Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-06-1986
_A ORANGE a COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1986 SUPERIOR COURTROOM HILLSBOROUGH, 7:30 P.M. A. _ COMNENP5 B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the Agenda 2. Matters not on the Agenda C. MUM D. MMUngma PAGE # E. J ,I_C INCA 003 1. PD-5-85 Scotswood 027 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments--Junked Motor Vehicles 031 3. Zoning Ordinance Atlas Amendment—Donnie Chapman 041 4. P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CC SENT AGENDA Any item may be removed for separate consideration 055 1. Land Records Grant 065 2. Old Courthouse---Timee Resolution 070 3. Expansion of Insurance Rated District---West Orange 075 4. Budget Amendment 5. Federal Land and Conservation Grant Resolution 078 6. Engineering Contract Amendtent G. 095 7. (Price Creek Subdivision--Preliminary Plan Division 103 of Lot #1 113 8. Stacy Heights: Section One--Preliminary Plan 125 9. Windy Hill Farm`-Preliminary 10. Class A Road—Lots 2 and 5 O. J. Paris Subdivision 130 11. Secondary Amendment to the Land Use Plan Requested 139 by Gary Carleen Richardson 12. PD-6-85 Bradshaw's Mobile Acres 170 13. Z-12-85 Wildwood Section IV 181 14. Z-14-85 (Rezoning 192 15. Proposed Zoning Ordiinancce)TexxteAnendments 207 16. Job Training Partnership Act---Service Area 209 17. NACo Special Assessment Revenue Sharing Determination Request to Save General 210 18. Charge to Telephone Study Task Force H. AZKEENEur I - . . I _ OR N E COUNTY . BOARD CJ CCV 'LISSIO O Q 1 Action -ger la xte�AcrxaM AGE= ITai rRSzia • mu.TIG DA'Z'E January 6, 1986 Subject: MINU'T'ES L Dept '-nt: Board of Counter Commissioners _•J Public Hearing: yes na x Attachment(s) : Idforraat..ion Contact: Beverly A. Biyth; UNDER SEPARATE COVER . Phone Number: 732-8181, 968-4501, 227-0-si PURPOSE: To ',correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: . November 25, - Joint Public Hearing. December 3, 1985 - Joint Planning Area Public Hearing Approval so the minutes may be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. ail I - . mivalE coWrif 002 $MI:0 OF CQ- 4ISSIONES Aotai.oa Agenda Item vb.A fIO AGENDA. ITrEI rB5 CP PumamG DATE January 6, 1986 _ Subject: APPOINTMENTS { t�E'P Cetlt: Board of Colin Commissioners Public Hearing: es �Y x no • Attachment(s) : Xr& rn - o �taon Contact - UNDER SEPARATE COVER ' Beverly A. Blythe Phone Number: 732-8181, 968-4501, 22T-0231 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards. The following vacancies are announced for the first time for information and/or consideration of appointment: A-4 COMMISSION FOR WOMEN - 2 vacancies (Gail McClain Hayes 2 resumes have been received. and Sophie Shiffman). B-10 NURSING HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - vacancy (expiration of terns for Margaret Hudson). Two resumes have been received. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the sta us of securing candidates for z have been advertised; possible appointment consideration. These vacancies B-16 TELEPHONE TASK FORCE - EXTENDED AREA SERVICE - 9 applications have been received. B-17 TELEPHONE TASK FORCE - TECHNICAL REVIEW - 6 applications have been received. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. li ORANGE COUNTY 003 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6,__1986 Action Agenda Item # E7._ SUBJECT: PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD D-EPARTMENT : PLANNING--- PUBLIC HEARING rX Yes No A-ttachment (s) Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK SEE 11-25-85 AGENDA PACKET DRAFT 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive additional public comment and information on a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A . H . Graham , Jr . This item was submitted to public hearing on 11 -25-85 . The public hearing was continued for the receipt of additional information (See draft 11-25-85 public hearing minutes) . NEED : John W. Graham & A . H . Graham , Jr . are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 331 .12 acres of Land located along Highway 70 Bypass and St . Mary 's Road(SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough . The property is referenced as Tax map 6 , Block B . , 'Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A , Lot 17 of Hillsborough Township . The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Tran',sition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange 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 10.43 acres to be rezoned PD—GC4. IMPACT : Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20, 000 sq . ft . per dwellirg unit 216 attached multi—family dwelling units and a 65 ,4110 square feet of commercial space on 10 .43 acres . (See Impact Statement) 004 P0-5-85 SC0TSW00;p DECEMBER 16 , 198,5 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION : Approval of the planned development ment issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit inwithacondit ons specified in the attachment . II 005.. (rang. Ctunta &mutton nt Vark.g 3e artment - `. }r West Tryon Street VI:" I HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 Life.Bein it. MEMORANDUM ' TO: Marvin Collins, Director Department of Planning ~` FROM: Mary 'Anne Black, Director '144,5 : :�..__.__�..... DATE: December 20, 1985 RE: Open Space/Recreation Areas of Proposed Scotswood Development; comments on As per Commissioner Carey's request, I have walked over the area designated on the Site Plan of the proposed Scotswood Development, as "open space/ recreation area." The area along Nancy Hill Creek is ideal "open space", but the majority of the area north of the proposed Davidson Drive/Hamilton Way intersection is not suitable for development of active recreation facilities. I found the area to be characterized with large, deep culverts and/or low-lying land unsuitable for development. Only a very small portion (the small area lying along Davidson Drive, between Woodlawn Drive and Hamilton Way extending north approximately 100 feet) to be appropriate for development, but much too small for actual development. it is my opinion, and that of the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (as stated at the November 25th Public Hearing) that a more appropriate area for development of active recreational facilities would encompa';ss proposed lots #116-119, and we would request that this area also be designated on the Site Plan as "open space/recreation area." Commissioner Marshall also requested that parking areas and ramps designated for use by handicapped/infirmed individuals should be shown on the Site Plan. As per our phone conversation today, your staff will handle Commissioner Marshall's concerns_ Please advise if additional information is needed. I will be on vacation December 30, 1985 through January 3, 1986, but will be in contact with my staff if you Ihould call. Happy Holidays to you and your family! MAB/pbl CC: Moses Carey, County Commissioner Shirley Marshall, County Commissioner Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Hillsborough, 732-9361 d Durham, 688-7333 6 Chapel Hill, 968-4501 • Mebane, 227-203. Area Code 919 006 x. : THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' 200 HAYES BUILDING,GLEN LENNOX CENTER P.O.BOX 2896,CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27515 (919)967-7079 January 2, 1985 Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E.I, Margaret Lane Hillsb'Irough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Scotswood Planned Development GUM 8501A Dear Blard Members: in response to the questions and concerns raised at the November 26 public hearing on the Scotswood Planned Development, we would like ti provide additional information and clarification for the upcoming continuation of that public hearing. The following items are addressed or have been revised on the plans: Speciacation of existing vegetation types. -The entire tract is densely wooded with both deciduous and coniferous type trees and underbrush. Although a detailed tree study has not been done, all considerations to preserve specimen trees will be taken during construction. Also, supplemental plantings Will be provided to meet all screening requirements and any other conditions affected by the Special Use Permit. Imperviious surface ratios. -These ratios were in fact provided in the plan package on the "Preliminary Storm Drainage/Erosion Control Plan". We have included our specific calculations in this package to further clarify. Objection to lots not facing St. Mary's Road and Carolina Avenue. -1The lot layout of the project was designed to have the least negative impact on the adjacent properties. The classification and further improvements proposed for St. Mary's Road are not Conducive to its use for a multitude of driveway turnouts and we resisted using Carolina Avenue frontage to avoid a traffic Impact on the existing Eastwood properties. The developers propose to work with these dissenting land owners and provide a solution using a combination of bufferyard and extensive supplemental planting. 007 • OrangeCounty Board of Commissioners Page Two Consideration of erosion control measures. -We have met with the Erosion Control Officer and discussed the options available in solution to storm drainage and erosion control needs. Prlior to the design of detailed construction plans all watercourses and drainage outfalls will be accurately sur- veyed. The topographic information used for preliminary design was interpolated from United States geodetic maps. Slight revisions to road alignments, drainage easements, or lot lines can be made before approval of the final subdivision plats. In consideration of the proposed long-term phasing of the project, the affects of the run-off from the development oflthe multi-family and commercial tracts on the downstream property should be investigated when designing detailed construction plans for these areas. With reference to our discussions with the Erosion Control Officer, we seem to concur that accomodation of erosion control devices can be provided by alternative storm drainage methods. More specific plans and detailed procedures can be approved prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. Provisions for handicapped parking and ramps. -The site plans have been revised to note the provision of handicapped parking within the commercial tract and multi-family areas and also for access to the recreational areas. Details for the construction of ramps will be included at street/sidewalk intersections. Provisions for recreation area. -We have revised the location of the' active recreation space area in accordance with the suggestion of the recreation department. The area provides approximately 10 acres of land along the creek for passive useiand 5 acres of land which is at a higher elevation and on more level ground for the active uses suggested. We wouldIalso like to request that these changes be made to the conditions outlined in the Special Use Permit: Item 7. The design of Graham Drive and Hamilton Road for a 37' pavement cross-section rather than the suggested 41' would serve both to provide an efficient collector system and to preserve the neighborhood character of the subdivision. Item 9. _ We agree that curb and gutter would be appropriate on Scotswood Boulevard, Graham Drive, and Hamilton Way as collectors within the street system. However, the elimination of this requirement on the remaining roads would be consistent with the road standards of the North Carolian Department of Transportation and lend to the intent of environmental 008 Orange County Board of Commissioners Page Three sensitivity concerning reduction of runoff. Item 10. - The developers request that sidewalks not be required on the cul-de-sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are nolt required. Item 20. - We proposed that the traffic light be installed by the Department of Transportation based on their criteria. We hope that we have addressed all of the concerns and questions brought up at the previous public hearing and can continue through the upcoming meeting with favorable attitudes. Please feel free to contact our staff if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. Cindee Wolf, RLS CW/dw cc: Mr Marvin Marvin Collins, Planning Director Mr. John W. Graham Mr! A. H. Graham, Jr. II IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CALCULATIONS , 009 Single-family (R-2) Total Tract Area: 290.03 Ac. (12,633,710 s.f. ) Pavement- 9,600 l.f. @ 37' (Graham Dr. & Hamilton Way) 355,200 s.f. 18,100 1.1. @ 20' (all other roads) 362,000 s.f. 5.7 % impervious surfaces 717,200 s.f. Multi-family (R-5) Total Tract Area: 29.50 Ac. (1,285,020 s.f.) Pavement- 1,320 1.f. @ 2 x 24' (Scotswood Blvd.) 63,360 s.f. 1,020 1.1. @ 33' (circulation roads) 33,660 s.f. 3,240 1.f. @ 20' (circulation roads) 64,800 s.f. 444 @ 9' x 20' (parking) 79,920 s.f. 8,100 1.f. @ 4' (sidewalks) 32,400 s.f. 274,140 s.f. Buildings- 216 @ 16' x 30' 103,680 s.f. Recreation- Tennis Courts 12,000 s.f. Pool and Club House Area 11,500 s.f. 23,500 s.f. 401,320 s.f. 31.2 % impervious surfaces Commercial (GC-4) Total Tract Area: 10.43 Ac. (454,330 s.f) Pavement- 525 1.f. @ 2 x 24' (Scotswood Blvd.) 25,200 s.f. 1,550 1.f, @ 20' (circulation roads) 31,000 s.f. 294 @ 9' x 20' (parking) 52,920 s.f. 300 l.f. @ 4' (sidewalks) 1,200 s.f. 600 1.f. @ 10' (sidewalks) 6,000 s.f. 116,320 s.f. Buildings- 65,460 s.f. 181,780 s.f 40.0 % impervious surfaces Total tract: 329.96, Ac. (14,373,058 s.f.) Total Impervious Surfaces: 1,300,300 s.f. 9.1 % impervious surfaces (overall site) 010 A 4( Cic._„ 6 - 6-■ i 1 \3 e;LA"■ ) r.-14„,5 4 _Tre.„_,1.5 .N.) )-\y- s; 4 4b 6 '4.. Sto6212_6) 5-; i4 k Cc k ic) % sitstrz_s) G It , '., 4 I • • - - • - • y^s- - ; _ _ CL-Q-1/4_13 Cn- L L 4 1.1b.,--Ne-\ ° "1'3 .:; ■)(Lti.) • - •c-:r0 ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA O"1 ` 77 TABLE 10.--RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ("Peres slowly" and some of the other terms that describe restrictive suil features are defined in the Glossary. See text for definitions of "slight," "moderate," and "severe". Absence of an entry indicates that the soil was not rated) Soil name and Camp areas , Picnic areas Playgrounds map symbol .Paths and 'trails 1 Altavista: ' Aa Severe: Moderate: Moderate: Slight. wetness. wetness, wetness, floods. floods. Appling: ApB Slight g Sli ht ;Moderate: Slight. , slope. ApC Moderate: Moderate: ;Severe: Slight. slope. slope. , slope. 1AuC: Appling part Slight Slight Severe: ,Slight. slope. Urban land part. I Cecil: CfB Slight Slight Moderate: Slight. slope. CfC Moderate: Slight. te: Moderate: Severe: slope. slope. Chewacla: Ch Severe: Severe: Severe: moderate: wetness, floods. wetness floods. + wetness, floods, floods. Congaree: , P"' Severe: Moderate: 1 floods, floods. Sfloods. ;Moderate: floods. Creedmoor: Cr9 Moderate: Slight Moderate: 1 peres slowly. Slight. Enon: Peres slowly. EnH----. Moderate: Slight Moderate. F peres slowly. Slight. peres slowly, slope. i s e. EnC Moderate: Moderate: Severe: ;Slight. ;Sl, perc'ls slowly. slo ght. p slope. t Georgeville: 1 Slight Slight 1 GeB G Moderate: ;Slight. slope. 1 GeC ;Moderate: Moderate: I slope. slope. Severe: ,Slight. p , slope. . 1ChC i light Slight Severe: Slight. 1 o , slope. , Goldston: , i G1D Moderate: Moderate: 1 small stones, small stones, Severe: ,Flsmallts . slope. . + depth to rock, ; small stones_ slope, slope. 1 o G1F ;Severe: Severe: slope. slope. Severe: ;Severe: depth to rock, ; small stones, � I slope. ; slope. I See footnote at end of table. Or 78,8 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 10.--RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—Continued It,i , Soil name and „ Camp areas Picnic areas ' ; map symbol ; Playgrounds , Paths and trai",s i Helena: HeB Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: ' percs slowly, wetness. ,Moderate: percs slowly, wetness, iHhA: ' Helena part Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: percs slowly, wetness. peres slowly. !Mwetness, Sedgefield part ,Moderate: • Moderate: ,Moderate: peres slowly. oderate: � y• I wetness. wetnesslowly, wetness. 'I , Herndon: �i, ' HrB iSli ht Slight, �, 8 Slight t9oderate. �I I slope. HrC ;IModOpate• ;Moderate: Severe: ,Slight. Sli h I � slope. slope. Hiwaasee: ' HwB g ;Slight • Sli ht Moderate: �Sli ht. I slope. g HwC �Moodeeraate: ;Moderate: 'Severe: • Slight. slope. , slope, slope., Iredell: Tr3 Moderate: ;Moderate: Moderate: percs slowly, too clayey. IMtoo ola 1 ,too clayey. yey' Peres slowly, i too clayey, slope. i slope_ 1IuB: Iredell part Moderate: Moderate: peres slowly, too clayey. ,Moderate: Moderate: too Clayey. sloes slowly, too clayey, � , slope. slope. Urban land part. I ' , Li3num: , �r L� Moderate: • Moderate: ;t9oderate: ',peres s1ow1 Moderate: o Iwetness. y' Peres slowly, � percs slowly, _ wetness. wetness. , wetness.Louisburg: LoC Moderate: Moderate: Slope, slope. ;Severe: Slight, slope. LoP Severe: ' slope. Severe: Severe: ,Severe: Orange: ' slope. ! slope. Or Moderate: Moderate: Moderate: pores Slowly, wetness, Moderate: wetness, peres slowly, wetness. wetness. Pits: Pt. , Tatum; i , TaD ,Moderate: Moderate: i slope, slope, �Sslope. Slight_ TaE ;Severe: Severe: slope, slope. Severe: tolerate: Urban land; slope. (Jr. ' Vance: Vag Moderate: peres slowly. Slight ;Moderate: Slight. percs slowly. •See footnote at end of table, ' it I l—as—05- 46614 . will take place ace an w� ,ground who is concerned about the growth that ,% . 3 erested in what will benefit the town. TIONS FROM ClrizENS OR UES � ---- COMMENTS �L___- None. ED._.�ELOPP9ENT_ UUSI�.=2 .: 2 SCe 104D D R_S D N IAL--1 TO PLANK F�I .10.3.3:: AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT--GEN RAL COI�'�NIERCIA this- te� were sworn in by Those people who wished to corr�ment on Chair Willhoit. Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for the receipt of public Jr. for 331.12 acres of 1 ublic convent a ,proposed planned development and rezoning request located it by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, property Highway 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road northeast of Hillsborough.•and Commercial located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition , Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present . Transition Activity the Collins pointed out on a map zoning classification is Residential-1. as points of reference Highway 70, location of the proposed project using e High School, Cameron Park School and St. Mary's Road. He indicated the Ora n g licants a requesting- [.i. type of zoning surrounding the proposed area. The app a three different, zoning disignations: Ti (1) I 290.03 acres PD-H-R-2 (2) 29.5 acres PD-H-R-5 10.43 acres PD-0C4 Collins pointed out on a large scale map the location of the three y different zoning areas. The commercial portion would be located at the f1; intersection of Highway 70 and St. Mary's Road and would consist of a grocery H . store, drug store, and other small shops. Two principle accesses are proposed with one on Highway 70 and one on Scotswood development based on the 1980 per I I. i The estimated population of the er household and based on the 626 n ∎` household population of 2.6 persons p '-R ', dwelling units proposed would be at complete built outat 1,765 persons. Impacts of the development include: �a< �i�j t�er and_Sewed Services -- the applicant is to provide water and sewer• lines within the development. The plans have been even waPP o the �water the iu k. I for the Town of Hillsborough adequat who to serve the property. On plans. The water pressure seems to the Hillsborough Town Board agreed to provide water and November 18, i 1985, Planning Staff looked at the sewer service to the project. The Orange County capacity o£, the Hillsborough water treatment plant and the sewage treatment :. plant to determine what impact this development would have upon full builtout " 014 on those facilities. The current water treatment plant capacity is 3.0 MGD with 1 .4 MGD being used. With the approved development , that the Town has approved over the past year it is estimated that 519,000 GPD additional wate 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 GPD 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 the impact would be with the . additional 325 GPD promised for the Efland sewer and Collins Indicated the 325 GPD would increase the capacity from 15 to 17% putting it near capacity for the sewer treatment plant and at 90% capacity for water treatment. (22 Traffic 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 vehicle 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 thel, 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 courts, a recreation building to serve the multifamily dwellings and proposed 16.2 acres in single family development which includes 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 transiet 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 development 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 Board of Education has indicated that all schools except Orange High are operating at capacity. k51 Police,_Fire and Rescue Seryjc - The Orange Rural Fire 015 Department has 'indicated they can provide fire protection with proper sized water lines andifire hydrants at proper intervals. The Sheriffs 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 expressed in a letter dated November 12, 1985 to the Board of Commissioners a concern about the traffic safety and . congestion especially along Highway 70 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 that the proposed 6.0 acres at the north end of the single--family development. 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 II 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 by specific standards for Planned Development and that with three different types of development the applicant must comply with the specific standards of each of the three types of development. In addition to the standards1 for Planned Development all the other standards contained in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance must be in compliance. 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 016 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 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 U;se 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 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, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the develo pment and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. The grantee shall promulgate Articles of Incorporation governing tenancy in the development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulationsl 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 and right turn lanes shall be provided on St. Maryts Road at proposed GrahamlDrive. mirm•mr i • 017 7. Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have..a 60' right-of-way T with a 411 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. 'Turn lanes to the east and west shall be provided on Graham Drive at the intersection with St. 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 zone with curb cuts for the handicapped . at street intersections. - 1 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. I 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. • 018 8 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 movements 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 NC DOT). 21 . All roads shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange C',ounty. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all intersections. 22. A 10-foot non-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. 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.) 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 recommendations apply to the recreation area - and 019 facilities. 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, climber, 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 - • Open,' grassed play area. - Adegt%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. 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 and 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. e. Multifamily recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area (i.e. tables, trash receptacles, grills). f. . Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities. g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons. 0.20 h. Wherever possible, provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps. Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes no greater than 5%. 32. 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 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 shall be kept to a minimum. In lieu of planted landscaping, existing 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 entrancewayslto the development. 33. Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the initation of construction activity. 34. That all 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 incorporating all changes, deletion',s 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'i the above conditions and the Orange County development regulations aorairances. U - I 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 recommendation indicating that because of the lack of time to review the new information that has been received by the Planning Stafff which addresses concerns about the availability of raw water in the northern portion of the county including Corporation Lake, Lake Ben Johnson and Lake Orange, he would recommend at least a 30-day continuation of the public hearing which would allow ample time for the Planning Staff to review the report and determine the water resources available. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Marshall noted that in the conditions of approval no reference was made to the specific problems brought out by the Erosion Control Officer in his memo dated November 21, 1985. She suggested that the changes need to be made on the plan before approval in order to meet the soil and erosion control needs. Collins indicated the condition that requires 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 be changed before approval by the Board and Collins indicated this would be addressed at the same time the public hearing is continued. Chair Willhoit asked about the impervious surface ratio and Collins noted that the Town of Hillsborough asked that information be provided about the amount of impervious surface ratio because this area is not in the protected watershed area of Orange County. Commissioner Marshall requested that in the conditions wherever it indicates 'existing vegetation" that the type of vegetation be specified and how much should be left. Commissioner Walker questioned the necessity of the 100 foot buffer zone on Carolina Avenue along the roadway and Collins explained that the 100 foot buffer is required as long as it is a road or a residential lot. Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked how the single family area plan was differentl from the J ro 'ect that was presented in the late p p 70's for the same area and Collins indicated he was unfamiliar with the other plan. He 022 12 asked if a report had been made on the thoroughfare plan for Hillsborough and if so if a copy, could be obtained. Barrly Jacobs also asked how much of the 100 feet on each side of Yanceyville Creek is. in the 100 foot buffer and Collins explained that the floodplain in some places extends beyond the 100 foot buffer as shown and in other areas the, floodplain comes within the 100 foot buffer. On an average, the property takes in the 100 foot floodplain with the exception of the southeast portin. Commissioner Marshall asked why the condition recommended by the Town of Hillsborough with regard to voluntary annexation was not included in the conditions and Collins indicated that since the County is not involved in . annexation that it was more of a municipal policy and as such the County should not be involved. ' Commissioner Walker asked about the location of the Durham Loop and its affects on the project. Collins indicated that the location of the loop is not known at ,this time. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT - John McAdams, facility engineer, ' presented Larry Meisner, engineer with Kimley...Horn and Associates, Inc. who made a reportlon the traffic impact. 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 developments that may have an impact on the proposed development would include the widening of 1-85 to six lanes, and I-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 50 foot right-of-way that could be used to widen the road. The development would access on US 70 and St. Mary's Road. The total development would generate 11 ,400 total trips with 5% of this total traffic occuring 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. Regarding the improvements that would be required to accommodate the traffic, the applicant is in agreement with those recommendations outlined by NCDOT. Specifically, (1) that a traffic light be installed at the Hall buildup of the development, (2) left and 'right turn lanes at all the project entrances (3) a ',left turn lane from St. Mary's to Highway 70 West, and (4) Carolina Avenue be changed to a cul-de-sac. Chair 41il].hoit asked if First and Second Avenues were paved and Meisner indicated' there are no access to these roads from the development. 13 0 ,3 Commissioner Carey asked about the four exits onto St. Mary's Road and McAdams indicated they are proposed 600-800 feet apart. Peter Kramer asked if the traffic from Trayhorn down St. Mary's Road had been taken into account because those people use St. Mary's Road and McAdams indicated the impact of that traffic had been considered to some extent but that Ithe traffic going up St. Mary's Road to Hillsborough had not been-'considered because most of those people are employed in Durham. Peter Kramer asked that the traffic from Trayhorn down St. Mary's Road also be reviewed. Barry, Jacobs asked on what criteria was based the assessment that most of the traffic on St. Mary's Road would come to Hillsborough rather than . away and Meiser 'indicated it was based on the attraction of Hillsborough and - Chapel Pill and On the number of alternate routes available to the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area rather than through Hillsborough. Barry Jacobs questioned the distance from Lawrence Road to Scotswood which was not answered. McAdams also did not know the difference between the plan as submitted in the' 197C's and the plan as submitted for Scotswood at this time. He indicated, inllresponse 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 plan for all future projects to come before the Board. Chair ,Willhoit asked about the situation on the water pressure and McAdams indicated their study shows that water pressure would be adequate for the project including the improvements that will be made and included as part of the project. Chair 1 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 Willhoit pointed out that at the current n71.8 per pupil, it would take a x1301,000 house just to break even. McAdams assured that the impervious surface ratio would be provided. He pointed out that the design of the development included a 200 foot buffer zone on both sides of Yanceyville Creek and special efforts were made to minimize the traffic impact on adjoining properties. He made comments on the proposed conditions of approval: (1) With reference to 17 that the 41 ' paved cross section be reduced to 37'. 024 (2) 14 the development because there is no stipulation that curb. and gutter be requiredd by the County of NCDOT. The elimination of curb and gutter is in line with the entent of environmental senstitivity and does add to the cost of the project. (3) With reference to #10 and sidewalks that sidewalks not be required on the cul-de-sacs or on streets where curb and gutter are not required. (4) With reference to 020 that the light be installed by DOT based on their criteria. (5) With reference to 29b, McAdams questioned providing the lights, stating it is usually done by the municipality. He commented about the requirements recommended by the Town of Hillsborough with regard to the sewer line being installed at least 100 feet away from Yanceeyville Creek and noted the applicant would prefer not to be required to do this because of the slope on both sides of the creek. With reference to the comments made in a letter from DOT, McAdams indicated the applicant does concur with everything as stated in the letter. Planning Board member Nancy Lazio asked about mail delivery and. McAdams indicated that the single family dwelling would have a rural mailbox and in the multi-family dwellings a mail gezebo would be provided. There will also be dumptser locations. COMMENTS OR AUESTI©NS FROM CITIZENS 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. 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 size and location, all the proposed recreational area along Yanceyville is in the floodplain and would not provide for those activities of an action nature. He asked that consideration be given to another three acres (get location) for the project that would be more suitable. This would provide safety and lend itself to a variety of activities. The type of soil has been described as wetlands which may be the type of soil that would need additional support. Mr. C', D. Smith, area resident, questioned condition #2 which states "landscapling and mulching around all mobile home units" and if this was in fact a mobile', home park. • 15 Marvin Collins indicated that reference should be deleted. 025 Smith indicated the residents in the area of would prefer to have the homes 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 ,compatible with what is now on St. Mary's Road and be 150 feet lots facing St. Mary's Road. He voiced no objection to the development but wants to be proud of what is built. Joyce Brown questioned the adequacy of the water supply for the development. The traffic problems and the amount of noice and polution of the air had been questioned. She asked if the present sites for garbage disposal would be adequate and questioned the increased toxins at the landfill and the impact on the land values. She stated that taxes are already extreemely high and development Ili of this kind will inflat present prices in the area and land values. She asked that the County stop and see what has been approved and to 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 against the project. She listed four (4E) 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 and the demand on the Sheriff's Department to provide protection. She expressed concern that Hillsborough will be ruined if the 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 that the people who come to visit Historic Hillsborough and walk from one area to another and the dangerous situation that will be produced by increased traffic. Ms. Vivian Roberts, resident of Carolina Avenue which borders the proposed development, does not object to development but does oppose the Scotswood Development 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 roads. She questioned the use of the buffer zones and if it would maintain or enhance the value of contigious property which is a requirement of 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 026 16 that the traffic impact report states that the interesectaon is not yet at capacity. The !development calls for Carolina Avenue to be closed at the west end which would route traffic back in front of the existing homes on Carolina Avenue and Ms.. Roberts asked if this increase in traffic on the dirt road would maintain or enhance the value of contigious 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 of 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 lessen 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' before 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 people that stated that Highway 70 is already at capacity and is a crowded highway. This would make a dangerous situation in front of Cameron Park School even more dangerous. With regard to water consumption, itlis 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 Iof what is remaining and this project coupled with several others that are planned or already approved would essentially use up most if not all the available capacity and expressed an uncertainly of the Town having the resources to expand the plant. The other problem, in the long run, 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 needs to be in place oritaking 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 am requesting voluntary annexation of this development. John McAdams indicated the applicant would readily petition the Town of Hillsborough on a phased-in basis for annexation. Marvin Collins made reference to an earlier question from Barry Jacobs about the proposed project for this property and stated that in 1980 O R A N G E C O U N T Y 027 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6:, 1986 Action A ends Item # ii SUBJECT : ZONING :ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS — JUNKED MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARINGJX _Yes _ No T Attachments] Information Contact : MARVIN COLLINS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S LETTER SUSAN SMITH Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on amendments to the Zonin • Ordinlance . NEED : The amendments relate to an enforcement action dealing with th :: removal of junked and/or abandoned vehicles from a parcel i Chape'IL Hill Township near CaLvander . Staff initiated Lega proceedings and was prepared to go to court when th = defendant 's attorney requested a hearing before the judge t. determine the County 's right to enforce such provisions . Th contention of the defendant 's attorney was that Steitz regulations preempted the County 's authority . The judge ruled that the County could regulate junked and/or abadoned vehicles , but indicated that ordinance revisions were necessary to insure the constitutionality of the provisions . The County Attorney has prepared proposed amendments which address the judge ' s concerns . IMPACT: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance would allow staff to roce with enforcement action . P ed RECOMMENDATION : Approval of the ordinance amendments . GOG�: N, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRA.VE ATTORNEYS AT LAW - - CHURTON STREET 028 ..LLSBOROLoH, N.C. 27278 919-732-219G 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919.539-7131 ALONZO B.coLEXAN.JR. October 18, 1985 STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J.BERNHOLZ RICHARD J.SIIDER,JR. JANE G.de LISSOVOY G.NICHOLAS HERMAN Ma',rvin Collins LYNN A.ANDREWS • Of Counaet Or',ange County Planning Director BONNER D.SAWYER Orange County Planning Department (1902-1972) 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina: 27278 Re: Storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles Dear Marvin: This letter confirms our conference on October 8th related to the changes needed in. Orange County's Zoning Ordinance in order to regulate the storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles. Changes are necessary because Judge Paschal , in the criminal prosecution of Mr . Pratt, who was charged with violating the County ordinance prohibiting storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles in a residential district, found the ordinance provision unconstitutional . In that regard it is important to note that Judge Paschal upheld Orange County ' s power to regulate the storage of junked oxlwrecked motor vehicles in residential districts through the use of a zoning ordinance . This notwithstanding other statutory authority empowering the state and counties to remove and dispose of abandoned and junked motor vehicles. Judge Paschal ruled that the definition in the Orange County ordinance of a junked or wrecked motor vehicle was too broad . It would, for example, make unlawful the storage of an operable vehicle properly liCensed and registered under the laws of some state other than North Carolina . Judge Paschal also expressed concern about the fact that a garaged or oth'lerwise enclosed vehicle which meets the definition of junked or wrecked under the ordinance would violate thei ordinance if the vehicle were so stored in a residential district. - I theyI recommend we address these concerns by amending definition of junked or wrecked motor vehicles � Marvin Collins Page Two 0 2 t October 18, 1985 contained in Article 22 of the zoning ordinance as follows: Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles which do not display a current license plate or a current registration sticker and which do not display a current inspection sticker issued by or in the same state as the license plate or registration sticker and which either: (a) are partially dismantled or wrecked, or (b) cannot be self-propelled or moved. in the. manner in which originally intended to move. 1 recommend the following change in Section 6.16.7 of the ordinance: Storage of Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is specifically prohibited in all residential districts. This section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building which building conforms to applicable building code and zoning regulations or which building lawfully exists as a non-conforming use under applicabl building code and zoning regulations . Your comments concerning this are welcome . Finally, per our conversation on October 8th , enclosed is a copy of the applicable statutes abandoned and derelict motor vehicles governing information in contacting the Secretary of Transportation to determine if the remedies provided there can help us with Mr . Pratt. Very truly yours , 40" eo rey L. Gledhill GEGflsg Enclosures xc: Don WIllhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners, for the Board I 000 PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Current Provision : Section 6 .16 .7 Storage of Junked or Wrecked Motor . Vehicles The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is specifically prohibited - in all residential districts . Proposed Provision : Section 6 .16 .7 The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is specifically prohibited in all residential districts . This section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building which building conforms to applicable building code and zoning regulations or which building lawfully exists as a non—conforming use under applicable building code and zoning regulations . ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS Current Provision : Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles Motor vehicles which are not registered with the State of North Carolina , do not have current North Carolina inspection stickers or either : (a) are incapable of operation , or (b) are partially dismantled . Proposed Provision : Storage of Junked or Wrecked Motor Vehicles The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is specifically prohibited in all residential districts . This section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building which building conforms to applicable building code and zoning regulations or which building I lawfuly exists as a non—conforming use I under applicable building code and I zoning regulations . liMilliiiiimearimmwmommm- ICI O R A N G E C O U N T Y 031 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6,,1986 Action rA�enda SUBJECT : Z-1-86 ' DONNIE CHAPMAN REZONING REQUEST Item # �S DEPARTMENT : PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING NG X— _Y s Attachment (s) r�` Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH VICINITY MAP FINDINGS MARVIN COLLINS REZONING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ------------- PETITI �iN Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive public comment on a rezoning request to correct a error in the Zoning Atlas . NEED: On October 1 , 1984, zoning became effective in Cheeks Township At that time , the property of Donnie H . Chapman was placed i an EC-5 Existing Commercial zoning category . The Land place . in that designation was thought to include those building : associated with Mr . Chapman ' s automotive service. Recently the Planning Staff Learned that the buildings are located on a adjacent tract (in the same ownership) zoned AR—Agriculture Residential . The intent of the rezoning is to match th : building Locations with the appropriate zoning classificatio (EC-5) . IMPACT: Rezoning of the Chapman Atlas ! property would correct the Zoning RECOMMENDATION . Approval of the rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning', Atlas . 3 II Gil TbV-1[t::P -- TA M4 7 10 _ 032 _. \ . . A/1 . . - 2 , $ ACS t g 0 ii . ._ i A 6....t .. � , u • �1 131.114 -lspiP -�P 3 C■ yr�y`a�Q 0 -my.Or -r...;1 4 r ,,i a¢y �� ram. 7i Q 5n. ._ , 0 --_.....,.......„.. ,,,,/> <\\\ 1 / I 4 . 1 %/01 _ _ _ /7/..." 1 1 1 / AR. / is # c�•may gyp'- �` . `' 7 e4:44... +�* g 1 0 . , - i _ E7c.�tti7tliC� t.rocl�'ttsa� ' �t5 � �_ � u.� � oc r t4 : AIL}q8 , �) AR ' 4b9 } `V b.e.Cu -L. eptsAig6, t_OGb7ioM % r h�coo IM�' eg Grz i Sob6ur 'to i +,x ,s t.Zo);E (Ac, co rc-6) • Mc:ft-Kr-1 �ouSOT -to t r ,� P.Z-zc*(O C ..0-S To Axe �" to du a Id I- Z _____j 4,. I 2 t- 3a IsIOZII-4 r v)fl / N.,. g i 5ct"=4ba -o" } V . , ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT - 1 =-033 . Data: November 25. 1985 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersignedi do hereby make application to change the Zoning Orange County as herinafter requested . • atlas of 1 . The propel,rty is Located on the south •side of S,R. 0 1332 ( Highland 'Farm S�/Road) between S.R.# 1334 S.R .; 1336 It is known as Lot (s) 5 &. 7A and Orange County Tax Map 10 -- Cheeks ~P t lack, of e Township . ' It has a frontage of p a''P feet and a depth of sep map _feet , and con;ains 180338.5 square feet or 4. 14 acres . 2. It ms d sir5ed and requested that h fore oing property AR1 P"!.4 acregs) P Y be rezoned AR 1 • See attached narrative EC-5 3-.- The --fo l Lowi ng. information has (bee _ attached o_in__explanation.uppor application for -changing the Zoning Atlas (* support of - the • applications). 9 ' required an- eat ea. A 'rutty dimensioned nap at- e scale of not Leea then one (1) inch equals one—hundred (1003 feet nor sore than one (1) inch squats "twenty-- I201 feet —showtmg•--the land which is proposed to ba rezoned. . *b. A Legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. *c. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the !showing: (1] The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which Would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of ouch error in the Zoning Atlas end detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. (2] The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reueonebly necessary to the promotion of the public hee th, Safety and general welfare. *(3] The manner in which the proposed amendment wilt carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. *(4) ALL other circumstances, factors and reeaone which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies] assuring services provision capability to the devntopment. d. A list, of aLL individuals, fires or corporations owning property - edjcining or within five hundred 1500) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of 11 /29/89 . (Dotal ' 'I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate ;a the best of my knowledge . . Tpt.icant ( s ) : Address : hone ; I - . 034 NARRATIVE STATEMENT -- DONNIE H. CHAPMAN REZONING REQUEST On October 1, 1984, the property of Donnie H. Chapman consisting of approximately 1!.14 acres was zoned EC-5 Existing Commercial . The zoning of the property occurred as part of the zoning of Cheeks Township. The property was a portion of Lot 5, Tax Map 10 -- Cheeks Twsp. The property placed in an EC-5 designation was thought ht to those buildings comprising Mr. Chapman's automotive service n It was recently discovered that the buildings in question are not situated on a portion of Lot 5 but on the adjoining Lot 7A, also in the ownership of Mr. Chapman. The purpose of ithis request is to zone 1. 14 acresf=of the 1.38 acre tract now in an EC-5 designation back to AR. ThisrpgntiOn of the . request invol)vesr,Lot . 5. Approximately 0 .24 acres of this tract - would remain EC'-5 in order to provide the required 50 foot side yard for an existing shop building on Lot 7 . The request also involves the rezoning of approximately of Lot 7A from AR to EC-5. This request is made to provide for the existing buildings on that lot. The buildings include aflarge shop building, a smaller garage area to the rear of the sho storage building to the east of the shop. P, and a The attached property drawing shows the property in question and those portions for which rezoning is requested. .,.,s\\:. ,. _. . . . 035 . . \ . . . . . . .. . ...... 0 lk 0 ' ?._ To. - t'!"'• • / f ‘,.... .... - . \ -,.• wow. i - • .• .. • ,-...4.• ... - 1 - . ii j / I\ . ,• -1 .......,Ct / / 1 I ti-t..r _ . 1 / I / - . _ V _ t r 1 ...' 41. ,15. r i'y's. . - ..• --11 .." / 1 % - P . r I , / / e:\\I. i I ., . I 074 • i 1 ./. / 1 1 5, ../ 41..,. . r . - • / , ... ....• „CAMP= : • c...' ../ ,lae• ' Il 4•9'....t- 1 ws›, • ; r 14.,.• , r ...' .,.. ..: .1..‘ , • ., : ‘f) ../ - . Atts.%. ,-- . o .... / / ...... 1.-",, 1._,\ : • / •' r.',. ..„ .., .,._ F, Tp:•,. 1 . .. i i ..., • ''''0. . . ?..... 1 A 55-•• 5.1x ,• - ...' on.% - A: I • 11 i if : e i• ..a. VIT647. :1 r ..fr ' — /I .,1.1 CP-7 0 . --- :,-.. / r . ..../ • • .-' ...... •- e•, .; .5, ..." / 4.:,... ...5.1 5.5.5, .....1 / r:o / e .e ./. Ck Ae" ' 'I. 1,. ., 1... 1.% -..7'. A ,.../ .1-r :-I: .,- ...." ',:k. o . e 1_,' ■ r.‘ / ,- ,... ! / e / IA . e f r ..., . t.Th-• J.-41 P.1 1 4. .• ..... -76 A •7'...-". , .* a..tt. " ...A ...4...._•••-. z 71 c ,..' / ....• ". 211 - 1 ..• /. / 2,-4‘ sr --- S -1.5; •,...., / •.... I's ;. .... •-• .-11)--•---. .... .--/ i-,- k.i ..• -4.N. ." ,..- •A' -..- . / --"' ••• ... ... •-•. / .... -,A -1•• -.A. ---.._ 1 1 ey • -' •--_ -.... -,... . , .0. /3 r... s . e -.../. -.1,:\ ■•-!.%..4,."....-.. -•,, .... 4-n$ 111.4: ,......,. ...'---,.., ... .r. t ,.. .,,. ■ s:.-. --"--'•=t-_,,,,-- -- 'le...,-z..- - •' • '2.-777,,K... i•-•••••:-...1 4 i• / 1... .A.-_,..;re-:* •-.-- +.{. .... '. ••-•;, r..... .."''''' ,7--......-,..._ : \ .5 .-.XV-4..-",„..---5,, 5-1.5 e'• 5' .r 'Z -- ------. A t ... \ — -:. -+;-J ..,•:--:..::: :P.4-'''''-- --..-:-..--,,,,,,,,,,r,... -('.._.-..-.:-.:::: N, VI ... I--..-r. tt-s,„, ,,,,...... ,_ . . -I . . • •- • , - . .-.„/ .....„,., ...,...' '' '7e. , ftt . • • s+ \ '1, . . . N. " -.7.:' ' ' r4. A - . . - ..,... . • - . • ' . . ..., .5.".,..r..7,-..-r,.._ '. .. 5 1. N. . • \ -. . .._. ... A . •-....,- . • . . ... . . . 5) .•=1.1.,.....4:\...., • . . , . . . • • , .- .•-• ‘ ' ‘ \ \ , - • . • .,..s . . .i. 5 . ‘ •5 . . • :. A ,7 r"•",'"7.1-1.4,,•',7.3•W‘3,-.777.,917g.ftit,.. •-,-,,,,,,...W.,--,.._.r•-■ ,-'-. --' -- - °' r ` O3: , - ./1 .,,. r .;z.rar:— — rr+ .,..1 '11h.. •--- . r.r.,1, ~•r �`'.� _ • 1 ' % • L- ,Kgra.zinossze% -- . / 1 _1...1,- a� , Q t-elsaidi • i i '• ,. s f r + �. r. . li -#'� .! ` - ' ti 7r r r J �'C�• I y s I• t f . �L I •.Y• r r ..... N \ e I r • J\ ✓✓ r + / - +rr •— ti ...." ■-•"'".. -.V _Z. .."" ..--- .-- ....-*-4.-- i N,-,,- i -- `«fir.-„_ 6• _ _ _- S 1 - - r r I � r I,t , .• •.- i . _ 't f r - - r ....-.^r r r t»-,J r I if tV :_1 , r r _ I,------ r -r YY J n r ji _ _ I, '•____(.._- -- - , _ `r REZONING, SPECIAL USE, MAILING ADDRESS REQUEST LIST 037 TO ^.SHIP TAX I�IAP FLOCK LOT TOWNSHIP TAX MAP BLOCK 037 i • Cheeks 0 7 Grace R. Miller Cheeks 10 8E Jean & Donald Crawford Cheeks 10 15 Orange Grove Crossroads Bapti .t Ch Cheeks 10 SA Donald Hanks _ Cheeks 10 14 James Upchurch Cheeks 110 6A Phillip A. Latta Cheeks 1'0 6 Charles D. Latta Cheeks 10 6B Samuel A. Latta Hillsborough 3 30 Charles D. Latta I II - - r • I it . I • w • I .. r Fi 038 q '11.-.w l ie3r.iat ,2389 mr... i NO(389 41 137 I a. 'K• Excise Ts* Recording Time.8mX and Page Tax Lot No. .... . . ... ..... Parcel Identifier No. . .. „-_ ..- •Verified by .-. ...- County on the day of ..77...- ]Sail after recording co Chesh?re 6 Parker y . _ - This instrument was prepared by Alonzo Brown Coleman, Jr., 110 North C:lurton Street,�_� Hillsborough. North Carolina 27278 Brief description for the Index l 1 NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED . THIS DEED made this 26th day of may_ , io 82 .by and between GRANTOR GRANTEE . d . s''" CAROL CHAPMAN DONNIE CFIAPMA.N TT4 e2Ca73,_C . 4_ r i. rY•�G ="• o'f 27278 0. 'g -... 4Z t*, { } Ei r in appropriatc biota for each psrt); n.,7ye.address. and, is appropriate. :r .racier n( entity.e.q.corporation or partnership, I ter The designation Grantor and Grantee a3 used herein shall include said parties. :heir heirs. successors..ind assis+ns.and `-�3 _shall include singular. plural. :masculine, feminine •+r neuter as required by context. ` . 'r_' W1TNESSETH. that the Grantor, for a valuabie consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt of which to hereby 'r°j:' acitsnnwied;ed. has and by :hese presents does grant. bargain. sell and convey unto the Grantee in fee 3in'pie. all that certain lot or parcel of land ;ttuated in the City.,f Cheeks and Hillsborough "rau•nship. 1.•----t Orange cuuntg.North Carolina and more part:cutar 4eseribed as follows: • 1. " TRACT I 1.01" 7A . •.;- BEGINIviNG at an iron stake in the South right-of-way line of State Road 41332_ and •-'-= at the Northeast corner of the Anderson lioleman Estate; running thence along- and . 1.1 with the South line of Charlie Latta South S8° 00' East 250.30 feet to an iron ro 28' c stake; thence continuing with said Latta's South line South 16° East &6.a0 feet • "` t''" to an iron stake a new corner with G. E. Mille:; running- thence a new line South • b 08° 19' West 311.70 feet to an ircn stake; running thence South 16° 00' West 365.30 feet to an iron stake a new corner with G. E. Miller; running thence North 19° 05' n West 270.00 feet to an iron stake in the East line of said Holeman Estate; thenec -n. ': aloud and with said Holman line North 10° 04' East 772.00 feet to the point and • place of BEGINNING and contninirg -1.36 acres more or less -according to the ?'et -" and survey entitled "Property of Donnie II. Chapman" by W. R. Cates, Jr., Cate May 16, 1973, and recorded in Bcck _ , Page , Orange County R,eTistry. 4 net.,4 u - 1-'-, 1 b , . BEGINNING at a stone heap a corner of Lot No. 1 on Richard Thompson's line, then with said Thompson's line North 36 chs and 62 Dm. to a stone heap a corner of Lot No. 4, then with No. 4 past S chs. and 30 links to pointers on Abisha Faucette's .- line; then his line South have a degree West to.pointers a corner of Lot- No. 1, - -:?--e-1 .--.- .'. thence with Lot No.. 1 West 6 chs. and 7 &s. to the first station, containing 22 and 11/16 acres, be the same more or less. 039 stiz: , ..,-, i:. 714 Reference is made to deed dated March 13, 1872, from Josiah McDade et al. to - -;.... Anderson Holeman, recorded in nook Page 201, Orange County Registry. I The property hereinabove described was acquired by Gractor by beetrumenc recorded in ..._ 00k._;4.3; ?age .15...... 4 and Book 255, Page 1105, orange County Registry. .... . c... •-%asap showing the above described proper*is reeorded in Flat Book . 7--- - _ _.,-.•:.' TO RAVE AND TO BOLD the-aforesaid lot or parcel of land'and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee ha fee aistple. • . XXIXP-M1)2003Cratlail$Xic"-gaafICOZQUQZraiXISirt..r....12gc__ X X42CK.laVICIgc:43t.:10#Ya)CL:Carai.IC... .)4-1-..:...TY. . CarXtraCtt====?X=0:6"IL.413CiaNtEMINW.ECosiMISMOLXX=Ogmar }Cals"AXX)te.=:44(X'm=70C1.64 04-_. . , oixowoom=4‹,*in.T.,944veggpytigq ....CONLX.14==*.INM:0:1:41xXXX%niXIOXWXXWDORXXXXXX.4%X.XXXXXX 2n2=2C4.6aYfraoAleaareavaaakoapgaaraoiX4di.X.Y4.4i(ZiXianiYaXirr.4:44;XiV,W).N • at- .41..:., i--'-•. .....a.. --at= ..... .. g 74 4:3 . • • -,....„- 01 WITIOZ33 OVII*111010.. the Cranedp bes beeeesente see oh hand and seal. at It eetporate.has calmed Mee •eelre7ment to be atoned in tie eanc2t.•Bares OP Oa elzaly•nthem*. °Meer'and ILI .OkS to be beyeeato Attl-tee by ateMerety of its Mooed of Directors, LOS flay lad yet* Come above trailMee.. .. — — — ;.! — R .ee- v.._ • (SEAL) lCerpereta Name) ... Carol - - :4 = 371—.......---..--..—....___......_.............. 2 — tre.ara .... v-- 4 .......,. . -- - • As-rx3r: • ..; • . . ......csratta • ,^z.i_ - r..- -.., :a .............................1...peOretarl(Corporate Sean Z r 4(.46.2........ 4' ,oStel.t-STAPI'Pee 4 1-1 Nott.rm cAteoLINA. Orance Co.. . - • . V'tslil .. : 1 -r I-X Notary rublic of the Comm(y and Male a foreaa Id. certify (hat . i i nOTARY 1.. s g - !=. ; L C4rAlShapman Greaser. S ; PUBLIC -..`..r.r.i: - ... .• ...- 2 O•reonalty Appeared before ale Wes ear end aelemeleeged cbe"yeomen of the Cerement enstraraeoL Witness my 1::',,A.Z....•........./te i '1 hand...eats°Metal eassep or seal.1...Lta ..25. day el 32 .._ 1 .1___ •-- I MY Mmeallsiaa earleees: raii•ii•••••L's /0-10-8 2 ‘-•-,,e,"4=4•Ck..0 1r...+7 Peelle e .- 4 -STAMP' 140fLTII CA1101-1:1A., Youacy. 1. a :Sol.TY PoblIc of a. Ceuney and ata(e afaressIf. certify tsar.s PersenallY came before. env thee,ear MO arkao•••teeeed Lai......_ he lb Sec....Ty or a North Cafollaa earporaclAn.ao4',Pao gr 001001-It,a.:7 i Zto•n and 3.3 a.• age of th• corpor,..2e0. :b• fOrecoLo{ micturneac AS JtCoTO to as bar.. by ge 2 Pre.i.dret.sem•d esca .ca corport.co seal ace a1.tzst..4 by aa as eta-. :-. 1,11cmrsa my tarsi ..ad orrmiu st.tc.fp or sera.Ws ear el' 14 :1- , . My coon CV:pl.-at . votary ■--.1"- 1 .... •__, Lb.I_TYXG•ctlfle•ct to be cotreeS.mi3 s,alcolocbt a.. Lb.1 ccrtlf!catt .0 claly ,ctssac...t at :t• ,a Em a nel:IP'n• and la t.:, Rook ad Pkg.. Shown '''.‘..1"•rt". This ;me 28ch day of :lay, :5.32 .it 3:52 ?....1.. :n ..?..z.afs 3:.:9 Pde •37. ..Se t tY Jor;g4 'il ayes .,.. .,,. ktG:srirt ..)r fer.Y.1/5 ynn_ . 0.r4n9:7:_......................cot....,-,--r 1 /3•7 ./4".„. -,---....,--, 3.- .Z...........,A$14“.114- of llt.t. .- • -..... 'V C bar la.< Pr 7 rr...e. : Cl........1,7,• . Pnr.Toct :,, E0•4-2;d3 :.)1.:Ic;-.... '..r.c C..-ni;E:J • .., -.....• • : 040 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS - ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , Susan J . _Smith , Zoning Officer , Orange County , North Carolina , DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about December 23 , 1985, I mailed , by certified mail , postage prepaid , a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the rezoning ofY_the . progerty___of Donnie Chapman from Existing Commercial--V to AaricuLturg�TResidentiaL and rmAgricuitural Resi[ientia�_t__o Existing Ggmmerica o correctan error inthe Zoning_Atlas to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6 .3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The noticellmailed specified the date , time , place and subject the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS myihand , this the 17th7'±a _of =ec ='berms 1985 . lam SUSAN J . SMITH ZONIN OFFICER O R A N G E C O U N T Y 041 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6,1986 Action A nda SUBJECT: Z-13-85 P & S SPORTING GOODS, INC . Item DEPARTMENT: PLANNING —rrwT PUBLIC HEARING Yes No Attachment (s)r- � Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH SEE 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA DRAFT 11 -25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 686-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE : To consider for approval a rezoning request S 9 q t submitted by P & S porting Goods Inc . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1985 . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED : P & ',S Sporting Goods Inc . is requesting a rezoning of property Located south of NC 54 and approximately 550 ' east of Morrow Mil . 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 Agriculturei- Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node . The present zoning of the property is Agricultural Residential (AR) . The applicant is requesting a rezoning to Local Commercial-1 ( Ld-- 1 ) . IMPACT : Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoned for commercial purposes within the designated activity node, and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use . ' RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommended approval of the LC-1 rezonin! request . Durinjg the 12-16-85 Planning Board meeting a motion fo approlval failed with a 5-5 vote . Manager ' recommends that the request Planning Board for reconsideation be reger the back to the p legal' issues raised by members of thePlanningBoard�Qlutian o 1 042 S J11MARY OF ORANGE COUNT`" PLANNING BOARD ACTION Suoject: Rezoning .. P &_S _5j orting.Oon , tn�. i` d:_.- Recommendation: the F,...`_...: was cvcn;aril., ctedbetween approval and denial Voter S . Mee!ing Date: December 16 .198S Issues Raised: 1. It was asserted that the original zoning designation for this business was ,incorrect. On the other hand it was asserted that..since the business already existed. the an_olicant should be allowed to expand the business in this manner, 2. The question was raised as to whether the amount of land designated for y commercial purnoses in a rural activity node has already 9 peen exceeded. The question was raised as to whether the market iEr::il for this busines s itgl confined to the immediate area or whether it :irrvcd a id-fier market area. fp1ana1iin of Dissenting Votes: l The Board wt3s evenly divided on the issues,dest riOed aborre_- -- JJ • Miter information tion and/or Citations from County Regulations: i Section 7Q- ! ,�f �;,:: inning „rdinance (Amt?r�dmer:t5) alas cited in the digu_vO . l hi; cerl ir� + ,xefi that the t3rd1t3 nce 1 i i3e amended. amonn.nther ttopi..; L i)_to curr_a d. a ti7_anite:it error in the c rtiinance orr_ti 2) because of chap .49 ha niliiion;>. i,► a articular area tar in the county rzenerellY. it _S*! 1:191.m-1_71-m--Iota alleanti ::rd that no chin cif conditions w._re cited-__ ., -- . I- r + f S A17. , ( Mo�' rc?lf>z1C 05 Ar. -I— - - - - -- - - -- - ---- - GC-�f A R fa Sr49 �t: I{i {(r� A-R \ f ras h AL7! W. Y q? C ,I :.� qC �13 1 'C __ 5.24 AC, lone'? c.0 ! 6414 A`�y(( /�C� � �!•�11� � .� 1 '. fi�3.._ ..__ _ � ���(,T ` I 0, f. i R( i :i..; AR "�• 743 15a 3871. 2i C, - - L I OR At, F i F3 AC. J l nc.fX. ''..' APPLICANT: P $c S SPORTING GOODS 1 A-R LUP: Agricultural Residential Rural Neighborhood Activity Node f Current Zoning: Agricultural-Residential -�� i Proposed Zoning. Local Comm ercial Scale: V= 400' M m� R M� f. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD v PERTAINING TO -- - APPLICATION: Z-13-85 P&S SPORTING GOODS INC. BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDI NG5: 0 ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING rp - r,T--CAE 20 —SPEC-I-FI-C-STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates cam fiance• "No" indicates Noncompliance PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Ordi inncc Regui rements EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS g000 FINDINGS The ap,p. l i cation must comply With a1 l rcn,ui rements speci- fied i n Article 20 - Amend- m^Rt;. Those redui rcments i nci ude 20. 32 o) Map slowing affected X Yes No prorcrty of scole of not less Site Plan provided at scale of Yes N 1" than l °_ 100". nor more than I '- =100' 20' , 20. 3.2 b) Lcgal description of XYes No property Description Description ,provided with application Yes N 20. 3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by No error alleged. Yes N p ropo5 c d amendment 20. 3.2 d) Changed conditions, if Yes No Changed coed i flons not al leged. any , which matte amendmcn t reasona-� - ' Yes N bly necessary to promote public health , safety and general welfare. 20, 3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No omendr;,enr wi I l c-, Property is located within an area `�"d intcn't or adopted Con►prebcnsive kFLANNING BOARD 5-5} esignated Agricultural-Residential P1,-In and Rural. Neighborhood Activity Node, ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Oreinancc Requi remcnts Article 4.2 indentifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. - The applicant-has---- ---__ - - --- - _ - applied for a LOCAL COMMERCIAL -i ---- - - - �LC-11 designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.3 and are as follows: a} Located within the Carrboro Joint x Yes No property is located within a Rural Neigh- Yes No Planning Area or area designated as boyhood Activity Node. Commercial Transition, Rural Community or Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes. b} Uses would serve a market area Yes x No Uses permitted in an .area zoned Local Population confined to the immediate Commercial-? .are limited to localservice type —Yes No area and would generally not serve commuters Y, or persons outside the surrounding and .re tail type operations and to low scale neighborhood, offices- (PLANNING BOARD MOTION FOR "YES" FAILED 4-6) k Yes No Site Is to be served by on-si.te water and c} Lot size for individual uses wastewater facilities as approved by the Yes No shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal ,of County Health Department, d) Normally, the maximum amount of land X Yes No There lsino. property currently zoned LC-1 at _Yes No zoned r exceed nine acres,at any node shall not exce within this activity node, The applicant prurposes es, but 5 acres shall apply in i inmum, rural. areas with lower population density. to rezone Less than the 5 acre m (PLANNING BOARD 5-5) e} all sites designated stroll have x Yes direct access to an arterial or collector No The site has. direct access to, NC 54, a road Yes No classified as an, artertal in the Land Use Plan, . Q 046 ' -- - ' 1. PV R f osa.. 0-,1 1 — ! --e71"51--- ;, �rsTilit /OCcoRd»'' ''o '-a (:ull4e"76 eptuht oitannla,.) 'cot;04 4-D is ¢o p2ovide nPno pAm/,/ / c/ ! An tl 5,-2."/ sie5 c _ / m/1V ca.7.1c40/ ' Uses viesi9Aerr<15 reAve'+ 0 7opo%i o€J Al foe rDG.��4 ioRAivad A� v��l /aca/ tee/ u,S/ coo ve,l a SMt', yell/ /Vle 900 Zr AN ci RSaN4/ ce-S'. 9ff ArA'IDA) CSI a,liegla �/ OseS tuool/ *4 l,; R HAAIef AAtA po�U/A�ib. co fi°rveJ 7't �Ae- iHPJe oi;A'fe- 440 /Md woo Jd 1pfictA117 PO 7' se,,Pve /cb o,.?0-Act P 2 ,0 We'/vsS e'S.c v 74 c s c, Aom N d,N+� 4e,'7�1 Jive Ao c/ Y (f - 0, /IQ pig oQd d Usk 4 f 4.5 -cf if-7i:vo as IS) my/ -f. pm litAk1N Ado Assvnr,7-44._. �'4AT �S5 /s• .]�77e cd�re . •r�r�'siNt°SS As / L �A/eSJ t bcis,'oess 5 r9n1 o N -42 A eisoctvf porjtly,J is nov Au key:iNU w -tA -fi to 4..../' o Q spilt;f of ,e `ocia/ 6vs,;v s Az de rhv e d iy -14 caite/t,%} - Oz A , C-/ di s/AA71 e . 3, n sI'Dit..-r n y c/Dl-t Ad a ,s,o71insval/'7 alik t,h le Q 144 -110,,,...1 D alliNes Cary Ark) A ¢vatzer7e s , 4 Pe c S!0`es 2)` (y /o M„..,' Ms /ooki' 44-4 �1�9ng.Nes,vn, A/3,vd; 4,:r rs nai A apttioNsi.'e svtivey,_ '�11 /111 c iceit�v as A Rest'LA,/ a.- - e xAEA k o z4b( 7• 4e e ,o/ pAxce i�•1 ,.ue se4 b7 A ofilaviN wA0-1 App e g its -A he. A A/4-71,104)a)14._ soli 1 O tide ail as A Comp/717r vse. ie i A .4C—/ hsiit i el 1c1 /c's k -fL f -/ P./,e/n,;1 Bo, ac/ ,e'id -f/re C'oarhi s: SPe�,�{;�tali, �- � �� /�� �p AdI,ze5c r{A povo of 's Reap f Re �a/tese�.ts An ex�suRe 4 t�,�1rJr ssrd,u efts I44.9c. soak. com eraci 01 i a,�,on1 a'74- c��A¢ h�v is r�•.i UY� A9/7icu fu oi- 2!t,.kg:",I NA-6.RA/ /y1Stoa y 'o/2 'pr./051 ///7. /j c--- 12e�.5&. c d a1 E� A.'i4e.1 /0 45— Me-9/0 6h;/lSpa•;a„1 `?Jts (P5' - 07 6• -N1egp,/y e9 le aN,• 0211, . I 95 � �. � �l� TOPOGRAPHY "MOM 047 The physical characteristics of the property present significant develo constr 7 i prrlent nts 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. COMMEXTS OT_ EST'IONS ABOARD OF C0/01ISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD - Barry Jacobs asked for an explanation of why the planning staff _ found the recommendation from the Hillsborough Planning Board was suitable in this case. Susan Smith indicated that the position of the Orange County Planning staff is that the existing sections of Wildwoad Subdivision a developed at R-4 sand ue R-5 densities and it would be consistent to continue with that density. h PRESENTATION PRESENTATION By THE APPLICANT Frintz Brunson from Philip Post and Associates indicated on a plat the location of the R-4 and R-5 areas. The existing Section II is zoned R-5 and Section I islzoned R--4. He noted that because of the slope of the land nothing would be built on those lots which proved to be too steep. COMMENTS OR _UESTIONS FROM CITIZENS None. I 7.43-85r S SPORTING GOODS_INC, Planner Sporting Susan Smith presented for the receipt of rezoning request submitted by P & S S p g Goods for rezoning zo rrent a n Goods, Inc. ning cf property located south of NC54 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 property is AR e present zoning of the l ocs AR, The applicant is -requesting a rezoning to LC-1 . Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoning for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use. Smith referenced the impact analysis and r.ade the following points: (1) V.aterand ;astew ter_Systemss the property is served by on--site water and sewage disposal systems. Expansion of existing systems approval reciuir•�s of enElneered plans by both the Orange County Health Department and State Division of Health Services. I 1 048 25 (2) _F.©adsJIreffjc -- the property is served by NC 54, an arterial. A 19814 traffic count.for NC 54 indicates 64000 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) Police„,_ Fire and Rescue Services - 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 the service agencies indicating an ability to adequately serve the site. (4) ,Relationship between Land Usellervd Zoning Ordinance Since the property is located within the Rural Neighborhood activity node, that rural neighborhood 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 acrealie 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 convernience goods and personal services. The kinds of uses permitted •include: I - single family dwellings -- day care, nursery, kindergarten -- family care home -- rehabilitative care facility church . - comnuni.ty center - schools of music, dance and art -- assembly facility (greater than 300) -- banks nd financial institutions - beauty and barber shops . • 25 - social clubs - health services (under 10,000 sr,' ft. ) Q - 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 building) - 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 by 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 development 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 space, pedestrian space and other types of services. Also it requires that thej site be landscaped and provide parking. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requrest. C01^-?ENIS OR OUESTtONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Planning Boalyd member Steve Kizer stated the reason there is not more zoned LC-1 in this activity node is because the parcel is already illegally zoned GC-4. This happened five (5) years ago when the County zoned this property. He reiterated that LC-1 gives a commercial use that is designed to serve a population in a neighborhood of rural level with conveniences to personal services. The intent of this was 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 estir.-ssted to be more than that permissible in an LC-1 . He asked that the Planning Staff reconsider there approval because it does not fall within the LC-1 designation in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. CO TS_OR C!UES7'7-IC46_FiRCt; CIT7''L.ENS IN THE AUD:LI:I;CL: Cheryl Atwater voiced opposition to the rezonir.g request. She noted she is against, the. products that are sold at Adam and Eve and asked that the I . 050 •County Corrmissioner-s review the literature on these products. She asked that those in the audience against the rezoning to stand and twenty people responded. - h'r. P. D. I Emerson spoke in opposition .of the rezoning request. He ccmpa; ed the pre,sent Adam and Eve plant to a waste treatment plant. This • rezcr ing in no way would better the community. He would be shocked to receive a catalog and sees r,o way it could .better his family. Dan • Eddlempn addressed the intent of the LC-1 and read the location criteria as stated in the Zoning Ordinance which indicates it serves a market area population of the immediate area and generally would not serve commuters 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 an1C-1 district. Their ads appear in national magazines. By • • approving this rezoning the County would be setting a precedent as a complying use in LC-1 district. He asked that the Planning Board and Board of Cornissioners comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Jeanette Jones pointed out thatP & 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 • 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 ponographic material for a profit is no better than'�i prositution. He feels the County has a moral responsibility to check on the type of business that goes in there. • Ralph VarrenI spoke in opposition of the rezoning. The strip development - that is occuring 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. __.Z 1?►-$5_,REZONING R E Q U E S T FROM JAMES I HILL. • Planner Susan Smith presented for public comment a proposed rezoning request. submitted by James Hill. The rezoning is for .ti( acres on land located at the southeast corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 751 in Ens Township. The property is located in an area designated Twenty Year Transition fires and Commercial Transition Acitivity rode. The present zoning of the property iSRural Residential 1 . The applicant is requesting that the lot be rezoned to Community Coruiierci.al ITT. Approva3 of the request would 0551 CRAFT PCM "INU'TEE 12-16—P5 • PAGE 21 + 1 abstained (Yuhasz ) l�I/� T LIT /1\ Jacobs ,;pp roris '. cf 2-2 re Gest . +zor i no _ Seconded by VOTE: 6 . �r favor . 2 opposed . 1 abstained (YLhesz) Those in opposition noted that they re not against rezoning , but were voting againstwrezoning to R-2 rather than R-3 or 2--4, d . Z-133-05 P & S Sporting Goods , Inc . Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a rezoning request submitted by P & S Sporting Goods Inc , This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1955 . P & S Sporting Coods Inc . is requesting a rezoning of property Located south of NC 54 and approxirn ately 550 ' east of Morrow Mill Road . The property is known as part of Lot 28 on Tax to Township The parcel s Nap 54 in Singhar 197 762, 4 !✓ contains 4..�4 acrea or square feet . The property is Located withir, an area designated Agricultural. Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Mode . The present zoning is Agricultural Residential (AR) . The ape plicropeant is requesting a rezoning to Local Commercial—l (LC-1 ) 5 Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoned for commercial purposes within the • designated activity node and would allow Low for expansion of the existing Co,ernerciet use . Staff recommends approval of the LC--1 rezoning request . Kizer stated there were two issues: f) the applicant cannot satisfy she requirements for the zoning district ; 2) this is also an illegal GC-4 designation as GC-4 is not applicable in this plan category . He felt that the error in zoning needed to be corrected and the property rezoned as EC-5 which is an existing use ir. the proper recognition of 4.52 DRAFT PPM fIflUTEE 12-1r--. PAGE 22 • Yuhasz irEire- red .thy the r:nti re tract could not t rezoned EC-5 . Sr i ::h netec: that this could not b . done as t �4 0C--4 portion wes not €dve rti sed . Pearson, notes.' that he felt the existir:c} use was no• subject to decision -ir tEis application . Kizer expressed concern with keeping down the amount of c.ar, r,s•r•cie l property . Jacobs inquired as to the staff meeting of the requirements . Smith respondednthatt staff felt that the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for LC-1 had been met . Kizer responded he did not feel that the intent to develop and expand meets the intent of the ordinance . Pearson inquired if the Board could base •its decision on what it thought the applicant intended to do once he received the rezoning . Collins stated the applicants evere informed of the various ways to apply ; they chose to consider Alamance County due to the time period involved In processing the application for rezoning . Jacobs asked if staff recommended LC-1 . yes , considering the Limitations ofoNC?2. responded Pearson asked if the rezoning was granted could Limits be set on the size of the business to correspond with the l Collins re spo., unit on the market area . nded that it was his opinion that once the property was rezoned , the criteria at the time of rezoning was the deciding factor not the development of the tract . Best inquired what options the applicants would have if the rezoning were not granted . Smith responded that they could immediately come back with an application for another type of rezoning . Kizer noted again that the GC-4 designation was illegal and the property should have been zoned EC- 5 from the begiririing . Smith reminded the Board that Article 20 requirements are simply requirements that the applicant must address in his application and not issues to be decided . The issues to be decided are in Article 4. MOTION : PiLkey r.toved positive findings on 20 .3 .2 a) and hi . Seconded by Jacobs . Vf;TE. h'rar, inous . 053 7=.ArT PSM MINUTES 12--15--r5 PACE 23 MOTll;tl . '', Kizer moved netative findings on 20 Second!: .. ey �:;• � � •*� Yuhesz expressed concern that the decision was • being pads due: to what the Board happen " . Kizer respor . eepressin "thinks i coicer with the limit cf commercial acreage at the node . `, He felt this defeated the puri_oso• of the commercial node . Gordon noted the burden of proof is on the applicant in a general rezoning .application . Yuhasz stated that the decision had already been made designating this as a commercial node. Walters expressed concern with traffic impact . M 'OT'/ON.: Adjournment time was reached . extension of meeting 'to complete AgendlkeItemo#Se (Hill Rezoning ) . Seconded by Kizer . VOTE : . Unanimous . Jacobs ir:quired if denial of the rezoning re H uest would make it impossible for the pre—existing use to expand . Kizer responded that to. allow to continue is not the same thing as allowing expansion . Collins commented that under the designation EC-5 the business could expand . Kizer noted this wouLd be only on the zoning lot if it is Large enough to accommodate expansion . VOTE : (Motion -- negative finding on 20 .3 . 2e) 5 in favor . (Gordon , Best , Kizer, Mergison , Pilkey) 5 opposed . (Jacobs , Pearson , Shanklin , Walters , Yuhasz) Motion for negative finding failed . MOTI. OMe Shanklin moved positive findings on Articl 4. 2• Seconded by Pearson . Pearson noted that the use was not stated in the rezoning request . Kizer responded that it was stated at the public hearing and not denied by the applicants that expansion was the intent . Shanklin noted it was "elleged" not "stated" . Yuhasz stated that once the property was rezoned, it did not matter what the applicant says he is going to do but what he is allowed to do under an LC-1 designation . Kizer read from the application the i �� .:r�. ; e:: -. - �,. _ FP Li cation that expand office facility within 054 Cf4FT PON MIi.L!TE 12-16--ti PAGE 24 the prope'r'ty 1. ovied `'C-4 J Rorkin and septic drainege fie '.Cs serving these offices to be on adjacent property . VOTE : 4. 2, 3e — Unanimous in favor 4. 2 .3b — In favor 4 Opposed 6 4.2.3c — Unanimous in favor 4. 2.3d -- In favor 5 Opposed 5 4. 2.3e -- Unanimous in favor MOTION : Pearson moved approval of a Seconded by Shanklin , rezoning to LC-1 . VOTE: .5 in favor . 5 opposed . Motion for approval failed . Cordon requested that Staff Look into the statement made by Kizer concerning the illegal CC-4 zonings. e . Z-14-85 Janes Hill Presentation by Smith . This item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted by James Hitt . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 . James L . Hill is requesting a rezoning for 0.57 . acres or 24, 829 . 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 Commecial Transition Activity Node on th.e Orange County r Land Use Plan . The present zoning of the property is Rural Resicential (R_1 ) - . request nE that 'l The applicant is the Lot be rezoned to Community horimerci E L III (CC-0) . uvrcrtiu vi '.Ui'IIZ IVItt — ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM !'O F.}. ' MEETING DATE JANUARY 6 , 1986 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Grant from State 's Land Records Management Program'_. jDEPAR MEN f: Central Land Records PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO I ATTACHMENT(S): 1 []Ioir1o1 CONTACT: Resolution Roscoe Reeve Agreement PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 • HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9351 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE -- 227-2031 DURHAM -- 688-7331 PURPOSE: To accept a grant for $16,000 fromthe State of North Carolina ' s - Land Records Management Program for the production of o.rthophoto base map's for Orange County on a matching basis, and to -approve the appropriate Agreement.. Pp • . NEED: The grant will be used to .complete the Phase 2 workplan (modified) for 1985486 for the production of orthophoto base maps of Chapel Hill Township. p I 1 1 1 IMPACT: The County will receive $16,000 in matching funds for the mapping Phase 2 workplan for 1985-86. . RECONMENDATION(S) : that the Board of Commissioners approve a resolution accepting ($16,000 from the State ' s Land Records Management Program _ and authorize its Chairman to sign the Agreement for that grant provided by the State (2 originals) 057 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAND RECORDS MANAGEMENT NT PROGRAM STATE AND COUNTY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1986 by and between the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (hereinafter called NRCD) and the County of Orange, a North Carolina municipal corporation, (hereinafter called the "County") WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Section 102-15, of the North Carolina General Statutes empowers the NRCD to administer a program of technical and financial assistance for the improvement of county land records; and WHEREAS, the Land Records Management Grant Application dated July 10; 1985, prepared and submitted by the County, has been determined by NRCDIHto qualify the County for a grant award; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the NRCD has awarded Land Records Management Grant No. 86-35 in the amount of $16,000 from State matching funds to the County as financial assistance for the completion of the project described in said Grant Application; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. County Engaged. The Land Records Management Program agrees to assist the County and the County agrees to perform the work and responsibilities as more fully described in the Work Program appended hereto as Attachment A and hereby made a part of this Agreement as a complete and sufficient statement of the work encompassed by the Project Description in the Land Records Management Grant Application supporting Land Records Management Grant No. 86-35. II 058 2. General Responsibilities of the County. The Count Government Y shall: ) (a) assume positive leadership to perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner as determined by Land Records Management Program, all elements of the Work Program set forth in Attachment A; (b) engaged with the consent of Land Records Management Program, qualified contractors for all work not performed by county personnel; and (c) arrange periodic meetings of county officials, .local representatives of the legal, surveying, and engineering professions and representatives of Land Records Management Program to review progress and consider such recommendations for action as may be required. 3.i Provision of Funds. To assist in financing the work covered by this' Agreement, the County has been awarded a grant of State funds in the amount of $16,000. It is expressly understood that the County will match this State award with an expenditure of at least $16,000 of local tax revenues applied exclusively to the work covered by this Agreement. 4. Obligation of Grant Funds. Grant funds may not be obligated prior to the effective date or subsequent to the termination date of this Agreement. All obligations outstanding as of the termination date shall be liquidated within one year after the date specified unless otherwise extended by the State of North Carolina in writing. Such obligations must be related to goods or services provided and utilized within the effective period of this Agreement. The effective period of this Agreement is January 1, 1985 - June 30, 1987. 5. Changes or Extension of Document. The County or the Land Records, Management Program may, from time to time determine that changes in the scope of work described in Attachment A will be necessary. Such changes affecting the nature of the work as well as the timing, methodology, and any increase or decrease in the amount of compensation due to the County shall be incorporated in written amendments to the contract which shall be mutually agreeable to the parties hereto and such agreement shall be endorsed thereon by authorized signatures. 2 059 6: Termination of Agreement for Convenience.. Either the Land Records Management Program or the County may terminate this Agreement by giving 'written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. 7. Termination of Agreement for Cause. If through any cause the County shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this contract, or if the County shall violate any of the covenants or stipulations of this Agreement, the Land Records Managemlent Program shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the County of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon the County's receipt of such notification all work shall immediately cease and no further expenditures shall be claimed against this Agreement except for work already performed. 8. Equal Employment Opportunity. The County and any contractor covered by this Agreement shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and shall take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity in its employment practices. The County and any contractor shall state in its advertisements for employees that all qualified applications shall receive consideration for employment without regard to race,l color, religion, sex or national origin. 9. Interest of Land Records Management Program Members and Others. No employee of the Land Records Management Program, and no member of its governing body, and no other public official of the governing body of the community in which the project is situated or being carried out who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this project, shall (a) participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he or she is directly 3 060 or indirectly involved; or (b) have any personal or Y p pecuniary interest, direct lor indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 10. Access to Records. At any time during normal business hours and as often as the Land Records Management Program or the Department of State Auditor may deem necessary, the County shall make available to the Land Records Management Program or representatives of the Department of State Auditor for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit these agencies to audit, examine and make excerpts of transcripts from such records and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment, and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 11.I Retention of Records. The County shall retain all financial records; supporting documents, and other pertinent records related to expenditures against the grant received for a period of three years following the termination date of this Agreement. In the event such records are audited, all records shall be retained beyond the three-year period until audit findings have been resolved. 12.I Audit Requirements. The County shall be responsible for an audit of the work performed under this Agreement with copies made available to Land Records Management Program upon request. The audit may be performed as part of the county's annual audit. 13.I Periodic Reporting Requirements. The County shall prepare and submit to the Land Records Management Program quarterly progress reports,ldue in the Land Records Management Program no later than 10 days after the end of the quarter. Requisition for payment, according to the schedule established by this Agreement, shall be subject to authorization by the Land Records Management Program upon the basis of progress reports evidencing the satisfactory and timely completion of the work shown in Attachment A. 4 061 14. Compensation. The NRCD shall pay to the County an amount not to exceed $16,000 for the services identified in Attachment A upon the conditions set forth in Paragraph 16 hereto. 15. Indemnification. Notwithstanding any provisions of this. Agreement, it is expressly agreed that: The County shall indemnify and save harmless the State of North Carolina and its employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, judgments, settlements, etc., for sums of money for and on account of personal injuries, property damage, invasion of real property,. or loss of life or property of any persons whether in contract or tort, as in any way connected with the performance of the project covered by this Agreement. Purther, the County expressly releases the State of North Carolina from any liability or any losses or damages suffered by the County, directly or indirectly, from or in any way connected with the performance of this Agreement. 16. Method of Payment. Upon determination by the Land Records Management Program that the services identified in Attachment A have been satisfactorily completed, and Land Records Management Program shall notify the NRCD to pay the amount set forth in Paragraph 14. Such sum shall be paid in every case subject to receipt of a signed requisition for payment in connection with quarterly progress reports required under Paragraph 13. County shall be paid in a lump sum or as progress payments by the NRCD. Ilf all work specified for completion is not completed, payment shall be made on the basis of the percentage of work completed. Lump sum payments will be made only upon completion of all work and approval of the Land Records Management Program. 17. 1 Designation and Employment of Contractor. To carry out the Work Program, Attachrent A, of this Agreement, the County may utilize the services of its in-house staff or it may contract for the services 5 II 062 to be (performed therein with a private business or'public agency. Prior to the execution of a contract, or the use of its in-house staff, the County shall provide the Land Records Management Program: (A) A resume of the Contractor for the project. (B) A copy of the proposed contract between the County and the Contractor. (C) A work plan or schedule showing when the Deliverable Items covered by the contract are to be completed, as well as the cost for each Deliverable Item. The County shall then receive written notice as to whether (a) the standards established by the Land Records Management Program are satisfied, and (b) the contract meets the requirements of this Agreement. 181 Availability of Funds. It is understood and agreed between the Contractor and the Agency that the payment of compensation specified in this agreement, its continuation or any renewal or extension thereof, is dependent upon and subject to the allocation and appropriation of funds to� the Agency for the purposes set forth in this agreement. I . 6 "ATTACHMENT A" oc a WORK PROGRAM FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE This Work. Program is incorporated by reference hereto in the I attached Agreement between North Carolina Department of NRCD and the above County and is made a part thereof. The grant award, which is subject of said Agreement, is being made contingent upon the performance of the 'following work: County maps will be prepared in conformance with the North Carolina "Technical Specifications for Base and Cadastral Maps," and implement the PINlsystem and automate their offices. 1 I • I I i I I 1 I • 7 r I O64 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the NRCD and the County have Y executed this Agreement as of the first date written. ATTEST: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY I BY S. THOMAS RHODES TITLE I Secretary of Natural Resources and Community Development ATTEST:I ORANGE COUNTY BY BY Chairman of the Board of County TITLE Commissioners - I Approved to form 8 065 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No.- Meeting Date: JANUARY 6, 1986 SUBJECT: OLD COURTHOUSE TIME EXTENSION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _XLNo ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 FOUR CHANGE ORDERS TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a new date for completion of contracts. NEED: There have been delays in installing the underground el service, securing a special design carpet pattern g securing some of the special design lighting fixtur . ll other cu work specified under the contracts is up to date. Change orders to extend the contract period are necessary as the (1) delays were beyond the control of the contractors, (2) time is needed to dry outllthe building before interior paint finishes are applied, and (3) no cost would be associated 1 IMPACT: There is no impact since the furniture and Judges' bench will take 10-12 weeks for delivery. RECOMMENDATIONS) Approve attached change orders extending the completion date from January 10 to March 10, 1986. CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER GS MA DOCUMENT 6707 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR �v HELD ❑ 066 OTHER ® FILE, PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: I-IPC,02 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY H ISTOR I C COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: JAN, 6 1986 TO (Contractor): HILLSEOROUGH NC COMFORT ENGINEERS INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC,at P.O, SOX 2995 DURHAM NC 27705 0995 CONTRACT FOR: HEATING/ - AIR COND I T I ON I I IG CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7756 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLIDHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL. COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. Ali Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indiclate5 his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) ( its1 IQ r ►.4.a.4 .,,Fri-C9sO was $ 80 629.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 00 The (Contract Sum) (_.1— teed:.4axium.Cost) prior to this Change Order was $ 80 629.00 The (Contract Sum) (cuarant.ed M ximu_ Cost) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged,_ by this Change Order . $ 00 The new(Contract Sum) ( ) including this Change Order will be $ 80 629.0o The Contract Time will be (inlcreased) (d r-La.ces4) (u d) by ( 59 ) Days The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10, 1986 Authorized: ROMAN KOLODIJ JAMES WEBS COMFORT ENGINEERS INC. COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCH I TECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROL I NA P.O, BOX 2995 Address 2 0 1 E ROSEMARY S.I. Address Address 1 0 6 E MARGARET LANE C H 1,, 75 4 DURHAM NC 27705 0995 HILLSBOROUGH NC e'r BY ,_ �.�_ �/.. i�l� BY BY DATE .,J4-eR) 3 f 7 DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA • Q 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,NW,WASHINGTON, D_C. 2000(. G701-1978 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER • AJA DOCUMENT C701 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ® 06,7 FIELD ❑ • - OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVATIONS; CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: E..02 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: JAN. s. 1986 :I'. TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC ADAMS AND TILLEY ELECTRIC co INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC.8t 1008 CALVIN STREET CONTRACT FOR: ELECTRICAL P.O. sox 12417 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 27709 CONSTRUCTION' CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7739 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1965 - • You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. Not valid until signed by both thelO%iner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicate, his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time The original (Contract Sum) (sytta t) was $ 34 240.00 Net change by previously authIrized Change Orders $ The (Contract Sum) ( -ost) prior to this Change Order was 00 $ 34 240.00 The (Contract Sum) (6 ).st) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) 0o by this Change Order $ The new (Contract Sum) ( )including this Change Order will be .. . $ 34 240.00 The Contract Time will be .(increased) (del_ceared) ( n€h i. ) by ( 59 1 Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10, 1986 • Authorized: ROMAN ICOLOD 1 J JAMES WEB$ ADAMS/T I LLEY ELECTR I C CO I NC. COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCH P ITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH P.O. BOX I 2417 NORTH CAROL I NA Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address Address { 1 0 6 E MARGARET LANE HAPEL HILL NC 27514 RES. TRIANGLE PARK NC 27709 HILLSBOROUGH NC BY , �'� r BY BY DATE ✓xf'C) 3 49‘ DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • AI'RIL 1978 EDITION • AIA • a 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W-, WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000. 0701 —7978 CHANGE ORDER Distribution to: OWNER El AlA DOCUMENT C707 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR 068 FIELD 0 OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVar I oNS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: G.04 (name, address) ORANGE couNTY H I STOR I C COUR 1-1ous1; INITIATION DATE: TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC JAN. 6, 1986, DUR}lA11 CONSTRUCTION CO INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: ' oc,s f 1 1 z i3RITTANiA AVE CONTRACT FOR: GENERAL P.O.BOX 15028 DURHAM NC 27704 0 0 2 8 GONS.TRUt~T I ON CONTRACT P/O ID NO . 7741 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH. 20, 1985 I You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. I - I Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. 7-- .Signature of the Contractor indicate,. his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) was '- 00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 247 700.34 The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was $ 1 a 269,a4 The (Contract Sum) (Guarantied Maximum Cost) will be t� $ xst zs9,s4 by this Change Order L ( }(unchanged) a $ o The new (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order will be . . . $ 261 269.34 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order•therefore is ( 59 ) Days. MARCH i o., 1 s 8 s ROMAN KOLOD I.i JAMES WEBS Authorized: DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC ARCHITECT COU'NT'Y OF ORANGt ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address 2 p 1 E ROSEMARY ST Address P.O BOX i 5 0 2 II Address C PEA. DURHAM NC 2 7 7 0 4 0 0?_8 I 0 6 E MARGARET LANE LL HILL NC 27$14 H I LLSTIQ3TQ[T�,}I NC BY fr w�,K- BY BY DATE "14a ,3 Irec ( DATE DATE AIA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAF- • p THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW OR AVE., NW,WASHINGTON, D.C.200(11. G701 —197$ LrEANtat Distribution to: . ORDER OWNER • AlA DOCUMENT C707 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ' FIELD c OTHER ® /� Qn FILE 1J��+ PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: P.02 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC INITIATION DATE: JAN. 6, t9$0 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE AND ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: oc,st SUPPLY, INC P.O. BOX 513 CONTRACT FOR: • PLUMBING HAW RIVER NC 27258 CONTRACT P.O. ID NO, 7740 • CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 - You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME 13Y FIFTY-NINE (59 ) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1988, . .. .._• AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. • I • Not valid until signed by both thelOw•ner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicatek his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. • • The original (Contract Sum) (Cttivaranreed-Maximum Cost] was Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ i s o 13. 8o The (Contract Sum) (Gum eed-maxinwm Cos $ 3 31 3.89 Cost-) prior to this Change Order was $ t 6 .31 3.8 9 The (Contract Sum) (Gila-ran-teed Maximum-Cost) will be (i xsed) (do) (unchanged) by this Change Order The new (Contract Sum) (c,-sr $ o ) including this Change Order will be -. $ 1 6 313•89 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10 ( 98. ) Days. 1986 ROMAN KOLODIJ JAMES WEBS Authorized: INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE AND COUNTY OF O ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR RANGE ARCHITEcTS SUPPLY, INC. OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address P.O. sox 5 1 3 Address 1 0 6 E MARGARET LANE BY 24L HILL NC 27514 _-1PW RIVER NC 27258 _ jHILLSBORoUGH N C 17;e445'19-- -; BY BY DATE t/ Il 3 /5 11 , DATE �r4^ DATE AIA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • Amt. 1978 EDITION f THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W.,WASHINGTON,•D.C.20006 G701-7970 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO S MEETING DATE JANUARY 6, 1986 070 SUBJECT: Expansion of Insurance Rated District DEPARTMENT: Emergency Services ( I PUBLIC HEARING: YES x N. J ATTACHMENT(S) : Yes INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Baker PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732--:161 . CHAPEL HILL 929-:109 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider approval of the expansion of the West Orange insurance fire rated district from 4 road miles to 5 road miles. NEED: To comply with new provisions approved by the Insurance Office in December, 1984, which allows rated fire departments to expand their rated districts by one (1) road mile. • • IMPACT: Would allow residents within the one mile ex be eligible for a reduction in fire insurance premiums district to RECOMMENDATION(S) : That the board approve expansion pansion of the West Orange I insurance rated district from four (4) road miles to five (5) road miles. 1 WEST ORANGE INSURANCE FIRE DISTRICT 0711 ORANGE COUNTY Served by Efland Fire Department 5-Mile Area Scale 1"=1 mile Fire Station 1340 1347 b._. ♦, 6„ ` �► 1341 ��.�: "`� Kennedy 1332''. IQ ▪5 1343 �S / :71 -. - 1 0 � / 1004 1.0.,. • �,� ~� R 1.8 1335: r- / I �� .: 340 % �, ? S +� ry .. r �S ? 1332 , •, 1 - �'.wr...�.e.-"- 1334 138Q lit 1344 1343\ �`% y�/ .. . ; ;F 9rfChd ; 1336 i O \ 1342 4 / 1339 1338 ��/ ... � ♦. Lebanon I'4`% > ' 1337 Nj �, 6 1345 tr. 1 1343 Ch\ 1 11341 ♦ •p j 1333 86 06 5 1 °j1 / 1 4 1 . 1 14 41 \ / ` 1340 <y / 3 1306 1 '3 .8 ``,: .2 1004 r 1338 1�•- ::::::7379� 1332 �GSf 1 !f, 1306 - 1 1306 .6 l g;138�e ! - ;1312 1004 ,�..��� 1391 J S\M � ® � _ 1328 395_ ,��1 FAIRVIEW1:. �� . DUKE � � .7r 2-:.` .. FOREST - - • Ian M11 sou` ` �1 al , es -d FA '� ::. q D 6:' .g. O �v le-:.. 1' / d ■ Z:8:::1.4:::::::::::(. Cheeks Crossroads � r �� _ ' 4 �-'+° \ ► .-N &P. ry.1145 ' 1346 �� 1._,.,. .,;: + i 1'142 11 141 1 139 t 1 1 120 : F 1 \ .�' l 2' {1 1:14. C'q ,i. 1° ��'"'� r5 Cr. F 142 % ��` - ; ,� t�� x, 12 `A1 - 11 14 : . �� {tip <r t �-� s, /• , ,40 1137 5e')¢ ��r��J ; `� 1140 1-_ i'� 9 • ;i7�I� 1 125 07 �1 tir 1133 1136 p. /" f 1139 \: A' �Y..:, ' _ m '• / ~ 120 „'A 1135 / 113_4_ i b ham.. 11 / ` 1 176 3 1 �,�; 1138 .- Buckhorn N. -I .� ate '._ >I 1 1.30 44r 1132 I ' 1 120 .t I I �1 v _ ! 1 . -�r1' P i.,t 1 125 +r�N '(7 is.i 1124 1007 1199 .7 ��.9131 1 1114 / wt�� Q z` d �? 1124 . :kx tea t a / ,.Y,. ,h* — - 1,''�Qc' __ •.. 2 072 WEST ORANGE INSURANCE FIRE DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY Served by Efland Fire Department 5-Mile Area Beginning at point (1 ) at the intersection of Roads 1004 and 1351; thence northeasterly along the centerline of Road 1004 to point (2) at its intersection with Road 1332; thence southeasterly to point (3) on Road 1336 at the bridge over the Eno River; thence southerly along the Eno River to point (4) at itia l intersection with Road 1144; thence easterly along the Centerline of Road 1144 to point (5) at its intersection with Road 1134; thence southwesterly along the centerline of Road 1134 to point (6) at its intersection with Interstate 85; thence southwesterly to point (7) at the intersection of Roads 1125 and 1126, excluding property on Road 1135 between this and the preceding point; thence northwesterly to point (8) at the intersection of Roads 1120 and 1114; thence northerly along the centerline of Road 1114 to point (9) on Road 1114, 0. 6 mile south of its intersection with Road 1144; thence northerly to point (10) at the intersection of Roads 1114 and 1144, excluding property on Road 1114 between this and the preceding point ; thence northerly along the centerline of Road 1114 to point (11) at its intersection with Road 1310; thence northeasterly along the centerline of Road 1310 to point (12) on Road 1310, 0. 2 mile south of its intersection with Road 1308; thence northerly to point (13) at the intersection of Roads 1310 and 1306, including property on both sides of Road 1310 between this and the preceding point; thence northwesterly to point (14) at the intersection of Roads 1340 and 1343; thence northeasterly to point (15) on Road 1341, 1. 4 miles northwest of its intersection with Road 1339; thence northeasterly to point (16) on Road 1351, 1. 2 miles northwest of its intersection with Road 1004; thence southeasterly along the centerlinelof Road 1351 to point ( 1 ), the beginning. Note: This. description describes an area of Orange County pursuant to General Statute 153A-233 for insurance . grading purposes only. Note: Points 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are adjoining points with East Alamance Insurance Fire District. ORANGE COUNTY 073 . BOARD. OF COMMISSIONERS • ACTION ACfl DA • ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO MEETING DATE January 6, 1986 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENTS DEPARTMENT; FINANCE ! PUBLIC HEARING: - YES x . NO • • ATTACHMENT(S): . . INFORMATION CONTACT: • Donna Wagner PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENTS PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-818`~+� : HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 . - • CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 • MEBANE. -- 22.7-2.031 DURHAM -- 688 77331 • PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed budget amendments. • • NEED: HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY FUND • To appropriate funds for installation•of an elevator_iaorder for the •Newr Court- house to be ,handicap accessible. to County citizens. . CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND • To transfer funds to the Handicap Accessibility Fund for elevator installation at New Courthouse. • IMPACT: HANDICAP, ACCESSIBILITY FUND - This amendment Will increase the budget for the elevator with a transfer from the Capital Projects Fund. - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND This amendment will transfer funds for expenditure from the Capital• Projects Fund to the Handicap Accessibility Fund. • RECOMMENDATION(S) :Approve motion to amend the 19$5-86 Budget-.and Project Ordinance 074' ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1985 - 86 BUDGET AND PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The 1985-86 Budget and Project Ordinance:as adopted on July 3, 1985, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY FUND Appropriation: Handicap Accessibility .. -- $122,000 $11,440 $133,440 Source: Transfer from Capital Projects Fund - 0 11,440 11,440 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Appropriation: Transfer to Handicap Accessibility Fund $ 0 $11,440 $11,440 Source: Appropriated Fund Balance 66,851 11,440 78,291 Approved this 6th day of January, 1986. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 076 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY BEN LLOYD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER OF FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY PARK BY DON WILLHOrr THE ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARMTENT WHEREAS, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 provides for the making of grants by the National Park Service, Department of Interior of the United States Government to States and to local municipalities in support of Outdoor Recreation projects and such funds are available after approval of the appropriate State Agency and the Bureau of Outdoor.Recreation; and WHEREAS, the State is required to insure that there will be no discrimination . against any personof any race, color, sex, creed, or political affiliation; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County realizes that recreation facilities are not adequate to meet the minimum recreational needs of the people of Orange County; and WHEREAS, it is believed that said Board with the assistance of the general public is now in a position to lend full support to the development of a Fairview Community park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: A (1) That an application be made to the National Park Service, Department of Interior of the U. S. Government through the State of North Carolina for a development grant of $100,000 which represents fifty percent (50%) of all costs ($200,000) to be completed in the fiscal year 1986-87. . (2) That the Recreation' and Parks Director of Orange County be authorized and directed to file such application on:behalf of Orange County, to provide additional information and furnish such documents as may be : required by the .National Park Service and the State. of North•. Carolina and to act as the authorized correspondent of Orange County. (3) That the Director, National Park Service, Department of Interior of the United States Government-be, and hereby.. is .assured of full compliance by the applicant with the regulations-promulgated pursuant .to Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964. move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Commissioner SECONDED BY: Commissioner Read, approved and adopted, the day of , 1985. Chairman Clerk to the Board ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 077 27278 MOSES CAREY DEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSaALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLROIT RESOLUTION FOR THE ASSURANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF MATCH State of North Carolina County of Orange WHEREAS, at the January 6, 1986 _ meeting of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, a motion was made and duly seconded that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners xssYOners a reel to the following: In the event a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant is awarded by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, the Orange County Board of County Commissioeers certifies and assures that it has the ability and intention to finance its 50% share of the total project cost of $200,000, through Community Revitalization funding (Community Development Block Grant) . Orange County Board of County Commissioners BY: Donald G. Willhoit Authorized Representative Chairman Title Notary Public - My Commission Expires: 078 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. gli Meeting Date: JANUARY 6. 1986 SUBJECT: ENGINEERING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANNGER _ PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _K_No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE. X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: YES Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham -- 688-7331 PURPOSE: TO consider raising the ceiling for services under Section D of the Engineering Agreement. NEED: The amendment is needed in order to determine more precisely: 1. The amount and location of subsurface rock. 2. Property ownership where boundary lines and land titles are not clear. The property tax maps and the property lines in some cases do not agree. In other cases deeds are not clear as to property lines. In order to obtain rights-of-way and easements any ownership questions most be resolved. IMPACT: Presently. the agreement allows a ceiling of up to $16.000 for survey work with the stipulation that the amount should be amended if surveys are required. The additional cost is esti- mated to be $141000. This could be approved by changing the ceiling amount under Section D to $30,000 with the funds payable from the project contingency fund. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve raising the Section D ceiling for survey work to $30.000 subject to Farmers Home approval. II t KZE pa ����a���.Q �a4 I\ U V 6 I i b N .1 N CONSULTING ENClP�i�PRS • 079 November 25, .1985 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager 106 East M',argaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: With reference to Section D of our Agreement with Orange County, please see the attached proposals from Soil & Material Engineers relative to the recommended subsurface investigations and R.T. Newcomb, Jr . , relative to the easement and property acquisition surveys for the Cheeks Township Sewer Improvements, Phase 1 . The cost of this work is billable to the County as an Additional Service per Section D of the Agreement. The cost breakdown per the proposal from each subconsultant is as follows: Item Subconsultant Estimated Cost Property Surveys R.T. Newcomb, Jr. $14, 500a Subsurface Investigations S&ME 14,945 TOTALI, ESTIMATED COST $'29 ,445 I a Does not include Orange County recording fees for the 10-12 plats anticipated. It is assumed that this cost will be paid by the County. II The present cost ceiling for Additional Services from Section D of our Agreement is $16, 000. It will not be possible to perform the work required for this amount, and it is requested that this 'Ceiling be increased to $30, 000 . We attribute this higher cost to anticipated difficulties in completing the property surveys based on our present knowledge of the properties involved and a higher than anticipated -cost for the subsurface investigat-lions. We feel that it is important if not absolutely necessary Ito maintain the level of service described in each subconsult.ants proposal and recommend that the County approve the increased cost ceiling. 4300 GLENWOOD AVENUE a R.0.BOX 30423•RALEIGH.NORTH CAROLINA 2732.2 a(919) 762-8333 OFFICES 1:'l NEW YORK,RALEIGH.AND I IOLL.Y'WOOD,FLORIDA I —0-, � I Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 25, 1985 080 Page 2 We request your authorization to proceed with the subsurface investigations and the easement and property acquisition surveys, and your acceptance of the increased cost ceiling. To indicate your acceptance, please sign in the space provided and forward to the Farmers Home Administration for their approval. We are anxious to proceed with the completion of the work included in this request. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, HAZEN AND SAWYER P.C. / f/470 //'i . Donald L. Cordell, P.E. Associate DLC/jhl Enclosure ' cc: Mr. Kevin F. Carter 081 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 25, 1985 Page 3. I hereby authorize Hazen and Sawyer, P.C, to proceed with the Additional. Services described herein and agree to a revised cost ceiling of S30, 000 for all services included in Section. D of • - the Agreement . (Date) - Don Willhoit, Chair County of Orange, North Carolina WITNESS: (Signature) (Date) APPROVAL BY1 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ( Signature) (Title) (Date) ((��pp ROBERT T. NEWCOMB. JR. 08 2 ROUTE ONE - SOX 294 SPRING HOPE, N.C. 27882 November 8, 1985 Mr. Donald L. Cordell Hazen and Sawyer P. 0. Box 30428 Raleigh, N. C. 27612 Re: Orange County Sanitary Sewer Easements Dear Don: I have reviewed the scope of work involved in the above project and I find that there will be approximately thirteen thousand (13,000) linear feet of sanitary sewer crossing private property and that as many as fifty six different property owners may be affected by the easement acquisitions. I am attaching a list of twelve areas where easements will be required. I will provide all field surveys necessary to establish property lines and corners of the various tracts of land through which the sanitary sewer will pass, and in addition I will make a property survey of the site for the pumping station on Efland- Cedar Grove Road. I will prepare easement maps and property maps that meet all requirements for recording in Orange County. I estimate that ten to twelve plat sheet will be required. Thefee for the above outlined work exclusive of Orange County recording fees will be fourteen thousand five hundred dollars (014,500.00). Please advise if this is satisfactory. Very truly yours R. T. Newcomb Enclosure, II ROBERT T. NEWCOMB. JR. 083 ROUTE ONE • BOX 294 SPRING HOPE, N 216132 Orange County Sanitary Sewer Easements Required 1. Eastern portion of Force Main in Hillsboro 800 L F 2. McGowan Creek Outfall S R 1004 westward 1,920 L F 3. McGo.ian Creek to Tinnin Road Outfall 1,970 L F 4. Tinnin Road west to U S 70 400 L F 5. Forrest Road Outfall 1,450 L F 6. East of Tinnin Road to School House Road 2,550 L F 7. School House Road to Richmond Road 1,510 L F . 8. U S 70 to Sanders Street west of Green Property 720 L F 9. South of west end of Sanders Street 320 L F 10. Church property at U S 70 and S R 1004 125 L F 11. Eno River crossing south of bridge on U S 70 800 L F 12. Four dwelling lots where Septic Tank pumps needed 510 L F Total 13,075 L F .;,.. 084 `;;..' SOIL& MATERIAL ENGINEERS INC. ENGINEERING-TESTING-INSPEC-ION .10 V v 3109 Spring Forest Road, Box 58069, Raleigh, NC 27658-8069, Phone (919) 872-2660 S 1 481-85 November 22, 1985 Hazen & Sawyer, P.C. 4300 Glenwood Avenue P. O. Box 30428 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622 Attention: Mr. Donald L. Cordell, P.E. Reference: Proposal for Subsurface Investigation Efland-Cheeks Township Sanitary Sewer Facilities Orange County, Hillsborough, North Carolina Gentlemen: Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for performing a subsurface investigation for the proposed Efland-Creeks sanitary sewer facilities in Orange County and Hillsborough, North Carolina. It is our understanding that this project will involve the construction of approximately 18,900 feet of 8-inch force main water line, approximately 29,000 feet of 8 to 12-inch gravity sewer line, 1 pump station, and 4I bored and jacked road crossing locations. The new gravity line will be located in and around the township of Efland, North Carolina. The new force main will begin at the proposed site of the McGowan Creek pump station on Efland-Grove Road and will extend southward to U.S. 70 and then will parallel U.S. 70 to the east for approximately!17,600 feet. The 4 proposed bore and jack locations are all located along U.S. Highway 70. Based upon a site reconnaissance of the line locations, it appears that portions of the gravity line are located in woods that are presently inaccessible to drill equipment. We propose to utilize standard penetration test boring and seismic refraction techniques (inl, the woods) to evaluate subsurface conditions along the length of the proposed lines, the proposed pump station and bore and jack locations to provide contractors with sufficient information to bid on the project based on unclassified excavation. As a minimum, we propose to obtain an indication of rock depth at approximately I 600 foot intervals along the entire combined length of approximately 48,000 feet of the proposed lines. These locations have been preliminarily selected based on a cursory site reconnaissance to concentrate borings and seismic profiles in those areas which appear to most likely have difficult excavation or difficult excavation potential. For estimating, cost, we have reviewed the available site and profile plans and proposed preliminary boring depths at each proposed boring location. The attached Table 1 presents our proposed boring locations and depths. We propose to provide these services on a unit price basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees. Based on the quantities of work outlined in Table 2, we RALEIGHi, GREENSBORO, ASHEVILLE, WILMINGTON, FAYETTEVILLE, (HARLOT"E NC CL 'f SPARTAt�:Bl1RCa, (._ 1.1, CH/11"'.L- ■TON, r.411RTLE L'•EACli, GC ATLANTA,ALBANY, GA--T ,! GiTiE:3. T,;-•-C! lGIP:iNATI,OH--ORLANDO,TP:MPA, FL 085 Hazan& Sawyer, P.C. November 22, 1985 • Page 2 estimate that the maximum cost of this investigation will be approximately $14,945.00. This total cost includes a contingency to perform additional test borings or seismic work based on the results of the test data as it becomes available during the investigation. The anticipated engineering time for this project includes layout of the borings'in the field and coordination of the utility companies to locate underground utilities, as well as analysis of the subsurface soil data and preparation of the written report. Table 2 presents our. estimated maximum cost and you will be billed only for the actual quantities of work performed for this investigation. We'are prepared to initiate work on this project within 1 week of receipt of authorization to proceed and can complete all work, including issuance of the report, within approximately 4 weeks of authorization. If this proposal meets with your acceptance, please execute and return one copy of the attached Proposal Acceptance sheet to provided us with authorization to proceed and proper billing instructions. We,appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal to provide professional services on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this proposal or if we may be of further assistance. • Very truly yours, SOIL & MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC. f4LIA-eatl, 7-3,dea;‘ Leland W. Parker, E.I.T. Edward B. Hearn, RE. LWP/EBH:kat Attachments SOIL&MATERIAL ENGINEERS,INC. TABLE 1 086 Proposed Boring Locations and Depths LFLAND GRAVITY LINE LINE 1A - McGowan Creek Outfall Man Existing Proposed Proposed Cut Boring Station Hole Elevation Invert Depth Depth 0+00 Pump station 597.0 586.0 11 4+12.33 1A2 601.2 SR 12+03.66 lA5 593.9 7.3 SR 612.8 604.4 8.4 SR 19+18.25 1A8 612.2 608.1 4.1 SR 22+86.36 1A10 623.2 613.6 9.6 SR 27+63.89 1Al2 619.5 615.8 3.7 SR 33+04.87 1A15 629.5 621.1 38+89.83 1A17 8.4 SR 636.5 629.5 7.0 10 Bore do Jack 42+59.17 1A19 640.0 634.8 5.2 43+23.39 1A20 643.5 637.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 LINE 1B - Forrest Road Branch 3+23.71 1B2 628.5 '620.0 8.5 SR Bore & Jack 6+91.90 184 630.5 625.9 4.6 7+82.93 185 636.0 7.5 630.0 6.0 7.5 13+70.44 189 650.0 644.2 5.8 20+24.94 1B' 670.0 12 675.4 S.5 5.4 SR • LINE 1C - School House Road Branch 5+38.92 1C3 636.6 629.0 6.6 SR 10+81.93 1q5 636.3 631.3 15+94.63 1C7 640.0 5.0 SR 21+24.60 1C10 633.8 6.2 2 7.5 659.0 643.1 15.9 17.5 26+25.70 1C12 660.5 653.7 6.8 7.5 * SR - Seismic Refraction at this location I I I 087 LINE 1E -- West Off School House Road Man Existin Proposed Station Existing Proposed - Cut Boring Hole Elevation Invert Depth Dew 3+80.00 '1E1 651.0 644.8 6.2 SR 11+58.76 1E3 652.5 648.4 4.1 SR 15+18.61 1E4 656.5 650.0 6.5 7.5 LINE 1G -- Richmond Road North 5+56.31 1G2 665.8 658.3 7.5 10 9+23.17 04 678.8 670.0 8.8 10 LINE 1I3 - Gregg Street 4+00.00 1111 666.5 660.1 6.4 11+00.00 1H3 673.0 668.4 7.5 5.6 7.5 LINE 1I- Richmond Road South 5+50.00 _ 669.5 664.2 5.3 11+32.41 114 686.0 7.5 674.7 11.3 12.5 LINE 1I - West Along U.S. 70 15+32.41 1I5 684.3 676.5 7.8 20+43.78 11I7 698.0 692.3 10 27+07.57 119 5. 7.5 702.0 696.7 5,3 3 7.5 I 1 1 1 p 088 LINE 1P -- West Along U.S. 70 Off McGowan Creek Outfall Proposed Man Existing Proposed Cut Boring Station Hole Elevation Invert Depth Depth 5+00.00 1P2 651.1 645.1 6.0 7.5 ! 10+98.22 1P4 669.0 663.1 5.9 7.5 LINE 13 - Sanders Street Branch 5+73.00 1 132 655.4 649.2 6.2 SR 9+87.07 1S5 671.5 665.5 6.0 7.5 LINE 1M -- East along U.S. 70 Off McGowan Creek Outfall 3+67.68 1M2 649.6 641.3 8.3 10 LINE 1N - Ef land Avenue 8+01.1 IN3 686.5 679.3 7.2 8.5 LINE 10 Sanders Street 1+50.00 101 682.7 676.7 6.0 7.5 LINE 1R -- East Off Tin' nnin Road - 2+50.25 1R1 644.2 637.7 6.5 SR LINE if -- Efland School Branch 2+29.73 1F1 660.9 655.09 5.9 SR 1 089 1 1 LINE 1D - Tinnin Road South Off School House Road Branch Proposed Man Existing Proposed Cut Boring Station Hole Elevation Invert Depth Depth 5+50.00 1D3 656.3 647.8 8.5 10 LINE 1K - Tinnin Road North Of McGowan Creek Outfali 4+00 1K3 645.8 640.0 5.8 7.5 LINE 1T - West Side Of Gaines Chapel Road 1+10.9 1T1 651.8 644.0 7.8 10 LINE 1L - Puller Street • 3+73.85 1L2 648.2 642.2 6.0 7.5 8+42.64 1L4 668.1 662.3 5.8 7.5 LINE 1U - South Off West End Of Sanders Street 3+25.34 1U1 667.3 •662.5 4.8 SR LINE 2A - Ef land - Cedar Grove Branch 6+86.66 2A3 635.2 629.9 5.3 7.5 Dore & Jack 11+31.97 2A6 643.8 633.2 10.6 12.5 11+83.57 2A7 644.3 633.6 10.7 12.5 17+58.87 2A9 641.7 636.4 5.3 7.5 23+53.62. 2A11 649.9 643.0 6.9 8.5 090 LINE 2B - West Along U.S. 70 Proposed Man Existing Proposed Cut Boring Station Hole Elevation Invert Depth Depth 6+00.64 2132 651.9 644.2 7.7 10 11+31.11 2B4 659.5 654.1 5.4 7.5 I _ LINE 2C - South Along Forest Road 6+04.83 2C3 653.4 648.1 5.3 7.5 9+58.01 2C4 661.2 655.9 5.3 7.5 • I` I l .. 1 091 FORCE MAIN ALONG U.S 70 I Proposed Existing Proposed Cut Boring Station Elevation Invert Depth Depth p 28+00 657.8 651.3 6.5 8.0 34+00 643.8 639.5 4.3 6.0 40+00 649.5 644.4 5.1 7.0 Bore & Jack 46+00 642.6 638.5 4.1 6.0 46+30 643.3 63$.5 4.8 7.0 50+00 647.0 638.0 9.0 10.0 56+00 638.9 634.8 4.1 6.0 62+00 630.8 625.5 5.3 7.0 68+00 620.5 616.7 3.8 6.0 74+00 605.3 601.5 3.8 6.0 80+00 600.7 596.9 3.8 6.0 89+00 618.1 610.7 7.4 9.0 95+00 614.5 610.8 3.7 6.0 101+00 595.2 590.6 4.6 7-U 107+00 566.6 562.5 4.1 6.0 113+00 552.3 546.2 6.1 8.0 117+00 550.5 546.6 3.9 6.0 123+00 565.5 561.8 3.7 6.0 129+0,0 577.5 573.6 3.9 135+00 587.7 6.0 583.9 3.8 6.0 141+00 601.2 597.5 3.7 6.0 147+00 621.0 617.2 3.8 6.0 153+00 631.6 627.7 3.9 6.0 159+00 627.4 623.0 4.4 7.0 165+00 608.0 604.0 4.0 6.0 Man Existing - Proposed Proposed Cut Boring Station Hole Elevation Invert Depth Depth 171+86.45 No.1 619.9 615.0 4.9 7.0 176+65.46 No.3 622.2 612.8 9.4 11.Q 180+34.23 No.4 607.0 602.0 5.0 182+51.73 No.5 594.0 583.4 7.0 187+30.53 No.6 583.2 578 9 10.6 SR 4.3 SR . 1 092 TABLE 2 Project Cost Estimate Ef land - Cheeks Sanitary Sewer Facilities Mobilization of Drill Rig and Crew; lump sum $ 250.00 Soil Test Boring; 650 feet @ $7.50/foot $ 4,875.00 Seismic Refraction Profiling; 40 hours Q. $75.00/hour $ 3,000.00 Subtotal $ 8,125.00 Senior Project Engineer Review; 8 hours @ $75.00/hour $ 600.00 Project Engi neer;100 hours @ $55.00/hour $ 5,500.00 Drafting and Secretarial; 40 hours @ $18.00/hour $ 720.00 Subtotal $ 6,820.00 Total $14,945.00 093 Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. Fee Schedule Effective March 1, 1985 ENGINEERING SERVICES 1• Senior Registered Engineer Principal-Level V or VI, per hour $ 75.00 2. Senior Hydrogeologist, per hour $ 70.00 3. Registered Project Engineer, per hour $ 55.00 4. Staff Engineer or Geologist Level I or II, per hour $ 46.00 5. Staff Geologist, per.hour $ 38.00 6. Low Frequency Ultrasonics of Concrete (Including Senior Engineer and Equipment), per hour $ 80.00 Note: Support technician services may be required. 7. Travel by Car, per mile $ 0.30 8. Overnight Living Expenses, per day Cost + 15% 9. Travel and Commercial Transportation Cost + 15% 10. Secretarial and Drafting Time for Preparation of Reports, per hour $ 18.00 11. Reproduction of Reports, per page $ 0.12 12. Special Handling and/or Mailing of Reports Cost + 15% DRILLING AND FIELD TESTING SERVICES 1. Mobilization and Transportation of Drill Rig and Crew, lump sum , Local $ 250.00 Out_of;town (1.25 to $1.50 per mile Both Ways) 2. Soil Test Borings: (ASTM D-1586 -- Includes Split Spoon Samples on 5 foot Intervals) 0 - 50feet: a. Less than 60 blows per linear foot $ 7.50 b. Greater than 60 blows per linear foot $ 10.00 - For depths greater than 50 feet, add $1.00 per foot for each 25 foot increment of depth. c. Additional Split Spoon Samples: 0-50 feet, each sample $ 14.00 - For depths greater than 50 feet, add $2.00 per foot for each 25 foot increment of depth. Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. Fee Schedule 094 Effective March 1, 1985 3. Hourly Rates for Drill Rig & Crew a. 'Truck Mounted (Auger or Rotary), per hour b. All Terrain Mounted (Auer or Rotar ) 10.00 g y Rotary), hour $ 110.00 4. Dutch Cone Penetrometer Borings, per linear meter $ 18.00 5. Auger Borings, per linear foot $ 5.50. 6. Wash Borings (4"diameter), per linear foot - For borings larger than 4"diameter, add $1.00 per inch $ 5.50 of additional diameter. 7. Subsistence per Drill Crew, per day 8. Undisturbed Samples: 90.00 a. Standard 3" Shelby Tube Samples, each b. Piston 3" Shelby Tube Samples, each $ 80.00 $ 95.00 c. Pitcher Samples, each 9. Bag Samples, each $ 190.00 10. Difficult Moving (in Excess of I hour per Boring), $ 35.00 Clearing Access, Standby Time, Laying Water Line, Hauling Water or Drilling and Testing on Time Basis, ' and Survey Layout of Borings, per hour $ 90.00 11. Grouting of Boreholes and Piezometers, per hour 12. Rock Coring: $ 100.00 a. Set Up; per hole b. Installation Casing, per foot $ 90.00 $ 3.00 095 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6, 1986 Action Benda SUBJECT : PRICE CREEK SUBDIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAN Item ( DIVISION OF LOT #1 DEPARTMENT : PLANNING �—" PUBLIC HEARING Yes X_ No -- Attachment (s) w �� Information Contact : JANE ATWATER CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider approval of the division of Lot #1 in the Price Creek Subdivision , property of Jack P . and Bettye Jo Sanders . To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED: The property in question is Located on SR 1939 (Damascus Church Road) in Chapel Hill Township . The property is referenced as part of lot 78 on Tax Map 120. It is bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as Rural. Buffer , Water QuaClity Critical Area Land Use Plan . The property is also within the Joint Planning Area which requires courtesy review by the Carrboro Planning Department . There are two ( 2] lots proposed ; the sizes are 2.41 acres and 6 .04I acres . The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) , WQCAI (Water Quality Critical Area) and PW--II (Protected Watershed) . A maximum impervious surface ratio of 6%, in addition to the other requirements for Water Quality Critical Areas , applies to each Lot . Access is provided to Lot 18 from SR 1939 via an Orange County Private Class "C" road which Leads to an Orange County Private Class "A" road . Lot IA has direct road frontage on SR 1939 . Fire ',protection for the property in question is provided by the Damascus Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department . It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminar Plan contingent upon the following conditions : y 096 PRICE CREEK SUBDIIVISION — PRELIMINARY PLAN DIVISION OF LOT 01 PAGE 2 1 ) indicate the lot sizes excluding the right—of—way for of #1B . 2) indicate the distance of the stream buffer, from the str : am banks, 3) submission of a Stormwater Management Plan to satisfy he standard requiring infiltration of the first 1/2 inch of runoff. - 1 IC1N 091 di!IfiV, co. La: 0 : _ . wrfil the thrt-- : cohdlti..);13, ?-..tated 7.4 Ph:Mil:4 Yote: 10 - Nee, NI Date: December 16. 1985 -ikes-ofr2;-; i4as noted that the subtlivisia)ri was loco(e.4 fileWOSA, but Ile major tss4ea Vert rile.;" xpinatiart Yh€r fL. C.ita-Ofinf, f!Thr.)7, CouiTt-,4 •4. D%v%6lb ,. ' OF LOT I : mice Cam. APPUCAUT: &AcK P. 4 0E11.95 JD 5A14DEUS zmiiNc.: 2-I 1 MURAL R S1AEamAO, Pt*-.0 (Plum-TED WATER HED), WQU (wA7Z. fiuAun/ CJ c AREA) i{\ 096/..UP DB9IGNA71DA1: RURAL 13LFFE11/ WATER. Su,PPL-y WATEJ2 4W i t \ ' .. 1°° 0 . CD 9Ll,Q� .09 No .AC I r br. kp \ ,92s9 / ' ,.3 r 1...i 4,72 AC. Q` s `_�� . :.I 68 •0869 / - L 874 // • u 7830_ 3.63 AC• /, c a-. 46945.779 AC. .. .t, '. - 1 AC. .8A !Qe' 7 . 6433 / ", g 341-(.27AC.64 2 AC. .1521 7 65 AC. ,j 3.2 Ac. t 1 /i 7E -6279. _ 0182 a / 3.71 AC. , 4 (.--..)F 82 •!lk,. 7A1 %l L_ . \ . 6016 2 : �Y \ 02 5-02 A0. L �\ 3.9 AC• 1 ‘ 1 1 .6705 I,i /J ..�.Il 11. ∎ 2 8/ I. 4 AC .N �. 6641 --� "• . .463S FU i' ��22 1.... 2 10.64A 'v 3 5-02 AC ,i ",j/ .4.03;\6 'b _- "or orr►. 4`i 'IiELMS,1'A _ PO /1 , t k .4163 1927 .'i ,* _rr,rrr „ r 4 W 410 .., ,,,, I i 1i FU W r / 9 • 26. 22 AC 11 15 60 USTRI"T 1 1 �� / 1 6 479 1 J f , 1 FUG, 7 5CALE.: 1"=400r-Co � .3151 • �� I �l,sr- J00 ! 1 1 7 `r MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION DIVISION OF LOT 1 - PRICE CREEK SUBDIVISION OWNER OR DEVELOPER JACK P. & BETTEY J0 5R11DER5 ADDRESS Damascus Church Road Chapel Hill : NC 27514 TOWNSHIP Chapel Hill TAX MAP 120 BLOCK ,rpT P/0 713 NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Freehold Land Surveys Total number of lots 2 To be developed ase{-s-) ,_Total-number-of acres=- —g_j� --Typical dwelling units-at present one or Proposed_ one single family WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Communit x SCHOOL DISTRICT y Individual Septic tank X Chapel Hill-Carrboro FIRE DISTRICT Damascus Access onto State Road # ic _g Road Standard: Public Existing critical areas such as streams (X y Blood —or Private Class A , g �_� C x prone areas ( x) , Watershed (T)—, Historic Sites ( ) , Other ( ) Explain: southern boundary of property is the west branch of Price Creek which is in the University Lake Watershed Land uses in the general area residential anT agricultural SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Approved ( } Recommended Changes { ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date}_ REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department�'1 —1 Erosion Control Officer MKR 12-10-8 Board of Education ary Lynn Truelove 12-4-$ Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) --- Other Carrboro Planning Courtesy Review -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board A roved with codatlons112-16Q8 (if possible) Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department { ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved ( } Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date { ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications, Date t ) Final DOT approval on plat ( ) Final action by the Planning Board C1 • CO C0 r , 100 . are I`}o : o I December 11 , 1985 ; am:/ =/3-85_� Ms. Jane L. Atwater Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Division of Lot 1 of the Price Creek Subdivision Dear Jane: The Town of Carrboro Planning Department has completed a review of the proposed subdivision referenced above and see no conditions that wound not comply with •development regulations for the Town of Carrbol,ro. Therefore, the Town recommends approval of the major subdivisilon application, as submitted. Fire Chief Robert Swiger recommends that a turnaround is constructed at the end of Price's Creek Road, preferably at the end of the Barbara Rhoades property. Sincerely, G. Gregory Shepard Zoning Administrator • • DRAFT PLI'1 ii.l; TER 12--1n nr IU _ , PAIGE 6 periennet treees ' r ;.t !_ arts of 11;u County with the exception, of the Roanoke basin , The S & E Officer also !.- 1_ t.h por einity to review any drainage swalee or eeatier etc:e a for designation • of an easement d . Price Cree:; — Prelirrrinar;. Staff presentation by S;rith . The purpose of this agenda item to consider approval •of the division of Lot 41 in the Price Creek Subdivision , property of Jack P . and Bettye Jo Sanders . The property is Located on SR 1-S ZS {Diemes.cus Church Road) in Chapel Rill Township . The property is referenced as part of lot 76 on Tax Map 120 . It is • bordered by residential development . The tract is designated as Rural Buffer , Water Quality Critical Area Land Use Plan . The ..property is also within the Joint Planning Area which requires courtesy review by the Carrbcro Planning Department . There are two ( 2) lots proposed ; the sizes are 2.41 acres and 6 .04 acres . The. property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) , WQCA ('later Quality Critical Area) and PW—II (Protected Watershed) . A maximum impervious surface ratio of 6% , in addition to the other requireliant+ for Water Quality Critical Areas , applies to each lot . Access is provides; to Lot 1B from SR 1530 via an Crenge County Private Class "Cu road which leads to an Orange County Private Class "A" road . Lot IA has direct road frontage on SR 1939 , Fire protection for the property in question is provided by the Damascus Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department . It wi l l be patrolled on a 24 hour basis . Deve lopn,ent of this subdivision would have minimal impact or the area . The Planning _Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Pin contin,:er;t upon the following onditions : 1 ) indicate the tot eizes excluding the ririht—of :gay for Lot #16 . 102 h r-n iI L1 T E S PAGE 7 2) indicate the 0;Etence of the stream buffe.r , from t h e . " ) euboissiun of a Stunater Management PLGn tey satisfy tie,=; standard requiring infiltration of the first 1/2 inch of runt f . Robert Bryon , agew. for the applicant , stated that everything , ready, vas in place excoopt the lot line . Restrictive covenants are al-so in place . Jacobs inquired about a Homeowner ' s Association.. Bryan responded it already exists . P.i lkey .inquired about the property to the east and Bryan respo-n.de.d it was a -subdivision .celle-d Octaber Woods . • Kizer inquired about the road stub—out and where it cane from . Bryan responded it came from Damascus .Church Road and • continued to where •.the stub—.out ended . MOTION : Kizer moved approval . Seconded by Shanklin . WT. ; Unanirmo.us . e . Stacy Heights — Section One -- Preliminary Staff presentaticen by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of Stacy Heights ; Section One , e pro p 'rty of George Tate Jr . The property in question is located on SR 1729 (Rogers Road) in Chapel Hill Township . The Property is referenced. as Lot 25A on Tax Map 23, Block C . It is bordered by residential development . The Tract is designated as 20 year transition or the Land Use Plan . The property is also within the Joint Planning Area which requires courtesy review by the Carrboro Planning Department . There are three (3 ) Lots proposed ; the sizes are 1 .067 acres (2 Lots ) and 1 . 071 acres . The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . Fire protectiur for the property is provided by the New Hope Rural Fire district . Lai: enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff' s Department . It v! i ll be patr2l led on a 24 hour lasi . O R A N G E C O U N T Y 103 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6 . 1986 Action Agenda SUBJECT: STACY HEIGHTS: SECTION ONE — PRELIMINARY PLAN Item _ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No�W� Attachment (s) CHECKLIST Information Contact : JANE E ATWATER VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill -- 968-4501 PURPOSE: To cionsider approval of St acy Heights : Section One , proper y of George Tate Jr , To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED: The property in question is located on SR 1729 (Rogers Chapel Hill Township . The Road] n P • property is referenced as Lot 25A . n Tax I Map 23, Block C . It is bordered by residents = l development . The Tract is designated as 20 year transition in the Land Use Plan . The property is also within the Jai t Planning Area which requires courtesy review by the Carrbo a Planning Department . There are three [3] lots proposed ; the sizes are 1 .067 acres (2 lots) and 1 .071 acres . The property is zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) . Fire protection for the property is provided by the New Hop - Rural Fire District . Law enforcement is provided by the Orang Country Sheriff' s Department . It will be patrolled on a 24 hou , basis, . IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact o the area . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminar Pllan Contingent upon the following conditions : f1 ] provide a note on the plat which states that access for Le #3i is to be restricted to Tallyho Trail ( 2) submission of a stormwater management plan to satisfy th ; standard requiring infiltration of the first 1/2 inch o ' runoff 104 STACY HEIGHTS : SECTION ONE — PRELIMINARY PLAN JANUARY 6 , 1986 PAGE 2 (3 ) approval of lots #2 and 3 for on—site wastewater system or combination of the lots to provide approved sites for each ', lot proposed or notation on plat indicating the unsuitability of the lots for development (NOTE: APPLICANT 'S APPEAL OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT DECISION) 105 SJt1i1ARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subicet! Subdivision -- Application tor Preliminary Plat --- Staff !Hoots Section One Recomrsiendatic;o: Approval with three condi:ions. The first two conditi are the iameisstff conditions 1 and #2 stated in the PiennipAiklerd agenda packet. Condition ifr3 specifies that there shall be a notation on the plat that 3fits•-1'2 and 4r3 do not meet health Department approval for on-site wastewater systems, unless the applicant can.obtain Health Department approval before submission of the final_plat. In the latter CaSO final plat approval could include the approved lot(s). 10 - 0 Meeting Date: December 16, 1985 Issues Raised: tioncern overjp -site-wastewater systems for lots v7. and #3. as indicated in the statement of condition 3_ Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations- ....... _ . . 1 D b 1 46 - .__ 66 N 80600 • �' 2 i2 7AC S ON oNi '0 • , 1 3AC g7-5 "•1851 APPUCA J1 : GEOQGB TAM w 5� ® ZDUIUG; R-1 (RuelL• R>= pErunAf) ° S ''��� 2A AC. 15;6 DEED AVER P t L1AP DCSiGIJATI ON: 1n y2. T-AAl51r104- w 4i, 76_A I AC. ∎•,0-Q.4 t o�.^`4A' 1823 C. I . ,64 A . 0. 520 6572 I 8 •5 « 2 • •� 3A" S 5 11 AC ! •3385 • 25 _..,\. 2�p6115 u� . v i 6 .05 AC. 2178 tg6 As .-- o 9A 1 r'1 , Rini d z�a� 271 '� 3 9Ia z 3 f �F''' '..\\ i95 8 Ac.5071 .� 5947 30 A C C8- (�81 10 O \\ 9 1208,8 ,/ �.J�� 10 61;1 l I MAP 23B 1.35 `-�4 .'\ , 3735 2.07,• 40 7529 AC. r ;. / ", �s`C y I AC. 01 10 ! 3 5 AG,.1 /zoos \\5604 ,�1 7551 zoi , +s i 534C. �'5 _ } \ ' 9 .- / 1, ' \ I i . . m 6 AC 4.i5 AC. -4583 •11 1 \ zoo •0416 ' ,,rr = 112 •Q zoo• ; �rtSUt3-71V. 1 �, -� .&211.0A8/ /' 3 PUREFOY 6249.7289 9228,0259 2208 3288 4,,,74,;: „. 19C o AC/ ESTATE)• e. 60 / .9.r3 - I4)�I5 ) 16 16A1. 177;1 I �` \ 0UI .NA — ���= RN - �� '�i, ` L� 51E6 8967 DR Rr� '1- —v� OAR 9) t_.) `-) _ 1 v 1.54• ��� Pv .1 fuy SEE 64 I1 , • r N N_ N N N / 8-- 3 A 1 tn to u) I L� u, �� W / 31.94 AC 1 7814 21�•'• '" e I 6 s s 5243 f f 91-i80 • d9' / ' 241 . x1675 ■ ' 104X 4766 A �1/ , . -- - _-__ �5v��, -:s 405 / 24C; ' !0;AC ,,;118 4A `\\ INSERT Ac.% '\ \ FDA�MEApOW i"/ 133 T AC p ` 'c 82c2 ?:r5 .� SEC 2 �" N r w 2' \ ç ; ;Q 2 17 / Nt / / 1 I I . /Q� 1 • 7890' N. 1 s5' '2745. r 6-7 . I ` X25 87L1C- i 2u �` rALL.YH0 7RR11� -a 8646 fl t. SEC La 3' SIACI � . / - /_� SEE �.r. r 1;�' �OxMEADowi=� J�' i - 2 3 Car. 4 Y 22 45 AC. 1 `y / . ti J `'-;01\ - "- ..-' \-- 14 80 2,c1 ./ /4Z Ir Lzi -- - - __ ■ 1 V d f ' MAJOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST NAME OF SUBDIVISION STACY HEIGHTS: SECTION_ ONE OWNER OR DEVELOPER GEORGE TATE, JR. ADDRESS 342 W. . Rosemary Street Chapel Hill , NC 27514 TOWNSHIP Chapel Hill 23 TAX MAP BLOCK C LOT 25A NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Clay V. Fulton, RLS L1472 P.O. Box 116$ Greensboro NC 2 402 2 4_ 7 7 5930 Total number of lots 3 To be developed in 1 �- -- ----- ----p --_ chase(s)- Total number-of- acres --TYAleal- dwelling-units-at present none WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) or proposed single family SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual X Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT_ Chapel Hill-Carrbora FIRE DISTRICT New Hope Fire District Access antes State Road # 1729 Road Standard: Public X Existing critical areas such as streams or Private Class A � B r C Explain: ( } , Flood prone areas { ), Watershed (_j , Historic Sites ( ) , Other { ) Land uses in the general area Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) ( X) Recommended Changes ( ) REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department Tnm �,..,��,,,. _ I ntc Decision to be appealed Board of Education ary ynn True oue It-j-05 Erosion Control Officer MKR 12-10- 5 OwASA Department of Transportation Other (if possible) rarrhorrn p]gnning roilmtes-)L4eview 12-3-85 —Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) /Alamnce Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Approved with revisedecondit ons {12-6-s85ble) Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed ( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted properly on the plat {where applicable-) . Approved ( ) Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ( ) Final OWASA approval (where applicable) on,all plans & specifications, Date ( ) Final DOT approval on plat ( ) Final action by the Planning Board H' 0 �;F • Phone: (919) • 274-5930 • t 108 FULTON & ASSOCIATES ; .r SURVEYORS AND LAND PLANNERS Reg Land Surveyor L-1472 P.O. Box 1168 Suite 813 Southeastern Bldg_ Greensboro, N.C. 27402 December 12, 1985 I Ms. Jane Atwater Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: STACY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SEC. II. Orange County, NC Dear Ms . Atwater: By this memo, with reference to the aboved captioned property; Mr. George Tate,i Jr. Will appeal the decision of the Sanitarian on Lots ( 2 ) two and ( 3) three which did not pass the soil analysis. Yours truly, Clay V. Fulton, RLS FULTON & ASSOCIATES CVF/btf c: Mr . George Tate, Jr. TATE CONSTRUCTION & REALTY, CO. 342 W. Rosemary Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514 • { Cy r r O q O --;. • December 1 , 1985 . . . Ms. Jane L. Atwater Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Stacy Heights Section One TaxlMap 23, Block C, Lot 25A Dear .lane: The Town i of the proposed subdivision of Carrbrro Planning Department andpsee eno conditions - that wot�l,ld not comply with development regulations for the Town of Carrboro. Therefore, the Town recommends approval of the major subdivision application, as submitted. Fire Chief Robert Swiger noted this shouldibeoreferred�l-1�� the New Hope fire district and to Chief Mike Tapp for review. Sincerely, 6-6ReGoiz-e 5! f G —. L • 110 . .",FT PTh tdltdUtES 12-12-2 PAGE 7 21 indicate the cCi ',. tance of the screen l _ri'f er , f nor,, the stru.ar? banks , 2 ) 4:ubr:issien of a Sturmwater Management Plan to satisfy the stand requiring irfi Ltrati.on of the first 1/2 inc'-. of runoff . Robert Bryan , agen for the applicant , stated that. everyth r,g =_ Lri:ad y Gras in place except the Lot line . Restrictive covenants are also in place . Jacobs inquired about a Homeowner ' s Association . Bryan respond ed it already exists . Piikey inquired about the property to the east and Bryan responded it was a srbdivisitan .c r'lled October bloods . Kizer inquired about the road stub-out and where it came from . Bryan responded it came from Damascus Church oe.d end continued to wh.e.m the :stub--out ended . MOTION : Kizer moved approval . Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE : Unanimous . e . Stacy Heights — Section One - Preliminary Staff pr esentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda -item is to consider approval of Stacy Heights : Section One , property of George Tate Jr . The property in question is Located on SR 1720 (Rogers R. in Chapel Hill Township . The property is referenced as Lot 25A on Tax Map 23 , Block C . It is bordered by residential development . The Tract is designated as 20 year .transition on the Land Use Plan . The property is also within the Joint Planning Area which requires courtesy review by the Carrboro Planning Department . There are three (3) lots pro.po:sed ; . the sizes are 1 .067 acres ( 2 Lots) and 1 . 071 acres . The property is zoned R-1 (Curet R sidentia l.) . Fire protection fur the property is provided by the New Hupe Rural Fire District . Lace enforcement is rr•avic_ect by the Orange County Sheriff ' s Department . It ci Li be putrolla , on a 24 hour basis . P! AFT -PIM MINJUTES 12-16-05 PAGE 0 DeveLcproer t ci' this subdivision eculd hove minimal ir.apecs or the area . The PlannirL Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan Contineent upon the following ccnlitians : (1 ) F. roe de a note. on the plat which states that access for Lot #3 is to be restricted to Tallyho Trail ( 2) •subr;i scion• of a storrrwater -w.anagement plan to satisfy the standard requiring infiltration of the first 1/2 inch of runoff .(3) approval of Lots #2 and • B for on-site • • wastewater system or combination of the Lots to. provide approved sites for each lot proposed or notation on plat indicating the unsuitability of the lots for development (NOTE: APPLICANT 'S APPEAL OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT DECISION) Discussion followed on the policy regarding septic systems . Jacobs recommended delay until the appeal of the Health Department decision had been resolved . Smith reminded the Board of the 70 day review period . Kizer noted this could be handled with a restricted use notation or the plat . NOTION : Jacobs moved to defer consideration until the appeal was resolved or the 70 day period had been reached . Yuhasz noted that the ordinance allows for. recordation of plats if lots do not perk . With no second , the motion was withdrawn . MOTION : Kizer moved approval with Staff conditions 1 and 2 and a revision of the third condition to add that the plat be marked to show that Lots 2 and 3 do not pass Health Department approval .. Walters seconded . Discussion followed regarcing the notation in regard to the outcome of the appeal . Smith noted i the applicant won the appeal he could come bac with the plat without the notation . Kize responded that if the oppLicart could come back with the Final is Lat and show that they have been inspected and pissed or have redivided the Lots , then this would :satisfy shat the Planning Board wa- looking for . Best asked if the lots veer: recceinF1' eculd the appLiceent have to come bec • I - 112 CRAFT pwl i I MUTES 12-1S-Eg5 PAGE 3 With a new pre irihnry !_at . Kizer noted this would involve ant]; +.uvinc; one Lot Lin : between 2 R.hd 3 . The rotion coded to add that either *he, restricted IiFFS ilrtatiuo must be on the plat or some kind of spprcvel must be obtained from the Hee[th Department . • VOTE : Uwanimous . f . Windy Hi it - Preliminary Presentation by S7ith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for WintIy Hill warm . The property in question is Located in Chapel Bill Township on SR 1712 (University Station Road) . It s referenced as - Lots 53, 53A and 53B on Tax Map. 4. There are 23 Lots proposed out of 80.33 acres . There are 22 lots proposed . for single family development white lot number 23 will be owned by a Homeowners association . Lot 23 will be -approximately 45 .10 acres in size . Lots 1-22 range •from 1 .0 acres to 3 .4 acres in size . Access is proposed by two roads to be dedicated and constructed to state standards . The property is zoned Rural Residential (R-1 ) and is designated Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan . It is located in the New Hope Fire District . Si d 1712 (University Station Road) had a 1984 average daily traffic count of 180 just • south of this property . This subdivision would add approximately 147 trips per day to University Station Road . There are two existing ponds and one proposed pond with a perennial stream in lot 23 . A homeowners association document will be drawn up and submitted for maintenance of lot 23 . Tt,e Planning Board recommends approval with the following conditions : 1 . A Homeowners Association documents must be submitted to and approved by the county attorney upon submission of the final plat . 2 . Mutation or the let that access to Lots 20 and 22 is restricted to tt. e proposed roads serving the subdivision . 113 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6,_1986 Action enda Item #� ._ SUBJECT : WINDY HILL FARM -- PRELIMINARY DEPARTMENT : PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ___Yes X No Attachment (s) Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK CHECKLIST VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN DOT LETTER DRAFT 2-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE : To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Windy Hill o approval Y Y Farm To receive the Planning Board recommendation . NEED : The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on SR 1712 (University Station Road) . It is referenced as Lots 53 , 53A and 53B on Tax Map 4. There are 23 lots proposed out of 80 .33 acres . There are 22 lots proposed for single family development while lot number 23 will be owned by a Homeowners association . Lot 23 will be approximately 45 .10 acres in size . Lots 1 -22 range from 1 .0 acres to 3 .4 acres in size . Access is proposed by two roads to be dedicated and constructed to state standards . The property is zoned Rural ResidentiaL[R-1 ] and is designated Rural Residential in the Land 1,Use Plan . It is located in the New Hope Fire District . IMPACT : SR 1712 [University Station Road) had a 1984 average daily traffic count of 180 just south of this property . This subdivision would add approximately 147 trips per day to University Station Road . There are two existing ponds and one ,proposed pond with a perennial stream in lot 23 . A homeowners association document will be drawn up and submitted for maintenance of lot 23 . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Board recommends approval with the following condition : 1 . A Homeowners Association documents must be submitted to and approved by the county attorney upon submission of the final plat . 2. Notation on the plat that access to Lots 20 and 22 is restricted to the proposed roads serving the subdivision . • 114 flAPY OF ORANGE CO!..INTY PLANNING BOARD AC I ION Statiect: Soi:Jivi7ign • Applicathm Pre '10ri Nat -- l Farm Recommenda Anuoval with the two staff Ninditirin-4,as staied in the •P i B oardAgyJn da_p octet vote: G 'Meeting Date:. December 16, 1985 Issues Raised: Explanation cif Dissenting Votes: • Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: njp .f_- ;•aaJI4t. I \ / - -- WINDY HILL FARM . APPLICANT :' PRESTON BROADWELL N 1 x15 • • Zone : R-1 ; • LUP Designation : Rural Residential R l Scale : 1" 400' 1 0141 i. I 2168 558 • 54 . ' I '�C 514 ,G� �� +Q8 _ . � P� 664 A � i ; '•• ..ate 'r �� 1 1898 _ -- - . -_ _ -_ . 1 ' ``'' = — ``' .,/// 4 9622 ' r ' h•-■,..,_"1, , . 1 .._=.___ ...mi _. .. ,. .3. • 4/2 iti - *//71 r / \\ li I ,i10 dr ! ' sue{''At 1 2 7854 \1 V-77/'/'• 1, Y1/7/7 I! 4 .:/,'",f/ - ';; - : ZO `� F 44 ...• a/ ' ' _ 33 z , B 315 J'37q w V 1CC• �' {�h i I ) I 1 r •r Pio42 AC. i 1 9 ,/ 27.08 AC. AL /------___. 86 !j ,\ 00 8082 sE_,16V3 ' 39E 7 / 9502 / �________ 5� 4,, r 6.2 A C. CAL _� ! E. 3443 - 18 r� � / _ r3�=v. I _ t1 0283 i 5-5e ' ��- _ 3.7l 8200 • $AC \ 3048 r'.3D`'8 - ,,- i r` ��' � a 1 (� i�." 3.66 /.i -0 l r, Aid _ r 1 / i 18.87 AC 14-6AC CAL - 13 85='.( 10 2 e'.r ::.{t k9)AC r, r� \� !' ' 1.548 --� \\ ;39K)'- L. / ' A�' c''' A�. 4t�A',(4/ 1 '?.F3' •k� —4.:0 ` �7 3 / r/ .' 9637 ;, ail ! ��� MANOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST ?�AiE OF SUBDIVISION WINDY HILL FARM OWNER OR DEVELOPER PRESTON BROADWELL ADDRESS lti SHANTER CLIFFE PLACE, DURHAM, NC 27712 TOWNSHIP CHAPEL HILL TAX MAP 4 BLOCK LOT 53, 53A, 53B ,,, NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER COULTER ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND LAND PLANNERS O'.1 Total number of lots 23 2 80.33 To be developed in phase(s) ._dotal number r of cres ---Typical l-dwelling units at present or proposed Single Family WATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual X SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septic tank X SCHOOL DISTRICT Orange County FIRE DISTRICT New Hope Access onto State Road # 1712 Road Standard: Public X or Private Class A , B , C Existing critical areas such as streams ( X ) , Flood prone areas ( ) , Watershed ( storic Sites ( } , Other ( ) Explain: Two existing ponds and one proposed pond on the site with; a stream running between them. Land uses in the general area Single Family Residential SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 10-4-65 Approved ( X ) Recommended Changes { ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) Preliminary Review by Health Department 12-5-65 Erosion Control OfficerM KR 12-9-85 Board of Education Department of Transportation ' OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) -Hillsborough (if possible) Orange/Al.amance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended an2rova] with conditions 12-16-$S Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date) ( ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat { ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable) . Approved ( } Improvements have been provided for; completed; bond, letter of credit, cash. Date ( } Final. OWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans &. specifications, Date ( } Final DOT approval on plat ( ) Final action by the Planning Board (1_ er-.4* 11"7,2 -�----- -- 1/ sue. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • • Graham, NC 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR November 22, 1985 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JAMES E HARRINGTON SECRETARY - Orange County • Mr. Marvin Collins Orange County Planning Department - 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Preliminary Plan. - Windy Hill Farm Off SR 1712 Dear Mr. Collins: This is to advise that the preliminary plan of Windy Hill Farm is approved with the following recommendation: 1. A 10' x 70' sight distance is recorded at the inter- section of High Meadow, Windy Hill, and University Station Road. The property lines should follow this sight distance line. Final approval of the grade, drainage, and alignment will be a part of the construction plans. If there are any questions, please advise. Yours very truly, S. . Jones DISTRICT ENGINEER SHJ/JBH_jbh cc: Mr. Preston Broadwell An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer (,i,..____r � I 118 I 1 . I I I I WINDY HILL FARM ORANGE COUNTY A STUDY OF IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL 1 I - I I I I I I JEFFERY H. LECKY DUANE K. STEWART & ASSOCIATES PO BOX 1026 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 I I I I I • 11 SITE STUDY Windy Hill Farm Orange County, North Carolina The site under study is located on the eastern side of University Station Road, (SR 1712), approximatly 1 mile south of the intersection of University Station Road and 1-85. The property covers 80.33 acres. The proposed use of this site is to develop it into a subdivision consisting of 23 lots with a minimum lot size of 1.0 acres. Two roads are proposed to service the site, (Windy Hill and High 1eadow) which will be constructed as cul-de-sacs. There are two _ existing ponds in the center of the site which cover approximately four (4) acres. There are also plans to build a one and one-half, (1 1/2) acre pond at the bottom of -the site. When designing a site within a water supply watershed of regional importance, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces' must be routed to provide as much natural cleansing as possible- prior to it discharging into a creek or stream. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces generally carry large amounts of oil, nutrients, metals, and other pollutants. Generally it is the first one-half (1/2) inch of runoff that carries the highest level of pollutant's. These pollutants can generally be filtered out of the runoff II by on-site infiltration through vegetated areas, retention ponds or by detention structures. The natural terrain of this site combined with the routing of stnrnwater with swales to the pondsland vegetation will provide a naximun utilization of these natural processes. A lower ratio of impervious material to the vegetation of the site would result in lower pollutants associated with a site. The low density associated with this site allows it to have a relatively small amount of impervious surface. . The impervious surfaces associated with this site are as follows: 1.50 +/- Acres Paved Roads .86 +/- Acres Driveways (150' X 12' avg.) 1.40 +/- Acres Dwellings (3.000 SF avg.) 3.76 +/- Acres Impervious Surface Windy }sill Farn 12/1;2/85 l-'aye 1 120 1 As the site consists of 80.33 Acres, 4.7k of the site will be impervious. This amount falls well below the allowed 12x maximum allowable impervious ratio for R-1 with public water/sewer unavailable,'1 (Pg.19, Table B of Subdivision Regulations Admendment). In addition to the relatively low ratio of impervious material . to vegetation on this site. it must be noted that the natural terrain .'of this site, along with swales, will allow all of the runoff to I' either pass through natural vegetation or to be retained in one of three the ponds. The stormwater runoff from the roads will be carried to different parts of the site by means of a grassed swale. The grass swale will slow the runoff down and allow some pollutants to settle within the swale. Along Windy Bill there will be several places where, the swales on the southern side will be allowed to discharge runoff into the - - ponds. It is estimated that no more than 1.2 acres or Based of the Rational Method for determining runoff (Qi-CIA) . Area e 1.2 Acres Runoff Coeff. = 0.9 4 1 Intensity of rain = 7.5 in/hr . A = 8.1cfs an estimated flow of 8.1 cfs will be discharging toward the pond during a 10 year storm. This Is to be considered a moderate amount of runoff. Therefore, relatively little stormwater, with 5 the long overland distance it will travel in the swales, will combine to provide a very substantial infiltration and filtering system. 1 A relatively barge portion of the northern side of Windy Hill will appear to be on a fill section of material. Therefore, all runoff from the centerline on the road (if not superelevated) will flow perpendicular off the road and down' the grassed slope into natural vegation. This will allow infiltration to take place. The runoff from High Meadow will be discharged and controlled in the same manner as Windy Hill. However, one section of High Meadow will be discharging to the South through a 15"RCP with approximately; 0=CIA A = 0.5 Acres i 1 = 7.5 In/Hr II C - 0.9 n = 3.4 cfs t . ii i Windy Hill Farm 12/12/85 Page 2 i 1 \■= . 1'• 121 a flow of 3.4 cfs. This stormwater will travel approximately 4S0FT across natural vegetation before it discharges into a small stream. Th',e low runoff amount combined with the travel distance will allow pollutants to settle out. Any runoff from the individual sites will be infiltrating and filtering through a minimum of 40,000+/- square feet of natural ,vegetation from each site prior to being discharged into the ponds or across any portion of the remaining 45+/- acres to retain undisturbed.' This should be an adequate amount of natural vegetation for the pollutants to filter through. 1 The ponds also provide an important roll in slowing down and - retaining the runoff from this site. The ponds retain the first portion of stormwater. The first portion of the runoff contains the greatest amount of pollutants therefore this would be the most • critical toi contain. By the ponds retaining this runoff, the stormwater has time to slow down and allow pollutants to settle. The two (2) existing ponds are acting as a natural detention for the upper portion of the site. A third pond will be added to . retain any runoff from the lower portion of the. site and to refilter stormwater from the upper two (2) ponds. The ponds (will act as a secondary filtering system to any pollutants contained in the runoff after it has passed through the grassed swales or has not infiltrated into the surface. Therefore, it can be concluded that the site with its rolling terrain and natural watershed feeding the ponds, combined with the 1 low density and impervious material, provides an ideal combination to infiltrate and detain runoff. The low ratio of impervious material to the vegetation of 4.7% is acceptable and should allow sufficient infiltration and settlement of pollutants to occur. 1 1 i 1 1 1' il i. Mindy Hill Fara 12/12/85 Page 3 1 • ' - •. 1 :_-i. rr' % `rt 3.,�-�`�.Y � .jam % ..:.4, a� �v. _iA�..� 1- `+ ems: ,{ • \ ‘L'N't- i-‘....00ped\:1.1. / . .. • J �/LG41i2,1+��. :+.4...•',..,,;��� jam' .r•'` Jii *.•" - n: .s•1 f-%y y. • Ifull . , (,, 7 ~4 i.., • •• 1: :.sy+yY'• + - 'v ; 3 p•` • -j t `S� ..r• 1. �. /' r �l(b , ‘ f='` ,,,,_tee•: -�'�� 't- ;..,.:,,,..",,.,,, _ • ! t•Yncr ilIn.Jr 1 1L •r ■ _. ." 1 : 1 . •—::::-7:,:•5!"-11'7F2.-■ -I. .4 Is.1:1;4 A--7 '1..•, r:.''-‘,1,7.:-,:: ::,:-:..:.!...."-'..-.''..".4.- 'A- .1; - ...--- ...il_7!A__ .1" :,:r.0% ' �} + ter.:. ✓ i• �. \':3••t... - W - . .• • + v �• \ - ,''4 - r te'' `�, _ (r r •1'v \ n . -., • " ---".: ----.. s7-4•74 kl -t_li__-_--.1., .... -_-k- _--.-...4-.,-- : %,.-tz,:rq/c rh ,r e'''. i:. , r ' -r....`..` `--•: -'y-• +.:_ ---I6' a APPROX-LOCATION CF F 4 - ' / ,. - • , t,c ----:c--.'L..'") :`;:`,...,-,1/4.,,,. 7,=,'":--,;.-- '- 1.-...e.....--- ----'I' ' �RY �i+ ^ ' ' /. 1▪.'� a� l -n �hIFI.•l bc=C ' ; y � r t-,a• • Y - r ` "i \ { t • ::• "' ;::-'( Tee :.. — i , . ■ �. WINDY HELL FARM IMP 13 /(OUS ACRCA:E{ — - II 1 • 123 • nf,f F T i n. it a .17r a PAGE 3 with a new pr_. tir. ihnry plat . Kizer noted this would involve only ►: uving one ',et tine between 2 and C . Tha motion t:us nenc; ;c! . t add that either the restricted use nctat ' un mu-it be on the plat or some kind epproval must he obtained from the Health Depa rrent . • VOTE: . Unanimous .- logf . Windy Hill — Preliminary Presentation by S_zith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Windy Hilt Farm . The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on SR 1712 (University Station Road) . It is referenced as Lots 53, 53A and 538. on Tax Flap 4. There are 22 Lots proposed out oi' 80.33 acres . There are 22 Lots proposed for single family development while lot number 23 will be owned by e Homeowners association . Lot 23 will be approximately 45.10 acres in size . Lots 1-22 range from 1 .0 acres to 3 . 4 acres in size . Access is proposed by two roads to be dedicated and constructed to state sttndards . • The property is zoned Rural . ResidentiatiF -1 ) and is designated Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. It is located in the New Hope Fire District . SR 1712 (University Station Road) had a 1984 average daily traffic count of 180 just south of this property . This subdivision would add approximately 147 trips per day to University Station Road . There are .two existing ponds and one proposed pond with a perennial stream in Lot 23 . A homeowners association document will be drawn up and submitted for maintenance of lot 23 . The Plsnning Soard recommends approval with the following conditions : 1 . A Homeowners Association documents must be submitted to and approved by the county attorrey upon submission of the final plat . 2. Notation on the plat that a n^ess to Lots 2C and 22 is restricted to the proposed roads serving the subdivision . 124 CRA'eT Pr I N TES 1 2-16-05 PAGE 10 Jacobs inquired if doubling the traffic on University Station Road would still keep this road at service level A . ccii th responded she was not sure what the serv' ce Level would be . Collins noted there would be no problem w i th the number of trips projected . MOTIOD : Shanklin moved approval subject • to staff conditions . Seconded by salters . Kizer inquired about the two entrances . Smith responded that given the nature of the site, two entranceways actually worked better and NCDOT had no problem with two access points for this tract . Vl7TEe Unanimous . Jacobs inquired about homeowners associations and the Planning Board 's limitations in . requirements on these associations . Gordon asked where homeowners associations were addressed in such a way that problems could be handled . Smith responded that a Homeowner 's Association was basically voluntary . The County Attorney does review the Legal papers . Gordon indicated she would Like to discuss what could be done to change such agreements with the County Attorney . g . Appeal — Minor Subdivision of the Doris Lee Property Presentation by Srii'th . This agenda item is to consider an appeal to the Planning Staff' s decision to require a 50 ' right of—way to be platted as part of the minor subdivision of the property of Doris Lee . The Planning Staff • identified the need to provide additional right—of—way along the southern property line of the Doris Lee property to upgrade the pre existing gravel react shover on the tax maps as • Blunderbuss Lane . Blunderbuss Lane provides access to New Hope Church Road [SR 1723) for a number of Large acreage Lots in the area . The Orange County Subdivision Regulations provides for the planning • and coordination of existing end proposed streets with the existing system of the surrounding area ee part of the subdivision process . The applicant does rrct wish to provide additional O R A N G E C O U N T Y •25 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6, 1986 Actionak enda Item #I SUBJECT : CLASS A ROAD — LOTS 2 & 5 0 , J . PARIS SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT : PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes K_ No Attachment (s) Information Contact : JANET VAN HANDEL PROPERTY MAP MARVIN COLLINS 2 APPLICATIONS • Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE : To consider a request for a Class A private road to serve the subdivisions of Lots 2 & 5 of the O .J . Paris Subdivision . The private road standards require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for the establishment of a Class A road . NEED : Approlial of a Class A private road is required before two minor subdivisions can be approved : Heinrich Melling and John Shaw properties . The 0. J . Paris Subdivision , the West Orange Partnership Subdivision and the Kelly & Thomas Subdivision (see map) were created before Subdivision Regulations went into effects in Bingham Township . IMPACT: Approval of a Class A private road would provide for the submittal of two minor subdivisions for approval . RECOMMENDATION : Approval . l l - 4233 14 56.5 AC t,• -� ,��� 6.05 AC. �11� I� I I CIg�GSGG �� m 1 9.86 AC. �1 65n63AG //!� �r.r 13.51 ac i,f�F►SS ..Br. MAP ?7A FU J - rri 4f9U �� ! LOT 2 _ 146 3 ` f, © i{.6?A 5.f AC unt r':•ra ;ri' / / ` .'REQ V EST FOP. 5Gr9 SAC, O r `� 1 CLASS "A' PRivA-TE ROAD 8.78nC � 1� 4.s©C 4 N.+L7AC 4.0 AC, i S.! AG S 3,L 3.78A AG G SEC MAP 3.f.5 AG I I , 27C ® D I ! C8? THOMAS) 3.6 AC 3,46 Ac 3.LJA- l I 3.6'1 PL 3.16 AG .33AG 3.4G AG Nis ro ;, RY ® oo fNnl r© fJn ® 3A4 Ac I (GCE-5T Ph IN_GF PRHTNEI?S `IP, 3 t AG U•1• PAP s - RECORDEDS-7G -T LOrS 3.66 AG 3.4¢AG 1 T f1I_f3.6�f Ac j Rv'fVRf -[ro rots) � � � G 1 WEST ORAoCne- RECORDED 3- G 4h A _7'1 _12 5 h 3.s7 Ac 1Sf1,1-y ! T}4DMA5 RECOR461! Z- 78-1tLvr5 ` I ifil 3q L.15 3.773 AG IDTAL 3.7+AG I 111 n 1 ,1147% AC r,r+ Ar MINOR SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST ;SAME OF SUBDIVISION OGB Development (Property of John Shaw) OWNER OR DEVELOPER 0. J. Paris Subdivision-Lot 2 ADDRESS 9 miles west of ape on Highway 54, -urn rig on range Grove Road TOWNSHIP Bingham TAX MAP �7A BLOCK LOT 4 NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER Steve Wilson TOTAL-NUMBER-OF-LOTS --- -TO-BE-DEVELOPED-7N ----- PHASES, TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES TYPICAL DWELLING UNITS AT PRESENT OR PROPOSED 1 , on Lot 2A WATER SUPPLY : PUBLIC (NAME) COMMUNITY InJividuai X SEWAGE TREATMENT: PUBLIC COMMUNITY INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANK X SCHOOL DISTRICT Orange School District ACCESS ONTO STATE ROAD 1106 ROAD STANDARD: PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CLASS A X � B X , C EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS SUCH AS STREAMS { } , FLOOD PRONE AREAS ( } , HISTORIC SITES { ) , OTHER { } ;XPLAI N: None _AND USES IN THE GENERAL AREA: Rac;_rinnr;�1 farm =1NAL PLAT RECEIVED (DATE) July 2, 1979 - } ALL LOTS WERE APPROVED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT LOTS FAILING HEALTH DEPARTMENT"S APPROVAL ARE COMBINED OR LISTED PROPERLY ON THE PLAT BOARD OF EDUCATION APPROVED. DA'T'E EROSION CONTROL OFFICER APPROVED. DATE _ } ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED (WHERE APPLICABLE . APPROVED } IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR: COMPLETED, BOND, LETTER OF CREDIT, CASH. DATE )OWASA APPROVAL (WHERE APPLICABLE) DATE �,7 • 128 MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ,/o r ,s- • Property Owners) + 4,1 / t( J / /; Address 30 V OSn1 r C.� /f Phone ( ) / .•9-/4 /7 Developer/Contact Name - Address Phone ( ) Location of Property . . 02 7 4 - townsltp map block lot. zoning Fire District Watershed Impervious Surface Joint Planning: C.H. Carrboro School District CO State Road Number /00 4. Name .s_. ,�.-p Type - A-/tom$-4u.46Z O Private Road Class $- Name Do you plan to build the road before final approval? ye_5 or secure construction with a security document? Utilities: Public Sewer Community System Septic Tank Lam' - Public Waters Community Water Well If on a septic system, the Health Department must examine all existing and potential- building sites on lots shown on the plat. Total Lot Area IT• / �. Number of Lots Lot Number: Size of Lots: Structures (proposed or existing) : / - � 7 I (We) hereby certify that I (we) have read the above information and that the information I .(we) have supplied is accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I (we) understand r my (our);.application isllnot complete and cannot be approved unless all required information and material has been provided. Date Signature • I - Date Signature Filing Fee # of Lots Fee Private Road Fee Other Fee Total Fees 1 Date Paid GRAFT PRIM rizt�l 25 TES 1 2 18- ci PAGE le mPtter that staff cn_; id. not properly address . His client tvishes to use rxistinc; road frontage and not be required to d;ori l.e ri gh —of—way . MOTION : Shank I i n moved revrsa l Cr staff decision . Seconded by Kizer . Shanktin noted that there was adequate road frontage for the 154 acre tract at such time as it was to be developed and a road constructed . Kizer indicated that he felt it was not necessary to reserve the right--of— day . Callemyn noted that at the time of development of the 154 acre tract would be the time to take care of th.a problem of the road and right of way . Smith noted that staff was trying to Look at a good system of roads that would serve all of the interior Lots . Collins stated that compensation was a problem , but that if the Board wished to have a thoroughfare system in the County that makes sense , at some point you must Let the desire for a good road system outweigh the compensation issue . • It makes sense to use the established right—of—way . h . C . J . Paris Subdivision — Class A Road The purpose of this acende item is to inform the Board of a request for a Class A Road to serve Lots 2 & 5 of the Q .J . Paris Subdivision . The Private Road Standards requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners on a Class A road . Class A Private Road approval is required before 2 minor subdivisions can be approved . The 0 . J. Paris Subdivision , the West Orange Partnership Subdivision and the Kelly & Thomas Subdivision (see map] were created before Subdivision Regulations went into effect in Bingham Township . Approval of a Class A Road would allow two minor subdivisions to be applied for . f 'ENOA ITEM #Th Matters Presented at Public Hearing 11 -25-85. (see 11-25-85 Public Hearing Agenda Packet ) a . SECONDARY iEr,D.1F!T TO THE LAND USE PLAt! REQUESTED EY GARY CARLEEN RICHARDSON Staff presentation was by Gene Bell . 130 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6y1986 Action A enda Item #611 SUBJECT : SECONDARY AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN REQUESTED BY GARY CARLEEN RI CHAROSON DEPARTMENT : PLAN',NING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X__ No Attachment(s) Information Contact : GENE BELL SEE 11/25/85 PUBLIIC HEARING AGENDA DRAFT 11/25/85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12/16/85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel HILL — 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive the Planning Board recommendation on a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for a 3 .12 acre tract ( incilusive of street right of—way) owned by Gary Carleen Richardson . The property in question is located on the east side of N .C . 86 approximately 1 .2 miles south of 1-85 . It ' s known as Lot 5 on Orange County Tax Map 50 for Hillsborough Township . This land use plan amendment request was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 and considered by the Planning Board on December 16 , 1985 . To receive the Planning Board's recommendation. NEED : The applicant cites changed or changing conditions as the reason for the amendment . In support of this the followirg non—residential uses along N .C . 86 south of I--85 are mentioned: L . A . Downey , Surety Storage, Keith 's Heating and Air 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 Plan designation of the subject property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial—Industrial Transition Node making it compatible for rezoning to commercial or industrial 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 area 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 . The Planning Board recommends denial by unanimous vote . 131 5U1111AkY OF ORANOF COUNTY PIANNING BOARD ACTION. Suhj 2. L Aniurtdment - V Kr.:.1ht ,v6ArY kl•=:tirirdsrlP)_. ReenirtMenda Deniaf as recrffrmendedir;',‘ • Vote: 9 - 0 (one person out of room) Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 Issues Raised: . • Explanation of Dinting Votes: Cther Information and/or Citations from Cuunty Regulations: • r I 7 132 WILDWOOD PIEDMONT ELECTRIC 1 0 L .a c Z_ STAGECOACH, Sec. 1 WOOD'S BROTHERS `_ �- I SURETY � I STORAGE • • I �. I I D U K E F O R E S T RICHARDSON LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT I - . (Rural Residential to 10 Year Transi ion Commercial-Industrial Transition Node) .c I Scale: 1" = 400' I (-' N 1— I I 1 _. I Location Map h I► 5 ��c� 1 ,. 1 L oc co .ia 0- b'� KENNEDY .. DA 'gm& cm 48 c- C T 4-P'f, �( �AY Ct PtN • /l / R \ 1 a . D. LP -----___ 86 .- I 1 ' I---,,,(; st rF ILL i I ( .\......-; - 1 fr./ Numindi 133 Fovember 25, 1935 Members Of the Crange 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 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- . on.. Most appreciative, Miss Gary Carleen Richardson GCR/pu ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY MEETING 134 NOVEMBER 25, 1985 ,The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Planning Board onNovember 25, 1985, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:_ Chair Don Willhoit, and Commissioners Shirley Marshall,' Moses Carey, Norman Walker and Ben Lloyd. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon, and members Chris Best, Barry Jacob , Steve Kizer, Peter Kramer, Frank Pearson, David Shanklin, Carl Walkers and Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:_ Members Margaret Miller, Sharlene Pilkey, and Betty M. Margison. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Planner Gene Bell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Director of Planning Marvin Collins and Planner Susan Smith. A PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. LUP-445 VIC KNIGHT ,_„(RURAL. RESIDENTIAL TO_COMMERCIAL RANSITION ACTIVITY NODE) PRESENTATION BY STAFF Planner Gene Bell presented for the receipt of public cements a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan for a 3.12 acre tract awned 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 Transition/;Commercial_Industrial Transition Node. The applicant cites changed or changing conditions `'as the reason for the amendment. Various non residential uses 'iin 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 bode from Commercial Transition to Commercial-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 non-residential land uses. 135 2 . 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 Lard Use Plan. The locational criteron for hydrology, Flora & Fauna, Energy Use and Historic and Cultural sites is compatible or consistent for the Commercial and Industrial Node. The location criteria for land slope - is borderline. Calculations based on measurements taken from USGS topo maps indicates slope', of slightly over 14%. The same soil conditions, public . services utilities, agriculture & forestry and population density exists in both 10 and 20 year transition as for the Commercial-Industrial. The proposed amendmend is not consistent or compatible with the transportation system 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 adopted "Central Prange Area Study" has adequately addressed non-residential development in this area, and (2) the application fails to meet all locational criteria for the 'irequested Land Use classification. - COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING . BOARD None. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT Vie Knight read a brief letter from Mrs. Richardson as stated below: i" 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. Ny 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 Ithe 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 who is concerned about the growth that will take place and 1 3 E interested in what will benefit the town. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS None. 2. PD-5_85 SCGTSLIOOD (RESIDEti'TIAL--1 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING R--Z AND R-5 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT--GENERAL COMMERCIAL-IV) Those people who wished to comment on this item were sworn in by Chair Willhoit. Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. for 331.12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypassand 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 classification 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 area. The applicants are requesting - three different zoning disignations: (1) 290.03 acres PD-H-R-2 (2) 29.5 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 store, and other small shops. Two principle accesses are proposed with one on Highway 70 and one on Scotswood Boulevard. The estimated. population of the development based on the 1980 per household population of 2.6 persons per household and based on the 626 dwelling units proposed would be at complete built outat 1 ,765 persons. Impacts of the development include: (1)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 upon full builtout . 13i DRAFT ram MINUTES 12-1C---R5 PAGE 12 matter that staff could not properly address . His client t;i shes to use . existing roac' frontage and net be recui rer to donate right-of—way . MOTION : Shanklin moved revcr•sc l or staff decision . Seconded by Kizer . Shank li n noted that there was adequate road. frontage for the 154 acre tract at such tine as it . was to be dek eloped and a road constructed. . Kizer indicated that he felt it was not necessary to reserve the right—of—way .. Callemyn noted that at the time of development • of the 154 acre tract would be the time to take care of the p:ro.b.lem of the road and right of 4tey . Smith noted that staff was trying to Look et a good system of roads that would serve all of the interior Lots . Collins stated that compensation was a problem, but that if the Board wished to have a thoroughfare . system in the County that makes sense , at sone point you oust Let the desire for a good road system outweigh the compensation issue . It makes sense to use the established right—of—way . h . O . J . Paris Subdivision — Class A Road The purpose of this agenda item it to inform the Board of e request for a CLFss A Road to serve Lots 2 & 5 of the O .J . Paris Subdivision . The Private Road Standards requires the approval of the board of County Commissioners on a Class A road . Class A Private Road approval is required before 2 minor subdivisions can be approved . The 0 . J. Paris Subdivision , the West Orange Partnership Subdivision and the Kelly & Thomas Subdivision ( see map) were created before Subdivision Regulations went into effect in Bingham Township . Approval of a Class A Road would allow two minor subdivisions to be applied for . AGENDA ITEM #B Matters Presented at Public Hearing 11 -25-65 (see 11-25--85 Public Hearing Agenda Packet ) 406 a . SECCtiW 7:`f ANENDt NT TO THE LAND USE PLAN REQUESTED BY GARY CARLEEI' RICHARDSONN Staff presentation was by Gene bell . I - - 136 f,F:.FT P^U hINLITES 12-1E...r,F PAGE 13 The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recorrmendaticn a proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan fcr a 3 .12 acre tract (inclusive of street right c; f—way ) owned by Gary CarLeen r' chardson . The property in question is Located en the east side of N .G . CC approxinctely 1 . 2 miles south of I-45 . I.It is known as Lot 5 on Gran e • County Tax Map 50 for Hi llsborougr Tcenship . This .land use plan amendment request was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1965 . I - The applicant cites changed or changing conditions as the reason for the amendment . In support of this the foLl.owing non—residential uses along N.C. 86 south of I--85 are mentioned: L. A . Downey , Surety Storage , Keith ' s Heating and Air Condition ing , Woods Brothers , and Kiddie Quarters Playschool . The applicant feels that " . . . .this property will be .pu-t • to its highest and best use by being amended and rezoned . " The proposed amendment would change the Land Use Plan designation of the subject property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial Industrial Transition Node making it compatible for rezoning to commercial or industrial uses . It would also extend the node further south making it possible for the next contiguous property to request rerlesignation to node status . The changing conditions in this area were recognized in the Central Orange Area study in 1563 and the node was redefined accordingly : both in terms of size (expanded) and designation (Commercial to Commercial—Industrial). The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request . MOTION : Pi Lkey moved denial of the request . Seconded by Margison . . Kizer inquired what was south of this property . Bell responded undeveloped property . VOTE : . Unanimous . (Gordon was out of the room during this vote) b . PO—C--E5 Bradshaw Mobile Acres Staff pre .ent.etirin by Srcith . it O R A N G E C O U N T Y 135 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6_1986 Action genda Item # 1 ,. SUBJECT : PD-6-85 BRADSHAW'S MOBILE ACRES DEPARTMENT : PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING .__Yes X No Attachment ( s) Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK SEE 11 -25-85 PUBLIC, HEARING AGENDA DRAFT 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane -- 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1985 . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . 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 Tax 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—H—AR . 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 : The Planning Board recommended approval of the PD—H--AR rezoning request with the attached conditions . The Planning Boardlirevised condition #18 to add the word "public" and added condition #21 . 140 Stils*ARY OF OPAN6F IOUN Y NG BOARD ACP OH Subiect: med Dpvrthwinunt - Bradshaw's ACreS • -Recommendil. len: 14.--T,-aval. with 21 condition:. The first 20 conditions were majittAlly those recommended hy_the staff. althinw.h the wording of-It 18 was revisekto socify "public improvements. The Board also added condition 021 which incorboratedit DOT recommendation concerning siqktdistance. Vote: 10I- .0 Meeting Date: December 16j985 Issues Raised: • The question of sict.i.distance was raised and addressed by condition #2!. No malor issues were raised_ (See the minutes for additional diseussion,) Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Reuulotions-: • • I `f YV ,,. r w5 k- ! �/ • . fAl!-;;;:k74ythT_47% . 4LYY•/1 ' . � _"V vt -- 're-;'•1-:.*Ti.-_F yX, . -:' : ."-'; t;�t�'-r{r' -o -... 1 .c 2E1. • f o 1 1 3 , 1�a 7/ _ � _ \\ 378AC S \I ii, j�� /r 5299 � v� 7 - ,`off` A�aG 7/'/e/ -. _ •r►' - `�\��`^ - ' // _� �\ -1Za2AC e� 4 - 2.5 AC. / f I a1fy ,� ~" - ,`N rCS�/ \ 2e,�,f �i� yR BRADSHAW'S- MOBILE ACRES \� f// — r \ J/- 32.91 A� S`", DEVELOPER: BETH /� :4er_ 7497 ;:!?- tOP ER: BRADSHAW� 3 Present Zone: A-1�� 1,2s Proposed PD-j-I-AR /�� .:r . Zone: �. LUP Designation: A ri r/ ;°G ; Izs^ cultural Residential �1'/r ara- � 1 _ 1"=400' i y 66 • t . . 8$q . 'g . - 1° 2 :7153 - y" . / -O e- - r• • .... _:: . 98 2' 23.4C // aF / II 7srr �ga : . 1. 1 O _ .. // 36.61 AC. // / - 19c7 ///"/' ! : C3' - 3135. 31 j , ( - S.9d AC. I f '' �', i ( 7591 r _ // 1-� 'Of 1 ■ t ��� 8 // 11069 AC, 2y r: 74'7; :�! l 38.29 AC. s �� ( _. . _- 0279 j ,�,\ r _ � '.`.\� \ 1- / 29.82 AC- 1:30 n2 I oe9z �� - E i f 07 ss I. � I 142 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 all required regulations and standards, the application' must be approved unless it is found , in some specific manner, that : 1 . The use will not promote the public health , safety and general welfare , if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted ; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property ; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as emboided 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 formlIof competent material and substantial evidence. No information has been received wich would establish grounds for ',making one or more of the above findings . The Planning Staff has reviewed the application , the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the applicant does comply with the general standards, specific rules, and required regulations . Staff recommends approval of ithe request . The Planning Staff does , however , recommend the attach- ment of the following conditions to the approval . • • i4I . 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 I Use Permit . Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project . Specifieallly, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 2. Security shall be provided for the grading , paving and stabili - zation of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular treveLway',s; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street, signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational faci litie',s; Landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units . . it 3 . All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, tale— 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 units 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 'istorage 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 DDT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards (p . 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 . 144 - I BRADSHAW'SIMOBILE ACRES PAGE 3 6 . 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 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. The entrance road and pull—off shall be of sufficient width to 'IalLow three or four cars to stop and get mail while others continue to pass . The mailboxes shall not be Located in a place I 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 appLicatitn and submitted site plan, with changes as specified below: Concrete ', basketball court shall be constructed at grade Level and not elLevated 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 . Lot shall include play equipment suitable for pre-- schoolers , as well as younger school—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 wilt "hold" this sand in and prevent having to add additiona ) 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 S Signs following) issuance of a building permit and prior to the ' I 145 BRADSHAW'SI 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 dlleve lopment . 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' and approved 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 shalt 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 numbering system must be filed with the Orange County Planning Department . 18 . A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and public improvements shall be recorded by the developer . (REVISED BY PLANNING (BOARD 12-16-85) 15 . The final 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 Planning Department . Grading and building permits , upon application , will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit . 20 . The deveIJopment shell be built and operated according to the site plan', and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions . ADDED 21 . The sight ,distance looking north shall be improved by cutting back and maintaining the brush On the backslope to the north of the entrance. (ADDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD 12-16-85) l —. I I FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: B RADSHAW'S MOBILE HOME ACRES }.a Piaritl';d d'�vLlop;nLnts must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses ds Biel 1 as those set forth in Articit 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the fo11ow1rig: ( 1} Specific rugulations governing individual Special uses as set forth in Article 8.8 These regulations are dlvi�cd ii►to two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (b) Specific standards for Planned D.:velopments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Spacial Uses (Article 8.2.4) . (2 Ocher requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, 'including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Ruquirc:ments) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) . Listed bc)ow ar:s the Findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question. The findings I',,1vu Letcn pru�i�!ntc:d by Article and requirement to assist Lhe BOCC In its deliberations. A R-f!CIES 8.6 AN�IJ 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) Planninq Board BOCC Orlinancv Re c;t,irenl:snts Findings Evidence Submitted to Suoport Findings Findinc,5 v.G - Arp11cc,,tiorl submitted on Ye.s No a N7 Y ' Application and narrative provided Yes _ lirris providing f u I I and accurate duscr*lption of proposed use, Including location, appearance: iun4 Opt.aLiorjal characteristics a) - SuvL:rt (7) copies of the X Yes No Site Plan prepared by Phil Post and Assoc. Yes No i to p'on prupart-d by a reg i s te-red — "t.C, land. ! turv�:yor or engineer containing: 1 . I.lorLh poir,L, scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. _Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on site plan. _Yes No 3. Locci t i on and width of all case- and rights-of-way within or adj,Ccunt to tiie site X—Ycs �tln There are no additional easements or rights-of- Yes No way indicated. —" ARTICLES 8.6 AND $.L - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) PLANNING Board BOCC Urdiri,:rlcu i'cquirvnients Findings Evidence SuhnlItted to Support Findings Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- XYes No Location of existing and proposed mobile Yes No Nosed structures on the site homes are shown on the s.Gte plan. — — -- -S-. Locati-on-of-a-I-1--areas on the-s+te- - -- -------------- -- -- ---- -_X- es �Na- - -- -Where are no-f}oad- prose areas on the site Yca No subjuct to flood hazard or inunda- according to the F1A Flood Maps. — — tloa as shown on flood snaps or soi I neaps E,. Location of all water courses XYes No Water courses are shown on the site plan. Yes No on the s1to, including the - -- direction of flog 7. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography at 5 foot contour Intervals has inL,�rval of five (5) feet based Yes NO been shown. on mean sca level datum 8, Proposcd or existing fencing, XYes No Proposed fdncing and parking has been shown. Yes No scrtun ing, gatu,,, parking, — 5ervice and sLorage areas y, Access to site Including site __&Ye No distancus on ail roads used for Access and site distance has been indicated. Yes No — ac:cess 10. Elevations of all structures X Yes No Yes No propobud Lo bL used in the Typical mobile homes are shown on the --- — de:vo IopnlLnL , site plan, 11 . Names and addressus of owners XYes Na Provided in a 1lcatlon. Yes No and app 1 1 can L s Pp i A fL;u, as ,ut by Lhe Boars! of XYes No $490.00 application fee. paid. Yes No County Commissioners — ARTICLE 8.2.!1 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yas'.' indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncoinpl 'tance) M PLANNING BOARD BOCC riA Ordinance Requiraments Findings n Evidece Submitted to Su _ _ pport Findings Findings Article $.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Mc:thcjd and adequacy of provision X Yes No _ Letters have been received by the Yes No -tor-seti��sg� d-isposal- facsli-ties — -- -- _ -- -- 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) Met hod and adequacy of police, X Yes No Fire protection, police and rescue _Yes No fire and rescuo squad protec- are to be provided by the Eli Whitney Volunteer l=ire 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 5.7 vehicle trips per dwelling per day. The most recent traffic count is a 1981 count at the intersection of Butler Road and White Cross Road which indicated 5011 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. AM I Ct.E 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR CVALUATI ONIPLAI IFI) DEVELOPMENTS f,riiclo 8.8.23 111dicatc:s Lhat the appllcatior3 5ha}1 comply W!Lh the applicable sections of Article 7 - PLjnned Duvc:t opmenc AM—KtA j - SNLCiFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUA-rION/PLAMNEO DEVELOPMENTS {"Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncom liancu) Fc PLANNINn RnARn BOCC O� ;}finance' "yui :en;cr�ts Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7.4 indicates the applica- tion must First comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - ;Imondmencs. Those requirements include: 20. 3.2 a) Pap showing affected X Yes NO Site plan provided at scale of 1" 1001 Yes No Prop,�1-Ly aL scale of not less -- Lhan I" = 1001 nor more than 10. 3.? b} L+_•1al description of X Yes 140 Description provided with land development Yes NO iroperty report. -- 20.3.2 c) Explurjatlon of alleged Yes No Yes No error, if any, Lo be corrected i Not applicable. No error alleged.by proposed anscridnivnt 20.3. 2 d) CI.1zwr, d conditions, if Yes NO Not applicable. Changed -conditions not Yes No any, which mal:u amendment reasona- aliedged. — aL; ly nocassary Lo promote public hua1th, safeLy and general wet Fare 20.3,2 u) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Property is located In an area designated. Yes 8lo ,L,rwndmt:nt 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. CD A VI Cl-E 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING BOAItu BOCC OrLlirl�lrlc�. Rc�i��irirnents Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings AF 9 Findings Cn Article 7.4 LhLn indicates the G� application must comply with certain specific roquiremunts common to all Planned Develop- men Ls. Thesc i rlcl udra: 7.11. 1 so located with respect to X Yes No Direct access is provided via White Cross Yes No major streets and mass trans IL 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 witil respect to X Yes No Applicant proposes a community well system _Yes No wziLur, sewer, and storm drainage and a spray irrigation wastewater disposal Lhat enlargement or facility to serve the site. Cost of exLunsion will riot result in installation is to be borne by the applicant. hill ur n.:t puf:;l is coSC or earlier 1 11CU rs i on of prim I i c cost and So iocat:ed rr1th 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 acct;ss in the sane planner as existing zoning/density is. not proposed to change. as permitted under Lilo existing zoning 7.11,3 Site suitable for develop- X Yes No Soil survey/topographic/flood maps Indicate Yes NO rrlunt without Hazard from flooding, small stream crossing site on remaining i;ros1on, and soil subsidence or acreage not proposed for devel-opment. ' 5 I iripirig ART CLE 7 - SPEC IF I C STANDARDS FOR EVALUAT I 01NI/i'LANNCD DEVF LOPNIENTS {Con t i hued} PLANNING BOARD Rnr.r. Ordinance Requirements Findinge Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7. 14. 3 Sets forth "site planning" �,L,iodards with which an applicant rust comply. Standards regarding "external ri; ationsitips" are- as fol-3ows; - -- - --- - - - a) 1 . Access points provided to Yes NO All traffic will obtain access to the site Yes No ciicourage smooth traffic via White Cross Road (SR 1950 . Applicant — — flow with controlled turn- proposes to use the existing entrance to the site. ing frovornents and minimun' No minor streets are affected by the proposed development. haz;,rd to vch i cul ar or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substan- tial traffic is discouraged. a)2 , Safe and convenient routes Yes No Applicant has indicated safe pedestrian _V,os No provided for pc dl strians routes 'through the development. and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and cons rol lud. a}3 . Visibility provided at inter- X Yes No Visibility looking south from the entrance Yes No sections (pudestrian and vehicular) is adequate. Visibility looking north is — in accordance with Article 6.5, 425 feet and could be improved .significantly if brush on the back- slope to the north of the entrance was cut back and maintained, a) i. 100-foot open space provided Yeas Na Y�}s No along perirs�eter of PD-H district. —)F- "—' Adjacent property is similarly 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 vcguLatiun aruvided to screen ' natural vegetation as possible. individual _Yes _N° Uff undcsirabic 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. CA Aw► ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOP, EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING BOARD BOCC ordin,rrrce R"!g11 ironl.:1)ts FINDINGS Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7. 14.3 standards �--► continued; lA X Maximum building height in R-1 district is nn a}b, .;tax irtrum vu i ld ing Yes No g g Yc:s No hoi911L comp Iies «11th 25 ft. Building height proposed by standards su t forth applicant is 13 feet. in Articl,; 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 %IjLionships" arc: as follows: 6) 1 . Strett5, 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 vcnicnt access for dwellings for dwelling units and emergency vehicles. A private 20' two 4nd Lrnerciency vehicles, land 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. b}2`: V,.:hicuIar access controlled a s f o 1 l oars ' ) Stre:ets serving 50 or XYes No Private drives serving each unit are Yes No less d,,-iellings provide shown on the site plan, direct access to pat-king/ 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 dweiIin system of access to a safe, convinent and well marked system of dwellings, facilities and -site designations. access to dwellings and internal facilities. Staff off -site f f r�urr walking k i n g r1 i s t an ce recommends that the pedestrian walkways be can t i n ued to i batwuen clA;c:11irlgs and parking; provide access to the mailboxes. duliv�;ry and refuse collection ARTICLE r - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNEO DEVEf_OMENTS (Continued) PLANNING BOARD BOCC Cr(l ifl:inCi R( t�t,iru,nents f=indings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7. 14. 3 standards continued: walkWays used as play Yes No See comment on 7.14.3 a)2 and b)3. Yes NO ar-as or school routes — - -b-y__c1ti-i_i - (105igned to fainimize contact with vehicular c-rarfic. Crossings o;ppropriately mark(-d and safequard,ed. b}4, FrotuLtlOn of visibility- suv a}). and 03, above. b}5. Open Spjcu and spacing !-tlry -il buildings - Sue Al-ticlt: G standards, AR-fICl.E 5 - DIML' iSlONAL RIQU IRE MEN TS ("Yes" indicates corn,�) iarice; IIN indicates noncompliance) . PI ANN I Wr Rnapn BO-C C• _ Ordinjrice gtiir.2ina riLs Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 5 1iSLS standards for winianum lot si2ci, lot on width, Front, side and rear 5c:tbacks, max inuin building and lot cove ra e and c!.:v c I op n i::r r t i n t e n s i t y. — - — — - - - The applicant has applied for a PD-H-AR dk:5ignaL1on. The standards i'ar that district are set cyr[h in Articl.: 5. 1 . and aru a5 !ollows : a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Applicant has clustered units. Total lot _Yes No di:c:liing UniL - 1 10,000 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 ft. d) RCCLlired side and rear Yes No Same as above. Yes No eJ Maximum building height - Yes No Maximum building height shown on elevations ,Yes NO 2S ft• - provided by the applicant is 13 feet. Coy 1p 1 i ancc- t,i i tip lot cove rage and dQvelopment intensi ty standards is addressed in Article 6. ARr!CLL G - APPLICATION OF DIKNSIONAL REQUIREMENTS {"Ye;" indicates comp) iancc; "No" indicates noncomp I kin cc) PLANNING oGXDD _ BOCC . Urciinar�c�: It�L}«iranlants Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings ArL1Cl 1iStS SpE:CifiC (anda.rd %,!)ich ap1)1y to various typLs of development applications. ArCicl�, 6. 12 contallzS those dc:vuIopment intrns1ty Standards whi ch apply to yroup dev,2 lopnieniS controlled by thta Land U,c 1 n tens 1 ty (LUI ) syst.: n. a] Iflninluin tjro:.s land Yes No Applicant's site contains 94.30 acres or Yes No __82.000 sq. ft. 11, 107,708. sq. ft. — s>} P,ux i nnum gross land —LYes . No Article 5.1 .1 of Zoning Ordinance Yc:s No rLa - _Qne sq. ft. — L) JLiaxi,mIm floor area ratio - Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is Yes No --- --' 238,247 sq. ft. Applicant's plans indicate — H,axirnum floor area floor area of 99,000 sq. ft, p,�r'nji tted — ?.3$;247 sq. Ft. ci) flequirod minimum open Yes No Applicant's plans indicate 3,973,000 sq. ft...._._Yes No -,pace ratio - 911 of open space. Required minimum open space - _3 _�_ sq. ft. ilotco: Sep ''DefillitiGnS11.OF ARTICLE o - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Cantineed) P I AMN I Nr RnARD RKIC 02-dinancc RCgtrircrnents - Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings - i-+ G1 A r t ick: 6 , 12 standards (continued) ---f}_-Re q_u i-r-e-d_mi-n-i-mum-1-i-Ve -- --X--Yes h1d -App1 icant's-plans--i-nd-irate 3:306,800 -- - ability space ratio - sq. -ft. _ .75 Required minimum I lveall H ty space 3,080, 781 sq. ft. ,j J E,anuir�u n,inir.,u,n recreation X Yes No Applicant's plans indicate recreation Yes No space; ratio - ,019 areas totaling 81,500 sq. ft. —" Ruquirc�:d rn-mo dm recreation space - sq.. ft, h} Recluirzd minin,urn open X Yes No Applicant's submission indicates that Yes No sp,�Ce adjacunt to typical spacing between building unit is building walls 70 feet. Primary walls 15 ft., Secondary teal is 4,2 ft. 1ert+ary vlalls N/A ft. Note: Sec: Appendix A for "De fini tIons". • aPtFr td=a45-es Pow c. Mc UT 1 •715 i the development was for 247 single family lots with average lot size of one acre. Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked to enter into the record Chapter VIII on incentive zoning from the on ng andLland Use Cei 7l tra S_Bo k by _ Patrick Rohan pages 2-7 and 45-54. These are on file in the permanent agenda . file in the Clerk's office. Jacobs explained that incentive zoning 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 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 recommendations made by the Erosion Control Officer and review the conditions to make them more, specific. Also the handicapped parking and ramps should be shown on the plat. Commissioner Carey asked that information be provided on the type of soil , in the proposed recreation area. • Chair Willho?t 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 werelproved to be unfeasible. Marvin 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. - PD--5--B5__BRADSHAW MOBILE ACRES (AC-}UCULTURLL-RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING --• AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment a proposed p]anredldevelopment rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request. J. Thomas Bradshaw and Beth Bradshaw are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 9 :.3) acres of land located on the west side of White Cross Road in Bingham To reship. The property is located in an area designated Agricultural Residential and is zoned AR. the applicants are not changing the I - 158 18 density an that district. They are requesting a PD rezoning to allow for the Custer of units on the 94 acre tract. The application does comply with the specific and general standards in the ordinance and recommends approval with the attachment ofthe following conditions to the approval: 1 . The grantee of this Special Use Fermit 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 ofthe improvements. 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabili-zation of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular travelways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units. 3. necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, tele- phone and ,, All ne y p Y cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the develo pment and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. 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. 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 hone units, shall restrict storage of goods outside of mobile hoes 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 • 1y 1 ' 9 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 (p.19 E Pavement Design). 7. 'All roads will be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Grange County. 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 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 • •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. IThe entrance road and pull-off shall be of sufficient width to allow three orI 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 flora of traffic. Cluster mailboxes' shall be located outside of sight triangles for the . entranceway. 11 . Prior to theinitiation 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 sit 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 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 160 20 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 school!-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 recomn1mended 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 issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the sight triangles for the entranceways to the development, • 1i. 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 approved 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. P. unit numbering system and corresponding unit location shall be filed with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit.. This system shalllbe used in obtaining and issuing any building permit. Any change in the unit numbering system must be filed with tree Orange County 61 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 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. • . 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., • QUESTIONS OF COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Steve Yuhasz asked the applicant if all the conditions for approval • were acceptable and she indicated they were. PRESENTATION FROM 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. Frintz Brunson from Phil Post and Associates indicated .the location of the proposed development on a site plan. the water will be from wells drilled on the site. It was found that the land was not suitable for septic tanks. The septic system will be that which was recommended by the Department of Environmental t;anagement and suitable for disposal of sewage from the proposed number of units. There is no reason at this time to put 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. In answer to a question from Commissioner Marshall, Brunson indicated the system could be built large enough to handle the ' current mobile homes if that was a stipulation of approval for the project. Barry Jacobs asked for an explanati en of the enforcement history for the property in question and Susan Smith indicated none to her knowledge. CG'.„'-:I:TS OR UESTI0NS FROM CITIZENS 22 162 Vickie) Cecil asked the distance from the road to the units on the upper side and Susan Smith indicated at least 300 feet not including the road right-of-way. Motion'Iwas made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn' this item to January 6, 198E to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ►!. Z-12..85 WILDW00D SECTION IV (RESIDENTIAL-1 To RES,IDENTIj1C.-r1 . 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 1C86 and west of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Wildwood Subdivision and south of the Southern Railroad right-of ray. 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. The Town of Hi11sborough water and sewer system currently serves Wildwwod Subdivision Section S-Ill. 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 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 3.0 1;GD and a 3.2% increase over current use of 1 .4 MGD. I PCP";DSJT_RAFk IC 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 int ersection with S?? 1710 (Old 1.110) is 7000 trips per day. A projected 98 units would result in an additional 656.E trips per day, bringing the total trips per day generated by Wildwood Sections I- IV inclusive to 1816. 16 l f PrTh ,-. flrTCS 12-18-V:: PAGE 13 The purpose of this agende item is to consider for recommendation a • proposed secondary amendment to the Land Use Pien for a 3 .12 acrE tract (inclusive of street right of-way ] owned by Gary • Carleen Pichardson . The property in question is Located on the east side of N .C . 86 approximately 1 .2 miles south of 1-85 . It is known as Lot 5 on Orange County Tax lap 50 for Hillsborough Township . - This land use plan amendment request was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 . The applicant cites changed or changing conditions as the reason for the amendment . In support of this the following non-residential uses along N .C. 88 south of I-L85 are mentioned : L. A. Downey , Surety Storage, Keith 's Heating and Air Condition ing , 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 . " The ro osed amendment p p me t would change the Land Use Plan designation of the subject property from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition/Commercial Industrial Transition Node making it compatible for rezoning to commercial or industrial 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 area 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 ) . The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request . MQTION : Pi lkey moved denial of the request . Seconded by Mergisan . Kizer inquired what was south of this property . Bell responded undeveloped property . . VOTE : .Unanimous . ( Gordon was out of the room during this b v o.teP) Illit D-n- E5 6radsha~, Mobile Acre:, Staff presentation by Smith , DRAFT & 41I duTES 12-1S-F,5 PAGE 14 The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a propceed planned development rezoning and Class A Spec; E t_ Use Permit request . ' This item vac: submitted to pu.bl= c hearing or November 25 , 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 Eingham Township . The property is referenced as Tax Map 3S, part of lot 27A . The property is lccated in an area designated Agricultural Residential in the Orange County Land Use Plan . The present zoning .ei.assification is Agricultural Residential (A-H) . The applicants are requesting the 94.30 acres to be rezoned to PD-H AR . 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 contain, 26 existing units . Staff recommends approval of the PD-H-AR rezoning request r:ith the attached conditions . Article 3 . 2. 2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards , specific rules governing the specific use , and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards , the application must be approved unless it is found , in some specific manner , that : 1 . The use will not promote the public health , safety and . general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan es submitted ; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contigous property.; 3 . The use is not in compliance with the general plan= for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Coeprehensive Plan , or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange. County Board of Commissioners . The burden of prov■ ng one or more of the above finc'ings is on those opposing the application . The 165 KRAFT PEP' ',T P,II'�ES 12-1C-135 PACE 15 . proof moat also be in the form of competent materiel and substantial evidence . Ma information L,ae been received. . :which would establish f,; eeunds for ec ing one er 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 of the request . The Planning Staff does, houeeeer, recommend the attachment of conditions • to the approval as follows : T . 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 shalt be determined on the basis of fully executed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee of this Special Use Permit . • Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project . Specifically , as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renegotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 2 . Security shall be provided for the grading , paving and stabili —zation of ELL cleared areas , streets and other vehicular t rave Lways ; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways ; erection of street signs ; utility installation and hookups ; recreational facilities ; Landscaping and mulching around all mobile home units . S . 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 . Roads , parking areas , walkways , street signs , utilities , recreation facilities and sites , landscaping and nulching around units shall be rrainteired as constructed . ALL such improvements 16€ GRAFT P8M I'INLIT"S 12-16-85 PAGE 16 and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe fanner . 5 . The grantee shall prcnutgate rules and regulations governing tenancy in the development which shall restrict accumulation of trash and rubbish outsice of the mobile hone units , shell 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 Plonnirg • 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 1551 through the existing park shall be hard surfaced in compliance with NC DOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards • 4 .1S 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 . 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 computed promptly . e . There shati be at least 2 parking spaces s aces 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 . 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 shell 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 comnunity welt system and the spray irrigation wastewater disposal facility . 167 DRAFT PGM MINUTES 12-1G--95 PAGE 17 1 C . The recreation . re.c.s .: e it be constructed as provided in the Lppticatirn end submitted • site ple.n , with charesee es spscified below : Concrete bnsketbaL ' court shall be constructed at grade Level and not elevated above grade . Minimum size shoL 'd he 4C feet " long" by 42 feet "eirIe" ( 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 shell include play equipment suitable for pre-schoolers , as well as younger school-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 . • 12 . That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Sian' 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 approved 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 she l at all tires meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentetion Control Ordinance . 16 . The project nust remain in unitary ownership and no lots _=an be _ e ,2 c. indiviCeet._ . • Ise DRAFT. P^;1 Fix;11 TES 12-19—CF, PAGE 1F.; 17 . A unit numbering systee and corresponding unit Location shell be filed with the Ptannin Department prior to the iesuance of eni building ing permit . This sycten shalt be user; in obtaining and issuing any building permit . Any change in the unit nembering syzeem must be filed with the Orange County Planning Department . 16 . A final boundary survey of the Planr.ed Development- and improvements shall be recorded by the developer . - . 12 . The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating all changes , deletions and additions through the final approval oT 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 . 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 . Smith noted positive findings on all findings of fact . Walters inquired who is the owner of the pump area . Smith responded the applicant . Kizer inquired if there was any objection to any of the conditions by the applicant . Smith responded no . Smith continued noting that there were no comments in opposition to the request or comments by the applicant at the public hearing . Shanklin inquired if the applicant had agreed to Condition #9 (2 parking spaces per unit) . Smith responded yes . Shanklin continued in reference to condition #14, if "shalt be maintained" should be changed to read "may be maintained" . Jacobs noted that he felt it should read "shall be maintained or enhanced" . He felt it should be kept strong . t'UT1fl! : Shanklin moved positive findings on the entire package . Ceconded by Pearson . Kizer questioned the single access • point . Smith . DRAFT PBM MINUTES 12-16-85 PAGE 19 1GS responded that NCDOT wanted a single entrance with clearing of the brush on the embankment . Smith reviewed NCDOT comments contained in the impact statement from the public hearing adding that the Board may wish to add the cutback of the embankment as a requirement for approval . VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION : Kizer moved the applicant was in compliance with the three general standards . Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE: Unanimous . MOTION : Shanklin moved approval of the planned development with staff ' s conditions and the addition of a condition which reflects NCDOT ' s recommendation about improving sight distance by removing brush on the embankment . Seconded by Pearson . Yuhasz inquired what is intended by "improvements " referenced in condition #18 . Smith responded public improvements . Yuhasz requested that the word "public" be added to read "public improvements" . This change was accepted by consensus . VOTE: Unanimous . c . Z-12--85 Wildwood Section IV Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a rezoning request submitted by Wildwood Corporation . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1985 . Wildwood Corporation is requesting a rezoning of property Located west of NO86 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 Tax Map 45 for Hillsborough Township . The parcel contains 28 .8 acres or 383 ,328 square feet . The property is designated Ten Year Transition Area . The present zoning of the property is 170 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6, 1986 Action enda SUBJECT : Z-12-85 IWILDWOOD SECTION IV Item DEPARTMENT : PLANNTNG—�--__w--_ PUBLIC HEARING _Yes X_ No Attachment (s] Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH SEE 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA DRAFT 11 -25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider for approval a rezoning request submitted by Wi Ldwood Corporation . Thisl item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1985 . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED : Wi Ldwood 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 Tax Map 45 for Hillsborough Township . The parcel contains 28 .8 acres or 383 ,328 square feet . The (property is designated Ten Year Transition Area . The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ] . The appli!,cant is requesting a rezoning to Residential-4 (R-4] . IMPACT : Rezoning of the property will allow for expansion of the Wildwoad Subdivision and development of minimum 10 , 000 square foot (residential lots . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommended approval of the R--4 rezoning request . The Planning Board recommended approval of an R-2 rezoning . _ I 171 SUMMARY OF OPANGF COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION subiect: Iiiq Itiwooti Sect ion IV 7:-commendatiori: elm:royal at R-2. dcrisity (instead of R-4 as requested by 111).1111(arit.) • Vote: 6 -3 - 1 (one abstgotion) Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 *issues Raised: 1. Amount of traffic through the development between.Wildwead Section IV and N C 86 (earl er phases of Vie Idwocid) 2. Unknown jmpact of commercial areas already 7oned between Wilily/00d and I--85 on what is still a two lane road (Occoneechee Point 1 and II) 3. Arnurit of water available 4. Hillsborough's recommendation for R-2 densiti 1 Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Aprliminary_vote to rezone at R-2 density, rather with a vote of 5-4-1 (one abstention)_ Therefore in the final vote the three dissenters voted in the negative because the favored the hi I her densi Other Informatien and/or Citations from County Regulations: Chair's Note: See. ttae_provisions for amending Jie. 7oning Section_20. 1 1(AniplicQot does not a i I ese error ivitdtIlslAnai_n_QCSnd ___._,,,_:._____..., :.r_.. 4J 1 -- s 6! ` I. E ` �= . . W WILDWODD-SECTION PI - � -: APPLICANT: WILDW00D CORPORATION LUP: Ten Year Transition Current Zoning: Residential-1 ' ` Proposed Zoning: Residential-4 fso .__ _ _ Scale: 1" = 400' ��4 ,.yk -Ir;r� :.' -',.' =-_--h.:-.'___s ,'... � . 8 T..., f IIA, c - 37. 7 4C ` _ _yes` _ c i OCCMJF+Et' `� Rol tl, ,•tr 81 59 I '-.‘, - ' --: ---"-------.: —,C•4 11,- -----� 4, n _'_ �� ', 10A .\ X .'i' I j _ s 2.3 ac. - 15 3p I / \7308= `6516 ■ I 2;-74 r(yQ l*Fie-- y 3437- z . 7575 -` l i3 62 Ac. rl o os c G RIO-.�3�. volgr IC \ _ l' ".6 4399' ■ -pD-TA 9s, ��;a2 Ic -2039 «. ;, A' LI 7AG ' 'JAC .,of 8)006 -- +.0 .. 90527• _ 34 4?35- 1.37 ac_ LIC y' 19A 1 2-,--/_c-:7,"9-,Ac- 9.4C 1,/ I A. R C g p 6938 �_ ..,LAG GAL. :;.:24,16331.\ o56 OTOI �ti� -,,' �` / `` ,.e.; S sat '� - ,S::: `:``Jy=_ 51: : ; H \ r3� t `% I - i� 1 .� t.....U `�_5 � 3 4.o4�ti/ � •�. r fEc, iMAp 45A. r `� •PH.gA `` I �'K 5 5,:3. y- .o_ a ` ,�.r 7 5 34.),::-...- — 145 a —�!_ 48 - Asa - 3 a4 R-q 11 —:4,—_. _ _:--,,77-----------_ ( ' I 419 S �JOFaa!' r^ 4 ai-7 2 /�_ i 1 0 •c I . >Ee MdP �.s 1 A, 4.... 7 - — -...-�, - 1 c1621!;. , 58 F •VOPP4 C4•r5, 1 t_`� NIIO WOO P ! ! 'EC Jr 1 98 . f 95. ,.I 39 yj ,/,'"/ ..,,-...,F,_,...-.:-. __i I ,4 j _ - ! / 27 - _ WeooSI i -? 7' . 3 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD- PERTAINING TO - - APPLICATION, 2-12-85 WILDWOOD SECTION 1V CASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING . BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THERE 1S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: � ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING 0 = SPCCIF1 C STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates comp] lance; "No" indicates Noncompl iancc PLANNING BOARD 1 FINDINGS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BOCC Or-c!in��;�cc Regui ren�ents -- F1 NOiAIGS The application must comply th cl i rcqui rcments speci- ricd in Article 20 - Amend- r-1enLs. Those requi rcments include . 20. 32 a) M,aP showing affected x Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes property at scale of not less than i '= 100" nor more than 1 '- 20. 3,2 10) Lc9al descri pt ion of Yes No Description provided with application Yes property 20. 3.2 c) Explanation of alleged Yes No No error alleged. Yes error, i f any, to be corrected: by proposed am^cndment 20. 3.2 d) Changed conditions , if XYes No Applicant, indicates that site is adjacent Yes any, which make amendment reasona- to property .be.ing developed at R-4 and bly necessary to promote public R-5 residential densities. health , safety and general welfare. 20. 3.2 0 Manner in which proposed x Yes No Applicant indicates the property is located Yes amcndm° will r Year Transition Ar a. nd intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan i €� ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF iNTERES T AN' D APPLICATION CRITERIA f Ordi n3rice Requirements Article 4.2 indentifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine Che application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has - --- - -- - applled For a. - (R-4) designation. The criteria for that district arc sc t forth in Article 4.2.3 cnd 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. wh i cn can reasonably be expedted tc beannexed by a municipality it the ensuing 10-20 years. b) 'cuter and sewer 1 i nes 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 NC $b, an Yes . No of direct access to a street arterial , via extension of John Breckenridge cicssifled as either arterial Drive and proposed Oakdale Drive Extension, both or collector as designated of which service or will service Wildwood Subdivision, by the adopted Land Use Plan. H 1 - zgzeiA- 1 1,--d25 - es `Pusu c Nowatimcv. rAnkt.tnes . 175 a_2 Vickie Cecil asked the distance from the road to the units on the upper side and Susan Smith indicated at least 300 feet: not including the road right-of-way. Motion Iwas made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn 'this item to January 6, 1986 to receive the Planning Board recommendation. I VOTE NANIMOUS. I 410fil 11• Z-12--85 WILDWOOD SECTION Iv (RESIDENTIA[{1 TO RESIDENTIAL-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--of7way. The parcel contains 28.8 acres and is designated Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the 'property is ResidentialA and the applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential-4. 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 andla 6" force main which continues north into Hillsborough. A 12" water main serves the property from the north. A 6" water main extends into the propertylfrom 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 3.0 MGD and a 3.2% increase over current use of 1 .4 MOD. RC.?DSJTRAFFIC The site would be served by access to NC 86, an arterial, via John Breckenridge Road, Walter Clark Drive .and proposed Oakdale Drive extension v.tf.oh est.ablishe I,• the northern boundary of the site. The 1984 traffic count for NC 86 at its intersection with SR 1710 (Old 10) is 700(1 trips per day. A projected 98 unite would result in an additional 656.6 trips per day, bringing the total trips per day generated by Wildwood Sections I- IV inclusive to 116. 23 17€ Jchr. Ereckenridge 'Road and Walter Clark Drive currently serve as sub-collector roads. The addition of ninety-eight (9E) &elling 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 EC 86. to acct odate the traffic increase. . RECREATION FACILITIES Under the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system an R-Z rezoning does not require the provision 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; R-5=.036), a total of 2.817 acres of recreational arealwould be required. The existing recreationa area satisfies these requirements. SCHOOLS School-age children living in the development would attend Grady Brown. Elementary School, Stanback Middle School, Stanford Junior High School and . Hillsbroough 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.. POLICE. FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES Services to the site will be provided by the Orange County Shed ff°s Department, Orange Rural Volunteer Fire Company and Orange Rescue Courtesy review response: have been received from the service agencies which indicates an ability to adequately serve the site. • • 17 24 TOPOGRAPHY The physical 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. COMKEN S OR QUESTIONS- FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD . Barry Jacobs asked for an explanation of why the planning staff . found the recommendation from the Hillsborough Planning Board was suitable in this case. Susan Smith indicated that the position of the Orange County Planning staff is that the existing sections of Wildwood Subdivision are developed at R-4 and R-5 densities and it would be consistent to continue with that density. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT Frintz Prunson from Philip Post and Associates indicated on a plat the location of the R-4 and R-5 areas. The existing Section II is zoned R-5 and Section I is zoned R--4. He noted that because of the slope of the land, nothing would be built on those lots which proved to be too steep. COMMENTS TENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS None. 7--13-$5 P& SPORTING GWDS4_INC:. Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public ca ment a rezoning request submitted by P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. for rezoning • of property located 'south of NC54 and approximately 5501 east of Morrow ?fill 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 zoning 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) Z4:fit r_Pnd WDstcwater__Systems - the property is served by on-site water and sewage disposal systems. Expansion of existing systems requires approva] of engineered pans by both the Grange County Health Department. and State Division of Health Services. DRAFT PEN MINUTES 12-16-85 PATE is responded that MCOOT wanted a sin clearing u nkr_ t ❑f the :� rus,� o.. the ei:�Lankr.ent . Smith reviewed NCC"T conmentr; contained in .r impact stetecent from the public hearing adding that the Board risy wish to add the cutback of the embankment as a requirement for approval . VOTE ; Unanimous , NOTION : Kizer moved t1;e applicant was in compliance with the :thee b her l . tanderds . Seconded by Shanklin . VOTE : Unaniroous . NCCTION : Shanklin moved approval of the planned development with staff's conditions and the a-.ddition • of a condition which reflects t3CD0T ' s recommendation about improving sight distance by removing brush on the embankment . Seconded by Pearson . Yuhasz inquired r,-whet is intended by "improvements" •referenced in condition X18 . Smith responded public improvements . Yuhasz requested that the word "pub li c" be added to read "public improvements" . This change was accepted by consensus . VOTE : Unanimous . c . Z-12-85 !',i ldwood Section IV Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a rezoning request submitted by . Wi ldw000 Corporation . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1585 . 'tlildwooc Corporation is •requesting a rezoning of property located west of N086 and • Sections 1 , 2 and 3 of V'ildwood Subdivision and south of the Southern Railroad right—of—way . • The property is known as pert of Lot 4 and Lot 26 on Tax Map 45 for HillsboruuL ; Township . The parcel contains 28 .8 acres or 383 ,328 square feet . The property is .esigneted Ten Year Transition Area . Thr. present zoning of the property is 17° DRAFT PPF,i`, rIHJ CS 12-1C-05 PACE 20 Residyntiat-1 (F-1 ) , The appticant is requesting a reLoning to Residential-4 (R-4) . Rezcnr:g of the property vii ll allow for expansion cf the ViiLdwood Sebdivision and development of nioimuri 1D , 000 square foot residential Lots . Staff recommends approval of the R-4 rezoning request . MOTION : Jacobs moved rezoning to R-2 following Hillsborough PLan.ning Board recommendation . Seconded by Best . Sh Walters inquired why R-2 when all other property. in the area is zoned R-4 and R-5 . Jacobs responded that this recommendation reflects : 1 ) high volume of traffic , 2) the recent extension of Dcconechee property (arid its water & traffic impacts) , 3) water limitations currently faced by Hillsborough , and 4)he felt Hillsborough would be annexing this property in the near future . Smith noted that Planning Staff was receiving mixed information from the Town Board . There are many inconsistencies in the decisions of the Town regarding the development of property in their jurisdiction and their recommendations regarding the development of property in Orange County ' s jurisdiction . Pi lkey stated that the Town of Hillsborough preferred R-2 or P-3 . Kizer inquired about the Oakdale Drive Extension construction . Smith responded that development of the Last part of Section Two requires the construction of Oakdale Drive Extension . Smith noted that ICDOT had indicated that no improvements would be required to the existino internal roads to accomodate the development . VOTE: 5 in favor . 4 opposed . 1 abstained (Yuhasz due to professional conflict of interest) . n1ICr3 : Pi lkey moved positive findings of fact (entire package) . Seconded by Jacobs . n /L, c ; 9 III ' 180 CRAFT TOM MINL!TEE 12-19—S5 PAGE 21 1 abstained [Yuhaezl MUTTON :x .77 ., ,r Jacobs roved app ;ov:- '- of R-2 rezonino . Seconded by pest . VOTE : 6 in favor . C opposed . 1 abstained [Yuhaszl Those in opposition acted that they were not against rezoning , but were voting against rezoning to S-2 rather than R-2 or R--4. d . Z-13-85 P & S Sporting Goods , Inc . Presentation by Smith . The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for recommendation a rezoning request submitted by P & S Sporting Goods Inc . This item was submitted to . public hearing on November 25 , 1905 . P & S Sporting Goods Inc . is requesting a rezoning of. property located south of NC 54 and approxim • at.ely 55G ' east of L'orrow Bill Road . The property is known as part of Lot 28 on Tax clap 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 Residential. and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node . The present zoning of the property is Agricultural Residential [AR) . The applicant is requesting a rezoning to Local Commercial-1 [LC-1 ) . Rezoning of the property would increase the amount of area zoned for commercial purposes within the designated activity node and would allow for expansion of the existing commercial use . Staff . recommends approval of the LC-1 • rezoning request . Kizer stated there were two issues : 1 ) the applicant cannot satisfy the requirements for the LC-1 or NC-2 zoning district ; 2) this is also an • illegal GC-4 designation as GC-4 is not applicable in this plan category . He felt that the error in zoning needed to he corrected and the property rezoned as EC-5 which is the proper recognition of an existingi use in or iriproper area . - II 181 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY 6,,1986 Action genda Item # ‘219F SUBJECT : Z-14-85 (REZONING REQUEST) JAMES L. HILL DEPARTMENT : PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Information Contact : EDDIE KIRK SEE 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA DRAFT 11 -25-85 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 12-16-85 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough — 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE :U OSE . 7o consider for approval a proposed rezoning request submitted q by James Hill . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 , 1985 . To receive the Planning Board ' s recommendation . NEED : James L. Hill is requesting a rezoning for 0 .57 acres or 24,829 . 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 requesting that the lot be rezoned to Community Commercial III (CC-3) . IMPACT : Approval of the request would allow a community commercial use at this intersection . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommended denial 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 networ suggest a planned development rezoning is more appropriate . During the Planning Board meeting on December 16 , 1985 = motion for approval failed with a 5 to 5 vote . 182 StlrIMARY OF O1 ANG1.. COUN t V 1-1 ANNUL BOARD) AC-1 ION . - Rezoning Jer�es t,' t i Sufs ��r.- z t ant,...._ flecurnm, ndation: The Board was evenly divided between approval and denial Vote: 5 4 5 Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 -issues Raised: 1. It was asserted that the applicant should have allpjed an error to be corrected by the proposed amendment. It appeared that there were traffic and environmeptal impacts (Duke Forest) that needed to be addressed. I t was asserted that these issues could be more effectively handled in a Planned Development process_ Explanation of Dissenting Votes: • Those who were a iaiost approval of the rezoning ;, th lt ttile applicant should go through the Planned Development pr n Thly3;..:vho favored_rjzoning felt that ,! the applicant should not have to go through the application_process main and they did not see the value of a planned development on this relatively small tract. I 1 Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: chair's Note; See the Provisions roc rireending the ordinance given in - Scotian 20. 1 (Applicant does not_al lecp error or cite chanced canditian11,___ .1 a .. 1 1 . 3 . 18_ ,. !,,.„. ‘,,...." _.„. 9;ri ::30 197 c.0 Alik BLAZE 1 , _._. V \ . -- ‘ c" ‘,\?2 -1 k 43_..._ , 7L... n L, caSti 1 , . - .1 • 152 7 C.C.C. (!2e: 3-4_1 ' , \-..., 21.05.L.0 1-0-741 \---) : ''• =1, t4 832,000 122, . . . — ,.. C. CA1,17. ''. ' 48 AC. (129 o, ,. --- —7-• ___.....i . . . , I 4 Ii . —.-.-- ... ----_ -.--- - Z__ • , . JAMES L. HILL •. , t . . (-•• 1 ' DEVELOPER : JAMES L. I-11 LL N c 3.87 AC CAL 73 Present Zone: R-1 52 7/ el I 1 Proposed Zone: CC-3 ENO TR1....pl< 1 LUP Designation: 20-Yr Transition • _i_____•! SP (14 ACES) : Commercial Transition 3 . .......__ ____ , 1 I -- --"--- '..-•:..'".. .... 1 1 400 2' Activity Node ----..., ----... -...„''''''-•-......._.- ' '--. .7:5-1 q-_-c-- ',--,',"-- 78\67c-4* 6E. 1 . '7 '—\,,- 051€ 102 1. \ ' -'- _.. _ ._.._ _ ... - • ' */1. / %aj. ' ''' • R . • 30 lak-z- -1 -- -- •-) r L.,i :C. 357 AC - , .-- ' 3.85 - --- _...--1----- • .-- -.- `'*1° - - -• - - 1 ......011000 -C.,.. ••• 9184C. cc, R 58 / ., 1, fe) : 0 (1.C-816243 ic..: _:so raq • •1:-.17 ,; "i ".7,. 57:2c. 1 ' .1 cS.4.:. .7‘4"-"Xc , z2, s-35 ices 108 tz- I 40 4 --___::-------- . • ---)( 6, § - -L _ I' •'2 :...0 1 I pc. --,Iic - - 'C C AL lA r--- t. i ' - N to 1 =3HIPt\ S'H 1 173 '•,1 • . . ... . . • . • I ORANGE COUNTY !\1•C . • -E.MAP, VA PC H := ■07,-% -- --.- -- -- •HOTO NO r.-..--", ;-; - S O. - - 1 . 1 ' I OW NISJ :il ! -::) ./;:I 1 7''71.• ,.--.. p•-• , ;•-":‘ ' -. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE couNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: Z-14-85 (Rezoning Request) .lames L. Hill BASEL) ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING BOARD � RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: � ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STA14DARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTi CLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates compl fiance; "No,, indicates Noncompl i ance PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS EVI DEN�CE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS BoCC Orclin�znce Requirements FINDINGS The appl i cation must comply V1 th a1 1 requi renr-nts speci- licd in Articic 20 - Amend- nx_nLs. 'ilwsa rcquircmenLs inciudc : 20. 32 a) showing affected x Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property of scale of not less 1"=501 Lhan I '- 100" nor more than 'I '= 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 , I f X Yes No No changed conditions alledged. Yes No any, wh i ch nuke amcndmen t reasona- bly necessary to proupte public health, safety and general welfare. 20- 3.2 c) .'Manner in which proposed x Yes No Property Is located in a 20 Year Trans i- Yes No cmcndmcnt will carry out purpose tion Area and Commercial Transition Activity—)@ode. a+l d in ter,t or adopted om,prchtins 1 ve Plan, ARTICLE 4 DlSTA1CT STATEiifHTS QF iltiEitLST RIIQ APPLICATlDIi CRlTE81A Ordinance Re(isrlrements Article 4.2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Conniunity Cornoerclai-3 (CC-3) designation, l},e cr ter a for itiat-Ei str ct are set forth In Article 4,2.10 and are as follows: r a) To be applied to citlsting conmunity comrnerclet-type-dove-lopments-l-, AYe! Ho-- -Tlse-property-Fs located Ycar Yes tl,Fn a Tcn' No -- on-sites-tllaE-arc wl[f�in areas designated by the adopted Land Use w1 Plan as Commercial Transition Activity llodes. Transition area. -- ` b) New developments of o slmlJar nature should be controlled h the \ Y x Yes No Proposal Is not located In the Chapel-11111 Yes No appropriate Planned Development designation In the Chapel illll Joint Planning Transition area. Joint Planning Transition area. * -- c) Uses would nerve o market area population extending to major R Yet !1a The CC-3 district alEowrls uses w},Ic6 would Yes No nc m p gments of ti,e count and Its unlclailtles. serve Ilse market area population. d) Use Pl t, i for property designated Trans It In the adopted Land Yes Ho Applicant has obtained letters from the City Yes 110 Use P1arr urban services such as water supply and sewerage would exist or he made avaltable as part of the deveio sent of Durham concerning public water one sewer. property located In other areas, the wnler supply clod sewagesdlsoiostll r Shall l,c nl,i,rrrlrrTate to the uses proposed and the site conlitlorrs. e) Lot sire for Individual uses would he appropriate to the method of x sewaya disposal, Yes Ho Water sur,p7y anti Lot sire 1s inappruprlale for septic tanks _Yes ilo and can only be developed with public water ' and sewer, F) normally, the maximum amount of land zoned CC-3 at any node shall R Yes No This would be the first parcel zoned CC-3 11,1 Yes No not exceed 29 acres, but 15 acres shall apply in rural areas where — -- Population density is lower and distributed more widely than In the till! activity node, -- -- Transition Areas. g) Ali property to be designated for new development under this -l�Ycs �110 U.S. 7Q and y5i are classified ciosslficatlon shall have direct accos! to major collector streets as arterFals Yes No as designated by the adopted Land Use Plan. in the Land Use Plan, illertsor Ii -015'`'96 ate. Ibierikuc4 27 County Commissioners review the literature ce these products. She asked that thc..e in tl-E audience against the rezoning to stand and twenty people responded. . Mr. P. D. Emerson spoke in opposition of the rezoning request. He ccr.fa: ed the pre:s',ent. Adam and Eve plant to a waste treatment plant, This • rezen ing in no way would better the community. He would be shocked to receive a catalog and sees no way it could better his family. Dan Eddlemen addressed the intent of the LC-1 and read the location criteria as stated in the Zoning Ordinance which indicates it serves a market • area population of the immediate area and generally would not serve commuters 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. By approving this rezoning the County would be setting a precedent as a complying use in LC-1 district. He asked that the Planning Board and Board of • . Commissioners comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Jeanette Jones pointed out thatP & 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 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 ponographic material for a profit is no better than prositution. 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 occuring 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 spike in support of the rezoning. F Z=.11{-$5_ REZDNIM REQUEST FROM JAYEES I_HILL, Planner Susan Smith presented for public comment a proposed rezoning . request submitted by Janes Hill. The rezonirg is for .57 acres on land located at the sout.heast corner of the intersect-ion of U.S. 70 and P.C. 751 in Eno Township. The property is located in an area designated Twenty Year Transition a+r cc 'and Ccrrnercial Transition Aciti.vity rode. The present zoning of the property is Rural Pe identi.al 1 . The applicant is requesting that the lot be rezoned t-ci Community Commercial III. 1'lpproval of the request would 28 38 talaoc, a cormun'ty', conerci.a] use at this intersection. Smith commented on.the potential impacts, imposed by the request: (1) mIt.el" ard Sewer Services - the City of Durham have indicated they Would serve the site with public water and sewer services either in place or to be extended to the site. (2) Traf 'ic'_xmpact -- the property is located at the intersection of US 70 and NC 751 . I. has a total of 77 feet of road frontage; 64.3 feet abuts. thesight distancetriangle for NC 751 and the remainder of that abuts US 70. A strip of propertyl,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 129Itrips per day for an office use, (3) Police-, IFire and Rescue Services the Eno Volunteer Fire Department and Orange County 'Rescue Squad have indicated their willingness to serve this lot with no problems and the Sheriff's office indicated that this rezoning did not need law enforcement approval. (4) ?e,atiol rip between__Land Usg _PJ.an and Zoning 0rdi-nance -- The Commercial Transition acitivity node designation corresponds with the full range of commercial zoning districts from LC-1 through GC4. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the maximum amount of Sand zoned Community Commercial.-- III at any activity node at 29 acres, except in rural , rron--transition areas where the maximum i.s 15 acres. There is no acreage zoned CC-3 at this activity node. (5) Permitted 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 sc'reening, parking and signage. Smith stated that in reviewing the application and the criteria for rev.onirg, it is the Staffs' opinion that the potential traffic impacts in this part o,lar locatioln suggests that the application for a general rezoning • request be denied.) 1. 88 28 • allow. a eon .in=ty commercial use at this intersection. Smith commented on. the potential impacts imposed by the request: (1) Water afeSewer Services -- the City of Durham have indicated they could serve the site with public water and sewer services either in place or . to be extended to the site. (2) Tr ff'j_Jrpact - 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 • thesight distancel,triangle for NC 751 and the remainder of that abuts US 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 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 1030 trips per day for a fast food restaurant and as low as 129 trips per day for an office use. (3) Po11ic 'Fire and Rescue Services the Eno Volunteer Fire Department and Orange County ',Rescue Squad have indicated their willingness to serve this lot with no problems and the Sheriff's office indicated that this rezoning did not need law enforcement approval. (4) Relationship betyleen Land Use _Plan and Zoning Ordinance -- The . Commercial Transition acitivity node designation corresponds with the full range of commercial zoning districts from LC-1 through GC). The Zoning Ordinance establishes the maximum amount of ;and zoned Community Connercial- III at any activity node at 29 acres, except in rural, non-transition areas where the maximumlis 15 acres. There is no acreage zoned CC-3 at this activity node. (5). Permitted 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 screening, parking and signage. Smith stated that in reviewing the application and the criteria for resorting, it is the Staffs' opinion that the potential traffic impacts in this .particular location suggests t-.hat the application for a general rezoning request be denied,' 29 18G COMMENTS OR pF.STTONS .FROMfl-E BOARD OF_COMMISSIONEfiSOR PLANNING BOARD. - Planning Board member Chris Beat - asked the applicant the intent of the property. Mr: Hill stated the a building would be built on the property or the property would be sold. The property would have access on Highway 70, 87-E and on 64--B. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT James L! Hill, property owner, stated that the property surrounding his property is designated for some type of commercial activity. Me noted that it was neverlsuggested to him to do a PD. 7. LAND USE PLAN AND ORDINANCE TEXT 11ENDI4ENTS (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 -- Estallishmer , of Dinensi. na'1 Requires per is Saction 5.1 .2 - _Schedule f(T___Itc.nrimajAntial Development -- revisions to the floor area and opane space ratiDa for industrial _zoning districts Marvin Collins noted this amendment was requested by two businessmen in Orange County ', who have planned to expand existing businesses or to construct new industrial establishments. The present ordinance restricts the amount of floor area which can be built in the Existing Industrial (E:c) or Light Industrial I(I-1) districts to 6.3% of the property. This ordinance amendment would increase the 6.3% to 20% for the EZ 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 , I-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 out. The 5% increase for PD is to encourage the developer to do a PD. Based on the open space ratios in the Ordinance, the initial intent of the Zoning Ordinance was to allow around 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 would have their own characteristics. He indicated on a sketch what 20% floor area would look like and demonstrated the different types of i.ndustrial uses on the site.. Planning' Board member parry Jacobs requested that the ramifications of the proposal be, considered by the P1ar nirL Board. Maury Klein, Preyjdent; of MDK, Inc. noted that the present Land Use Intensity and Impervious Surface Ratio r•estr•ictiorn:> rot- only restrict any 190 cnAFT POt, MINl,ITEE 12-15-9! PAGE 24 the property zoned CC-4. Parking and septic draineoe fiads Irving these offices to be on adjacent property . 'JUTE : I 4. 2. 3a — Unanir. ores in favor 4. 2 . 3b — In favor Opposed 8 4.2.3c -- Unanimous in favor I 4. 2.3d - In favor 5 - Opposed 5 4. 2.3e -- Unanimous in favor MOTION ; Pearson moved approval of a rezoning to LC-1 . Seconded by Shank tin . VOTE: 5 in favor . 5 opposed . Motion for approval failed . Gordon requester; that staff look into the statement • made by Kizer concerning the illegal GC--4 zonings . elFe . .Z-14-85 JerAes Hill Presentation by Smith . This item is to consider for recommendation a proposed rezoning request submitted by James Hitt . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 . James L. Hill is requesting a rezoning for 0.57 acres or 24,829 . 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 Res deritia L (R-11j . The applicant is requesting that the Lot be rezoned to Community . Commercial III (GC-3 ) . 121 CRAFT PGr1 lI V 11TC5 12-16-05 . • PACE 25 Approval of the request iou It allow a community • commercial use at this intersection . The Plenning Staff recommends denial of the CC-3 rezoninc 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 . . MOTION : Shanklin moved positive findings on Article 20 .3.2 and Article 4. 2. Seconded by Pearson . Jacobs asked staff to solicit comment from Duke University regarding the Impact on Duke Forest . VOTE: Unanimous . MCTION : Shanklin moved to grant a rezoning to CC-3. Seconded by PiLkey . . VOTE: 5 in favor . 5 opposed . Motion for approval failed . Meeting adjourned 11 :05 p .m . - Prepared By Approved By Date 192 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date JANUARY—,6 .-1986 Wigti SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Item DEPARTMENT : PLANNING w �'� r PUBLIC HEARING _Yes XI No Attachment (s) rr Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH MARVIN COLLINS SEE 11-25-85 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA Telephone Numbers Hillsborough -- 732-8181 Durham — 688-7331 Mebane — 227-2031 Chapel Hill — 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments for app ro,va l . This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25 ; 1985 . NEED : These amendments are proposed in response to citizen requests . Issue) statements preceed each proposed amendment . I These amendments include the following : (a) 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 . (b) Zoning Ordinance, Article 8 SPECIAL USES — provision for the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to accomodate requests for modifications of impervious surface requirements for property subject to the Protected Watershed II (PW—II ) overlay zoning district . IMPACT : Amendment of the development ordinances will address the citizen requests . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommended approval of the text amendments . The Planning Board did not act on the amendments days of the within thirty I3O) da Y he public hearing as prescribed in Section 20.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance provides that "failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation , without conditions" . 193 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 5 .1 .2 SCHEDULE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO -- EI , I-1 , 1-2 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 (EI ) and Light Industrial (I-1 ) zoning districts . EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FLOOR AREA RATIOS. (FAR] . Maximum floor area ratios which apply in industrial zoning districts 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 (EI ) Lot—',by—lot .063 8,233 SF Light Industrial (I-1 ) Lat Eby—Lot .063 8,233 SF Planned Development .072 9 ,408 SF Medium 'Industrial (I-2) Lot--,by—Lot .283 36 ,982. SF Planned Development .325 42,471 SF . Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot-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 be ',developed in industrial districts , particularly in I-2 and 1-3 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 .. 194 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 space. REQUIRED ZONING ''DISTRICT OSR OPEN SPACE (1) Existing Industrial (EI ) Lot-by—lot .83 108,464 SF - Light IIndustrial (I-1 ) Lot—'by—lot .83 108,464 SF . P lanlned Development .82 107,158 SF Medium Industrial (I--2) Lot—by—lot .74 96 ,703 SF Planned Development .73 95,396 SF Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—lot .72 94,090 SF Planned Development .72 94,090 SF NOTE: (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 EI and I-1 districts by the FAR . In contrast , the OSR determines building coverage in I-2', and I--3 districts . The table be Low illustrates this difference through application to a 3—acre parcel , - PERMITTED GROSS BUILDING COVERAGE ZONING DISTRICT FLOOR AREA—FAR LIMITATION—OSR Existing Industrial. (EI ) Lot—by—Lot 8 , 233 SF (6 .3) 22,216 •SF (17 .0) Light Industrial (I-1 ) Lot—by—lot 8 , 233 SF (6 .3) 22,216 SF (17.0) PD 9 ,408 SF(7 .2) 23,522 SF (18.0) Medium Industrial (I-2) Lot-by—tot 36 ,982 SF(2B .3] 85 ,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 (29 .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 . I 1 19� 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 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 ord',inance - 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 ) Lot--by—lot 0.893 or 89 .3% PD 0.892 or 89. 2% Medium Industrial [I-2) Lot—by—Lot 1 .023 or 102.3% PO 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 I--1 and the FARfor 1-2 is 14,766 square feet . The difference between the FAR for 1-2 and I--3 is 15, 290 square feet . The original intent of the ordinance draftsman was apparently to increase the FAR by nearly equal increments , but he altered the provision a provide a much Lower density or building coverage Limitation [6 .8% vs. 17.0%) . 3. Because the OSR 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 feet 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 15,682 square feet [FAR minus 0SR) applied to second II I9€ floor development . The obvious distinction is that an ',increase in the building "footprint" is allowed between I-1 and I-2, but the 1-2 district represents the point at which buildings are directed upward. The "footprint" remains basically the same for I-2 and I-3 districts , but further encouragement of second floor utilization is prompted by the difference between the FAR and OSR for I-3 districts. FAR REQUIREMENTS VS . ZONING CRITERIA * Article, 4.2.20.b) indicates , as one of the criteria for application of an Existing Industrial (EI ) 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 .a) 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 lend are being required via a very Limited Floor Area Ratio (6 .3%) . If adverse impacts', are confined to the building space, it would seem advisab,le to allow a greater building coverage in Ei and I--1 districts . In contrast , Articles 4.2.22 ( 1-2) 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 impacts' 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 ORDINANCE REVISIONS FLOOR AREA RATIOS Attached are two sketches which illustrate the existing (6 .3%) and proposed ( 20 .0%) FAR requirements for EI and I-1 districts . Under the current ordinance provisions , approximately 76 percent of a three—acre Lint 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 I 197 starting point for the El and I-1 districts, since it was nearly 'equivalent 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 Perk ( 25%) . The FAR was increased by increments of 10 percent for 1-2 and I-3 districts respectively ( Lot—by—Lot) . A five percent increase in floor area was awarded for 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 (EI) Lot—by—Lot 0.20 26,136 SF Light Industrial (I-1 ) Lot--by—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 I 0.35 45,738 SF Heavy Industrial [I-3) Lot—by--lot 0 .40 52,272 SF PD 0 .45 50,806 SF OPEN SPACE RATIOS To insure compatibility between Floor Area Ratio and Open Space Ratio , the base or starting point for OSR was established at 80 percent for EI 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 decrease 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 (EI ) Lot—by—lot 0.800 104,544 SF Light Industrial (I71 ) Lot—by—lot 0.800 104,544 SF PO 0.750 88,010 SF Medium Industrial (1-2) Lot—by--Lot o .725 94,743 SF PD 0 .700 81 ,478 SF 1 i 196 Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot---by--lot 0.675 88,209 SF PD 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 OSR) or minimum floor area allowable (in case of FAR) . PERMITTED GROSS BUILDING COVERAGE ZONING DISTRICT FLOOR AREA (FAR) LIMITATION (0SR) Existing Industrial (EI) Lot—by—lot 26 ,136 SF (20 .0) 26 ,136 SF (20 .0) Light Industrial (I--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) PD 45,738 SF (35.0) 39 , 204 SF (30.0) Heavy Industrial (I-3) Lot—by—lot 52,272 SF (40 .0) 42,471 SF (32.5) PD 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 . 19S 112 Cheshire Drive Hillsborough,NC 27278 Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom Orange County Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough; NC 27278 RE: Proposed !Changes to the Zoning Atlas As residents of Orange County, we are urging you to adopt the proposed changes 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 sorelyllneeded 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 positive growth in Orange County. We again urge you to adopt the above amendments. Sincerely, 4,415R1- Lillian P. Babbitt John B. Bobbitt 200 150 Dogwood Acres Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 November 25, 1985 Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom of the OrangelCounty Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Proposed Amendments to Zoning Atlas of Orange County Amendments 8c, 8d, 8e As a resident of Orange County, I wish to advise that I support the proposed 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, Ohre 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 situations will arise involving exceptions. At the present time, the zoning ordinances provide no avenue for such exceptions. Very truly yours, Brent C. Chambers 201 501 Brandywine Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 November 25, 1985 Orange County Commissioners Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse 106 Margaret Lane Hi l lsborough, NC 27278 RE: - Proposed Changes to the Zoning Atlas- 1 would like to express support for the proposed changes es 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. 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 horses, but cannot because of the • limitations of the law concerning land use intensity and impervious water surface requiretentse Yours very truly, Louise V. Kowalsky NW. at 41 3, Box 3, Llestern Park Hillsborough, NC 2.7778 `:ovember 25, 1985 °ranee CCr•..inty Cofir.__sryoners 106 Mar.,;Bret Tne Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments I am writing to voice my support for items c., d. and e. of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments being proposed this eveni_n . 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 occur even when all indications are that an addition is both reasonable and in the community interest. I believe just 1,such a situation currently exists with respect to MDK,Inc. and its inability to build an addition to its facility at Dodsons Cross- roads. Therefore, l: support the above amendments to the zoning ordinance for the following reasons: 1. They would 'iallow MDK to expand without having to leave Orange County, and; 2. They would allow the county to deal -ith other :Ituations that may arise in the future. The current zoning ordinance does not cd1Pcuately allow for consideration of exceptional cases. Sincerely, Keenan A. Williams II 203 MODIFICATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ISSUE: An inquiry has been made regarding the expansion of an existing industrial establishment in Orange County . Thalowner has experienced difficulty in complying with the impervious surface ratio ( 12%) required for a site within 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 ordinance amendment is based on the TJCOG proposals . EXISTING ORDINANCE 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. 2 and 8.8 , the following shall be supplied as part of the application : A) A site plan which shall include the following : 1 )I 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 all 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 . 4) 1The Location , dimension and method of construction of all existing and proposed streets and highways . 5) The Location , size and name of all existing 20 -. 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 date 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 . 8) Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. 9) Existing and proposed topography at a contour interval of five [5) feet based on mean sea level datum b) Statement from appropriate public service agencies concerning the method and adequacy of water supply and wastewater treatment , including the approval of a, secondary wastewater treatment site in the event of failure of the primary septic tank system . C) Building plans for all existing and proposed buildings, including floor plans and cross—sections showing the proposed use of all portions of such buildings . 0) Statement from the appropriate public service agencies concerning the provision of fire , police and rescue protection to the site and structures . 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 for runoff control measures , including methods for protecting undisturbed areas during and after construction . 0) Identification and protective measures for erodible soils [K 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 materials produced, stored , used on—site or tranported to or from the site as defined by EPA ' s Hazardous Substances or Priority Pollutants Lists . I ) Design and constructions specifications for storage facilities for hazardous materials , including spill containment measures and contingency plans for an—site containment and clean—up of spills . • J) Sedimentation and erosion control plan . 8 .8.26 . 2 Standards of Evaluation The 'ifotlowing specific standards shall be used in deciding on application for this modification and use: A) The site plan submitted meets all requirements Specified in subsections 8 .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 0 modification is requested . C) Fire , police and rescue services , and water supply and wastewater treatment methods are adequate to serve the proposed uses and facilities . 6 .23.4 Impel,rvious 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 and immediate runoff into streams and water supply impoundments , impervious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios -- Section 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 (P6.—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 individual Lots shall include that portion of a right—of—way between the centerline of the street and the abutting property Line of the lot . 2O 6 . 24.6 Impervious Surface Regulated in Protected Watersheds (Revisions proposed are the same as for Section 6 .23.4) _ I II I I 20i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: JANUARY 6, 1986 SUBJECT: JOB T RAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT REDESIGNATION DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER'S PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE. X501 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider redesignation of the Service Delivery Area (SDA) for the Job Training and Partnership Act Program (JTPA) . NEED: On December 17. 1985. the Board was notified of the Governor's desire to permit counties to redesignate SDAs for JTPA programs. Four possible consortiums (SDAs) were outlined: (1) , Orange. Chatham and Lee Counties to be administered by Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) ; (2) 1 Orange and Chatham Counties with Joint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) providing administrative responsibilities; (3) ', remain with the Central Piedmont Employment and Training Consortium which includes the City of Durham. Durham and Orange Counties; and (4) establish a Chatham. Durham and Orange SDA with the City of Durham serving as the administrative unit and JOCCA providing program outreach. Since earlier discussions. TJCOG has not expressed continued interest to form a SDA, Chatham County has decided to join Region M COG which will administer a Harnett. Lee, Chatham SDA. IMPACT: The Board has two viable options available: (1) remain in the current SDA, between Durham and Orange; or (2) 'become a part of the State administered Rural Service Delivery Area. 206 R ',pg)ATION(S) : Continue current JTPA arrangement with Central Piedmont Employ- ment and Training; sign redesignation petition to be submitted to Ithe State, and authorize staff to revise consortium agreement with Central Piedmont to address program outreach, an additional training site, transportation, improved financial reporting and improved coordination with County agencies. Contract renewal date is June 30, 1986. Ii _ ORANGE COUNTY 209 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. 6:/? Meeting Date: JANUARY 6, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO SAVE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes &No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE? X501 NONE TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request from NACo for a $692 special assessment to be used in the effort to save the federal General Revenue Sharing program. NEED: Since enacted in 1972, General Revenue Sharing has enabled counties and other local governments to assume an increasing share of responsibilities for the federal government. General Revenue Sharing has virtually no strings attached and gives local governments the flexibility to spend the allocation in response to local needs. This flexibility is important because so much money in county budgets is restricted for services counties are required to provide in response to federal and state mandates. Many, of these services were created in response to national objectives as defined by the federal government. Now? however? as Congress and the administration respond to pressure to elimi- nate the federal deficit? General Revenue Sharing has been targeted to be abolished after the close of the 1986 federal fiscal year. This will mean a loss of nearly $4.6 billion to local governments. IMPACT: Orange County's General Revenue Sharing allocation in 1984-85 was nearly $700,000. Although the allocation for 1985-86 is not yet clear? we have budgeted $643,551 for this fiscal year. The elimination of the General Revenue Sharing program would mean a loss', of revenue equivalent to more than .03 on the property tax rate based on our 1985-85 allocation. This', special assessment of $692 would require a budget amend- ment. This could come out of the Commissioner's Contingency account, which has a balance of $32?039 before this amendment. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY 210 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: JANUARY 6. 1985 SUBJECT: CHARGE TO TELEPHONE STUDY TASK FORCE DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No A'ITACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE. X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: OBJECTIVES FOR TASK FORCE Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: Pursuant to Board of Commissioner action in the meeting of December 2. 1985 which set up two task forces to study various aspects of telephone service in Orange County, a statement of objectives has been prepared for each task force to consider a charge for its work. II NEED: To provide specific direction toward the intended goals of the task force. IMPACT: RECOMMENDATIONS) To expedite this undertaking by approving the objectives. _ I 211 The 'Board of Commissioners, concerned with the telephone service in Orange County were prompted to form a task force on December 2, 1985 to investigate various problems and areas of needed improvement in phone service. Orange County is bounded by four telephone companies, which in the absence of extended area service requires toll calls between districts. With current and projected growth, the County Commissioners recognize a need for all citizens to be encompassed in one toll free service area, to the extent that service can be made available of a feasible and economi- cal basis. Therefore, a task force was formed to explore the possibility of extended area service. The charge to the task force is as follows: 1. Assess community interest in the extended area service, heretofore referred to as EAS. Also in those service areas where it is not currently available, to report any community interest for alternative long distance services. (MCI. Sprint. etc.) 2. Through assessment information. determine possible configurations for the extended areas of service. 3. Obtain updated potential monthly cost and likewise anticipated monthly savings for both residential and commercial subscribers, on a per customer, per month, per exchange basis. 4. Based on the foregoing findings. make recommenda- tions within one hundred twenty (120) days follow- ing appointment as to whether the County should pursue the EAS and if so for what areas and on what basis. If the Board of Commissioners concur. the task force will be asked to do such further work as encompassed in items 5. 6 and 7. 5. In the case of a subscriber vote. the task force shall prepare the wording for the proposed ballot indicating the cost but stressing the benefits EAS would provide each user. 6. The task force will serve as the vehicle to esta- blish and distribute information deemed necessary for education of the public concerning EAS. 7. If a favorable subscriber vote for the EAS is returned. the task force would serve as a monitor, giving periodical progress reports on EAS imple- mentation to the Board of Commissioners. 212 II The Board of Commissioners. concerned with the telephone service in Orange County were prompted to form two task forces on December 2. 1985 to investigate various problems and areas of needed improvement in phone service. One of these task forces was formed to study user difficulties and aspects of a technical nature related to the installation of a new digital switching system within the Centel Central office. 1. Survey Centel customer complaints that have been filed to date together with Centel's response to those complaints as well as analyze any new com- plaints that may arise. 2. Serve as a liaison wit Centel as specifications are developed for the new digital switching system, making certain the following ten features are included: a. Direct inward dialing (DID) b. Identification of outward dialed calls c. Ability for numbers not in sequence to hunt d. Call forwarding e. Call waiting f. Speed calling g. Conference calling h. Elimination of impulse noises i. Choice of long distance carriers provided to the public j. Ability to send digital data 3. Monitor progress and adherence to installation timetable. 4. , Submit an initial report of findings to the Orange County Board of Commissioners within 120 days following the appointment and periodic written progress updates until the switching system is fully operational. II ORANGE COUNTY ANNIXG DEPORTMENT mLLSBC'rOCGf NORTH CAROLINA 27278 II MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk FROM : , Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control Office SUBJECT : Revisions to Scottswood Plan DATE anuary 6 , 1986 I have discussed my concerns regarding this project with Cindee Wolf of the John R . McAdams Company and reviewed the comments in her letter of January 2, 1986 to the Commissioners . In her letter, she proposes to have the flood plain and drainage easements surveyed and platted on the final plans , which seems appropriate . She also recognizes that unconventional construction phasing will be necessary to provide erosion control during construction of the multifamily and commercial tracts and that the details of the erosion control will have to be worked out during the approval process for the erosion control plans for these tracts . The changes made to the Lots on Cameron Circle and the recognition. that the street alignment may need altering slightly addresses my concerns about accom- modating erosion control devices in this area . Regarding the effects of the increased runoff due to development on properties downstream of the commer- cial and multifamily tracts , I suggest that a condition of approval be added that would require the construction of appropriate stormwater detention devices or other methods to control the rate of runoff from these areas . I also suggest that the specific requirements be left to the descretion of the Planning Director so that a thorough investiga- tion can be made of the controls needed to provide adequate protection of downstream properties . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIILLSBOROCGH NORTH CAROLINA_ 2727S R!.° „s4, \e an•`' MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ORANGE COUNTY MANAGER FROM: LMARVIN COLLINS , PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 6 , 1986 SUBJECT: SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — WATER SUPPLY CONCERNS At the November 25, 9985 public hearing , a 30—day ' continuation of the public hearing on the Scotswood development was requested to allow Planning Staff an opportunity to review the County Manager 's report to the Commissioners regarding raw water availability in northern Orange County. Since then , the County Manager has presented a proposed five—point policy statement to address raw water needs in northern Orange County . Planning Staff comments relative to the Scotswood development and raw water availability , including the proposed policy statement , are Listed below. 1 . The statement of purpose in the policy statement recognizes that the water resource of Lake Orange must be managed to provide optimum public benefit , subject to reasonable regulation to conserve the resource and provide conditions conducive to development and use of the water . 2. The policy statement recognizes that the usage of water released from Lake Orange is at or near capacity during periods'I of extended low stream flow in the Eno River . 3 . The policy statement calls for the Orange—A Lamance, OWASA and Ni',Llsborough water systems to seek water from other providers during periods when water must be released from Lake Orange to maintain in—stream flow requirements in the Eno and the water level in Lake Orange has dropped to the emergency stage . 4. The policy statement calls for the initial safe yield for water supply to be set at 2. 2 11GD , the current safe yield of Lake Orange . As soon as proposed improvements are made to Lake Orange , Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation II Lake , the safe yield may be increased to 3 .43 MGD , the combined safe yield of all three reservoirs . The policy statement also calls for the Orange--Alamance , OWASA and Hillsborough water systems to identify improvement measures , timetable and financing sources for additional water sources by January 27 , 1986 . The N .C . Division of Water Resources has recommended that an in—stream flow of 1 .1 MGD be maintained . The policylstatement recommends that the in—stream flow be based ; upon the unadjusted 7010 flow rate below Lake Ben Johnson . This amount would be reduced to 0 as necessary . as successive emergency stages were reached . Once the maximum withdrawal Limits and in—stream flow requirements are established , the policy statement calls for Local governments and water suppliers to prohibit additional uses which singly or in aggregate would cause the water allocations established to be exceeded . Development approvals up to the allocation Levels would be staged in accordance with the amount of demand and the timing required to provide major , new water supplies . 5 . The policy statement calls for the County and water suppliers to join together to conduct an engineering study of new water supply sources and sites . It also calls for all water providers to study existing water rate structures to determine their capacity for developing a reserve to finance new construction for additional supply . IM4PLICATIONS Listed below are the current water demands in the Upper Eno River Basiln . grange—Alamance Local Consumption 0 .16 MGD Inter—Basin Transfer to Mebane Area 0 .44 MGD Hillsborough Local Consumption 1 .40 MGD Inter—Basin Transfer to OWASA 1 .60 MOD In—Stream 'Flow Requirement Adjusted for Inter—Basin Transfer 1 .10 MOD (NC Division of Water Resources) CURRENT WATER DEMAND 4.60 MGD At the November 25, 1965 public hearing , medium/high scenarios for estimated water use were presented . For all developments approved by the County and Town of Hillsborough prior to November , the estimated (high ) water use was 0 .52 MGD . The estimated ', (high ) water use for Scotswood was 0. 25 MOD and for Wildwood Section IV, 0 .04 MGD , Thus , the total estimated water use for recently approved and pending projects. was 0.61 MGD . If added to current water demand [4.60 MOD) , the projected demand becomes 5 .41 MOD . As indicated previously , the current safe yield (Lake Orange) is esti'meted at 2. 2 MGD , With recommended improvements , the combined safe yield would increase to 3 .43 MOD . If additions l provisions of the Manager 's recommended policy statement are implemented , reductions in the water demand can be obtain'ed . As a minimum , these might include the following : 1 . Development of Back—Up Sources Orange-4Alamance (Inter—Basin Transfer/Mebane) <0 .44 MOD Hillsborough (Inter—Basin Transfer/OWASA) <1 .60 MOD 2. Adjustment of In—Stream Plow Requirements . Adjustment (NCDWR to Unadjusted) 0 .71 MOD With the above steps, a total reduction in water demand of 2.75 MGD could be accomplished . This would reduce demand in Low flow periods to 2.66 MGD or below the combined safe yield of 3 .43 MGD for all three reservoirs . RECOMMENDATION Until a policy decision is made , it is impossible for the PLanning Staff to make an objective evaluation of the impact of Scotswood or bother developments . The policy decision must address improvements to increase safe yields , maximum withdrawal rates and in—stream flow requirements in order to. be able to develop staging plans for nevi developments . The preliminary analysis above ' indicates that with implementation of the policy , sufficient water would be available to serve Scotswood plus other developments . lit is recommended , however , that a staging plan for Scotswood be approved to establish Limits regarding the number of newt units to be connected to the Hillsborough water system over a ,ten—year period . This is the minimum amount of time projected for planning and construction of a new reservoir facility , A recommended phasing plan for Scotswood is to Limit construction of residential units to a maximum of 25% of the total number [626 ) within a given 2-1/2 year period . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA, 27278 aei � ` s REVISED CONDITIONS FOR SCOTSW000 JANUARY 6 , 1996 Condition #7 Delete sentences 2 and 3 thereby revising the condition to read: "Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60 ' right—of—way with a 41 ' paved cross— section . " Condition #10 Revise to specify p fy roads on which sidewalks shall be required as follows : "A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of , Scotswood Boulevard , Cameron Circle , Graham Drive , Davidson Drive, Hamilton Way and Woodlawn Drive . Curb cuts shall be provided for the handicapped at all street intersections . " Condition #20 Revise to reflect NCDOT criteria as follows : " A traffic light shall be installed at the intersection of St . Mary ' s Road and US 70 by NCDOT based on their criteria . " Add condition #39 "Construct and maintain stormwater detention devices to control the rate of runoff from the commercial and multifamily tracts . Methods to satisfy this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer . These devices shall be indicated on final plat and construction plans . " Add condition #40 "The project shall be phased to limit construction of residential units to a maximum of 25% of the total number of approved units within a given 2.5 year. period . " . I Note that handicapped parking facilities are shown on the site plan for the multifamily and commercial tracts . Handicapped parking and ramps are required within the recreations areas by condition #29h . Handicapped ramps shall be shown on detailed final plats and construction plans for ell areas of the development . Reinforce 'condition #29a . which requires the provision of seven (7) acres of active recreation space as opposed to the five l5] alcres proposed in the revised plat . Recommend the reti 'iut the shown on the revised north of the Hamilton plaat ,, without Way which was shown on the original plat . Note that all property Lines , easements , building locations etc . are subject to minor modification based on on—site survey activity during the preparation of final plats and construction plans . Final erosion control and stormwater management plans are particularly subject to this information . II II I, I • DISIRIIii i c:,?. °U ,p, CITY OF DURHAM • cvv1v' -A. NORTH CAR 1 9 CAROLINA a a a t8 :�.:; O O` e_q-a CENTRAL PIEDMONT afr�TJJ �`�`3� EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OFFICE 211 RIGSBEE AVENUE CITY OF MEDICINE December 12 1985 POST OFFICE BOX 667 DURHAM, NC 27702 PHONE 919/683-4121 Mr. Kenneth Thompson, County Manager County of Orange 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Ken: Please find attached a resolution adopted by the Central Piedmont Private Industry Council at its December 10, 1985 meeting regarding .the redesignation of JTPA service delivery areas (SDA) . ThelDivision of Employment and Training has asked for a writtenlresponse indicating our intentions to continue as an SDA. If possible, I need a written response from you by December 20, 1985 indicating Orange County's decision to stay in the existing consortium, or to seek an alternative SDA status. I If I can provide you with additional information, please Contactlme. Sincerely, I .405f›;"'. Robert Ferguson Director RF:h cc: DonlWilhoit, Chairman Board of Commissioners Barney West, Chairman • Private Industry Council Cecil Brown, Sr. Assistant City Manager Attachment I I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER I RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE COUNTIES OF DURHAM AND ORANGE AND THE CITY OF DURHAM TO CONTINUE AS THE CENTRAL PIEDMONT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAIN- ING SERVICES WITHIN A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL AREA AND TO ENCOURAGE OTHER CONTIGUOUS GOVERNMENTAL UNITS INTERESTED IN A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH TO JOIN THE EXISTING CONSORTIUM IN IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS UNDER THE JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT. WHEREAS, the United States Congress enacted the Job Training Partnership Act in order to provide job training and employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged and unemployed persons; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Act, the Governor of the state of North ,Carolina is authorized to make financial assistance available to Service Delivery Areas for the purpose of carrying out all or a substantial part of an employment and training program; and WHEREAS, under the Act units of local government are encouraged to form consortia to carry out employment and training services; and WHEREAS, the Counties of Durham, and Orange and the City of Durham have formed such a Consortium; and WHEREAS, the area consisting of said counties contains a population of 242,712 persons and consists of a labor market area broader than the single jurisdiction of any one of said counties; and WHEREAS, said labor market area consists primarily of the City of Durham and the Counties of Durham and Orange and constitutes an econom- ically integrated geographical area within which workers may readily change jobs without changing their place of residence; and WHEREAS, Other municipalities located within the aforementioned counties (in addition to the City of Durham) will derive benefit from the Job Training Partnership Act by virtue of said counties participa- tion in such a Consortium; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CENTRAL PIEDMONT PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL: FIRST, thelCounties of Durham and Orange and the City of Durham are encouraged to continue the Central Piedmont Employment and Training - Consortium; SECOND, Other contiguous units of government, interested in a multi- jurisdictional approach are encouraged to join the existing Consortium for purposes of implementing programs pursuant to the Job Training Partnership Act. BY ORDER1OF THE CENTRAL PIEDMONT PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL THIS THE 10th DAY OF December, 1985. SHOP BY MAIL AND SAVEI irla;‘‘g gafed camping hunting and Fishing Equipment 22 ENTERPRISE WAY P.O.BOX 1500 CHAPEL HILL,NORTH CAROLINA 27515 Outdoor Wear December 2, 1985 Mr. Don Wilhoit,IlChairman County Commissioners Office Orange County Courthouse 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Mr. Wilhoitl: I am writing to you in the hope that I may be able to provide useful background information on how we have come to be in our current zoning dilemma. In 1978 , we built our initial offices on 8.5 acres we had purchased in Bingham Township. We built a warehouse addition in 1980. At that time, all of our land was unzoned. We were assured from the outset that, as our use of the property (which has not changed) involved no pollution, minimal traffic impact on Highway 54, required no water or sewage resources from the city or county, and was ',adequately covered by the county fire and sheriff' s department, that', we should have no problems with expansion of our facilities on thle same property for the same use. In Septembe,r 1981, the County Land Use Plan was adopted. While we pretended no expertise in the technical aspects of the zoning process, we took great pains to reassure ourselves that the zoning would not affect our use of our land and we were assured on more than one occasion that the zoning process would permit the uses to which our land and buildings were being put. Further, during the discussions about the possible construction of the airport in Bingham Township in 1983 , we pointedly inquired about any possible impact which that development would have on our expansion. We were told by the authorized representative of the planning staff at that time that our expansion would be limited to a total of 87 ,822 square feet on the 8.5 acres which we own. Based on these assurances we worked hard to expand our busi- nesses (though without changing the use of the property in any way which would impact building regulations) ; the number of our employees gradually grew to the present level of about 130 , a number of which our present premises is barely able to contain. Since we have been repeatedly assured that expansion of our facilities would be approved to the above mentioned limit, we had our architects draw up plans in the spring of this year. Only then were we informed that such expansion, otherwise entirely in accordance with the plans which we consistently proposed over the years, would not be allowed because of Page 2 Don Wilhoit December 2 , 19851 a number of zoning complications. we asked the county to recommend a course of action which would enable us to make a modest expansion (far less than the 88 , 000 square feet we had been told would be possible) . Indeed, our present request is only for expansion (for office use only) of an additional 16,000 square feet to a total of 54 ,000 square feet) . Let me reitrate that, when our land was zoned in 1981 we were promised that it was "zoned for our use. " The split zoning in our property (GC4 and AR) was not made known to us, we were given no indication that this zoning would in any way impact our plans for expansion and, indeed, we were assured well after the zoning had taken place that expansion for the same use would not be a problem. It was not until May of 1985 that we were informed of our split zoning and of the many problems which that created. To our complete surprise, we discovered only last month that when our property was zoned in 1981 a line was drawn through our existing parking lot. This placed part of our parking lot and all of our septic fields in the part of the property that was zoned AR. If I may repeat: at the time of zoning of our property, we were not told that our land had been split into two zoning modules. We were told only that our land was "zoned for our use. " Further, in 1983 we were additionally reassured by the planning staff that we could expand our facilities well beyond our presently requested level. We now have a crowded office; we must have more space if our present employees are to be able to work efficiently let alone make room for new staff. Our plans call for building an office building on part of our existing parking lot, and moving part of our parking onto our existing septic field. We will then put a new septic field in the 3 acres of cleared field that comprise the western part of our property. I feel that the impact of this will be to have a modest expansion of our existing facilities for additional office space (which will also provide increased jobs for local residents) as well turning the grass in the 3 acre field a more pleasant shade of green. Speaking for our company and all of our employees, we certainly hope that you will look favorably upon our request to be allowed to proceed with this modest expansion. We ask only that the county permit us to expand as we were always assured we could do in the past. There may be several possible zoning solutions for this area. As the present recommendation of the planning department is for re- zoning to LC1 , we request that this be approved so that we may proceed with our plans. I can further assure you that we have no intention whatsoever of dividing our land into one acre or any other size lots, even if this is permitted under any zoning that may exist in the future. r Page 3 Don Wilhoit December 2 , 1985''I We have always strived to be helpful and useful citizens of Orange County. I hope that this background information helps to clarify our situation. Sincerely, Philip D. Harvey President PDH/jd II Q©q ao of ov° a CITY OF DURHAM 3'° NORTH CAROLINA • D 6A '-•......-AV CENTRAL PIEDMONT 'ti �iQ @® EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OFFI E eq:PCdICI 211 RIGSBEE AVENUE CITY OF MEDICINE January 8, 1986 POST OFFICE BOX 667 DURHAM, NC 27702 PHONE 919/683-4121 Ms. Beverly Blythe, Clerk Orange County 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Ms. Blythe: Enclosed is a fully executed copy of the petition for designation as a Service Delivery Area (SDA) by the City of Durham, Durham and Orange Counties for your files. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincere A/ Robe erguson Director RF:h Enclosure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ATTACHMENT 2 . s State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Employment & Training 512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 James G. Martin, Governor James Lewis Ross, II S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director *Formal Petition for Designation as a Service Delivery Area under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) P. L. 97-300 ATTENTION: James Lewis Ross, II Governor Martin: I/We the undersigned chief elected official(s) request that Citylof Durham. Durham and Orange county(ies) be designated b gn by the Governor as a Service Delivery Area (SD• under the'IJob Training Partnership Act. This jurisdiction meets the following criteria: (check one) 1)** single unit of general local government with a population of 200,001 or more; or 2)** al consortium of contiguous units of general local government with a. aggregate population of 200,000 or more which serves a substantia part of a labor market area; or X 3)** a current SDA which has performed satisfactorily (based on performance standards, response to monitoring reports, response to end of year assessments); or 4)** contiguous units of general local government (county) that: a) hare 100,000 or more population; and b) have at least two counties; and c) represent a substantial portion of a labor market area or an are- in which related State or Federal services are provided; and d) are able to satisfactorily demonstrate to the State the capacity and resources to administer the funds and have adequate safeguard,. for the protection of funds received. P.O- Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-6383 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer il It is my/our understanding that the following zng conditions apply to this reques : 1. Those signing to this petition are not requesting SDA designation for a I jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction identified in this request. 2. It ils the intent of the Governor, in accordance with provisions of P.L. 97-300, to approve all requests for SDA designation which meet criteria and 2. However, the Governor retains the prerogative, if necessary, t. designate SDA jurisdictions which will assure that services are provide. equitably across the entire state. .. 3. For requests made based on criterion 3, the Governor will determin- satisfactory performance. 4. Requests for SDA designation which meet criterion 4 will be given serious consideration by the Governor. 5; Decisions of the Governor are final unless appealed to the Secretary o the United States Department of Labor. 6. Appeals to the Secretary of Labor regarding the Governor's denial of = request for SDA designation are limited to denials of requests unde criteria 1 or 2 only and the appeal can only be based on a decision by th= Governor which is considered in violation of procedures prescribed i. Section 101 of the Job Training Partnership Act, P. L. 97-300. 7. Any appeal must be made to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. , 20210, ATTENTION: ASET (with a copy simultaneousl. provided to the Governor) within two weeks of the date on which propose. SDAs are published by the Governor. In such cases, the decision of the - Secretary is final. Typed Name Jurisdiction Elected Office • Signature Orville W. Powell _ City of Durham City Manager '� . ILA—�sA— vwi Williajn V. Bell Durham County Coo nisssioner 'i/ilifF K Don Wilhoit Orange County County ` ,r: on .,,'.; • 1_0... . • I This petition must be signed and returned by the close of business January 2, 1986 tothe following address: James Lewis Ross, II, Director Division of Employment and Training P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 *In accordance with Section 628.1(b) of the U. S. Department of Labor implementing regulations for programs under the Job Training Partnership Act, this form must be used for request for service delivery area designation. **Indicate the Lead agency (agent) responsible for implementating JTPA for the proposed service delivery area in the following administrative areas: - Central Piedmont Employment And Training Office 1. Administrative Entity: Agency Name City of Durham Address P.O. Box 667 Contact Person Robert Ferguson, Director (Name) (Title) Telephone Number ( 919) 683-4121 2. Grant Recipient: Agency Name Same as above Address Contact Person (Name) (Title) Telephone Number ( ) 3. Agency Responsible for Private Industry Council development and appointments: Agency Name Same as above Address Contact Person (Name) (Title) Telephone Number ( ) CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER AM DOCUMENT G701 ARCHITECT LE CONTRACTOR MI FIELD 0 OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: G.04 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHO4JSE INITIATION DATE: JAN. 6, 1986 TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC DURHAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: OC.8t t 12 ERITTANIA AVE CONTRACT FOR: GENERAL P.O.EOX 15028 CONSTRUCTION DURHAM INC 27704 0028 CONTRACT PLO ID NO. 7741 CONTRACT DATE: INCH 20, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. • Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicate., his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time The original (Contract Sum) (Gi aranteed Maximum Cost) was $ 247 700.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 1 s 569.34 . The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was $ 261 269.34 . The (Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (iamaciset1) (decaoa -(wrchartged) by this Change Order $ 0 The new(Contract Sum) (Guaranteed Maximum Cost)including this Change Order will be $ 261 269.94 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( 59 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10, 1986 Authorized: HAM CONSTRUCTION CO INC ROMAN KOLODIJ ' JAMES WEBB DUR COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address Address - 201 E ROSEMARY 5T P.O Ro. BOX 15028 Address 106 E MARGARET LANE CHAPEL HILL NC 27514 DURHAM NC 27704 0028 HILLSBOR• GH NC 8Y fii /ZPA(7041? BY L�///L�'� !�%� V / BY ��•- DATE 4.646 3 (`ra� (7 DATE /-•/4y ~ r-�p DATE /^ ,/-- d t, AlA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIM, • @ 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C.20IHN. G701--7978 1 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER ECT A/A DOCUMENT C701 CONTRACTOR FIELD ❑ OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVATI,ONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: HAC.02 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: JAN. 6 1986 TO (Contractor): HILLS9DROUGH Nc COMFORT (ENGINEERS INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: oc.8f P.O. BOX 2995 CONTRACT FOR: HEATING/ DURHAM NC 27705 0995 AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7756 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 - You are directed to make the)following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE ( 59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLIDHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER, Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time- The original (Contract Sum) ( ) was $ 8o 629.00 . Net change by previously authi�lized Change Orders - ; oo The (Contract Sum) ( M tximur Cost) prior to this Change Order was $ 80 629.00 , The (Contract Sum) ( Cost) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order S 00 The new(Contract Sum) ( ) including this Change Order will be $ 80 629.00 . The Contract Time will be (increased) (d0c-cea4:e4 (or4c-Laufied) by ( 59 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10, 1986 . Authorized: ROMAN KOLODIJ (JAMES WEBB COMFORT ENGINEERS INC. COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR OWNER P.O. BOX 2995 NORTH CAROLINA Address Address 2 0 f E ROSEMARY ST Address to 6 E MARGARET LANE EL HIJ..L NC' 27514 DURHAM NC 27705 0995 ` p H I LLS�OFtOUGH NC Air- 1:2tniAls10. _ BY . -4' r ., �.% =s►1�, BY 14--. e. dx:(464-1--- BY DATE .J 3 (7cS DATE 2A...A.) /7� i4'$(Q DATE 2 -/f .24 AIA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AJAR • O 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.1735 NEW YORK AVE..N.W.,WASHINGTON.D.C.2001w. G701—1978 . - - -- .- - CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER IN MA DOCUMENT G701 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR lal FIELD ❑ OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVAT I II ONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: P.oz (name,address) ORANGE COUNTY H I STOR I C COURTHOUSE INITIATION DATE: JAN.. 6, 1986 T (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC INDUSTRIIAL MAINTENANCE AND ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: op.8t SUPPLY, iINC CONTRACT FOR: PLUMBING P.O. BOX 513 HAW RIVER NC 27255 CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7740 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 - You are directed to make thelfollowing changes in this Contract: I EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-N1 NE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. . Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicate his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time- The original (Contract Sum) (Czara;teed-7axcsrm Cost.) was-- --- -- • $ -- 13 -000.00 - -- Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 3 313.89 The (Contract Sum) (Gueran.teedJMeximtla u Cosh prior to this Change Order was $ t 6 313.89 The (Contract Sum) (Guarameec Maecirrtdm-Gtsst) will be (bummed) (doa# c4) (unchanged) by this Change Order S 0 The new(Contract Sum) ( )including this Change Order will be - S 16 313.59 The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by ( 59 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 10, 1986 • Authorized: ROMAN KOLOD 1 J JAMES WEBB INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE AND COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR SUPPLY. INC. OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address p-O. BOX 513 Address 106 E MARGARET LANE L HILL PIC ' 27514 HAW RIVER__ NC 27258 HILLSBOROUGH NC,4 i,r BY 41V-414' i 4.......DATE 441V f DATE �—,,--,. .„7/N, DATE A 'r i AIA DOCUMENT 6701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIAR • @ 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AYE.,N.W.,WASHINGTON,D.C.2000, G701—1978 CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER AMA DOCUMENT 0707 ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR MI FIELD OTHER ® FILE PROJECT: RENOVATIONS: CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: E-02 (name, address) ORANGE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTyptJSE INITIATION DATE: JAN. 6, 1986 TO (Contractor): HILLSBOROUGH NC ADAMS AND TILLEY ELECTRIC Co INC ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: oc.at 1008 CALVIN STREET CONTRACT FOR: ELECTRICAL P.O. BOX 12417 CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 27709 CONTRACT P.O. ID NO. 7739 CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 20, 1985 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME BY FIFTY-NINE (59) CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR DAYS, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION ON MARCH 10, 1986, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER. it Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicated his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum)-; ) was $ 34 240.00 - Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ 00 The (Contract Sum) ( ) prior to this Change Order was $ 34 240.0o The (Contract Sum) (Cu a• mooat C.__.) will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) 00 by this Change Order $ • The new(Contract Sum) ( )including this Change Order will be ... $ 34 240.00 • gee-_. r..ha;,gd) by ( 59 ) Days. The Contract Time will be (increased) (_�_.� -�'_) The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is MARCH 1 0, 1986 • Authorized: ROMAN KOLODIJ • JAMES WEBS ADAMSJTILLEY ELECTRIC CO INC. COUNTY OF ORANGE ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS CONTRACTOR P.O. BOX 12417 OWNER NORTH CAROLINA Address 201 E ROSEMARY ST Address Address toe E MARGARET LANE L HILL NCI 27514 S. TRIANGLE PARK NC 1LLSBOROUGH NC , 27709 BY BY Gf/ ock..042, BY ` DATE .14.10 3 / TOG. DATE , /`syc, DATE �' ASA DOCUMENT C701 • CHANCE ORDER • APRIL 76 EDITION • AJAR • ® 1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,N.W-,WASHINGTON,D.C.200Xw. G701-1978 • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 mows CAREY REN LLOYD January 28, 1986 SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WD.LHO/T Don Holloway Land Records Management Program State' of North Carolina Division of Land Resources 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear Mr. Holloway: The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the attached Land Records Agreement at their meeting on January 6, 1986. I have attached a copy of the resolution along with two copies of the agreement. Please return a fully executed copy to this office for my files._. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact Kent Thompson Thank you. Sincerely, 16' 4-7/4 Beverly A. Blythe Clerk /bab Attachments li 5 . BE IT RESOLVED, That the Orange County Board of Commissioners, under the signature of its Chairman, accepts the 1985-86 Land Records Grant of $16,000 from the. State of North Carolina's Land Records Management Program, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That Orange County agrees to the conditions and requirements of the grant Agreement hereto attached; This being the �p day of January, 1986, 1 Don Wilihoit Chairman ATTEST: Clerk to the i.ard of Commi_sioners ORANGE COUNTY Blank Form: A-23 BOARD CF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGRIIIIA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. 1P-5; MEETING DATE January 6, 1986 _ . 07 5 SUBJECT: Federal Lana and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grant; Resolutions of Authorization and Match Funding Availability_ DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PUBLIC HEARING: YES X NO Mary Anne Black ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: 732-9361, Ext. 292 Subject Resolutions PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251 MEBANE - 227-2031 a J - DURHAM - 688-7331 PURPOSE: - - To gain authorization to submit final grant application for development of - the Fairview Community Park. - To signify assurance of 50% funding match, through Community Development Block Grant (Community Revitalization Funding) if LWCF approval is rendered. NEED: - Action to occur prior to grant submission deadline of January 20, 1986. IMPACT: - Possible receipt of $100,000 for local park development. RECOMMENDATION(S) .. - Endorsement . I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CAREY SETT LLOYD RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT SHIRLEY E.MARSEAL. NORMAN WALKER OF FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY PARK BY DON WTU.HOrr THE ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARMTENT WHEREAS, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 provides for the making of grants by the National Park Service, Department of Interior of the United States Government to States and to local municipalities in support of Outdoor Recreation projects and such funds are available after approval of the appropriate State Agency and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation; and WHEREAS, the State is required to insure that there will be no discrimination against any person Of any race, color, sex, creed, or political affiliation; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County realizes that recreation facilities are not adequate to meet the minimum recreational needs of the people of Orange County; and WHEREAS, it is ,believed that said Board with the assistance of the general public is now in a position to lend full support to the development of a Fairview Community park. NOW, THEREFORE,', BE.IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: (1) That an application be made to e National Park Service, Department of Interior of the U. S. Government through a State of North glina for a development grant of $100,000 which represents fifty percent (50%) of �`' is completed in the f �pa;, ($200,000) to be mP fiscal r Jj946-87. r ar.. r (2) That the Re ;, , • marksUi,etor of Ora j tl - be authorized and directed to file such •,. ,.g lon ors ma ' ge C.-, , ,:provide additional information and furni l� ,a. ,_ Service and the State"` k i • ' � °�" ,.National Park � � , tact •' ed correspondent of Orange County. 0.,r ,. r ° ` (3) That the D� � �' _ �r , Cor, a � .r e0 P -* .Interior of the United States Gove bey`' , - urea" , .r' " '-,`_° ! •=4 ',It-M-" : o ce by the applicant e9 _ ° , ian to=T3C . w,f a ; ' is Act of 1964. x with the r ulations the foregoing m „^ _._. _, _.. .._. I mane the adoption of t �..—___._ .:„: ... , _..__. resolution. Ben Lloyd Commissioner SECONDED BY: Moses Carey, Jr. Commi-.-ioner Read, approved and adopted, the 4yi1 day of I,, , 1986.„Lc” IP ; (Alje4A1 Chairman Cl�rcT-” [ �- to the rc� I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CABBY BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL mxmuNwmamn DON WU.LHOIT RESOLUTION FOR THE ASSURANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF MATCH State of North l Carolina County of Orange WHEREAS, ,at the January 6, 1986 meeting of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, a motion was made and duly seconded that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners agrees to the following: In the event a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant is awarded by the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, the Orange Co g y Board of County Commissioenrs , certifies and assuFes that it has tl bility and i to finance its 50% f the= total-project..-cost'' _:s'. ,,i,, ,_ r. ."i:i."'__r-- - -,A, .- - __ , ',......-,. .-de . - through Communi 1--,7/...".,, F 4,�1 �ent Block Grant). - :,,q 4 -,,- .1,, i, 4, kt , K;',. , ' 1, ;' , g Iii.a .f +K r • ` dye .- ,., ,. . -. „ Chairman Title Notary Public My Commission Expires: 1 ' • MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice Gordon. Chair. Planning Board AKG-' Subject: Planning Board Reports Date: Janu Iary 6. 1936 This meeting will be the first time we implement the new policy of having a Planning Board representative present reports on the BOCC agenda items for which the Planning Board has made recommendations. In your agenda packet for tonight you will already have found for each planning item a one page OCPB report following each agenda abstract. For the oral reports tonight the Planning Director and I have decided that first the staff will present the description of the project as they usually do, but that they will not present the Planning Board recommendation. Instead, I will present the Planning Board report which includes the recommendation, and then staff and I will of course answer quAQ* - I hereby request that these reports be inserted into the record verbatim, preferably by including them as a page of the minutes. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of each repwrrwhii h I prepared for this meeting_ If you find there are things you would have liked included in any particular report, or the reports in general,you could indicate them and give the relevant pages back to me. I have also prepared a report on one item which is not on your agenda tonight, namely, a report on the minor subdivision of the Doris Lee property. It is included because it raises some issues concerning a collector road system which will eventually have to be addressed. II SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Appeal of Staff Decision - Minor Subdivision of the Doris Lee Property Recommendation: Reverse the staff decision, thereby freeing the applicant of the proposed staff requirement to provide a 50' right-of-way as part of the minor subdivision. Vote: 81 - 2 Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 Issues Raised: 1. The applicant has the road fronaye necessary for the minor subdiviOpp. If the 50' right-of-way is to be required, how would the applicant be compensated for this property? 2. There is no specified collector road system in this area, so it is not known whether access to the large tracts behind the proposed subdivision would need to exit at the Site of the Drowsed right-of-way. On the other hand, since there is an existing!travelway in this vicinity, it would seem logical to plan the road for this location. in their diicussiojj of issue Land 2. the Board gilled into question the whole system of specifying stub-outs and proposed rights-of-way in the absence of a designated road system. while recoonizinq that the public etim outweigh riv r er -ms in instances 3. The Board questioned whether Blunderbuss Lane had legal status as an existing right-of-way, and therefore whether the twenty foot right-of-way could be used along with thirty feet from the applicant's property to achieve a SO' right-of-way. However. the status of Blunderbuss Lane is in question_ According to the applicant's representative. the Lane's status is"a matter for the courts to decide." Explanation of Dissenting Votes: 1 Those who dissented believed that it was necessary to provide future access at the proposed location to the large tracts located behind the minor subdivision Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Jhe Chair stated that this discussion revealed a need to evaluate the County's olio. on stub-outs and ro osed dedications of ri hts-of-w which r uire property owners near the road to provide access to parcels of land located behind them without any compensation, and perhaps against their will even if compensation were offered. How can we best plan for future roads? 1 I l I T SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Rezoning a - P & S Sporting(food;, Inc. Recommendation: The Board was evenly divided between approval and denial Vote: S - 5 Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 Issues Raised: 1. It was asserted that the oriainal zoning designation for this business was incorrect. I On the other hand it was asserted that, since the business already existed. the aoolicant should be allgwml to exoand the business in this manner. 2_ The question was raised as to whether the amount of land designated for commercial purposes in a rural activity node has already been exceeded. 3. The question was raised as to whether the market area for this business was confined to the immediate area or whether it served a larger market area. Explanation of Dissenting Votes: The Board was evenly divided on the issues described above. Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Section 20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance (Amendments) was cited in the discussion_ This section states that the ordinance shall be amended, among other things ( 1) to correct a manifest error in the ordinance or (2) because of changed or chanaina conditions in a particular area or in the county aenerally. It was noted that no error was alleged and that no chanter conditions were cited. I SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat - Price Creek Division of Lot :1 Recommendation: Approval with the three staff conditions, as stated in Planning Board agenda packet _ I Vote: 10 - 0 Meeting Date: December 16, 1985 Issues Raised: It was noted that the subdivision was located in the WQCA, but no major issues were raised Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat - Stacy Heights Section One Recommendation: Approval with three conditions. The first two conditions are the same as staff conditions s 1 and 42. as stated in the Planning Board agenda packet. Condition '3 specifies that there shall be a notation on the plat that lots *2 and '3 do not meet Health Department approval for on-site wastewater systems, unless the application can obtain Health Department approval before submissionlof the final plat. In the latter case final plat approval could include the approved lot(s). Vote: 10 - 0 Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 Issues Raised: Concern over on-site wastewater systems for lob *2 and *'3. as indicated in, the statement of condition '3 Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: I I SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat - Windy Hill Farm _ Recommendation: Approval with the two staff conditions_as stated in the Planning Board agenda packet. Vote: 10 - 0 Meeting Date: December 16, 1985 Issues Raised: Explanation of Dissenting Votes: • Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Lpnd Use Plan Amendment - Vic Knight (Bart Richardson) Recommendation: Denial, as recommended by the staff Vote: 9 - 0 (one person out of room) Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 P 9 _ Issues Raised: Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Planned Development - Bradshaw's Mobile Acres Recommendation: Approval, with 21 conditions. The first 20 conditions were essentially those recommended by the staff. although the wording of #18 was revised to specify 'public" improvements. The Board also added condition #21 which incorporated a DOT recommendatiog_concernina sight distance. Vote: 10 - 0 Meeting Date: December 16, 1985 Issues Raised: The Question of sight distance was raised and addressed by condition *21_ No major issues were raised_ (See the minutes for additional discussion.) Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: . I • SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Rezoning - Wildwood Section IV Recommendation: Approval. at R-2 density (instead of R-4 as requested by applicant.)II Vote: 6 -3 - 1 (one abstention) Meeting Date: December 16. 1985 Issues Raised: L_ Amount of traffic through the development between Wildwood N C 86 (earlier phases of Wildwood) Section IV and 2. Unknown) impact of commercial areas already zoned between Wildwood an 1-85 on what is still a two lane road (Occoneechee Point 1 and II) and 3. Amount of water available 4. Hillsborough's recommendation for R-2 density Explanation of Dissenting Votes: A preliminary vote to rezone at R-2 density. rather than at R-4 den itv1 nossed with a vote of 5-4- I (one abstention). Therefore in the final vote the three dissenters voted in the negative because they favored the higher density. Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Chair's Note: See the provisions for amending the zoning ordinance (liven in Section 20.1 (Applicant does not alleue error but cites changing conditions) v SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION Subject: Rezoning - James Hill Recommendation: The Board was evenly divided between approval and denial Vote: 5��- 5 Meeting Date: December 166 1985 Issues Raised: 1. It was asserted that the applicant should have alleged an error to be corrected by the proposed amendment. 2. It appeared that there were traffic and environmental impacts (Duke Forest). that needed to be addressed. I t was asserted that these issues could be more effectively handled in a Planned Development process. II Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Those who were against approval of the rezonin g felt that the applicant should go through the Planned Development process. Those who favored rezoning felt that the applicant should not have to QO through the applicationjrocess again and they did not see the value of a planned development on this relatively small tract. Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Ctiatr's Note: See the provisions for amending the ordinance given in Section 20.1 (Applicant does not allege error or cite changed conditions) REC'D NOV 25 1985 ry HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERS November 25 , 1985 Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson County Manager 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Thompson: With reference to Section D of our Agreement with Orange County, please see the attached proposals from Soil & Material Engineers relative to the recommended subsurface investigations and R.T. Newcomb, Jr. , relative to the easement and property acquisition surveys for the Cheeks Township Sewer Improvements, Phase 1. The cost of this work is billable to the County as an Additional Service per Section D of the Agreement. The cost breakdown per the proposal from each subconsultant is as follows: Item) Subconsultant Estimated Cost Property Surveys R.T. Newcomb, Jr. $14, 500a Subsurface Investigations S&ME 14, 945 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $29,445 a Does not include Orange County recording fees for the 10-12 plats anticipated. It is assumed that this cost will be paid by the County. The present cost ceiling for Additional Services from Section D of our Agreement is $16, 000. It will not be possible to perform the work required for this amount, and it is requested that this ceiling be increased to $30,000. We attribute this higher cost to anticipated difficulties in completing the property surveys based on our present knowledge of the properties involved and la higher than anticipated cost for the subsurface investigations. We feel that it is important if not absolutely necessary to maintain the level of service described in each subconsultants proposal and recommend that the County approve the increased cost ceiling. 4300 GLENWOOD AVENUE•P.O.BOX 30428•RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27622•(919)782-8333 OFFICES IN NEW YORK,RALEIGH,AND HOLLYWOOD,FLORIDA .Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 25,1 1985 Page 2 We request your authorization to proceed with the subsurface ,investigatioins and the easement and property acquisition surveys, and your acceptance of the increased cost ceiling. To indicate your acceptance, please sign in the space provided and forward to the Farmers Home Administration for their approval. We are anxious to proceed with the completion of the work included in this request. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, HAZEN AND SAWYER P.C. /4U- ler/ Donald L. Cordell, P.E. Associate DLC/jhl Enclosure cc; Mr. Kevin F. Carter Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson November 25, 1985 Page 3 I hereby authorize Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. to proceed with the Additional Services described herein and agree to a revised ' cost ceiling of $30, 000 for all services included in Section D of the Agreement. I - -mlgte) Don Willhoit, Chair County of Orange, North Carolina WITNESS: .G/ (S -,•nature) ja,04477 ! Date) APPROVAL BY FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (Signature) (Titlle) (Date) knEr