximum is 15 acres. There is no acreage zoned CC-3 at this activity node. (5) yarmitted Uses - the permitted uses for CC-3 are the full range of services including commercial, office and service uses including limited automotive, convenience, durable goods, and other similar uses. Rezoning of the site would allow for development of the property for those uses permitted by right in the district. Development of the site must ' comply with applicable requirements of the Land Use Intensity system, landscaping and sCreeningr parking and signage. Smith stated that in reviewing the application and the criteria for rezoning, it is the Staffs' opinion that the potential traffic impacts in this , particular location suggest that the application for a general rezoning request be denied', ' Avkai.oi, • t!",_-)lio •K... 4 ZA u Y:1 r.Lftto s; • eIvi , TUN: 10). V 4 klklik. ;•iNt Planning Board member Chris Best asked the applicant to state his intended use of the property. Mr. Hill stated that a building would be built 1 I 1 , . . 18 on the property r the property would be sold. The property would have access on Highway 70 and hr 751. EMENMAT1ON BY THE APPLICANT James L. Hill, property owner, stated that the property surrounding his property is designated for some type of commercial activity. He noted that it was never suggested to him to do a planned development. 7. LAND USE PLAN AND ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the descriptive narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A copy of the approved amendments will be in the official Ordinance Book) . d. Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 - Establishment of Dimensional ;41.0 _ 4;4 - XA1 Development - revisions to the floor area„a00 open space ratios or inaustriel zoning districts, Marvin Collins noted this amendment was requested by two businessmen in Orange Count who have planned to expand existing businesses or to construct new industrial establishments. The present ordinance restricts the amount of floor Brea which can be built in the Existing Industrial (EI) or Light Industrial (1-1) districts to 6.3% of the property. This ordinance amendment would increase the 6.3% to 20% for the EI and I-1 districts and establish new floor area ratios for the 1-2 and 1-3 districts. For PD, the ratios for I-1. 1-2 and 1-3 are increased by 5%. The Ordinance is amended to also provide for open space ratios which would generally correspond to the E-1 and I-1 floor area ratios. The Ordinance is encouraging the developer to build up and not put. The 5% increase for planned developments is to encourage the developer to do a planned development. Based on the open space ratios in the ordinance, the initial intent of the Zoning Ordinance was to allow approximately 20% of floor area. The 6.3 % was established to correspond with the 6.3% impervious surface ratio as contained in the watershed standards. Bob Anderson, representing Mr. Calvin A. Mellott, indicated that each individual lot has its own characteristics. He indicated on a sketch what 20% floor area would look like and demonstrated the different types of industrial uses c the site. P1anriin Board member Barry Jacobs requested that the ramifications of the proposal by considered by the Planning Board. Maury nein, President of MDK. Inc. noted that the present land use intensity and impervious surface ratio requirements not only restrict any present or future' growths but in fact define MDK's existing facility as non- conforming. The proposed addition would not have any negative impacts on the area in terms of1 water usage, traffic or pollution. He submitted four letters of support for the land use intensity amendment which are on file in the Clerk's office. 1 Marvin Collins pointed out that the increase from 6.3% to 20% would not change the amount of landscaping around the development and that the 20% as recommended in the text amendment would allow for the same office and institutional floOr area ratios that are stated in the ordinance. (f) Zoning Ordinance, Article 8 SPECIAL USES and Article 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REWIREMENTS - provision for the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to acimmmodate requests for modifications of impervious surface requirements for property subject to the Protected Watershed-II overlay zoning district. Marvin ,Collins stated the staff is recommending that a Class A Special Use Procedure be established that would permit modification of the impervious surface of up to 5%. He reiterated the additional information that would be required as a part of the application. There would be additional standards of evaluation and impervious surface regulations placed on this special use permit. Marvin Collins noted one concern is that a ceiling be put in the provision and enough flexibility be allowed to meet the impervious surface ,f, I 19 ratio. A justification would be needed in order to use this procedure for modification. Planner Susan Smith stated that CAS A did not have adequate time to review this proOsed amendment or the other watershed amendment and asked for an extension of time for receipt of their comments. (e) Zoning Ordinance, Article 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - provision for easement over or ownership of land adjoining or not-adjoining parcels for development to satisfy impervious surface and undisturbed area requirements for property subject to Water Quality Critical Area 401(20 and Protected Watershed-II (PW-II) overlay zoning districts. Smith indicated this amendment specifically provides an opportunity to use land either adjoining or non-adjoining a piece of property to satisfy both undisturbedlarea and impervious surface requirements. The acreage must be within the water supply watershed and either owned by the applicant or " covered under an easement agreement. Don Cox made comments about satisfying watershed standards off-site: , (1) he felt the intent of the watershed standards, particularly as they relate to the imperviou6 surface, is something to be dealt with in small increments of runoff from *pervious surfaces for a particular site and not with a large area that cannot be managed, and (2) that providing the correct ratio by 1 adding land set aside somewhere else does not meet the intent of minimizing _,.. the amount of runoff where it exists. % Chair Willhoit pointed out that the infiltration of the first half inch would be the limiting factor and not the lot size. Marvin Collins indicated that if a person is unable to acquire an ' easement from a person who owns property adjacent to or does not own the land adjacent to the property, the Special Use Permit procedure gives a third k option. Susan nith listed the remaining Proposed Land Use Plan and Ordinance Text Amendments and commented briefly on each. They are listed below: (a) Land Use Plan - Orange County •Highway Classification System. The highway classification of roads has been updated to include 1984 traffic counts. (b) Zoning Ordinance. Article 4 - ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMITTED USE TABLE AN) SCHEDULE - provision of revised zoning district criteria for access. This restates the criteria for road access for each zoning district. (c) Zoning Ordinance, Article 22 - DEFINITIONS - Provision of revised 1 street definitions. ' (g) Subdivision Regulations, Section III-PRELIMINARY PLAN-Provision for the submittal of pwenty-seven (27) copies of the Preliminary Plan for Board, agency and staff review. (h) Subdivision Regulation Section III-D PRELIMINARY PLAN - provision of an eighty-five (8r day review period for preliminary plans by the Planning Board. Motion was made by Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to continue the Public hearing on Articles 6 and 8 until December 2, 1985 to receive comments' from OWASA and to refer to the Planning Board for their recommendation the remaining proposed land use plan and ordinance text amendments. B2,... NEEN Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on December 2, 1985 at 7:30 in the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe Clerk