HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-05-1986 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1986
7 : 30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS ROOM
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
A. BOARD COMMENTS
B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
C. APPOINTMENTS
D. REPORTS
1. White Cross Fire Service Report
E. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION
1. Proposed Recreation Space Standards--Advisory
Council Report
PAGE # F. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
007 1. Public Hearings Schedule
008 2 . Budget Amendment--Sheriff's Department
G. ITEMS FOR DECISION--OTHER
010 1. Policy on Consideration of Ordinance/Atlas Amend-
ments and Development Requests
011 2 . Proposed Changes in the N. C. Department of Trans-
portation Procedures for Paving Secondary Roads
019 3. Class A Road--Covered Bridge I Minor Subdivision
022 4 . Resolution for Provision of Low- and Moderate-
Income Housing
024 5. Laurel Springs Subdivision--Preliminary Plat
Approval
059 6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments--Junked Motor
Vehicles
063 7. Contract with N. C. Memorial Hospital--Family
Planning Services
067 8. Home Health Agency Fiscal Year 1984-85
Reimbursement
H. ADJOURNMENT
" y,
+i,:J�gxtr•JAM�M"
001
ORANGE COUNTY Action Agenda
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item No. C
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
MEETING DATE March 5, 1986
Subject: APPOINTMENTS
ri)epartment: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no
I � I
r
Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe
Under Separate Cover
Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 968-4501,
227-0231
PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' appointed Boards.
***** MATERIAL WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD MEMBERS AT THE BEGINNING OF
MEETING.
00M
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item Nol
Meeting Date: MARCH 5, 1986
SUBJECT: WHITE CROSS FIRE SERVICE REPORT
DEPARTMENT: EMERGENCY SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: BOBBY BAKER
732-8161
SERVICE REPORT TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To consider a status report on the district's progress in form-
ing a department and on the measures being taken to address
citizen petitions for service by Carrboro.
NEED: Staff has been in contact with those seeking the service from
Carrboro and the parties of both districts which must agree to
any boundary change. Preliminary indication is that those who
have thus far indicated a desire for service from Carrboro can
be accommodated. Such approval, if granted however, would not
likely apply to any future requests.
The process being followed is in accord with General Statutes
which among other provisions call for the Board of Commissioners
to take up boundary requests only after favorable action by each
affected district.
The Emergency Director, Bobby Baker, will be present to answer
questions.
IMPACT:
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
• oot
For several years, White Cross and the surrounding area to
the south has received fire prot ect i on on a volunteer basis from
Eli Whitney, North Chatham, and Orange Grove Fire Departments. In
May of 1984, the Orange County Board of Commissioners received
letters from these three fire departments. The letters stated
that due to the increasing cost of equipment and vehicles
essential for fire department operations, it was becoming
necessary to discontinue fire protection on a volunteer basis to
the White Cross area. However, the three departments did agree to
continue fire protection to this area while White Cross was
implementing their own method of fire protect ion.
As a result of this letter, a letter from the Orange County
Board of Commissioners was mailed to all the citizens to be
affected by this change. This letter included the necessary steps
to create a fire tax district for the White Cross area along with
a petition which was to be signed by residential property owners.
This petition would signify their desire to support a fire tax for
the purpose of fire protection to the White Cross area. The
number of signed petitions returned well exceeded the 35 %
requirements.
As a result of this petition, the Orange County Board of
Elections published the necessary advertising and conducted an
election oof the White Cross District on May 7, 1985. The vote was
favorable for levying a fire tax for the area.
In an official Board action on May 21, 1985, the Orange
County Board of Commissioners appointed trustees for the White
Cross Fire Department.
The trustees have now negotiated for a tract of property near
the intersection of State roads 1005 and 1953. This property has
been approved for the construction of the White Cross Fire
Department by the Orange County Health Department, the Orange County
Planning Department and the Farmers Home Administration. The White
Cross Fire Department has applied for funding from Farmers Home
Administration and is waiting for loan approval. Closing could be
as soon as ninety (90) days at which time building construction
and purchase of equipment should begin.
At about the same time citizens of the White Cross Community
were addressing the issue of fire protection, another petition was
being circulated by a small group of citizens on highway 54 west.
This petition was for the levying of a fire tax to provide
protection to this area. Since this area is approximately four
and one-half miles from Carrboro Fire Department and seven miles
from the proposed White Cross Fire Department, these citizens were
also requesting that the fire protection be provided by the Carrboro
Fire Department. If these citizens were to receive fire
protection from the Carrboro Fire Department, they would be
eligible for a reduction in fire insurance rates since they live
within, the five (5) road miles of the Carrboro station.
1
004
For this area to be included in the South Orange Fire
District served by the Carrboro Fire Department, the following
must be done:
1. A petition from property owners (already completed)
a. A recommendation of the fire trustees of the district
3. The approval of the Board of Directors of the corporation
providing fire protection to the district
4. The approval of the Beard of County Commissioners
At this time, all Boards have been made aware of this issue
and recommendations by these Boards will be forthcoming.
oo
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 5, 1986
Action Agenda
Item # E�
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS
*****************************as******s***************s**s*s****************
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes__No
**********************, **************s*************************************
ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: Marvin Collins
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
********************s******************************************************
PURPOSE: To receive the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council ' s recommendation regarding the proposed
Subdivision Regulation amendments pertaining to
recreation standards .
To consider continuation of the public hearing
until April 7 , 1986 to allow sufficient time for
staff to investigate the administration of
payment-in-lieu provisions .
NEED: At the February 24 , 1986 public hearing, the
Recreation Director indicated that the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Council had not had sufficient
time to fully review the proposed recreation
standards. Specific concerns were also
identified involving the method and amount of
payments-in-lieu, accumulation of disparate
(widely separated) parcels , the applicability of
the standards to multi-family and single-family
projects , and the relationship of the Land Use
Plan.
The Board continued the public hearing on the
proposed recreation standards until this meeting
to receive the Advisory Council 's recommendation
and allow the Planning Staff to contact other
jurisdictions regarding their experience in
001
administration of similar provisions .
IMPACT; The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council will
meet on Tuesday, March 4, 1986 to consider the
proposed standards . Given the lack of contacts
with other jurisdictions , the Council will limit
its recommendation to the concepts for provision
of recreation space as embodied in the standards .
The Council 's report will be reported verbally at
the Commissioners ' meeting.
Planning Staff has also had insufficient time to
contact other jurisdictions and present a
comparative analysis to the Planning Board.
Since the Planning Board does not meet until
March 17 , continuation of the public hearing
until the Commissioners ' April 7 meeting would
allow adequate time for contacts and report
preparation.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive Recreation and Parks Advisory Council ' s
verbal report and continue public hearing until
April 7, 1986.
oon
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date MANCh_j._1a$a
Action enda
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULE Item
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ___Yes _X_ No
Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH
NONE
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To schedule special public hearings .
NEED: Special public hearings need to be set for the following dates
and purposes .
MARCH 25 Continuation of Scotswood public hearing including
discussion of current and proposed water
withdrawls , possible improvements to the three
reservoirs in Northern Orange County and the
State ' s recommendations regarding in-stream flow
requirements .
APRIL 17 Public hearing on the Joint Planning Area Land Use
Plan.
IMPACT: These actions are required to meet legal requirements .
The continuation of the public hearing on Scotswood was
originally scheduled for March 5 , 1986 but had to be
rescheduled for administrative purposes to assure local and
state agency representation.
RECOMMENDATION: Set public hearings for March 25 and April 17 , 1986 .
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD, OF CO MISSIONERS ACTION 1GFUDA
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO ra
MEETING DATE March 5, 1986
SUBJ EC(: . Budget Amendment -
•
DEPr�RTMENT: Finance. _____ [. PJ3LIcHEARIt.G: YES % Q
ATTACHMENTS INFORIATIONt CON ACT:
) : Proposed. Budget Amendment
•
- PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732 .8181
•
HILLSBOROUGH -- 732-9361 _
- • CHAPEL HILL - 96/-9251
•
MEBANE 227.2.031
•
••
_� DURHAM - 653-7331
•
PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed. budget amendment. -
•
•
•
NEED: GENERAL FUND '
To appropriate funds for the Sheriff Department's 'Special operations.
•
•
' GENERAL FUND
This amendment will decrease the Commissioners' Contingency by a transfer
to Special Operations for the Sheriff.
PECO:;T;=-i;[7"1(IO: (5) : Approve motion to amend the 1985-86 Budget Ordinance.
005
ORANGE COUNTY
PROPOSED
1985-86
BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
BEFORE AFTER
AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND
Appropriation:
Sheriff 1,861,723 $2,500 1,864,223
Source:
Contingency 32,039 2,500 29,539
To appropriate funds for special operations.
Approved this day of March, 1986.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS O 1 L
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date H_4_121 _
Actin enda
Item a_
SUBJECT: POLICY ON CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE/ATLAS AMENDMENTS AND
DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes _X_ No
Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a policy addressing the consideration of ordinance
and atlas amendments concurrently with development proposals.
NEED: At the February 24 , 1986 public hearing, the Boards expressed a
concern regarding concurrent consideration of ordinance and
atlas amendments coupled with specific development proposals
dependent upon favorable decisions on the proposed amendments .
The Boards directed that a policy addressing this concern be
prepared for consideration and adoption.
IMPACT: Adoption of a policy would provide clear direction in
administrative activities and would separate policy and
legislative issues from consideration of specific development
requests .
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the following policies :
That rezoning requests shall not be submitted to public hearing
concurrently with amendments to development ordinances which
affect the rezoning request ; and that subdivision proposals
shall not be considered concurrently with a rezoning request
(except through the planned development process) unless
specifically authorized by the Board of Commissioners .
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 011
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date MARCH_4_1 .81
Action & enda
Item RE
A._
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROCEDURES FOR PAVING SECONDARY ROADS
DEPARTMENT: SECONDARY ROADS ADVISORY PUBLIC HEARING ___Yes _X_ No
COMMITTEE
Attachment(s) Information Contact : GEORGE BRESSLER,
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CHAIR
SUMMARY/FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY FUNDS
1985-1986
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham -- 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
44� Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider proposed changes in the N. C.Transportation Procedures for Paving Secondary Roads as
recommended by the Secondary Road Improvements Advisory
Committee.
NEED: In May of 1984 the Secondary Road Improvements Advisory
Committee was created and given the following directives :
(1 ) To review the priority rating of County roads , including
the methods used in the rating system and the survey
results used to assign ratings .
(2) To review the annual Secondary Road Improvements Program as
proposed by NCDOT.
(3) To make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners
regarding changes to the rating system and/or the Secondary
Road Improvements Program, and to identify discrepancies in
the assigned ratings of County roads .
The Committee has reviewed the rating methods , the assigned
priority ratings for state-maintained roads in Orange County
and the methods of funds distribution, and prepared the
attached recommendations .
IMPACT: If the Board of Commissioners decides to recommend
to the Participatory Paving Program, the Board angof
Transportation can consider the proposals for implementation.
The changes would not only result in additional funds for
paving roads on the priority list , but would also increase
costs for participation in the Participatory Paving Program.
RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides.
•
Ui
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Orange County Board Of Commissioners
FROM: The Secondary Road Improvement Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Changes in North Carolina Department of Transportation
Procedures for Paving Secondary Roads
Date: February 18 , 1986
I . RQQ4m14IIQLiQII.
The committee has reviewed the method of fund distribution to the
counties and agrees that this distribution is equitable based
upon unpaved road mileage. Attachments "B" and "C" are included
to substantiate this finding.
The committee recommends that no changes be made at this time in
the DOT Priority Rating System as concerns :
A. Land Use and Public Service
B. Traffic Characteristics
C. General Route Characteristics
The factors that influenced this recommendation appear as
Discussion Paragraph II A, B and C.
The committee does recommend that the following changes are
necessary in the administration of the Participatory Paving
Program.
D. Path.iaipaiguy_Eaming_ELIMEgm
1 . A sliding scale should be established for Property Owner
Participation . This should be based upon the priority
assigned the road in the rating system. Only those
roads assigned a priority of 49 or less in the Priority
Rating System would be eligible for public funds
assigned to the county for paving of secondary roads.
Up to and including the road assigned a rating of ten,
the property owners would be required to provide 50% of
the cost of paving their road Qui Qi Rriaritj. For
roads rated 11 to 50 the property owners cost would-be
increased by 1 .25% for each priority rating level . For
example : Priority #2-10- 50%, #11-51 .25%, #20-62 .5%,
#30- 75%, #40- 87.5%, #50 and above- 100%.
II . Diacllaaian
A. Land_Uze_and_Eulalin_aarmiag
1 . Fire ponds are important factors in Public Safety and
are not recognized in the existing Priority Rating
System. Though a fire pond may be used only
infrequently, when needed it ' s use will be repeated. In
inclement weather the heavier tanker trucks will cause
rapid deterioration of an unpaved road. This could
possibly lead to a slowdown, or stoppage in the delivery
of water to a fire site. Though we feel that most First
Aid or Rescue Facilities in North Carolina are located
on paved roads , we considered that the Priority Rating
System might allow 10 - 25 points for each fire pond
or first aid facility. Both cases were evaluated. The
results appear in III , Evaluation.
B. Ttaiiia_Qhataaittiaiiga
1 . The existing Priority Rating System awards ten points
for each road that is used by school buses . The
committee considered that the points awarded should be
proportionate to the total number of buses that use the
road since the level of risk to public safety is
proportionate to the number of buses . Two approaches
were evaluated . The results appear in III , Evaluation.
2 . The types of vehicles using a road should also be
considered in the assignment of priorities . This
question is not dealt with formally by the committee in
this recommendation, and is mentioned here as a request
for some guidance from the Board of Commissioners .
Sand , stone , and gravel quarries/pits , and logging
operations abound in North Carolina, and are usually
located in a remote area served by unpaved roads . These
trucks represent both an increased road hazard and a
more difficult maintenance task. As a result , the use
of the roads by residents is at greater risk. Paving
would surely reduce the hazard level . The committee
feels that the Commissioners need to address this issue
because the enforcement of speed , loading, and truck
access restrictions become more formidable with the
paving of these roads .
C. Saanatai_Hauie_Chataciatiaiiaa
1 . Another area that the Committee has touched upon is that
of the quality of the unpaved road, and it ' s assignment
of a priority for paving. it would seem logical that an
unpaved road which has many turns , changes in grade ,
stream crossings , poor drainage, or is built upon a soft
unstable base soil should be paved more urgently than a
Q1 straight , flat , dry, road with a good firm underlying
soil . Mr . Watkins , the Division Engineer , has been
questioned about a general road quality rating plan that
may be in effect in the Department of Transportation.
Apparently there is none . Contact has been made in the
private sector of the road building industry, again with
no success . This could be a time consuming procedure to
organize , and would require experience that does not
exist within the Committee , though an extremely simple
approach could be attempted in the future. Our
committee would undertake the rating of Orange County
roads if the Board feels there is merit in this approach
for future changes to the system.
D. PatiiaipaiatyZ_Paming_Progtam
1 . The most recent information concerning the cost of
paving indicates that about $80 ,000 per mile would be
required if no grading or draining were needed. There
were 217 . 9- miles of unpaved roads in Orange County as of
January first , 1985. This represents about 35% of the
625 . 01 miles of secondary roads existing in the county
as of that date . Compared to the other 99 counties ,
Orange is 38th in percentage of unpaved roads , well
below average. Using the optimistic $80 ,000/mile , a
minimum of 17.4 million dollars would be needed to pave
all of the existing secondary roads . If it is assumed
that allocations to the county for secondary roads were
to continue at the $500 ,000/year level experienced for
the ' 85-"86 program, and about 65% were to be used for
paving of secondary roads , over 53 years would be
needed. Of this 65% of the total funds available for
the ' 85- ' 86 program for paving of Secondary roads only
60% (39% of total ) is to be used to pave roads within
priority. Over $103 , 000 is being used in the
Participatory Paving Program on roads that range from
#31 to 172 on the priority list . This is felt to be
inequitable in that roads that are viewed as more sorely
needed are not being paved because the money is being
used to assist in the paving of less essential roads .
The committee felt that limits should be placed on the
funds available for the Participatory Program and feel
that the sliding scale proposed above is more fair than
an arbitrary limit to the percentage that can be used
for participatory work.
III . Ey$lua Sian_Qf_iha_Efieci_Q.f._Hkammended_Changa.a
A. Changan_in_ihn_EtiQriix_Raiing_ky aiem
Attachments "Aa" and "Ab" show the Priority Listing for the
top 40 roads as published by the Department of Transportation
for Program Year "85-"86 . For the purpose of comparison some
of the descriptive information has been omitted. The two
columns on the right side of the list show the total priority
points calculated using the recommended changes and the/11 'c,
corrected priority standing. The committee corrected the --v
Priority Rating System using two sets of assumptions . On
Attachment "Aa" fire ponds were awarded 10 points and all
LQund__tLiR school buses after the first were awarded 5
points . On Attachment "Ab" fire ponds were awarded 25 points
and gaah school bus after the first trip was awarded 5
points . As can be seen, very little effect is shown for
these changes . Though it is felt that the new ratings
reflect a more equitable approach , they do not appear worth
the complication and extra work.
B. Changan_in_11.0_EatiiiP$IQLX_EAYing_ELQgtaM
If the sliding scale approach to Owners Participation Paving
had been applied to the ' 85- ' 86 program, and assuming that
the owners had accepted their increased liability, so that
county participation in construction was unchanged, over
$89 ,000 could have been added to the paving fund . This would
have paved over a mile of more urgently needed paving.
Though this seems small , about 40% more priority paving could
have been done .
IV. ARQLQadh_ia_iha_Change_Making
A. Chang€a_IQ_Aht_ELiQLily_Raling_ayslam
Paragraph . 0106 titled "Priority Ratings for Paving Secondary
Roads" implies that "A priority rating sheet is developed for
each unpaved secondary road in the county as a guide line and
the roads are then rated by priority " It is inferred
from this and other language in the DOT Division of Highways
Policy T19A.02C, that the composition of the Rating System is
at the control of the DOT, and does not require legislative
action.
B. Changan_iQ_iha_EatiiipaiQtX_Eaywgui_ELQgtam
In a letter dated April 24 , 1985 , Mr . Jack Murdock , the
Secondary Roads Officer , informed the Division and District
Engineers of revisions to the Property Owners Participation
Plan. In the third paragraph he states : " The
joint Secondary Roads and Maintenance and Equipment Committee
voted to increase the property owners ' cost from $2 . 00 per
foot along each side of the road or $8 .00 per centerline
foot If From this it is inferred that this joint
committee is empowered to adjust the costs of paving that are
passed along to property owners . The changes recommended by
the Advisory Committee appear to be free of need for
legislative action.
ATTACHMENT "Aa"
CURR S/R LOCAL NAME TOTAL SUB CORRECTED PRTY
PRTY No. POINTS DIV TOTAL
POINTS
1 1538 New Sharon Church 345 .3 N 365.3 1
2 1130 Ode Turner Road 338. 7 N 348. 7 2
3 1943 Sesame Road 294 . 0 N 304. 0 3
4 1730 Turkey Farm Road 227 . 0 N 292 . 0 4
5 1137 Bushy Cook Road 276 . 7 N 286 . 7 5
6 1561 Lawrence Road 276 . 0 N 286 . 0 6
7 1335 Kenion Road 268 . 3 N 273 . 3 7
8 1312 Richmond Road 267. 4 N 272 . 4 9
9 1113 Rocky Ridge Road 264 . 5 N 269 . 5 10
10 1568 Willet Road 262 . 6 N 232 . 6 8
11 1561 Gailbraith Road (Cole Mill ) 259. 0 N 259 . 0 13
12 1941 Old School Road 258. 0 N 263 . 0 11
13 1135 Moorefields Road 254 . 4 N 259.4 12
14 1950 Carl Durham Road 237 . 4 N 242 . 4 14
15 1727 Eubanks Road 236 . 0 N 241 . 0 15
16 1914 White Rock Church Road 235. 0 N 235. 0 17
17 1575 Walker Farm Road 22730 N 233 . 0 16
18 1383 Eno Cemetery Road 223 . 0 N 223 . 0 22
19 1572 Ebenezer Church Road 220 . 9 N 230 . 9 19
20 1541 Kiger Road 217. 6 N 232 . 6 18
21 1566 Linden Road 214. 0 N 224 . 0 20
22 1552 Mincey Road 213 . 5 N 223 . 5 21
23 1918 Clearwater Lake Road 210 . 0 N 215 . 0 25
24 1362 Allie Mae Road 206 . 7 N 216 . 7 24
25 1351 Governor Scott Road 206 . 1 N 206 .1 26
26 1346 Saddle Club Road 203 . 7 N 203 . 7 27
27 1555 Miller Road 202 .3 N 217. 3 23
28 1131 Crossroad Church Cemetery 198. 0 N 203 . 0 28
29 1824 Wilkins Drive 412 . 0 Y 417. 0 29
30 1803 Wilkins Drive 410 . 0 Y 415. 0 30
31 1194 Rollingwood Road 39530 Y 400. 0 31
32 1839 Freeland Heights Road 328 . 0 Y 328. 0 32
(Alexander )
33 1590 Brigadoon Drive 310 . 0 Y 310 . 0 33
34 1162 Latimar Street 300. 0 Y 300 . 0 34
35 1184 Orange Heights 252 . 0 Y 252 . 0 36
36 1564 Gibbs Lane 252 . 0 Y 252 . 0 37
37 1705 Tuscarora Road 252 . 0 Y 282 . 0 38
38 1823 Wilkins Drive 248 . 0 Y 253 . 0 35
39 1794 Timberly Drive 216 . 0 Y 216 . 0 39
40 1313 Tinnin Road 208. 0 Y 208. 0 40
ATTACHMENT "Ab"
0!Pi
CURR SIR LOCAL NAME TOTAL SUB CORRECTED PRTY
PRTY No. POINTS DIV TOTAL
POINTS
1 1538 New Sharon Church 345 . 3 N 390. 3 1
2 1130 Ode Turner Road 338. 7 N 358. 7 2
3 1943 Sesame Road 294. 0 N 314 . 0 3
4 1730 Turkey Farm Road 227. 0 N 307. 0 4
5 1137 Bushy Cook Road 276 . 7 N 296 . 7 5
6 1561 Lawrence Road 276. 0 N 296 . 0 6
7 1335 Kenion Road 268. 3 N 278 . 3 8
8 1312 Richmond Road 267. 4 N 277 . 4 9
9 1113 Rocky Ridge Road 264. 5 N 274 . 5 10
10 1568 Willet Road 262 . 6 N 282 . 6 7
11 1561 Gailbraith Road (Cole Mill ) 259. 0 N 259 . 0 13
12 1941 Old School Road 258. 0 N 263 . 0 12
13 1135 Moorefields Road 254. 4 N 264 . 4 11
14 1950 Carl Durham Road 237. 4 N 247. 4 15
15 1727 Eubanks Road 236. 0 N 241 . 0 17
16 1914 White Rock Church Road 235. 0 N 235. 0 19
17 1575 Walker Farm Road 22730 N 247 . 0 16
18 1383 Eno Cemetery Road 223. 0 N 223 . 0 24
19 1572 Ebenezer Church Road 220. 9 N 240. 9 18
20 1541 Kiger Road 217. 6 N 247. 6 14
21 1566 Linden Road 2.14. 0 N 234. 0 20
22 1552 Mincey Road 213 . 5 N 233 . 5 21
23 1918 Clearwater Lake Road 210. 0 N 215. 0 25
24 1362 Allie Mae Road 206 . 7 N 226 . 7 23
25 1351 Governor Scott Road 206 . 1 N 206 . 1 27
26 1346 Saddle Club Road 203 . 7 N 203. 7 28
27 1555 Miller Road 202 . 3 N 232 . 3 22
28 1131 Crossroad Church Cemetery 198. 0 N 208. 0 26
29 1824 Wilkins Drive 412 . 0 Y 422 . 0 29
30 1803 Wilkins Drive 410 . 0 Y 420 . 0 30
31 1194 Rollingwood Road 39530 Y 400 . 0 31
32 1839 Freeland Heights Road 328. 0 Y 328. 0 32
(Alexander)
33 1590 Brigadoon Drive 310. 0 Y 310. 0 33
34 1162 Latimar Street 300. 0 Y 300. 0 34
35 1184 Orange Heights 252 . 0 Y 252 . 0 36
36 1564 Gibbs Lane 252 . 0 Y 252 . 0 37
37 1705 Tuscarora Road 252 . 0 Y 252 . 0 38
38 1823 Wilkins Drive 248 . 0 Y 258 . 0 35
39 1794 Timberly Drive 216 . 0 Y 216 . 0 39
40 1313 Tinnin Road 208. 0 Y 208. 0 40
r. TABLE 5 PRELIMINARY
U
;.. tl
1 6 December 22, 1982
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY FUNDS APPORTIONED FOR FY 1985-86
Federal State
Aid Matching Total
Match Funds Funds Funds
Federal-Aid Program Ratio (Millions) (Millions) (Millions)
Interstate Construction (1) 90/10 $ 50.9 $ 6.8 $ 57.7
Interstate 4R (1) • 90/10 53.9 7.2 61.1
Primary 75/25 40.0 14.4 - -:='-54.4
Primary 4R 26.7 9.6 6.3
Secondary 75/25 11.7 4.2 X15.9
Secondary 4R 7.8 2.8 ---'1.0.6
Urban 75/25 7.1 2.6 = 9.7
Urban 4R 4.7 1.7 6.4
Bridge Replacement 80/20 76.3 20.0 - -- 96,3
Rail/Highway Crossings 90/10 4.6 0.6 - 5.2
High Hazard Locations 90/10 4.8 0.6 5.4
Forest Highways 100/0 Unknown -
Public Lands Highways 100/0 Unknown -
Minimum Allocation.
(85% Floor) (2) Var. 20.7 7.4 28.1
Appalachian Development 80/20 Unknown
TOTAL $ 309.2
$ 77.9 $ 387.1
NOTES
(1) Interstate funds are available for use a year in advance of the
apportionment year.
(2) Minimum allocation is a fund to assure the State a minimum of 85. percent
return of the State's contribution to the Federal Highway Trust Fund,
other than the Mass Transit Account.
•
1/6/83
o�
•
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0 15
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date _MABCIi_L._12$1
Actionenda
Item
SUBJECT: CLASS A ROAD -- COVERED BRIDGE I MINOR SUBDIVISION
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes
_X_ No
Attachment ( s ) Information Contact : JANET VAN HANDEL
APPLICATION
SURVEY OF LOT
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 Part
of Lot 1 of the Covered Bridge subdivision. The Private Road
Standards require the approval of the Board of County
Commissioners on Class A roads serving minor subdivisions .
NEED: Board of Commissioners ' approval of a Class A private road is
required before a minor subdivision can be approved for Lot 1
of the Covered Bridge Subdivision. Covered Bridge is a
subdivision of land in tracts over 10 acres in size and is not
defined as a subdivision subject to County regulations under
G.S. 153-335 ubslimiziQn_Dtlintsl,
On November 4 , 1985 , the Board approved a Class A road to serve
Lot 2 of Covered Bridge Subdivision.
Staff is recommending a Class A private road given the number
of lots served by Gait Way.
IMPACT: A minor subdivision of Lot 1 in the Covered Bridge subdivision
could occur if a Class A road is approved.
RECOMMENDATION: Appr ova 1.
.4INOR SUBDIVISION. APPLICATION
02[
Property Owner(s) �,� � 40..Aziex iQ.' n Ass- 3-6774)
Address 7C L 5- egry j Cl7 -- Phone ( ) .5 ` /d y
Developer/Contact Name /`' 7h
Address Phone ( ) 7302- 777
Location of Property r _ 7 . SZ15.
!� township map block lot
Zoning !l ` / Fire District
Watershed /".1IA9— Impervious Surface v1,4—
Joint Planning: C.H. /)A-- Carrboro g4 School District r✓ A7 1
State Road Number //a Name Doi 44 WS Type rzt l e2 ,LZ_
Private Road Class 4 70 K__ Name
Do you plan to build the road before final approval? _....1 ..t. 40/ —
or secure construction with a security document? ,,J/�,
Utilities: Public Sewer Community System ` Septic Tank /
Public Water 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 - 11' 66 214 Number of Lots I + 4. ki
Lot Number: Size of Lots: Structures (proposed or existing) :
•
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
my (our) application is not complete and cannot be approved unless all required information
and material has been provided.
\ 141
Date Signature
Date Signature
Tiling Fee # of Lots Fee Private Road Fee Other Fee
,oral Fees Date Paid
•
4: _ FoRE37 Al COVIN3T0t.
_-
__ �
+ 021
I
,
. \
-1 1E
II <r +I.
IO 0 AC ��; ,
0.E9 2 -c • r -•`'6+�.6-• �eI- IQ.01 Ar. - --
.. j
• F' -tin r t .
v - „ ~ x
'
10.01 AC _ rte_
s 8 /, � .).\ •o-
�` 10.01 AC.±/: ,o= ;Y.i. - ,•
— + ', , AG.
-+ /=• - t:.� 10.01 A C. le 10.01 AC. - %�.• •
x (. '�-p': I� �. '...,//� -.._ Cl �_! '+° ?'..;:`-.'' r q• ! ...E
E `/` t
_ 1 :� PF! 10.01 AG.± tt ,-
• •. 3' k7R•: m 10.01 AG.± s_,� _ r `.•
t' j-
:•i � ." 5 ....5... 4Y.
.. •ape �\.fi'
2.
a�+-o'° .c tic. a. 7 ., --
a • e° ' r•aa. AC.-I-
10.01 ti•� _ j a 72 97 AC
Z-
11. . v +JJ '•
A � P P
.l
g 3 9 G' yh sac^
$ 4`� P yA
I �, o p,
I r z I � •• �� ��L et 4. a
ci
a a 1i.- 2
EL g 12.51 AC.± \ i -
P V.. \
a ' p- Y •-
' ' _ \ 4QS4 PH
_ a
{ 4
J
ti
i 3
I
--- • -- -- c:R
5-ia 4_. --
= 3=
.r1
��P. ID, c
ORANGE COUNTY 024
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date —MggCEL4_19.$f
Actio ends
Item
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION FOR PROVISION OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUS G
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes _, No
Attachment (s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH
RESOLUTION
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To receive the attached resolution of the Planning Board.
NEED: On February 17 , 1986, the Planning Board adopted the attached
resolution regarding the "Provision of Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing within the County" .
The Planning Board adopted this resolution in response to
identified impacts of local and regional growth on the Orange
County housing market and potential impacts on the mobile home
sector resulting from the enforcement of recently proposed
mobile home ordinances.
IMPACT: Establishment of the Task Force would provide guidance to the
Boards on housing availability in the County and would allow
for the development of policies to address identified concerns.
The activities of the Task Force would be part of the 1986-87
fiscal year work program.
RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides .
•
PLANNING BOARD 2--1_7-86
024
RESOLUTION FOR PROVISION OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING
WHEREAS Orange County citizens and officials would like
to ensure the continued provision of low- and moderate-income
housing within the county; and
WHEREAS the provision of such housing is essential to
the maintenance of the community as a whole, and to equal
opportunity for all citizens living within that community;
and
WHEREAS land prices and other development pressures are
already effectively excluding the provision of such housing
in many areas of Orange County; and
WHEREAS those development pressures are likely to
continue and spread; and
WHEREAS the effect of those pressures is either to drive
low- and moderate-income families from Orange County or into
rural areas least suited to the efficient porovision of.
extensive housing resources and c.oncommitant services ; and
WHEREAS a clear recognition of such problems led to the
creation in late 1985 of an Affordable Housing Task Force in
the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area; and
WHEREAS the rpoposed Orange County ordinance regulating
mobile home parks idefitifies the provision of adequate
housing as "fundamental to the, welfare of County residents; "
and
WHEREAS the proposed ordinance governing mobile home
parks notes that "conventional housing is not consistently
available" and that , therefore, the need to provide mobile
homes is the method available for addressing "the public need
for alternative housing; " and
WHEREAS such an ordinance regarding mobile home parks
merely addresses part of the problem identified therein; and
WHEREAS Orange County already has a high number of
mobile homes per capita; and
WHEREAS it is unclear whether and which mobile homes
quickly deteriorate in value both for the purchaser and as a
generator of county tax revenues ; and
WHEREAS a thoughtful , coordinated plan for the provision
of adequate housing remains a key element of county planning,
one likely to be further increased in importance by pending
federal revenue cuts ; and
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners have within
their legislative and discretionary authority the means with
which to address this problem;
The Orange County Planning Board hereby recommends that
the Orange County Board of Commissioners establish a task
force and set as a priority matter in the 1986-87 fiscal year
a study for a specified period (90-180 days) resulting in a
comprehensive plan for providing low- and moderate-income
housing within the county. As part of the task force ' s work,
the Orange County Planning Board requests guidance on the
desirability of establishing districts within which to limit
mobile home parks and/or mobile homes .
ORANGE COUNTY 024
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date —MAHCH_L_12B.6._
Actionriftenda
Item IV
SUBJECT: LAUREL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ___Yes _x_ No
Attachment(s) Information Contact : SUSAN SMITH
PRELIMINARY PLAN
VICINITY MAP
APPLICATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
AGENCY COMMENTS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (2-17-86)
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider for approval the Preliminary Plat for Laurel
Springs Subdivision.
To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation.
NEED: The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township on
the south side of Dairyland Road (SR1112) . It is known as Tax
Map 110 Lot 24 in Chapel Hill Township.
There are seventy-six ( 76) lots proposed out of approximately
119 acres . All lots are proposed to be developed at a minimum
lot size of 43 ,500 square feet , excluding rights of-way.
Larger lots are proposed along Morgan Creek.
IMPACT: The property is designated Rural Buffer and Protected Water
Supply Watershed (University Lake) in the Orange County Land
Use Plan. The property is zoned Residential-1 (R-1) and
subject to Protected Watershed-II (PW-II ) overlay district
standards . Surrounding properties are comparably zoned and
include undeveloped land and land developed for residential and
agricultural purposes .
The applicant proposes to develop the site in four (4) phases.
Each phase allows the development of approximately one-fourth
of the total number of lots in the subdivision.
025
LAUREL SPRINGS - PRELIMINARY
MARCH 5, 1986
PAGE 2
At the request of the Planning Board, the applicant provided a
traffic impact study (see attachment ) . Traffic counts for
Dairyland Road (SR1104) taken on 2-6-86 and 2-7-86 between the
hours of 7: 00 a.m. and 6 : 00 p.m. indicated 2 ,219 and 2 ,388
vehicles per day, respectively. The development will generate
760 additional trips per day, but a level of Service A (most
desirable) will be maintained.
All roads proposed to serve the development are to be
constructed to NCDOT subdivision road standards and dedicated
public. A single access road (Laurel Spring Drive) is proposed.
In response to a pre-application request for comment NCDOT
indicated that a single entrance and a left turn lane from the
direction of Carrboro were desirable. The applicant has
complied with these requests .
The property is to be served by individual well and septic
tanks . Larger lot sizes and stream buffers are proposed for
those lots abutting Morgan Creek.
Police, fire and rescue services will be provided by the Orange
County Sheriff ' s Department , South Orange Volunteer Fire
Department and the South Orange Rescue Squad.
Staff solicited Town of Carrboro courtesy review comments .
In response to recommendation #1-4, according to preliminary
OWASA comments , the extension of public water and sewer is
presently technically prohibitive due to the distance from and
size of lines in the vicinity of the site, and package plats
are not acceptable in the watershed by County policy. The
Orange County Subdivision Regulations do not require recreation
space and/or facilities for subdivision in R-1 districts (See
Carrboro recommendation #5) . Dairyland Road (SR1104) is not
classified an arterial warranting a 41 foot cross-section in
either the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan or the Orange
County Land Use Plan. NCDOT recommended and the applicant
complied with the provision of a turning lane from the south at
the entrance to the property. Staff is recommending that a
pedestrian easement be shown within the buffer area as
recommended by Carrboro and provision made in the maintenance
agreement for dedication and acceptance by an appropriate
governing body or public agency at the time the easement would
become part of a public greenway system.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval with the following
conditions :
(1 ) The survey of the stream, floodplain, buffer and drainage
easements and provision of stream buffer calculations and
appropriate designation on the final plat is required
prior to the consideration of the final plat for approval .
LAUREL SPRINGS -- PRELIMINARY 02C
MARCH 5 , 1986
PAGE 3
(2) The provision of culvert(s) details on the plat .
(3) Provision of alternative approved names for Ryan Court and
Seven Springs Court to avoid duplication with existing
road names.
(4) Provision of a 60 ' wide pedestrian easement along Morgan
Creek as recommended by Carrboro and submittal of a
maintenance agreement which shall provide for its
dedication to an appropriate governing body or public
agency at the time the easement becomes part of a public
greenway system.
0 .
• .
.-- - ' ..3 Z
oi
- • O2 2 Pi"'
cD CVi , ,
' - .le
.
; •
.
-:_J , , .
<
. 1 , . ,,
, -- ------
-.7 . N '
- -'
- ul
-7. • ,e)
------7-7-.....
'Y .. ‘P "--..... •,-.- -,-,-..._ -.. -.....--,--
10
........
'• :, ---- . r,--4`. \' '7.1 !
',1'I
. Cs1 .33
..--. V. • •
-.. ---,. • (.0) • -.1 CZ.---"?• -
z 6 -.
• r..,','to 1'"E . 5 '' v/ L'IN-
,
. .
N. . V):. / . - '.N-(rSi\ '• • -
7r.
-_______ ___ __ _2 r-
rzl • / ' I.
•
: •k
..-v e=
_..., (.3 ..--...,
C M
--"I— ---___
>. 0 -r
. .
...-., • co
. ..
in , ., - .. ..■• 3 i_i .
. .
ol
6 '
. ' ,•C cp
. ,
. .
. .
• kl" ' .
aa Cl) •
c 0 •
7
•.
. ,.
--!-:\ - .• - c_.• = fil - . --.......,....,
. \", • .' ' ‘ '
, . : -----. L-, c....
• -1 < ,,.. ... I- C 0
CI) CCC) C ,I a 0
• • Iv
‘• CD CI 0 ..... VA'
:,- ,•,-.6-,- . 1 ---.. a.. 'n . =
CD '-, 72. •.
VIG
1 V4-9-6—.illA r _
4 . • r...,
■./ ' : .....• • • 12.. 1 II
—7'7., ''''"--li"'■ 'L'ii,* P ;, N.2KT.:,--7----- •• --- i
CI, •cC 44 CP .. !
\*. ,_1... " --1 aktr:- :p -.::-., gii io
C
q fO-CIGE ,,.. .. • '
. • 4.1 AV .4 - • 0...In W.,- ..-.--/C- r-
ul ,, ill• ,-,,.,.
.2 Si''. 1.-.V- 1,- •"-,.....
- i u j 171 72 •.. , ..-. ---........:
C
. '■-..:. • I . = 0- .0 0 U
. .
. ft 1.01CL , , = /ge, -J NJ V)
< .:::. .,,r.' . \.:-`,...•.
Pa \-„,:: ,--
ii (.5 / . .
. . .
,- -', < ''..4. ••• , - -.
, . •
,r •-"--01•c,.‘61 . f'_4'. ., . ,
' ,..
'c' r-• ,, -:
N ,:• ,. a ....„,,
\
• ...., ' .., \ ,:,.....,:--1
N . \
' ra • 71"
A • cDs.
.? . . •..,•....... \
, ,..0 v. •
- ;;;;_k,--: 4
1
• -.
‘ t ''''t •
...-. it 2, ----"" •.,•'••:_E .f.7 •.
,....--A . -......
-17'... , ' 7, ---'-•-_........-' :::-._,•-• _.. 3..
,.1 ,.., (... ,, . . sk,Rea, : ;.',..,.: cct......
. . .
. . _ ..... ..
.•:• ....7:7.,---- IX*. .'. ., ,o T;;;. ...0-rii,.,, .... ,,L7:-... ..:.,..:7 .7.11,-.1.i.,.'
• - I-
:.!,...----, 4 _ - ,,.--t., • . • ..-•- ---
.--:',:'.- X. -•!••• ,-,.9! ';.T. - i -;•:'-'-' -Pr ' ' ..
.. .
.....T.
: 7.":- . - ,. 7 ..,:t i t..".,...-.i i„.;-t- .,--•., •:4,--;. V.)
' ...•:.• ,\7,i,7"),,..,;?,.-1:11 F..4 n.-t,...:j. ;...,,.._,C,..; "Lc_,.."4,,,,,-:..• ...c<
. ....,....„:•
\,... ).. •,..:. ,. •r_ ... .
< ,
0,
__. . ,Ift.-• ,• .
,. .,• ..,• ,_
,; 7-1
1 ;' Cr' .2 ' -,:;" •
.I3 • .e.
_
i ,r
'-- cr,
mi
r,--
_ N
r-.
.,1
cr, .
. -41,:-
-..,...
i . ::;-,t-_. '--..-,;.•.:
• \ -::-V..-..: :
• . ...:13, :z.- .
•
, .
•
-- -
--, ,
-....
N
A._
..'j. ..'7. •
• al -, '-‘,.\-- • ...4.4-t, . .-- -,.
.,,•,. , .-„. ! • .4.-
•,. l :Ai. \ ,---
I 1 '-7. • ..•
•----A.)3 '',.."4-- i
•5,eef'4,_ '.:... '":!";•.: r.
1 _.•••*-.--I en , - ---
. ,
-.- .'
02e 11/85
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
ORANGE COUNTY,
DATE: IA?-a7B
SUBDIVISION NAME: JAVR.4.. 1,V 5
LOCATION : .724/,o va /b4-.7-) (.5R1l/R)
OWNER/DEVELOPER: d/RVPS/X, /A/C'• a JljitA/ y Rots RiCi(y
ADDRESS: 70. So 31q3 ' TELEPHONE NO. :
C'1t.IPF7_Hat At a75/ 7
AGENT/CONTACT: -3Vell!OF y TELEPHONE NO. :
A . SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tax Map 1/ . Block Lot(s1 44 Township Cry•
Zoning Districts] : I'-I c ?M(a
Total Number of Acres: /// •/. Phases : -4
Total Number of Lots: _,Z, Average Lot Size: A04‹. Minimum Lot Size
Number/Type of Structures : texi sting 1 _ NONC (proposed) S'NGCE PAMILY
Lineal Feet in Streets: - /•7 miles Acres in Open Space
Water Supply: Public(specify) Community - +-Individual.
Wastewater Disposal : PublicCepecify) Community..Individual
School District: L't/ P /*Lt- eA e o& Fire District: So11719 a&W
Genera L Land Uses i n Area : 1'4' v oP k b 4nrct.., k&a1 0_7mm
Critical Areas : ' ✓ stream/drainageways V flood prone areas
ONN•. ate ,watershed(specify] historic sites
other(explain] / fife _ •
B . ALL plate must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two–
hundred feet (1 "=200' ) and no larger than one inch equals fifty feet
(1 "=50 ' 1 end must contain the following information :
✓ subdivision name V/ building setback lines
✓ name of ownerls) by notation or typical lot
,.r. name of surveyor, engineer or / Layout
/ land planner i ✓ existing and proposed ease—
[title] Preliminary Plan cents (drainage, utilities,
scale, north arrow (North at reeds, etc.)
top of map) existing, proposed and
date (including revision datea)� adjoining rights of way
township, tax map—block—lot including dimensions and
/ references street names end State road
✓ boundary described with v. V/numbers
bearings and distances existing and proposed
total acreage of the tract utilities, including
and acreage of lots, including type, sizes,
and excluding area within hydrants, valves and
/ rights—of—way manholes
control corner existing and proposed culvert
proposed Lot Lines with including sizes end grades
v,/ dimensions
_ lot numbers typical street cross—sections
,
phasing lines and intersection ction detaiaills
topography at ten foot (10) including design and width
it of horizontal way and shoulders
and
intervals V horizontal alignment and
water bodies, streams, flood— general curve data (public
�_ - /way end floodplaine roads)
- _ stream buffers and notation NA permanent features such as
indicating restricted buildings, cemeteries,
development potential / historic landmarks,
township, corporate end extra— adjoining tot layout
territorial planning names of adjoining property
jurisdiction lines which owners end subdivisions
" cross the property
location and size of psrcets dedicated for public use or reserved
/ in common
— 1/ location and Site of Lots of restricted development potential and
V notation on plat regarding same
_— Storawater management plan indicating provision for control of the
first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces
•
LAUREL SPRINGS
11/85
ORANGE COUNTY,
CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF ASSIGNMENT: ,8U$At SMJ TAI
SKETCH PLAN : Received 12-13-85 Reviewed 12-18-85
PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 12-27-85 Reviewed 1-15-86
REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 1-21-86 Reviewed 1-22-86
NCDOT : DATE 10-28-85 CERTIFICATION PRE-APPLICATION COMMENT - SEE LETTER
SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 12-31-8%ertification NO COMMENT
UTLITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamence/Durham) : DATE 12:31-85
Certification NO COMMENT
OTHER : Recreation Advisory Council (Date)
Carrboro Fire Department 1-17-86 (Date)
Chapel Hill (Date)
Carrboro ____1=1/=116_ (Date)
Hillsborough (Date)
Durham (Date)
Other _ (Date )
(Date)
PLANNING PLANNING BOARD : Date 2-18-86 Approval
Approval with Conditions x Denial
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS : Date -- _ PP
A roval
Approval with Conditions DeniaL
L
is
•
Ihi
03C
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
LAUREL SPRINGS
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
IN
ORANGE COUNTY, N.C.
FEBRUARY 1986
PROJECT NO. 51512
PREPARED FOR:
GROUP SIX, INC.
P.O. BOX 3193
CHAPEL HILL,
N.C.
1 Q� � ,fir
I ~ - � l 41111
SEAL
12381
II
PREPARED BY:
PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS
CHAPEL HILL. N.C.
I
. 031
PHILIP POST
Er ASSOCIATES
Es.3'tiEERS PL AAI•:ERS SuPVEVOgs
#51512
February 11, 1986
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT REPORT
LAUREL SPRINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Applicant: Group Six, Inc. , Partners
P.O. Box 3193
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
PurDpse:
This report will determine the affect of the Laurel Springs
Subdivision on the traffic on Dairyland Road CS.R. 1112) and
Union Grove Church Road CS.R. 1179) .
Procedure
1 . Determine the road conditions
' ? a) Pavement and lane widths
b) Existing grades
c) Site distances
Ay d) Type of intersection
e) Shoulders
f) Surface condition
g) Alignment
�. Determine traffic factors
"' a) Dumber of trucks
b) Number of buses
c) Lane distribution .
d) Variation in traffic flow
e) Traffic interruptions .
3. Determine existing traffic conditions (Do traffic
counts)
4. Traffic Generation by protect
5. Analyze data
6. Conclusion and recommendation
-mss
•
#51512
Transportation Impact Report
February 11 . 1986 O d
Paae Two
Data:
The existing road is an NCDOT road design with the standard
20 foot of pavement with a 5 to 6 foot shoulder tapered into a
ditch line 5 feet from the edge of the shoulder. The road is
equally divided into two standard lanes. The site distances
fall below the critical vertical alignment factors specified by
NCDOT. The alignment and grades do not affect the flow 'of
traffic. The• intersection from Dairyland to Union Grove Church
Road is properly designed to a good service level.
The traffic factors indicate that the lane distribution is
not constant. The inbound lane carries the majority of traffic
in the morning and the outbound lane carries the traffic in the
afternoon. There are no traffic interruptions due to the volume
of traffic. The number of trucks is approximately 14N of the
total traffic but is not a factor during the peak periods of the
day.
The traffic counts are broken down hourly in Appendix A as
they pass by the entrance of the subdivision.
Trio Generation:
According to the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip
Generation Report. a single family housing unit will produce 10
daily trips. NCDOT indicates that each single family housing
unit will generate 9.3 daily trips .
The Laurel Springs single family subdivision has 76 units
kr. which will generate approximately 760 total average trip ends
per day.
Table I provides the resulting trip ends for, this project
for average daily tre-ilic <ADT) conditions for A .M. and P.M.
peak conditions. Under full development , Laurel Springs
Subdivision will have 380 trips to the site and 380 trips away
from the site on a typical weekday . The A .M. peak hour traffic
will be 17 trips to the site and 42 trips away from the site.
The P.M. peak hour traffic will be 48 trips to the site and 28
.:rips away from the site . Trip generation for Laurel Springs is
VP
summarised in Table I below.
O3 -
#51512
Transportation Impact Report
February 11, 1986
Page Three
. Table I .
Trip Generation Summary
24-hour 7:00-9:00 A.M. 4:00-6:00 P.M.
t Two-way Peak Hours Peak Hours
`. Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
760 17 42 48 28 -
Existing Road Conditions: .
Per the NCDOT manual "Highway Capacity", levels of service
and maximum service volumes on a two-lane highway under uninter-
rupted flow conditions (Normally representative of rural
operations) .
Flow in both directions
Level of Service Description per hour
A Free flow 400 cars
B Stable flow 900 cars
C Stable flow 1400 cars
D Approaching unstable
flow 1700 cars
E Unstable- flow 2000 cars
,E F Forced flow widely variable
I * See Appendix B for definitions.
Determination of Intersection Capacity:
The intersection capacity analysis for use in site planning
application is based on the "Critical Movement. Summation"
technique developed by McInerney and Petersen _ Table II gives
. . - the capacity ranges of an intersection for each level of
service.
'_:Ti Intersection Capacity by p S
P v v L�� 1 of Service
Level of Service Range of Capacity (VPH)
Mg
A !? - High
rit 0 900
B 901 1050
C 1051 1200
f, D 1201
1350
F 1351 1500
(Special case) 1500
Iv
,r
I�
• .034
#51512
Transportation Impact Report
February 11, 1986
Page Four
Intersection flows:
' 7:00 - 9:00 A.M. (using traffic counts and adding
subdivision flow)
LI IIoN C.MuRcN
� 3
��8 _ .¢ y7
----> 22 DA1RYLArsa,
‘1 if A
!7 42
1.... SC18DIvl5lotom!
4:00 - 6:00 P.M. (using traffic counts and adding
subdivision flow)
UNION G kU Iz G h{
01
195
75" -- S D P.I P`Y L A.NI IC
23
143
-5UtBL ' JIS;ON.
• ,
o3
#51512
Transportation Impact Report
February 11 , 1986
Page Five
Data Comparison: Hourly maximum
Road
t.�Y�� Y'::= Level of Service Current Allowable Current Used Pro-ected
A 400 339 404
t
B 900 7�8:OOAM 5--6:OOPM
C 1400
on on
D 1700 2-7-86 2-7-86
E 2000
I . Intersection
Level of Service Current Allowable Current Used Pro-ected
1 41
Low High
A 0 900 339 404
8 901 1050 7--8:0
OAM 5-6•
C 1051 .00PM
1. 1200 on on
c D 1201 1350 2-7,-86 2-7-86
E 1351 1500
F Special Case
.
L,7
Suggested Improvements:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has
suggested that a left. turn lane be added to Dairyland Road
^' =or the traffic coming from Calvander.
This improvement will increase the intersection level of
; .r. �er•viee and increase the pavement widths through the inter-
section .
1
Conclusion
he
Service level '•C" is considered to be an acceptable level of
, service in Orange County per conversations with the planning
IJ staff.
Per the numbers shown in the previous pages, the level of
' service for this road and intersection is above the '•C" service
Level after completed construction. It is therefore concluded .
that the increase of traffic from this subdivision will not
,q arm !n;sely affect the ?','el ci se.'vicr! Qr thi rc, id .
•
M51512 O. ft
Transportation Impact Report
February 11, 1986
IIPage Six
1.i
Appendix "A"
Time February 6, 1986 February 7. 1986
7:00 - 7:30 AM 137 143
7:30 - 8:00 AM 215 196
8:00 - 8:30 AM 155 165
- 8:30 - 9:00 AM 111 119
9:00 - 9:30 AM 83 70
9:30 -10:00 AM 52 69
10:00 -10:30 AM 53 77
10:30 -11 :00 AM 62 70
11 :00 -11 :30 AM 63 ?3
11 :30 -12:00 AM 61 74
12:00 -12:30 PM 73 69
12:30 - 1 :00 PM 65 85
1 :00 - 1 :30 PM 56 89
4 1 :30 - 2:00 PM 73 90
2:00 - 2:30 PM 77 7 7
2:30 - 3:00 PM 75 106
3:00 _ 3:30 PM 97 81
A 3:30 - 4 :00 PM 103 114
4:00 - 4:30 PM 106 129
4:30 - 5:00 PM 170 162
5:00 - 5 :30 PM 162 182
5:30 - 6:00 PK 170 146
Data cc•11ec_td by Luke B . Pander and Susan Coffee.
1
s
:F
i
- #51512 .
Transportation Impact Report
February 11, 1986
Page Seven -
' Appendix "B.. •
Operating Conditions for Levels of Service:
tk. Level of Service A: This is a condition of free flow,
accompanied by low volumes and high speeds.
Level of Service B: This occurs in the zone of stable flow,
with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by
traffic conditions.
Level of Service C: This is still in the zone of stable flow,
but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by
k. the higher volumes.
r; -
Level of Service D: This level of service approaches unstable
flow, with tolerable operating speeds being maintained, though
I-• considerably affected by changes in operating conditions.
Level of Service E: This cannot be described by speed alone,
1 but represents operations at lower operating speeds, typically,
� but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 miles per hour, with
volumes at or near capacity of the highway ,
:if. Level of Service F: This describes a forced-flow operation at
low speeds, where volumes are below capacity_ In the extreme,
1 both speed and volume can drop to zero.
_,.
..:
i
1
yZ.
1 R'
I ,
0
. . .
ti
.
.
4.1 #51512 03
Transportation Impact Report
February 11 , 1986
0 Page Eight
0 • .
1.1
El “...(:)( --°-4.2- .■:, .\"-\\,:, \._. 1 ..7 • ,.............::'. -......
- ...... •
•• • ‘...,‘ ,,,,,,\
`7"..
.....
\-..
p....- , \
'...._-• , . \---.-1 •,._,
..' \ :i '...)..' (s' • :,-.-'-' . ---\\N ' .
....
i I• --•. ,
II -
- '..._... "_..'"--
' , r_.)\A, (
...._‘ „\\.. ... .. ita n..,.,
- 1
._ --C:77 . , --------1:i' d •-___---- - 488
........_...... . __'4 .- .! ' I • .
0/* ----0V---11 '..I
11 ,.___ ._.. _
- ,-- . ----.,,A. --,- -77.:—\.-- ---. =--,f--. c .,. //
. __ _.,..._;,.. „ — .„1,
-.........------,=.. .,
..m. ! i, ,,-:„,. .. . ..... ,,:,,,
,...-......:,, ,, .--:----:y/". /,:.....—
;11 .
,,--
.,..,ITE/( '''. '
, , _ , a N."); ‘\,,-....eif ,.7 .1 ;);..22 t
-_,—a....... s. i, _ I il y,
---' "
--,.. • . '..-‘ : 1 Ca "ilt\s1=LAill--"-f ; '- ' s`
41 :
,, .---• ,..-i-..• •■ -"'• ' ',/ 1 7 ,.4z2...,:;,--- d: '': '..\)% (----.\ i.
..ili,...,...,.. '''. --'--\ "g NV1-----.-----"',5:%_:; )
•.....,,,.--, : /.... Calvander) . 5, .-- -
,,--:-.-i , / -<-, .'-, -. ',... - ---
--... ,. ...- /
U .. ......_.... _. /..;- , i BM\ ---,. ...%'::". •,
1 _.," ''TI..-,...-•
_
..... :-e."-; . if 1`= / :4-553. ., ( iSs4AJN-......, i ---' ;7 ;--1- _-=-7:
>t.t - ..--::----"----------1 (/' '
\/.....",.--;-,,,‘....:,..,.„:4. / . ,: ;:„_..._ ' ,-, sr-;:,..-•:, _ --. i 2 .•,
' I . / I
1 _,_:__...... -.:.,,-.;,, _,. . .. c , 0 . •, .: t
, .. .
r7-- ilauret--:--, . - '-
• .. •
-
-... ---,...:-; N--,
...7" '." 53•Zs)..ifth ...• . , '/ V...--r ; ' -IN: : ..-
_. ,.V 1-•c't.
,,.. -) )i (' ,,,.._z---- -- •• • ,. . ._ •:,-,. .,..4' ` ' ‘,._ --.., \.i
-' -,,,-. ■1,
Il ',... , . ., :_ ..= ..,',& -
i -••-_____-- ,o,
, •• .
t, /
,,,,-,..F..-:-._t...: \--Ft..7::•••,,. 4,.._ /', q _„.N. i: A • '-
, -------,
, ; ks45. --
.--`-'4•-:---7- 7'-- "\.1•4 It.. - i•k -I ;' •,-- -,.. _,------`); ---(:,,,_ 1
‘'. ' -"--.1--7\,—,.-_-_-.-:---
'r-..---'-.r:-\\_,,,S.?, '-, 7-7,=--_-_-•j--;/-• -.;.'- 1 - . •
,----------
NI t. •II.-.-. -. -; -..--.:.-_-r- .41 a IN
/ \-...-- - ' '
-,,-.---- : , . __ .
-
-•• -...----1 -
.6 , ;- ..,-,., -
1.1
- .. , - • --- ----\,... 1.:.____
. -\. --j- :::6; 11.. .4:.---"---i - .--- - -- -7. -- • .',"--i.......,
.._ - I f. • - : ) E
_ 1,,isCheekCen,-_...:\\', , C
I. - - \ .'V--' ' 0.r:••)- i Kr'
1 i -
,. .
-4. - : -..-.-_'_.;.' '' ,•
.-- (..: .
.,..,_,. __ , • .„ -''; -
...- , . a: ,..4- .-. a .
-.. . .__ .
. • • ,1
---
r\ •-- -;',- --.-----.\ : .--- ' -
---:v..- z-- -- '
,-,, .,-
I•• ' - •
"--.,,,, .. •.,a-. / \
1,1 . I ,.`,..;,---.,_, /,:/,'i tIr.:',7-.-,': ) -:"'/. ' '-''''' -= .-___.- s.t.5"--, .. • .
1 I • ,. ;\,-
1• -`... . • /
# -( t 1\ ...„_____P.__.ilan taftiiii Lc're7i.:-1;j:"-jc: . ‘,../
• •8P• s‘"--. . I _
c. I.
• •
• .,:.:•.,:_•.;-' . ,'I, .51 (- a -. I
r•II Till4 Cera.) • • •. :'. .....,.:' -.
11 • , ,..:•.. , ,, , , .
.c,....„:„......_;,....____.,. • ,..,.. . . b I
..,4
-/ /
Ei . -- -■'-•-' ---:‘-- -0,-4-* 1 - --1 .i
•
I .,.,-- ..... i• . ,. . .
11
L___
i
1
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
' FOR SITE OF
LAUREL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
DAIRYLAND ROAD
CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JANUARY 1986
PROJECT NO. 51512
1
PREPARED FOR:
GROUP SIX, INC. •
P.O. BOX 3193
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
27514
1
1
1
PREPARED BY:
PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
1
1
.III
PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, .INC. JOB Gm- •sl ..t► - :al o 5.6. :.0
• r�� '
Engineers/Planners/Surveyors • SHEET NO. I OF 6 au;
100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208
. •CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514. CALCULATED BY Tn+W DATE lz/z6/85
• (919) 929.1173 493-2600
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
a ° 4
:..._....Toot ....... ea�............ '.......po ..., t /7.9..:..�........A . ,
..... ....:...
/''' e
. '... . u: Ccnrilew.. f ' _ff. �- . .u � r a .. op � ...r+ ctiev ..._.r redl...-.. s.;..... _
.,
1 t� .
_ .... .I.. .ev.14 0 : .ia CIA....... .tah,efe._s. 0-C__ -ELi- t 1T$v8r.[a --twt T►-e— cjtY �_...
Pas It
,
_ Wi ._.
I
C
_-..._.7�—°_*---._...�._. ...._..._.. ...._...-.._ ..._. ;
i i _ � L 1? _�� 'li•I— Y�1? . -
-
{ r
T _ : _ Y
T . . ! =
vez eo n. r w-
P
,
¢...._..._.._....._ A ._ �t ..... rW_Q£ -4 _. .fe,.._f.�6
I
i
..
1
IL .._.........i.............;...:.:Sub._..bash........'': la. .N. a .., ` ..1' �. .....:�� 9 ib�� Aka.• 4fe L
i
. O -D
1
t.c .. 1L{- S6
,
I
• • 3oafl
3
7th .... (Iti., . 7 1.0 ..................._....._......._..G
7
•
70 1a� S
15 LZ •
i
:
r
:.........._.i._......99 / _f �j
deV,eda .„,m: ,...' i 9rrcc o.v4(4� - a 40 . _...
•
I r ... I
-
----- ............... PSf'_. der_ . .. ..
L
Us
% Q A. Q •
.18 f Sy s Z
_..........._................_............ ................... 0.94
r
d
•
.
z.5 •a
. 6.Z
•
PAm11QM4I[ J;K,6,Nan.Na.OI17t.
I
I
I • PHILIP/POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. - Joe GrouP stx sID - Rat PggiGtl GRauP .
Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 8
SHEET NO. 2, OF .
• 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208
CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY rhilA) DATE 12/2d/S5
(919) 929-1173 493-2600
CHECKED EV .
DATE
I SCALE -
. i • i .
.. .. .
. .
: r
• ;
. .
. :
1 :
1 .
. : .
•
. i .
•
. - .
. :
I..
i
- :
. :
. .
! .. . . .... : ,. .E..........1....Z..C■.......7,... .0.:Z6 - 0,24i = 0.-D6
: -
- ......................1. . 0-4/4 frterb- ear;ired
c r A
- ,t! ;
-
.
-
.
.... ........... _
. ;
1
(04o.X.171.,/0 -3
-45 ' ; cgs
- ---- -
-,-t--- ,„--_,.1
- -
I .
4,— .1 !
1 -.-
: . I
, I 1 :petiLv4II 0.„.0,10.,... ,
' I i
' ■ :
I !
i' : I
I I
; 1 StSig.i.a : -1 .A Ac.
: .
I 1 I C 0.46
i -
r .
-
1 1 t A 1.1 q.511 .
1 Lc, = 2 wa...n. 1...tes .-----". -Imis; ---7. .6..8...84, _r_
.
-
: 2740'
.• ; : .
t .E. I
-- ' -
t. 1040. 0 (0,_24,xs,ey&o.. = go.- cm.
.
---i -1-- +
. ,
t
, -
- i
i 1.t. 1-- 3 ii,„■,,,„ie4 _
: 1
4 , t ■__.
r "
r
n :.r- - -r.r
MXtro..1.-ven. Puffin%) l'i iii...a tiv. :. = Z .5 e ,s-
•
t . _
: t .
. -
- -
, .
. ,
, ...._...
- -
-
GeV; .47.. C7 i
:
.-:
.
:
.
:
.
, ■ 4 ,
i 7 -
- r .
1 ........... E144
0-vir H40 A/304r 1 rrOlf4e4 i Ard.,_ i Xvic.Ifemoilat. .: . 0 ...Y4 AltrA.,
i f 1 '
rti,...0 .tsv4f (Fftti..,....,1.... .1. (P-1 ; , 1 _...i. iv .. (fe)
..0... -
- .
!0 :
:
:
.
. .
,•
.. . t .
:
5 ! - .. I Sea-oL i
:
-
- -
1 zi SOo t .:
:
_-, ,-
I al450.0 ! .
:
i • ,
196, ..
.
16 .1 1 68 zod
• .... -
-
:384 OZ.'0 i
itt05 SOO
:1 .,
t-; 500
_.
. .:
... :
1 :
: - -
. .
: -
- .
: : : .....„...... -
4.G.): __
a
:
V= 64-4,..„::-- !...(6.?cis)(13 ..: Y.:.±L.::- : - ; ezie fit
-
. .
: -
..... ..._
. -
.._... .... ..... .......... Es-76,,,....f.c.1......rile-4. .. 1 alt -
0.).. .qe..._.. ...er.11,...5.... .thy.,,....#8./
. .
. -
. .
. .
, .,..
.
- ° I
.
: ;
.
.
1 :
.
'
: :
;
i
, '
:
, .
' .
Oujiet : I 18" RtP
Meta 0 ELEV. 475.0
"L1,1----- INFLOW
STORAGF 04
HERD
(CFS) (CF ) (F- ET) OUTFLOW
. 0 0 (CFS)
0 ' . 0
0 0.0
, 0
0. 3 O. 0 0. 0
9. 9 0, 0
, . .
1. 3 9. 9
0. 0
2 39. 4
. 9 0. 0
49, 3
5 0. 0 0. 0
88. 1
. 2 137. 5 O. 0
O. 0
155. 0
8. 0 292. 3 0. 1
'. ■. a3e. 9 0. 0
11. 4 531. 4 0. 1
.7._.,. .t.- 337. 9 0. 1
15. 2 889. 3 • 0. 2
-1 t. 450. 0 0. 2
19. 5 1319. 3 0. 3
572. 7 0. 5
24. 2 189 '. 0 0. 4
., 703. 2
_. 0. 8
29. 2 2595. 2 0. 6
1. 3
"- _ 34. 4 3433. 7 0. 8
973, 8
C. 0
39. 6 4407. 5 1. 0
1 -2 :-.,
097. 8
45. 3 5505. 3 1. 3
7. 0 ..)
1197. 7 L-. -2
-
50. 7 6703. 0 1. 6
7. 2
1304. 6
55. 1
6007. 6 1. 9
8. 9
61 . 3
9421. 5 2. 2
b. L, 10. 8
1515. 4
65. 3 10936. 9 1"... 5
1619. 4
9. 0 12. 3
71. 0 12555. 3 2. 9 7
171é.. 5.
3. 5 13. 7
75. 3 14272. 8 3. 3
1808. 0
79. 1 16074. 8 3. 7
• _ f 1874. 0 16. 7
i38. T-__,. 17948. 8
11:191
4. L.„
1938. 1
85. ,i, t 9986.. 9 4. 6
198(1. 0
87. F., el 874. 0 5. 0
. - ) Z-OL=.3. 4
2n. 1
23897. 3 ,..1. 4-.:-
205 9. 6
90. 2 25957. 0 5. 4
2 20. 9
077. 3
50. tfi 28034. 3 5. 5
L
0 21. 3
2076.
30110. 3 5. 7
21. 7
2055. 5
,.-0._ : ■
-- --- -
d.t. ::: 87. 6 34182. 0 - 5. 9 2E:3 it
1958. 1
=
_- _c,
85. 3 36140. 1 6. 1 ea. s
O4 t! 1682. 6
82. 5 38022. 7 6. 2 ea. 8
1790. 4
79. 1 39813. 1 6. 3 23. 0
1682. 6
.6. t. 75. 4 41495. 7 -6. 4 23. 2
1565. 8
L7. C' 71. 8 43061. 5 6. 5 23. 4 '
1450. 0
68. 3 44511. 5 6. 6 23. 6
1340. 1
. 8. 0 64. 9 45851. 6 6. 6 23. 7
1235. 8
61. 8 47087. 3 6. 7 23. 9
1136. 8
4
19. 0 58. 7 48224. 1 6. 8 24. 0
• 1042. 8
19. 5 55. 9 49266. 9
. 6. 8 24. 1
9536
I
20. 0 53. 2 50220. 6 6. 9 24. 2
868. 9
ao. 5 50. 6 51089. 5 6. 9 24. 3
788. 6
21. 0 48. 1 51878. 1. 7. 0 24. 4
712. 2
45. 8 52590. 3 7. 0 24. 4
639. 8
I p-oe. 0 43. 5 53230. 0 7. 0 24. 5
571. 0
53
41 . 4 53801. 0 7. 0 24. 5
, 505. 6
23. 0 39. 4 54306. 7 7. 1 24. 6
443. 6
37. 5 54750. 3 7. 1 24. 6
4 384. 8
1 ..._4.. 0 3 .. 6 55135. 1 7. 1 24. 7
3E8. 9
33. 9 55463. 9 7. 3. 24. 7
275. 8
•J. S, 3E. 2 55733. 8 7. 1 24. 7
L.-4-J
DC.= .",
. ,..F
1
30. 7 55955. 2 7. 2 24. 7
I 177. 7
29. 2 53142. 9 7. 2 24. 8
132. 3
27• 7 5627'6. 2 7. 2 24. 8
89. 3
26. 4 56364. 5 7. 2 azi. 8
48. 4
25. 1. 56412. 9 7. 2 24. 8
9. 7
0 23. 9 56422. 6 I 7. 2 24. 8 I pas.
-27. 1
22. 7 56395- 4 7. 2 24. 8
-62. 0
I:7:J. si 21. 6 56333. 4 7. 2 24. 8
-95. 1
Ll'..:). ",5 20. 5 56238. 4 7. 2 24. 8
-126. 4
30. 0 19. 6. 561 .L,:-'. 0 7. 2
-156. 1
31. o 1 (. I M5( (1. a (. 1 G&►.. (
-211. 0
31. 5 16. 8 55560.5 - 7. 1 24. 7
-236. 3
3; . u 1,6. 0 55324. 2 7. 1 24. 7 ��11
, -260. 3 044
32. 5 15. 2 55063. 9 7. 1 24. 7
i
-283. 0
;;3. c:: 14.5 . 54780. 9 ?. 1 24. 6
-304. 5
33. 5 13. 8 54476. 4 7. 1 24. 6
-324. 8 '
34. 0 13. 1 54151.6 7. 1 24. 6
•
. -344. 0
34. 5 12. 5 53807. 6 7. 0 24. 5
-362. 2
-",.5. 0 11. 9 53445. 3 7. 0 24. 5
-379. 4
35. S 11. 3 53065. 9 7. 0 24. 5
-395. 7
_:w. 0 10. 7 52670. 2 7. 0 24. 4
-411. 1
_ ,. ; 10. 2 52259. 2 7. 0 24. 4
-425. 6
37. 0 9. 7 5.1833. 6 6. 9 24. 4
I -439. 2
bf w :� p. 4 51394. 4 6. 9 24. 3
If 7
-452. 1
35. 0 8. 8 50942. 2 6. 9 24. 3
-464. 3
35. S 8. 4 50477. 9 6. 9 24. 2
475. 8
3 . 0 8. 0 50002. 1 6. 9 24. 2
-486. 6
39. :1 7. 6 49515. 6 6. 8 24. 1
-496. 7
. 7. 2 '49018. 9 6. 8 24. 1
-506. 2
40. 5 6. 8 48512. 7 6. 8 24. 0
-515. 2
41. i 6. 5 47997. 5 6. 8 24. 0
41. 5 6. 2 47473. 9 6. 7 23. 9
-531. 4
4.77. 0 5. 9 46942. 5 6. 7 23. 8
-538. 8
4a-t... 5. 6 46403. 7 . 6. 7 23. 8
--545. 7
43. G 5. 3 45858. 0 6. 6 23. 7
-w5---, 1
L3. 5 5. 1 45305. 9 6. 6 23. 7
-558. 1
44. 0 4. 8 44747. 8 6. 6 23. 6
-563. 6
44. 5 4. 6 44184. 1 6. 5 22. 5
-568. 8
45. 0 4. 4 43615. 3 6. 5 23. 5
-573. 6
1T:5. 5 4. 2 43041. 7 6. 3 23. 4
-578. 0
4 ,. 0 3. 9 42463. 7 6. 4 23. 4
-582. 1
4E, 5 3. 8 41881. 7 6. 4 1.-..., 3
-585. 8 1
,, / ,1 3. 6 41295. 9 6. 4 23. 2
•
PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. roe . . , .
I .
I Engineers/Planners/Surveyors
.
SHEET NO, • OF g
100 Eastowne Drive • Suite 208
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY IMO DATE
-'■ (919)929-1.173 493-2600
0 4—....
CHECKED BY DATE
- - SCALE
' .
• ; : L : i i
. :
. . . ■ , ; :
--------i;---------:-'--''' i!
"-•----"'1;E w:'Cett;7:'i eta I 7 a 41•.01!'!i-v:4 i I z!; ,i:i I 1 i i 1 w':
-- i • i
•
. .
: .
. 7 z
--- --- w - a
: w z • - • : .
4 • -1- 4 t t i .
ii .: E: ;! I- f • I -:- --4.. 4- .- : ,- 4 : .
A 51J-9 It d afree I 1 I 6114,14" •07, 074;m41144.d ;
i
f
I- 1 I Ktuleci jr;-1411ef dek444_ 401_ irtririct ,iiii4L. .41,04t ÷:piette4J, i.c4-.4.814._..
.
,
; ,
, , ,
..,, , : " I i 1 7 4 i i 7 • i ; .
y -- -
I i 1 1 COI .0.7 44'411-..4. .6— isttii'r r Ito-4? 1-P .... 1 ik.f." i slit%•
z , z
, i
, . z
is. : - 4 id : 7Z 1C:eil"
...___........._.___4......________a_k_.4.....4' ...9.r........_..1....0Xp4e4.__.......ximLO., . VIVI.7 yeat",_ -47Torlmn, ! ..t.ter..o .. : ± .;
1 • I t r 1
1
f(chlt. iirfgz. ' ) ' "f Eizr...; /8" ies:7' i..r usio( ci 4a-7.6f.r.g.x
z., -i
: 4 ! k., 1 I.; i . . ,
Lb/. t_: ii. 4.; ! ii
..10.1.0.04:4 Cfr..1_ .4 _I. kuistiri.4. .1.i& .CladV4.. ....4140414.4 ikes ! Uk.f.f. 1 i ,
1:-- i .I ■ ' ' i '
i
.......-..,............ Li ' ' ! ! E t '
*1" I eieia,f103.1. fr E 486:0 - . .
--- -----,
. .
, ; ; - -
-,- r-- ; ;-;- ; ---i- 1— - - — ..
: , : , : • •
; • i :: ", ; , ;
- ,
477 4- ! -17 1 - 4 -i ,- --4- 4 4 ! ;
4
- ;
; 1 • • t .
. ;
i •
. .
7 71 i . •
I r .
-1- —!--' t
.1/ i .. I i 1 N. !
; i 1 YUif."1 P14 iT ry! (10 1- Ude 1 54-evw,t) . 1 1 I I 1 !
---1- : •
. . .
, . /
. . . .
. i
_
i
i . : : : " Li i Li &.•'1: 1 /1.• 1 ....:•_,_
; : i Pr -1Daitternt44-:. Hawi tvc..- `:'-re'
z.15 Cc:5 - '4. 1 i
,. i . . ,
: 1 1 i i Post -1 Nil' e.1672144- F1D-7.41 -0-0, :. t;fe,.
. - Cdrtii44 04ecfovk!
. 7 i
.-.
: __
i4)1.fle, P e■te410.." Z/L ,3 cf-5
. . .
He). a f Oatee ii,,L gar;1......
- 7,t f•ekt i i
..; I i i
X klith. 06-14)144e. .G4A-v".. ISackv,„. i ! 1: V.- ?, :..F.s ...
. . . . ..
7 i .. .. .. ..
. . . .
. . .
, .
: .
. :
• ,
■ . ''.. - . ,...._- ............
. . .• . .
. ,
. .
: .
. .
.• . . .
• -
, .•
- -
, .
. ,
. :
. , .
. .
1 :
. .
. . .
. : . . . .
: . .
: .
. . .
, . :- : • . .
: .
T ' . . . .--;! ! 4 • 4 i
: .
■ . .
. • :
z ,
. .•
. :
. • •
.. .
: .,...,. ...........
.
. .
:
. .
_..„..t.---......i
: 1 '
i , w
z
T
. , 1
I ! 1 i i 1 ; 1 1
. .
• '
ionfIrmtu Cvvas-a71.., r.....•I.*111.71
iftri .....„ v: 1� ,�' ,fir/' �x ����
-•k`•--• •- ��
: d F a
:44j!
?
O
:1744:� co 2 r ��aa�e�at : i\y a` : 0.4 \,.... ,.. I
..- cip _,,,--‘L b_ ..f -...._____ •,_„:7L-- . ,.,..„,_.01 1 _ 0... .5
1 -",,,......../7_,/---/ZST; y}
ill •.• •' J r, ---I...--(22
. --..� � " ./� • . � L1 s ll l ' • . • • . _ r ,Y r w I s i w ww -
/41111_ ~a • - j..... .,* +
1, 1/11,. . , . I.__,7-teNr ,....., )5wii? , :',,-----:_ --■„\---,---___ . -,-, d‹ .. :2-4-
CO
k •-)\ --------",\,..,_ u) :1-,-,'° el '.'-Z
•- ‘‘- ''(._:_.,....___,,-.._.-• '',..„‹._?..)---/- 1,-,, 1 °i --k-):\-Lli-Th cr eri 7)ifi. '-i x U)
:-......_-:::•• ''',
0 . . ...,,,,,,;111 I/ . -- '' :.;cjii ._ ',. V . -,--A.
) jr. ..'. I ., , (4\, . . .../..-- if; , .
11) 1-\ \\-= _// A... _.cl, -_,,, , _,..v„ , .6 / z _ , _,„ . . ,
) i , . .,.. ..., ..i. ,-- . .
- y I,-;....„.
, • .:' . : liN i CI• 8_. ,. ._....„
!iii _ ,• •.„.• 4.1"...„6
�
ti .
14 C Lw� l C a r • tl .tz
��a r/'� \ tP i 014)(P-/-
w ar
f� - ; \� -t'y 450 Q r:•'''.-\\ .,:__., ....i2
�_C '_� �,i '�' '';,�,•:,:- k.„.,.,..
„h . - ;, .�„.i � '����• � .r - � 1�� _ ° `ice ,- __-, ..._.. ,..../i,
• i: .,'c:7.;'l'; !! 'I }q'{�' '�7 1”'r., I ' ,��.' 1• '�'u�'r ' {L. .y :
•L --.;''.:;;;;;;j1'..''+ .i�' - . -44: `- 1'� ,I'`�A-! \ N.----..'- ' 'l '; !/ \\ti`r i'�� TLSY_. !' T�.',•' "4?.,'*••rzi .f gip!►�r'!x"i!!h % ,Nr�(rtff �� — �. Y �. �� ,.., �- 41'.
n,�r•!�iiT?T M'�
41" .�,. :.., ?! r.• .� ' o r � Vi c:. .�..+fir\ +,...._,....L i I)'41. \ t V. ,_
�`- a,
■JEtte-clik.' ..):).....3 1^4\ II . .1.,r- 71P17' -\.
- -)\-.>?Lly--Vr-,)c,,,,,-, L._iNS-1....!...1---?..4, ....., ,,---''-i-C":" ;\\C' it/c; <s Al......--71.. ' ' 1 _4:44 1 0.?<'(:.
NJ I
/ri ! t 1
is. ►=. " `� �
!-=yr ' ` ,) ; A`: ; e , `� o \75,--4 %,..--:',/)):'
_
\,r\_...-. ' \ le ' - ./- --9 - ,1' ) Nok ,,,- ---#722(----;:.;-1_,;---;. , ,,_)
../ 0) ,, * ,-------.4;";„:::••••:-•-■ •.
,•„..Irr• .2, _,!....;....),./ , .., - r -,.r, T --Oil? .,. 1!1(-I: ----`, T-.
� 74 ,� w. �S.{: r +.V N' '' .`. mot -`-50. .%•
.et: •� T.w.-.sky + •••
4iiii. - -'..t, . -;.`" . • ' \e. -
M '?i 1--
A-4—....i.‘,.a: (-; :-,-/ --G�
' f+,,, ) / ' ``f . u BN48 'Z Z its
U
rn
PJJ
w U.
• ,f" 1 -.• 1 .)c L° 'N fi CO
r C) . - 1 . (1),... 6_ ..7.,••-, •c•-•-c.,..../.--12 8 1-.)- r.1:, "--. . 1. .' _coLuo_ti ch24 :: _ p_ Diz
1 • \._..) k„,. -.., . . hil44". . ..,.-- a. ,
ob;),:,,,_,...,;-.-1., Alottl , � a •
1
1
' q A, _
_ .no �� �Y . - e' .
r ir---A ' 1 r.gi. J ..---,.. - r---. * .0,. . _ ,, .
fe")•', '. .)'\ •,..,--• 'v,..,-, . 4,,,, 4 zi•••1 :ff.c'.,-;-i 1. --- - '' .. 1; •i"P` ../I, "1,,,, 1 • •••• -. '_,,,..e•-••,,'1
• -w�, _ lam. , c
• r r );....c: *..� lam,
, . : ... 1., - ' . jp:)...) .---
�� � i ' � '� n. - Tom _ r.,/,
_v,...:0 r. . \ii.siriks\- - : - si.... 3.5_:\''''llr--r _ ... .. V / A41,11116 r -/, " 44 -'. ° - 4:_1116\*7 1 til: -
,"
1 .
. ,..„.. ..._4-7 .....4..„- . ,,,,44,....„.„......._ ,,, ____. ,
4.-------1417.....7:p-,1. /.1-,,,d7 ---:-,,.....ir :...:s:;,,,.\,,;•.xs:g.....\ .----,: ‘%... ._40- -skeli -.11,4\,.......lvi.,,'( ..! L �' - ,} -. \J ; 1. '' ,.. 1 .,.• ___.,... •
.:.,--•%..--.1', , .!' .1 .1. '`i:;?!!4!'N:i`/ \.i• .� •�.' � � .��� �'''''' ,?:••(ST' �: r f .��•-,h
1. ' ••.'• . . •,.n j r lti �„ �,C�:� l .-.14 7 • .. %.4.,t r ::4V
1 .4 r , I°"7::•c�7,•q I,:, , el i•ti ll,...,14...,-...-
�1f t>�iPI.F'• r• � �'O /�� 5,'-- r ) $• \ 7L'� r, all... I •
S,.-•-"i=•n .... ..,..;. -... ' ry ..∎.. r''.1...':•-i!f :- ' � �' 4 'Y_G�o-, � \\ '•j.' •:' .jrr:,• ue •�
Ifs �::-•- - - �v� •l;1-Y! •r..,�F .• �J ``may— Jrw� / ri,� �`J =•,y ��.-.5)
mil `�' � '\� '`` I Y 1,40,
_2's — ,OC.';;_-‘ —___, ' '))) .. 0/if/ -"'---" ' . .0 _, -_,_,- ---- /1}..,%ylki.e..,,,, \ ,= 731 1-",:. ) I 111 <7, ,
•\ - iii err i..�^!` -_,r, ..�1 '111' �C, \ • • �'7 ('-' . -Q F•• -
d.
!-�`="� '� _ -, \\S,'''''&;:.....r,,,,....., ...„-NI
•:. .` V.:�, WA•'11 ; '
'c;�,� : .� � � •,� ('. � tom,) i. ��_ •�.): �—'�.� j��l " , `,�,� •j-
J��.
o __
,-k---) - --v.//( -1 t
4 .t'' 1_ a--1-70••°r1/4- - '‘.: '. ;. .. ..4.) v 1° . .P-0&•,-•VNt..\\ . 'II At)::,-7-6:, .
-, -../- 7 •• ..ar\l\ :il:.'1'•,.4�it:F�y, w-�+��.7 ...+,-.i.r...M+•! +i:� vj✓�`..''.'ti. �•!ri��=.1 .,�'. ✓ _ r•.. _b.� '+'4'.1--A�1.._ r!...._+.1�'`- `..•
' a
• a
046
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA It
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
r, MARTIN October NC 27429-0278
`,,,.`RNO October 18, 1985
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JAMES E HARRINGTON
3 SECRETARY
Ms. Susan Smith, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Smith:
This is in reference to your letter of September 23, 1985 relative
to a piece of property on the southwest side of SR 1004 (Dairyland .
Road) at SR 1111 (Union Grove Church Road) northwest of Calvander.
It is recommended that the development be served by one drive
as shown on the plan opposite SR 1111 .
The speed limit on SR 1004 is 55 MPH which requires a sight distance
of 550 feet. Sight distance is adequate looking northwest from the
proposed drive. Sight distance looking southeast is restricted by
a curve on SR 1004 and the roadway embankment. The roadway embankment
will have to be graded to allow a sight line from the drive to a point
550 feet away on SR 1104.
Traffic on SR 1004 is fairly heavy for a secondary road and is
used as a shortcut to NC 54.
It is felt that most traffic entering the subdivision will be
left turning from the direction of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Per these
considerations, a left turn lane on SR 1004 is recommended.
If we can be of any further help, please advise.
Sincerely,
. W. Watkins
iii DIVISION ENGINEER
JWW/DBK/gm
Atta.
cc: sir. D. B. Kelly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
04 14%.
St.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Greensboro, NC 27429-0278
February 6, 1986
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
Ms. Susan J. Smith, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Smith:
This is in reference to the proposed Laurel Springs Development
on the southwest side of SR 1104 at SR 1111 .
The plan as shown by the developer should provide a safe connection
to SR 1104. Attached is a copy of our recommended road connection
for the developer. Items such as the 10'x70' sight distance triangle
would be required if the developer petitioned to put the subdivision
streets on the State System.
It is our impression that SR 1104 is used by some drivers as a
short cut to bypass the Carrboro - Chapel Hill area. NC 86, SR 1009,
and NC 54 are connected by SR 1104 and SR 1777 to the north of this
area. We may be mistaken.
If we can be of any further help, please advise.
Sincerely,
;71'1 G =c
W. Watkins
DIVISION ENGINEER
JWW/DBK/gm
Atta.
cc: Mr. D. B. Kelly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
05t..
w
D
P.
•
50' TAPER
(REQUIRED FOR W LESS THAN 26)
SIGHT
TRIANGLE 37'
R/W
STOP- R=3O
1
EXISTING ROAD _ ±
FIGURE 4
RECOMMENDED ROA D CONNECTION
NEW RESIDENTIAL ..ROAD. OR RESIDENTIAL
:OLLEC;TOR ROAD . AND EXISTING STATE MAINTAINED
ROA D
STOP CONDITION
-28-
OS s
4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Greensboro, NC 27429-0278
JAMES G. MARTIN February 6, 1986
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JAMES E.HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
Ms. Susan Smith, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Smith:
This is in reference to your inquiry as to North Carolina Department
of Transportation's policy concerning making traffic counts for local
governments or developers.
The Department of Transportation doesn't make traffic counts for
local governments or developers. Time and manpower allows us to only
count traffic for internal use. Local governments and developers are
welcome to any counts which have already been made.
If we can be of any further help, please advise.
Sincerely,
j/7
I/ •
- J. W. Watkins
DIVISION ENGINEER
JWW/DBK/gm
cc: Mr. D. B. Kelly
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
•.i
.. L' ! O r_.i 337
tow a r r b o ro 301 We Ma-Street
f i G rc r^. North Car; ;.,- 27510
N.C. -..4f.,»a �.
(93, 3_�-m
3,
January 16, 1986
Susan Smith, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
106 East Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Laurel Ridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Courtesy Review Comments
Dear Susan:
The Town of Carrboro administrative staff reviewed the preliminary
plat of Laurel Springs Subdivision at its regularly scheduled
Development Staff Review meeting on January 15, 1986. The specific
comments and recommendations are as follows:
1 . That the proposed subdivision shall be served by the extension
of the existing water line in Dairyland Road to the western lot
boundary of Lot 72. The internal road network shall also be
served by public water.
2. That the public water supply along the internal road network
which provides flow to fire hydrants shall be 6" minimum size.
3. That fire hydrants shall be provided at the following locations:
1) northwest corner of Lot 1 , 2) northwest corner of Lot 70,
3) southwest corner of Lot 6, 4) southwest corner of Lot 13,
5) western corner of Lot 25, and 6) south corner of Lot 61 .
4. That the proposed subdivision shall be served by a community
sewer system with wastewater package treatment plant with either
point source discharge or land application discharge system.
(Land application discharge is preferable. )
5. That active recreation facility area shall be specified and
dimensioned with specific information on the type of facilities
to be provided.
6. That a minimum 60' wide easement be dedicated along the rear of
all lots along Morgan Creek. That the easement area shall be
defined by the floodway line on one side and a line parallel
to and 60 feet from the floodway line on the other side. A
pedestrian path constructed within the easement area is encouraged
and should be quantified and applied towards meeting the recreation
requirement.
F -
053
Susan Smith, Planner
January 16, 1986
Page 2
7. That Dairyland Road along the property's frontage shall be improved
to one-half of a 41 foot cross-section (20.5 feet from the centerline
of the existing road) with *ioulder and ditches. This improvement
will be adequate to provide a center turn lane to NC D.O.T. standards
as indicated on the preliminary plat.
If you have any questions or desire additional clarification of any
information presented in this letter please do not hesitate to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
qe1r-E6001 Stief2P-4)
G. Gregory Shepard
Zoning Administrator
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HILLSBOROUGH U5 14
NORTH CAROLINA
27278
�od9 i/
-��
'`14, QIts �'
MEMORANDUM
TO : Susan Smith
FROM : Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control Officer
SUBJECT: Laurel Springs Subdivision
DATE: January 9 , 1986
I have reviewed the plans for this subdivision and
have the following comments .
The proposed street layout is one long deadend . It
would appear desirable to have dual access unless
there are unknown reasons why it cannot be accomp-
lished .
The construction of the streets will require the
submission and approval of an erosion control plan
prior to the start of construction . I see no condi-
tions that should prevent the design and implementa-
tion of an acceptable plan .
The Erosion Control Ordinance requires buffers along
certain streams and control of the peak rate of
runoff from the tan—year storm . The proposed plan
shows only a buffer along Morgan Creek ; the flood
plain and the required buffer measured from the
boundary of the flood plain should be shown . The
proposed stormwater management plan is acceptable in
the approach to controlling the peak rate ; however , I
have some questions about assumptions made in the
design that need to be answered before final approval
is given .
SUBDIVISION APPROVALS
a, Laurel Springs - Preliminary
■
Presentation by Marvin Collins .
The purpose of this agenda abstract is to further
consider approval of the Preliminary Plat for Laurel
Springs.
On January 27, 1986 the. Planning Board continued
discussion on this subdivision until the February
•
meeting for clarification from NC DOT on a continent
regarding the use of Dairyland Road as a shortcut and
the receipt of updated traffic counts for Dairyland
Road.
The property in question is located in Chapel Hill
Township on the south side of Dairyland Road
(SR1112) . It is known as Tax Map 110 Lot 24 in
Chapel Hill Township. •
There are seventy-seven ( 77) Jots proposed out of
approximately 119 acres . All lots are proposed to be
developed at a minimum lot size of 43 ,500 square
feet , excluding rights of-way. Larger lots are
proposed along Morgan Creek.
The property is designated Rural Buffer and Protected
Water Supply Watershed (University Lake) in the
Orange County Land Use Plan. The property is zoned
Residential-1 (R-1 ) and subject to Protected
Watershed-II (PW-II ) overlay district standards .
Surrounding properties are comparably zoned and
include undeveloped land and land developed for
residential purposes , as well as agricultural lands .
The applicant proposes to phase the development of
the site in four (4) phases . Each phase allows the
development of approximately one-fourth of the total
number of lots in the subdivision.
The development will generate an additional 431 trips
per day. No traffic count exists for SR 1104
Dairyland Road at its intersection with SR 1111 .
However , the 1981 traffic count for SR 1111 at that
intersection is 160 ADT. The 1981 traffic count for
SR 1112 at its intersection with SR 1104 was 900 ADT.
The 1981 traffic count for SR 1009 south of its
intersection with SR 1104 was 1700 ADT. All roads
proposed to serve the development are to be
constructed to NCDOT subdivision road standards and
dedicated public . A single access road (Laurel Spring
Drive) is proposed. In response to a pre--application
request for comment NCDOT indicated that a single
entrance and a left turn lane from the direction of
Carrboro were desirable . The applicant has complied
with these requests .
U8c
NC DOT has indicated that it will not conduct traffic
counts for a specific development application,prepared I
t
' will , however , review traffic counts p
applicant for comment . ed by an
The property is to be served by individual well and
septic tanks . Larger lot sizes and stream buffers
are proposed for those lots abutting Morgan Creek.
Police, fire and rescue services will be provided by
. the Orange County Sheriff' s Department , South Orange
Volunteer Fire Department and the South Orange Rescue
Squad.
Staff solicited Town of Carrboro courtesy review
comments .
In response to recommendation #1-4, according to
preliminary OWASA comments , the extension of public
water and sewer is presently technically prohibitive
due to the distance from and size of lines in the
vicinity of the site, and package plants are not
acceptable in the watershed by County policy. The
Orange County Subdivision Regulations do not require
recreation space and/or facilities for subdivision in
R 1 districts (See Carrboro recommendation #5) .
Dairyland Road (SR1104) is not classified an arterial
warranting a 41 foot cross-section in either the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan or the Orange
County Land Use Plan. NCDOT recommended and the
applicant complied with the provision of a turning
lane from the south at the entrance to the property.
Staff is recommending that a pedestrian easement be
shown within the buffer area as recommended by
Carrboro and provision made in the maintenance
agreement for dedication and acceptance by an
appropriate governing body or public agency at the
time the easement would become part of a public
greenway system.
The Planning Staff recommends approval with the
following conditions :
(1 ) Revise the typical lot inset to demonstrate
setbacks applicable to a "regular" lot as
defined in the Zoning Ordinance and revise the
schedule of setback requirements to read as
follows :
Front yard setback = 40 feet
Side yard setback = 20 feet
Rear yard setback = 20 feet
Stream Buffer/Setback as Shown (Dist . varies)
O5
Reference to power line setback is to be deleted
�►, as it refers only to the power line easement and
not to a setback provision beyond said easement .
(2) The survey of the stream, floodplain, buffer and
drainage easements and provision of stream
buffer calculations and appropriate designation
on the final plat is required prior to the
consideration of the final plat for approval .
. (3) The provision of culvert(s) details on the plat .
(4) The designation of the location of s ignage
referencing the subdivision and indicating
compliance with sight distance requirements for
same shall be shown on the plat .
(5) Provision of alternative approved names for Ryan
Court and Seven Springs Court to avoid
duplication with existing road names .
(6) Provision of a 60' wide pedestrian easement
along Morgan Creek as recommended by Carrboro
and submittal of a maintenance agreement which
shall provide for its dedication to an
appropriate governing body or public agency at
the time the easement becomes part of a public
greenway system.
Collins referenced a letter from J. W. Watkins ,
NCDOT, noting that some drivers apparently use SR
1104 as a short cut to bypass the Carrboro - Chapel
Hill area . NC 86 , SR 1009 and NC 54 are connected by
SR 1104 and SR 1777 to the north of this area.
Collins continued referencing a letter stating that
NC DOT does not make traffic counts for local
governments or developers .
Fritz Brunsen of Philip Post & Associates presented
the traffic impact report . He noted that traffic
counts were taken on February 6 & 7 from 7:00 A.M.
till 6 : 00 P.M. He stated that the peak periods were
from 7:00 to 5 :00 A.M. and from 4:00 to 6 : 00 P.M.
This is somewhere between B & A level of service.
Brunsen continued that according to the Orange County
Planning Staff , the acceptable level of service is
Level C.
Gordon asked for clarification on Level C and staff
comments . Collins noted that Level C is "the ideal " .
Levels D and E are approaching over-capacity while
service levels A and B indicate under-utilization.
05c
Jacobs referred to the staff report indicating 431
additional trips per day. Brunsen responded that the
�y ...,.�. staff projection was low. He projected 760
additional trips per day but emphasized that the
� '. higher numbers would not change the service level .
Pilkey asked for clarification of the statement by
Warren Faircloth , Erosion Control Officer , on page
110 of the agenda packet , "I have some questions
about assumptions made in the design that need to be
answered before final approval is given". Collins
responded that Faircloth reviews every subdivision
that comes in on a preliminary basis . Before the
final plat is approved he will look at a detailed
sedimentation plan. What he is saying here is that
before final plat approval is given he wishes to have
his questions about design assumptions answered and
they generally are in the submission of a detailed
plan.
MOTION: Pilkey moved approval with conditions as specified by
, staff. Seconded by Walters .
VOTE: Unanimous .
ORANGE COUNTY 05.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date _MIiLah_L._19_$f.
Actio nda
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - JUNKED MOTOR VEHICLES
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _Yes _Y_ No
Attachment(s) Information Contact: MARVIN COLLINS
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS SUSAN SMITH
DRAFT 1-6-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (2-17-86)
Telephone Numbers
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider for approval proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance submitted to public hearing on January 6 , 1986.
To receive the Planning Board' s recommendation.
NEED: The amendments relate to an enforcement action dealing with the
removal of junked and/or abandoned vehicles from a parcel in
Chapel Hill Township near Calvander. Staff initiated legal
proceedings and was prepared to go to court when the
defendant ' s attorney requested a hearing before the judge to
determine the County 's right to enforce such provisions . The
contention of the defendant ' s attorney was that State
regulations preempted the County' s authority.
The judge ruled that the County could regulate junked and/or
abandoned 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 proceed
with enforcement action.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed
ordinance amendments .
06L
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
lawfu ly exists as a non—conforming use
under applicable building code and
zoning regulations .
•
061
JPH MINUTES t-6-86 PAGE
if the Light was warranted for the general public ,
NCDOT should be the agency to install it .
Best asked if any traffic counts and projections
were available for New Sharon Church Road and
Cameron Street . Meisner responded that the traffic
projections generated are within the traffic
report . He added that the St . Mary 's Road US 70
intersection is the only signaLized • site warranted.
Best asked if Scotswood traffic would impact
downtown Hillsborough and Meisner answered yes .
Don Cox was sworn in . He spoke as an individual
citizen, as chairman of the Soil And Water
Conservation Board and as a member of the Eno River
Society . He cited potential damage to Strowd 's
Creek which would require that all necessary
erosion control and stormwater devices be in place
and stabilized and be enforceable by phase. He
suggested turbidity monitoring upstream and
downstream. He recommended that the curb and
gutter requirement be eliminated as it does not
allow infiltration . He asked that the ro e
p ,� ct be
coordinated with the development of new raw water
sources . He expressed a concern with _ further
reduction in in—flow stream Levels .
MOTION : Carey moved to continued the
public hearing to
February 3, 1986 to receive the Planning Board ' s
recommendation . Seconded by Marshall .
VOTE: Unanimous .
asip AGENDA ITEM E2: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS—JUNKED MOTOR
VEHICLES
Staff presentation by Susan Smith .
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive
public comment on amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance .
The amendments relate to an enforcement action
dealing with the removal of junked and/or abandoned
vehicles from a parcel in Chapel Hill Township near
Catvander. Staff initiated legal proceedings and
was prepared to go to court when the defendant ' s
attorney requested a hearing before the judge to
determine the County ' s right to enforce such
provisions . The contention of the defendant ' s
; ., 062 •
JPH MINUTES 1-8-88 PAGE S
attorney was that State regulations preempted the
County 's authority.
The judge ruled that the County could regulate
Junked and/or abandoned vehicles, but indicated
that ordinance revisions were necessary to insure
• the constitutionality of the previsions. The
County Attorney has prepared proposed amendments
which address the judge 's concerns.
Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance would allow staff
to proceed with enforcement action.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance
amendments.
There was no Board comment or public comment .
MOTION: Carey moved to forward the ordinance amendments to
the Planning Board for recommendation. Seconded by
Marshall .
VOTE: Unanimous .
lolg: AGENDA ITEM #E3: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT—DONNIECHAPMAN -
Staff presentation by Susan Smith . _
The purpose of this agenda item is to receive
public comment on a rezoning request to correct an
error in the Zoning Atlas .
On October 1 , 1984, zoning became effective in
Cheeks Township . At that time, the property of
Donnie H . Chapman was placed in an EC-5 Existing
Commercial zoning category . The Land placed in
that designation was thought to include those
buildings associated with Mr . Chapman 's automotive
service. Recently , the Planning Staff Learned that
the buildings are located on an adjacent tract. ( in
the same ownership ) zoned AR--Agricultural
Residential . The intent of the rezoning is to.
match the building Locations with the appropriate
zoning classification ( EC-5) .
Rezoning of the Chapman property would correct the
Zoning Atlas .
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning
request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas .
There was no Board comment or public comment .
. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION A NDA
•
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE ' March 5, 1986
06i
•SUBJECT: Contract with N. C. Memorial Hospital - Family Planning Services
•
1DEPARTMENT: Social Services [PUBLIC HEARING: YES 'x NO •
,
ATTACHMENT(S) :
INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Ward
•
Proposed Contract PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181
HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361
. CHAPEL HILL - 967-9251
• MEBANE - 227-2031
• DURHAM - 688-7331
. PURPOSE:
•
- To establish a 'contract.with N. C. Memorial Hospital. (NCMH) for a Social Worker' 1,8 hours -
per week to provide certification and counselling when necessary to. patients requesting -
financial aid under. the State Abortions :Fund Program.
•
•
•
•
NEED
NCMH has requested this service for certification of out of county clientele in order to •
determine their eligibility for state funding which. must be provided by the staff of a
local Dept. . of Social Services. NCMH will pay the total cost of this position' due to
lack of matching funds.
•
•
•
IMPACT:
Social Services will recruit, train and supervise this position. Fees for. service -will
be generated from state funds. for NCMH.
•
•
RECOMMENDATION(S): -
Approval '
•
0 6'r
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Aap.nda
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. rGit
Meeting Date: MARCH 5, 1986
SUBJECT: HOME HEALTH AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 REIMBURSEMENT
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER 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 reimbursing the Home Health Agency of Chapel Hill,
Inc. for services rendered during fiscal year 1984-85.
NEED: On August 6, 1984, the County entered into a performance agree-
ment in the amount of $15, 000 with the Home Health Agency to
provide medical and therapeutic in-home services to County
residents unable to pay. Under provisions of the agreement, the
agency was not permitted to make request for reimbursement until
State grants were depleted. Home Health submitted a payment
request to the County on May 23, 1985 for $4,544 .89. This
amount was paid on June 30, 1985. On July 30, 1985 Home Health
submitted another reimbursement request for the remainder of the
allocated funds, $10,455. 11. Since the request was received
after the end of the fiscal year, the reimbursement request was
denied. After numerous discussions with Home Health, staff has
concluded that the late payment request was the result of inade-
quate communication between Home Health and staff. Therefore,
Home Health has agreed to fund one half of the late requested
amount, $5,227.55. Unfortunately, their financial situation
precludes the agency from funding the entire amount. Frank
Plichta, Executive Director, Home Health Agency, is prepared to
discuss the agency's financial status.
To insure this problem will not arise in the future, an under-
standing has been reached regarding the specific reimbursement
procedures and requirements outlined in the County's agreement
with the Home Health Agency.
IMPACT: If the Board decides to share the cost
reimbursement with Home Health, funds would,
have 5to be expended
Ubt
from the Commissioners Contingency Account. Currently there is
$29,539 in the Account.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Authorize the expenditure of $5,227.55 from the Commissioners
Contingency Account to reimburse the Home Health Agency for
medical in-home services provided in fiscal year 1984-85.