Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 05-05-1986
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MAY 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 PAGE # C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 001 1. Z-3-86 Homestead Highlands (To receive Planning Board Recommendation) 016 2. Lockridge Community--Planned Development Amendment (To receive Planning Board Recommendation) 024 3. PD-5-85 Scotswood (To receive Planning Board Recommendation) 116 4. Community Development Block Grant Program Amendment 110 5. Eubanks Road Townhouses--Request for Continuation 120 D. MINUTES E. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA (Any item may be removed for separate consideration) 121 1. County Auction, 1986 130 2. Engine Analyzer--Bid Award 131 3. School Health Board 132 4. Air Ambulance Communications Contract 139 5. Community Development Block Grant Program Amendment 141 6. Budget Amendments F. ITEMS FOR DECISION 143 7. School Capital Expansion Requests for Orange High School and the Glenwood/Estes Hills Multipurpose Space 154 8. Disclosure of Property Interests and Assets by County Officials 159 9. NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program 024 10. Scotswood Planned Development Request 001 11. Homestead Highlands Rezoning Request 016 12. Lockridge Community--Planned Development Amendment Request 184 13 . Durell Dobbins Subdivision--Preliminary Plan PAGE 4 211 14. Lake Orange Subdivision--Preliminary Plan 225 15. Wildwood Section III--Preliminary Plan 248 16. Beechwood Knoll--Preliminary Plan 263 17. Peeler Creek--Preliminary Plat 271 18. Woods Edge Mobile Home Park 277 19. Meadow Lane--PPP Petition 288 20. Rollingwood and Stallings Roads--PPp Petition 301 21. Advertisement of Proposed zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments 303 22. Governor's Statewide Volunteer Award 23. Oaths--Board of Equalization and Review 304 G. APPOINTMENTS H. ADJOURNMENT ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 MOSES CASEY BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL x"""'W WAIMM STATEMENT TO THE N.C. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION MAY 12, 1986 There are numerous road improvement needs in Orange County. The County is one of the fastest growing counties and the impacts of this growth is resulting in severe deficiencies in our road network. To address these deficiencies, Orange County requests that specific projects be included in the Transportation Improvement Program. The projects include those listed in each of the attached requests of the County's three municipal jurisdictions. The Orange County Board of Commissioners endorses those requests and respectfully asks that each of the projects be included in the 1987-1996 Transportation Improvement Program. The Board also endorsed the improve- ments to Old Lystra Road as recommended by Chatham County and the widening of Highway 70 B ass from NC 86 to Lawrence Road. f ii0A- , Submitted this 12th day a [ay, 1986 ; )::; bR pE COUNT?- OARD OF '. R ONERS ,8k+�n:,ia 1i awl.. jr 7.4,''il - ': 1,,, ,z 44 A 0 f -—Si"' W " " ',-5, - if.' ,;.- '—Wig-?.�4�+, ; :k ti ,V. �—^SAMµ--«l. ,.. y�,y���°°te t .n LT . Zt1Xt of Eiliskarrfugll Mayor Town Clerk - 'Frank H. Sheffield, Jr, . . , . Agatha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. Water Works Commissioners - • . ommissioners .- - James Pendergraph- Myron L. Martin - - Street Supt. Horace H. Johnson mar _ L.D. Wagoner Allen A. Lloyd ....7,:"...:,` -1 Chief of Fotire Remus J. Smith :Wz r - _. { u�' G,�, Rachel H. Stevens c- -` ` Lei'S --' mold W. Hamlett Fire Chief 1 John Forrest. c - May 5, 1986 . ii Mr. Marvin Collins, Director • Orange County Planning Department • 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 17278 Dear Mr. Collins: Mayor Sheffield asked that 1 relay to you the following recom- mendations relative to improvements to State roads and streets within the Town of Hillsborough and its environs: Top Priority Widening of South Churton Street from the river bridge to 1-85. Immediate Needs i • Resurfacing of Nash Street from Highway 70 Bypass to Calvin Street. Signal light at intersection of Faucette Mill Road and Highway 70 Bypass. I Curb and guttering of W. King Street to Nash Street. Upcoming Needs Widening of new Highway 86 from Highway 70A to southern area of . Wildwood Subdivision. li Widening of Highway 70 Business from S. Churton Street pass Meadowlands. Widening of old Highway 86 from I-85 to the I--40 Interchange. The Town Board would appreciate the incorporation of these needs into the transportation needs submitted by Orange County. If you have questions, regarding this request, please advise. Sincerely, r Agh.ha Johnsc`n, Town Clerk RESOLUTION C Manage TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS Priority listing of needs by eligible Federal funding source: Manager's Recommendation FEDERAL AID FUNDS Priority Primary Secondary Urban Transportation System Nanageaent - 1 Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen Sage Road, Purchase and install US 15-501 from the 8b free Homestead 2-lane segment north improved traffic US 15-501 Bypass Road to the I-40 of US 15-50! signal system to the Chatham interchange County line • 2 Improve the US Build the missing Complete Pittsboro, Improve the intersection. 15-501 intersection section of the St. Extension from of Estes and Airport with Sage Rd. and Weaver Dairy Road Cameron Ave. to Road Scarlette Drive. realignment from Airport Road Weaver Dairy Road to Erwin Road 3 Improve and extend Build Laurel Hill Widen and improve Improve the intersection frontage roads along Parkway from US Weaver Dairy Road of Estes and US 15-501 from 15-501 to NC 54 Franklin Franklin Street to along a new the I-40 interchange alignment 4 Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen NC 86 from Improve the intersection US 15-501 from Mt. Carmel Church Estes Drive to of Piney Mountain Franklin Street to Rd. from US 15-501 Homestead Road and Airport Road the I-40 interchange to Chatham County line 5 Widen Old Durham- Complete the connection Chapel Hill Road of Frances Street from Scarlette Dr. from the US 15-501 to the Durham County Bypass via Willow line Drive to Ephesus Church Road • AGENDA #8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor. and Town Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Request for projects to be included in the State Highway Improvement Program DATE: April 28, 1986 The North Carolina Board of Transportation will hold public hearings during May and June to gather information on state-wide transportation needs. The meeting for our highway district will be held at Guilford Technical Community College, Business Careers Auditorium, Jamestown, on May 12, 1986. Information presented at these hearings will be used to update the State's Transportation Improvement Program. The State's Transportation Improvement Program schedules Federal and State funds for transportation projects state-wide. Attached is the Manager's Recommended List of highway projects needed for Chapel Hill. The priority ranking that we propose is based on previous requests made to the State as well as on our analysis of congestion currently experienced in the community. All of the projects listed are consistent with the Town' s adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Since the State has separate sources of highway improvement funds, we recommend a priority list for each source of funds. We also recommend including requests that bikeway facilities be included in roadway improvements and that we be allowed to participate in designing new facilities. The recommended resolution also states that we continue to support projects currently programmed for Chapel Hill. The requests are grouped by four Federal funding sources. These highway funding categories include: Federal-Aid Primary, Federal-Aid Secondary, Federal-Aid Urban, and Transportation System Maintenance. Federal-Aid Primary routes within our community include : - US 15-501 from the Durham County Line to Franklin Street -- US 15-501 Bypass - US 15-501 from the Bypass to the Chatham County line - NC 54 from the Durham County line to the Bypass. Federal-Aid Secondary routes include major State-maintained roads outside the city limits. These include: -- NC 54 between the Durham County line and the new 1-40 interchange - NC 86 north of Homestead Road 2 Mt. Camel Church Road (SR 10.08) - Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road. Federal-Aid Urban funds can be used to improve major roads within the municipality which are not included on the regular . Federal-Aid system. For example, - the widening .of South Columbia Street between Manning Drive and the Bypass will be funded from - the Federal-Aid Urban category. Transportation System Maintenance (TSM) improvements are generally "adjustments" -to the transportation system -- improvements that are not as capital-intensive and not as expensive as major road improvements. TSM improvements can generally be implemented on a faster time schedule than other improvements. Attached are the Manager's recommendation and two alternative priority lists recommended by the Planning Board and Transportation Board. (Included on all. 3 recommendations is a new request for funding of signalization improvements. ) Recommendations Planning Board Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution C, identical to the Manager's recommended . list, except it: - Eliminates the proposal to extend and improve frontage roads along 15-501 from Franklin Street to 1-40 - Combines the Sage Road/Scarlette intersection work into the entire 15-501 corridor improvements Transportation Board Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution B, identical to the Manager's list, except it: - Adds the proposed improvements to Estes/Airport intersection to TSM category - Adds widening and improving Estes Drive from Franklin Street to Carrboro town limits in this as the third priority under Secondary category - Ranks Estes Drive improvements as the third priority under Secondary category Manager's Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution C, listing Town priorities for the State's Transportation Improvement Program (same as last year's request, with the addition of a traffic signalization system and intersection improvements under "Transportation System Maintenance") . 3 Please note that it came to our attention that these intersection improvements are eligible projects under TSM after preliminary work was presented to advisory boards. Therefore, lack of listing these in board recommendations does not necessarily indicate disagreement with their inclusion. All recommendations include continued support for items already in the State's Transportation Improvement Program and requests for bicycle facilities. • RESOLUTION C Manager's. Recommendation A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CHAPEL HILL TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT. PROGRAM (86-4-28/R-5c) WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to develop a system of major thoroughfares which will provide access to and between major neighborhood centers and which will be integrated with inter-city movements; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to discourage through traffic on residential streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby. requests the North Carolina Board of Transportation to include the following road improvements in the State's Transportation Program: A. Federal-Aid Primary Funding • 1. Widen US 15-501 from US 15-501 Bypass to the Chatham County line to a median-divided four lane cross-section; 2. Improve US 15-501 intersection with Sage Road and Scarlette Drive; 3. Improve and extend frontage roads along US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the 1-40 interchange; 4. Widen and improve US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the 1-40 interchange. B. Federal-Aid Secondary Funding 1. Widen NC 86 from Homestead Road to the 1-40 interchange to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 2. Build the missing section of the Weaver Dairy Road alignment from Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) to Erwin Road (SR1734) ; 3. Build Laurel Hill Parkway from US 15-501 to NC 54 along new alignment; 4. Widen and improve Mt. Carmel Church Road SR 1008) from US 15-501 to the Chatham County line; 5. Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette Drive to the Durham County line. • 2c . C. Federal-Aid Urban Funding 1. Widen Sage Road, a 2-lane segment north of US 15-501; 2. Complete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron Avenue to Airport Road; ° 3. Widen. and improve Weaver Dairy Road 4. Widen NC 86 from Estes Drive to Homestead Road to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 5. Complete the connection of Frances Street from_ the US 15-501 Bypass via Willow Drive to Ephesus Church Road (SR 1742) . D. Transportation System Maintenance 1. Purchase and install improved traffic signal system. 2. Improve. Estes/Airport Road intersection. 3. Improve Estes/Franklin intersection. 4. Improve Piney Mountain Road/Airport Road intersection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continues to endorse and support those projects currently programmed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program, including: 1. Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the existing 2 lanes to at least 4 lanes; 2. Widening S. Columbia Street from Mt. Carmel Church Road to Manning Drive from the existing 2-lane section to a 4-lane curb and gutter section; 3. Widening Merritt Mill Road (SR 1927) from Cameron Avenue to S. Greensboro Street (SR 1919) to a 41-foot cross-section; 4. Replacement of the Morgan Creek Bridge at US 15-501 with a new bridge; and 5. Bicycle improvements along Estes Drive between Airport Road (NC 86) and the Carrboro town limits; and 6. Train gates on Cameron Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town an opportunity to request bikeways facilities in conjunion with any future State-supported road improvements programmed ct in the Town; and 3c 6. Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette Drive to the Durham County line. C. Federal-Aid Urban Funding 1. Widen Sage Road, a 2-lane segment north of US 15-501; 2. Complete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron. Avenue to Airport Road; 3. Widen and improve Weaver Dairy Road, 4. Widen NC 86 from Estes Drive to Homestead Road to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 5. Complete the connection of Frances Street from the US 15-501 Bypass via Willow Drive to Ephesus Church Road (SR 1742) . - D. Transportation System Maintenance 1. Purchase and install improved traffic signal system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continues to endorse and support those projects currently programmed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program, including: 1. Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the existing 2 lanes to at least 4 lanes; 2. Widening S. Columbia Street from Mt. Carmel Church Road to Manning Drive from the existing 2-lane section to a 4-lane curb and gutter section; 3. Widening Merritt Mill Road (SR 1927) from Cameron Avenue to S. Greensboro Street (SR 1919) to a 41-foot cross-section; 4. Replacement of the Morgan Creek Bridge at US 15-501 with a new bridge; and 5. Bicycle improvements along Estes Drive between Airport Road (NC 86) and the Carrboro town limits; and 6. Train gates on Cameron Avenue, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town an opportunity to request bikeways facilities in conjunction with any future State-supported road improvements programmed in the Town; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town the opportunity to participate in the design of any State-supported road improvements that might be programmed in the Town. This the 28th day of April, 1986. • L4, J ib 1986 - 1987 TOWN OF CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM E40 STATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 4-3 -8(0 First Year Priorities 1) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of 54 Bypass and 54 Business. 2) Widen the following streets to 36 feet with curb and gutter and bike lanes: a) Hillsborough Road from Main Street to North Greensboro Street, b) North Greensboro from Estes Drive to Hillsborough, . c) North Hillsborough from Greensboro to the. Town limits, and, d) Main Street from Hillsborough Road to 54 Bypass. 3) Widen the bridge on Smith Level Road over Morgan Creek to four lanes. 4) Implement the recommendations of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Signalization Study to purchase and install improved signal equipment in the Town. Second Year Priorities . - . 1) Widen Smith Level Road to five lanes from Merritt Mill. Road to Cuibreth Road. 2) Widen 54 Bypass to a duel-lane facility from 15-501 to the intersection of 54 West and Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107 & SR 1937). 3) Widen Estes Drive to four lanes from Airport Road to North Greensboro Street, and include bike lanes. Third Year Priorities 1) Widen Smith Level Road to four lanes from Cuibreth to U.S. 15-501. 2) Widen 54 West between the Bypass intersection and the Old Fayetteville Road intersection. 3) Widen Jones Ferry Road to four lanes from Old Fayetteville Road to the Bypass. Long Range Priorities 1) The extension of Carr Street from the Chapel Hill/ Carrboro municipal limits to intersect with Main Street and Jones Ferry Road. The Carr Street extension will be built to a 48' roadway cross- section. 2) Improve Main Street to three lanes from Roberson Street to Jones Ferry Road. 3) Widen Main Street to 36' with curb and gutter from Jones Ferry Road to Weaver Street. 4) Widen Greensboro Street to four lanes from Estes Drive to Merritt Mill Road. ORANGE C O U N T Y 00 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting Date May 5, 1986 Action enda Item # ce SUBJECT: Z-3-86 HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING L.Yes _ No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH SEE 2-24-86 PUBLIC HEARING PACKET VICINITY MAP FINDINGS 3-18-86 STAFF MEMORANDUM 2-24-86 AND 3-18-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the rezoning request submitted by Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. for approval . To continue the public hearing to receive the Planning Board 's recommendation. The public hearing on this item was conducted on February 24, 1986 and continued to March 18, 1986 to receive information on urban services and annexation policies of the Towns within the Joint Planning Area. NEED: Piedmont Atlantic Inc. is requesting a general rezoning of property located north of Homestead Road (SR 1777) and 400 feet west of the intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road (SR 1729) in Chapel Hill Township. The property is known as Lot 9 of Tax Map 109 for Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 49. 17 acres or 2, 141 ,845 .2 square feet. The property is located within an areas designated Ten Year and Twenty Year Transition Areas. Approximately 15% of the property is located within the Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The proposed Joint Planning Area Plan designates this area as Suburban Residential which corresponds to residential densities of two to five dwelling units per acre. IMPACT: Rezoning of the property would allow the development of the property in half-acre single-family residential lots. 002 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the general rezoning request. 24 _ 4_ 2049 ` 71.78 AC. 9B SEE MAP 24 25 AC 0777 Rug X00 l I AC 9E 280 9A s 2432 k .98 AC. AC. 9C . 3 5 AC 64 ! tops ,1 IC? 18-877 i 15.62 ACestl 6.9 AC. - - 40 1884 i 3 f i f a l l 5501 .' -----• _ C 2.5 AC. ��1 it 1A t 9 5 36=----� f HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS 2.5AC• 37 f -94f2 _ - f 1 APPLi CANT : P i EDMONT ATLANTIC, INC. 7553 12.88 AC.�. -- —' _.._... _– �_ _ 11A LUP Designation: 20-yr:Transition 4 818 Zoning District: R-� �- 11C 220° `._- Requested Zoning District: R-4 ! 16.88 AC. �_�__� r E4.4AC Scale: V' = 400' / 3 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS CI BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF Q RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS; +� ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECI F1 C STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZONING ("Yes" indicates com l iance; "No" indicates Noncompliance PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED ON BOARD SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE.,SUOMI TTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS,, RECOMMENDED Ordinance Requi rernents FINDINGS The application must comply with all requirements speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- ments. Those requirements include., r 20.32 a) Map showing affected X Yes No Site Plan provided at scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=100' than I '= 100" nor more than 1 '= 20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of XYes No Description provided with a licat-ion Yes No property — P P 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged _Yes No No error alleged Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by --- -- proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if X Yes No Applicant cites rapid growth in Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- — Chapel Hall/Carrboro area and shortage - -' bly necessary to promote public of single-family residential development health, safety and general welfare. sites. 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed X Yes No Applicant notes property is located Yes No amendment grill carry out purpose within an area designated ten and and intent of adopted Comprehensive Twenty Year Transition Area on the adopted plan Plan, and designated for suburban residential development at 2-5 units per acre on the proposed JPA plan. 0 ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Reg ui rements Article 4.2 indentifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a RESTD=AL-2 (R-2) designation. The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.3 and are as follows : a) Designated by the adopted Land X Yes NO The property is located within an area Yes No Use Plan as a Transition Area, designated Tien and Tv�enty Year Transiticn e which can reasonably be expected to Area. be annexed by a municipality in the ensuing 10-20 years, b) Water and sewer lines should X Yes No Yes No exist a t site o r b e assured o f —` -` OWP,�SA has indicated it will provide --- exist at site as part assured the water and sewer servioe to the site - development process. (SEE Impact Statennt) c) Vehicular access must consist X Yes No _Yes No of direct access to a street Direct access to.the site is provided classified as either arterial via Homestead Road (SR 1777) which is or collector as designated designated an arterial in the Orange County by the adopted Land Use Plan. Land Use Plan and on the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan. O O Cr • J EMOJ ANDJ M TO: KEN THOMPSON COUNTY MANAGER aN FROM: MARVIN COLLI , PLANNING DIRECTOR • • DATE: MARCH 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Z-3-86 HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS On February 24, 1986, the public hearing on the Homestead Highlands rezoning request was continued to obtain information regarding the following: 1'. How will Chapel Hill and Carrboro deal with the annexation implications associated with the tract? 2. How will service agencies such as volunteer fire departments be affected by annexation of development? Representatives of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro were contacted. Comments of each jurisdiction related to the above mentioned issues are listed below. ANNEXATION IMPLICATIONS Both Chapel Hill and Carrboro are N.C. Municipalities with populations greater than 5 ,000 persons. As such, the communities are permitted to extend their corporate limits by any of the following means: 1 . Annexation by petition - Contiguous areas -. Satellite areas 2. Annexation by municipal -action Since the Homestead Highlands tract is not contiguous to the corporate limits of either Town, annexation would occur through municipal action or through petition of a satellite area. Satelli.tg Annexation Even though the Homestead Highlands tract is located in the Carrboro Joint Planning Area , the property is closer to the Chapel Hill corporate limits. Chapel Hill High School is a - satellite annexation area with corporate limits extending down Seawell School Road and High School Road to Homestead Road. The Homestead tract is located midway between the two school roads. Town services such as police and fire protection are currently provided to the high school by Chapel Hill. Or If the property owner petitioned for satellite annexation, Chapel Hill would have the advantage. GS 160A-58.1 (b)(2) states that no point of the satellite corporate limits may be closer to the primary corporate limits of another city than the primary corporate limits of the annexing city. The "primary corporate _•limits" (limits defined in the Town charter and subsequently enlarged) of Chapel Hill are closer (5,000 feet) than those of Carrboro (5,600 feet) . • Annexatj.on fix Municipal Action • Insofar as annexation by municipal action is concerned, Chapel Hill has adopted a resolution (March 3, 1986) identifying areas under consideration for annexation. Such a resolution must be adopted at least one year prior to the adoption of a resolution of intent to annex. The proposed corporate limits extend up Seawell School Road (east of the High School) to Homestead Road, up Homestead Road to the railroad, then north along the railroad to the new landfill site. -The Homestead Highlands tract is located outside the area under consideration, and the Carrboro staff indicated that a similar report and resolution would be prepared in a month which identified areas up to the Chapel Hill boundary, including the Homestead tract. Recent court decisions have indicated that the "resolution of consideration" does not give one jurisdiction an advantage over another. Rather, a "resolution of intent to annex" (GS 160A-49) provides the basis for a municipality to proceed with annexation of an area. Thus, resolutions of consideration do not provide any certainty regarding which jurisdiction may annex Homestead Highlands in the future. Mutual Boundary Agreement Both jurisdictions have indicated that it would be highly desirable to adopt a mutual growth boundary beyond which neither jurisdiction would annex. Both have indicated, however, that adoption of such a boundary would require staff analysis first, then governing board review and action. No time estimate could be provided for the length of the process. SERVICE IMPLICATIONS The primary area of concern voiced at the initial hearing was related to fire service districts and the potential loss of revenue through annexation of development by a municipality. The Homestead Highlands tract is located in New Hope Rural Fire District with a current fire tax of $.04 per $100 valuation. If homes in the project are valued at $100 ,000 , the • 1bssO Q r home for the fire district would amount to $ 40.00. Based on 79 lots, the" net loss to the fire district would be $3,160. General statutes controlling annexation by municipal action provide a basis for mitigating such losses. Basically, the following provisions would apply if either Carrboro or Chapel Hill annexed Homestead Highlands by municipal action: 1 . The municipality ,may contract with the fire district to provide fire protection service for a period of five. years and offer to pay annually for the life of the contract. The amount of the payment is based on the proportion of the city tax rate to be expended for fire protection times the property valuation in the area, not to exceed $.15 per $100 valuation. 2. If the municipality does not contract with the fire service district, or the fire service district ceases to provide service under contract, the municipality • shall pay annually a proportionate share of any payments due on any debt related to facilities and equipment if the debt was existing at the time of adoption of the resolution of intent. Payments will be in the same proportion that the assessed valuation of the area annexed bears to the assessed valuation of the entire fire district. Concerns regarding loss of revenue would thus be addressed if annexation occurred as a result of municipal action. However, such circumstances would not prevail if annexation occurred as a result of satellite annexation by petition of the owner. For property owners, some easing of the tax situation may be accomplished through prorating of taxes or through the municipality setting the effective date of annexation such that. taxing by a fire district and a municipality would not overlap. In the latter case, this could be accomplished by setting the effective date after September 1 and before the following July 1 . Taxes in such circumstances would be payable on the first day of September of the next succeeding fiscal year. Prorating of taxes is based on the number of months remaining in the fiscal year following the effective date of annexation. .L.. " ;4.1-.:-- . -,,,..:3: 444..,,ci.c.,;3?-:.;,-,Y,4•4,:d';•,...4-')-;;;;-';;;,-;";1, • .-.,....,..4v.;%.,tr $ NELit-Li / Blackwood ;. .,„s,;,.. g..,-4_....1.$.,,,,,,,,-,5.; :;...,,ff.....:-.;,!.1..,'`".:"P ---- ---...1*.,v:4-...;,..-:--„,., - . / ,i.;,.• - '7---1 -.../ sta Ian . d • "I 41!Yi;?..:.4... /'" ' '7, tk„.-;.:%,--,P4..„A.e.,.rs% :\ - -- AMER .v,fg • t .,,t:••,4',.rf?),A ,"14':,'"'ItrAP:1* ,3/29 ■Pilk. 2 ' ; - '_ J _ g __,.....- ,- --, 44 . . ,--1 1. . --.:....,.-3.1..,.i.-...",4 , „', 4'1%'7... r'.',-;if:','e , • ,-, . .....,..,,.... . 1 ,..—,...,9/112 . ,. . - 4/.....1,.... - " •'..v•fe q . , i i."'•'' Ra _•-•". ',;'1.,14'l .. _i....'-,,..::.--...21.;:....44„.., • .1/4 .r. -'''.' ..." 4-4%• ' 1- ._I . ..'-'; 1 - „,--'-'' . ' . •,,,I.A0.1:Pr.i. 11 c . 1111° '. . 1- - , , cr. • s -■,.7.• FL • . PINETREE . 1835 1_74,t1,,:zi :,,::iii..,,?. .,,xyl ,,4-.5 ,,..- , ......,,..\ l'' -..- I LP( 1794 I E Lb RD te,55 ..,,s, —Kt. ilia eel 11114 V .iVkil._::::;11:•:::,1-',-ci,,,;-/.1...Z:,,,',;;;I:::::;•::,..;-...,,./.:1,-..1,4,-.LJ," \III) II '-'7.):'::',Lf::?•17 ',!':. .:',40.•/.);,';0; 1.- 'ubanks ..kt-•-..... .411 —.•'74 lu ,t',;41-:i i4::-;!,-`:.)eit- ,--1,,,) ---.•■ , 2 - - ..▪..2--- .. , --,,. „...,:f-, 1. ..,..44-A4....,:,..;•,.;,,,„-. ., ,i1,0 4 'Ali' 9.- ,,, R. ,.,:-.,*,,r,„:!:,,,, ...._ ...• VVEAVER .."*..7. . .•.:, . 1.,.;....,,,:. ., t) . - ■...,,. ,.■- 1 • \ -w° a g.-.i•o.:,,-_:. :-,„:.,:s.':ui.:,:; .-.',. *....:,.:,.,„.:,:,,,:,.... 2 '4.,),?`'..,7 .N.:.11. ".. North •Od t.,,t4g,:ii,La.4,Z: AL_49Ahl i7 I UM itS i g 100;"4*11`' " "=- ig *e-' ''' --`i:.Fiu,,•.471%,-,=k, II gd 4_ . ......-.mr„ „7.„..., ..7 „...., , 3 46 .gr ......,,,i',.,--4::. % • w •- t ALLEN .i(:1-:'IEi!5`r'ja,4p44ttitkAPAgomi;zvtl*rfl!7— •,..,••17...-toxi.,,,z.,,Avi• :.-17;•,;.;:•.,,,..,. .,...t:;.,:a.,,03.1 .i.'...i::::74.,:„..7.!... _.,,,, is . . .„„4,..„„ ,..„.••••:„.•..,•, ..v,k,..3,,,,,.. ...,,,,,: FA k _9 ..... L I 44tH,-•:-'-- • ,-•::::,,,,•.„,.,„.•::„.,N„.a..:4,..„,,..40,•-,,,,•„:„.-:.::,•:„.,,,,Al.p;! .„„•,,,.,.•,.:„:„..-„,-•• . .„....4,,I. z •..t.;,,,..„;: .,5:,m,.;t:::,1::::. m•%,,, ....„...,,xg‹, •xt.,.,-?, .....,-,•,.F, ,,,,,;•::,-. .„,:q•,:. :?.`A.4,,......,,,Y,,11•,,I,T- ..e.r- _ 1 , _0.. • ....7 , ..\ .0,-,:mo.-4,;,::...1. :IN.,":--70...*- ..:4"00'-',.".<ews.' - • ' - t..„,. . ...e. r.,77,,:o.?4:'-',.4-',..A',M.;,,: A;r- .-,-.-,•• '.'..*:', .""'•-•1•''•'••••''". .' — ' . k FARM (.1L-4,-.:,,...4,',..-;,-.,,..W,V,:,4,;,..,;'' :'..-,,.. ,:;:mA4?:,,,..*,,„,.......y.',. °- \-- t15.::.,Y1.',.'21-* ..%i&,',,--ir:.:,MY.--...''•:,,.,',,,nF... .',,,:',5':7.4',:*PAKM:',Vi.'..--.. (* ,-..k:,,,,,,...•:..,,,L,,4,5,,,:v,,,,,,,,,,,,p.?„---,..-. :..i,- . , ,=,../4\ . ,,:wf,;•.::,,,...•: M i.m.,,,.:::,,,t00,.:,.,:.,.,:::::,,vm.t-..:....„,,!,,,,, ,L-...,- ...—. LI.atRYLAND 44,.t ..,.. L.:.ruwiL..1 . 10 I.• e3C 'Cai".'• ''':..1 .." .:ggtg14 • ..ilk:s?'.."..4t1. :.:01...V.A.Vig.'.1.•-•::..,3;'. _,.:zi.:IX*,44::::.•!''..-:::0 • 1400-- 8: , ■ .A7:•••:ft.v.,:$:,,t'i'::'::,:4,!..-Viht'•••.:.•:;40.V.:?.4.'Z'v.'.„a'L.:=':' .::•-•:.Liii,,1?'.::•,• „._•'-•:::'..-':;."2' .., • 4) !yonder , ign-,.,,,,,,,„:„.:.,,,,,,,,,.,.:,-..&,,,...,..„.:..„,,,,.:....,, ,Ak.,..,k,,,,,,p:, ",„p". ,:::::-. .../iii:'•..— 1:. ,..,(<4, ==.■ 4.... . - --_ - ' ii..;:vt..**P4!;!:,:i•;;:•: :....,.„.f;w:„swInlet, .:6$,Loti,. .,..,..:,,,,L.,..:::K.,.,..,..,....:.„.„.„.• . . .M.'W 1.. IS /) \ .. '4 1 r'''':'- .1 4)4 ....'..., 1°.''' '.."'l.--':i Atr,..9,,l',t'!;•i , L'',':';.',a,,,I. .,-,:f :•::Ilr.r.:-''.:;'''-,P:V:k.';.0:::!:.t.Z..!.!1:.,::„.: ::::1„.r..!!!;.:...,::.,;:!:,:?...::::_.f_ • 64.4i• i. 1...:;::,,,,%..,.., L._...::•::•:::::.E'4.1g'ffig':: :'.-.:;.:.., '''.::::".:!.'•!!:".......:_Iir.1..,. .,L lr,i,.',r.:.:•...::,iN7,l c•'V -6113)1,0W 6 07 , D .:.::i.,,''.T,:,:,::N::,?•,,:'i0:•-;,'yia.'4'N,,,A:.:',::i!,i.1':3t-, .1.:.4:..•.::',1i:,1::1,::,•-,:•.,..,,..::, 1a D 6,-- ,-,-,,T..:,,:',,:&•••.•;..-'i......._.:.:.i.,•:i...:4..../..4... .. 4.:i::.:.:..,..:..•::..::„..:.'...„s.5....'..,.,'P...... .„...,..,.,..:„::,...L,. ::-'.•,.,•- i- IL:::', • 4 e16t21:.........,.....''..-..'a',.'L..'•.,...,...4„...,..„.........:.,„,....,......,...:....0,..,...,...• i..•,,. ! 4 ,:.,..i.,.::..:..,-.:'.:;.'-4::iL'::i.,,,:,:-i..:•:r..:,-:-t;.::•':i.:-,.-.4'-;,.11•:1:t..-...>:z--.:-:.0.::'.'::;,..-):.-'..::':':.13.::....::„..:..V:"%..:,......;.:..-:...,:::.:.;,:.,:'-..::. •f LA CCCK ::,,;;,:;.;:giii,,::;:.,„ ........:„.....,—:::,,.. ..............,...,:. . ,., :::-.:.,t,,,:S'R.:1•:•::::.:',:f.'43›.';.,;::'''.C.M,:01:,':..!L7'.:--;',::,':•:•,..04'.''''''.-:„::',:•-•.-::-..„--:,.. --• ...•.'''':'''';-r, /$44- •.4,6., 41 •.,::::; A,::::,;g1,,:ii:q.,:c. :..', .,::,.,:A.'.:...2::,.:':11:.:-'::',..,,.,..,„:". .::.4.:1:'L.,...7:'W,:.-.:'-' '.:::•:' .,,,,,,,.:itq;Zgai:;-0,:: :',v.:::::.,..'"-,,,11;:',::-■::, •r-:.,2"•';" ,=7:7:7' .WAARFJI _. -...,.....•-. . L.i No*.ttt-. '''''') .ZCFC7 , •E' ■F ..,.....?"..-:,11!::,fli,-,i;,,!.':'-'."' i;:.•,':-',::..:i.;-,,,,L..:•:::: ,ig.:.;;W:Li :"J'.1':::':.:V,,'''..-'•4::',.T.'-'11':::.4:--q1'4.',!',:-,'-•l':::''.-„';:.;:i;"-",..--':'"..--,.7-7-'''-'11:2Y,',1':1115.'''':.'L':; -1 Ce-caRL pt . .ho,,,Pe ... ;• j.. .. ISt;'..:1'i4.3 -- -..-----L-7- -:-..•,-- ...,..'•.. .:::.::,,i;.:,::::,:,•..,.,.,.-• -km,* -:,;.-,--.••-".';:,'L,-,:•••;],i:-::=•,,,--'--;-------• ,,,': :'"'-r.:A".•,,-.--,,-..--It"- ' ,. .. ■ti..I re ..„... .RO. •• • /0, `,...„ ' ., •''._ '• - . ?-4.- '4'f-%,:•,':::::•.,-.:;-,"•:4::',:',;.':•,•:.',•••.-?,..,, ,,.,-i..,.!:;;:t':::.•,I;,:':-.-'. -',',';.SA:',..1,.';•:.TIi!':,•'..::-.;.---' • - ..:„.-,:i, .:,,.- ,.."• •104';';';,'Ll.:-.--,1 . ...„-A0 . ...-' ..„,•'-• VD-•-'1 1+7'• - - i' -:'•'::::-.-l--...1',; ,-:,1,:riiii----,;':,;', SJ.?i'ci.',',:.':',.t,,,R1g.-M:tg,-1;;;•. :'.r.:,,•-;,-.•,,,,„?‘7,-,-.i.=,;at::-:;.141:7:-",,rT....i"..,•::-.,„:4',-!,::'.Z, !: ...• ....... .... ............ .. .... __. - __ ............,_ ...._ .... . ...... .„__. .._ ... :I ..., .... - . •- ... .. .. .__. .............-.....„.. . .. .. ...... ... . . ,..__. ...s........7 ._....„.. ....„....,1 .7:......_.• ..... •• . _ . ........_.. . -.-._...„....- ...-,..,.....,_.. ..,.. ,._ . ....., . -: ..„---• .,•_• - ..---..- .„.. , -„,._. • 7..„....-:.-,_-::.. . •':..,,,..,...„_.:„:„. :...,.. ••••,. •,....• . . ,....•_,,,,,,,,,-••..,-.,, . ..- . _............. _ .• ..... , i _. , . .... .. ._...._., _..,,..\:_,,,...i........1.,:.1i..7,......, _ e pw.GLIM . RD_..,-7 • uLsRErH R . ..- 1... -....- D .411 :: ,: 5 TGRAr ..• •IF. f 0- -,.., 1994 tA C LLE,,:. 19 DS .s.tV... 'V• 120'.D''' R)- wooDcREST DR. ‘?1,. L. erar 1935 . to ,.. ... 3i. STA h%MARY ,. , .' .0 -•9■3. 4). 1 ;.; -,-•"'1.0-viattt4 cc, 1, e • .- ,-. -,,,v ____A-:. __... _ _ :4 4. ,._ . , • ,.. ,..,,.... ., ' ,_..-.,v.0.5.7410ac.c' '..:co;k11-..54 'N. '''- • ._, '•- : ''''').4t i POr't % , -, RD . V• '' fga art ' / ° C: f .--, . L_ .t5'... , i ,/ ?It, ,■-•,,,,,,,1411!Spar _.•)",.... .a q... , V , ss WHITE ROCK (, (--- -6 --.` 01C - __ -a-ay-B�. mac.- t , .M1"1u 5 that most of the trees in the area that were clearcut were dead or rotten. All of this was done before Cheeks was zoned. 3 4 WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 5 6 This item was referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. 7 8 1012. HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS - R-1 to R-2 9 PRESENTATION BY STAFF (A copy. of the impact statement is in the 10 permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . 11 Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment 12 the rezoning request submitted by Piedmont Atlantic, . Inc. Piedmont 13 Atlantic Inc. is requesting a general rezoning of property located north. 14 of Homestead Road and 400 feet west of the intersection of Homestead 15 Road and Rogers Road in Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 49.17 16 acres or 2,141,845.2 square feet. It is located within an area i7 designated Ten- Year and Twenty- year Transition areas. Approximately 15% 18 of the property is located within the Ten Year Transition Area. The 19 present zoning of the property is Residential--1 (R-1) . The proposed 20 Joint Planning Area Plan designates this area as Suburban Residential 21 which corresponds to residential densities of two to five dwelling units 22 per acre. Rezoning of the property would allow the development of the 23 property in half-acre single-family residential lots. 24 Susan Smith made reference to the impact statement with regard 25 to water and wastewater systems, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, schools, and permitted uses. The Planning Staff found that the applicant complied -with all the applicable regulations and standards for a R-2 district and recommends 29 approval of the general rezoning request. 30 PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT 31 Buzz Lloyd, Secretary of Piedmont Atlantic Corporation, made 32 reference to a letter from Carrboro. In that letter they referred to 33 "steep slopes". He stated that 10% of the tract has slopes in excess of 34 15%. A lot of the land is wooded and suited for residential homes. 35 There is a need for this type of housing in the Chapel Hill area and 36 they would like to address that need. He cited the location of this 37 tract of land as a definite asset. The housing will range from $125,000 38 to $200,000 price range. 39 Chair Willhoit cited problems associated with the development 4o of the land use plan for that area. This area is in the Carrboro Joint 41 Planning Area and yet it is remote from the city limits. He asked for 42 comments on a possible scenario if this request is approved and the 43 subdivision built. Would it be voluntarily annexed by Carrboro or 44 would it be annexed by Chapel Hill? 45 Buzz Lloyd indicated his choice of a scenario would be where 46 the County would grant the zoning, the development would be built and 47 they would not be involved with seeking annexation. 48 Planning Board member Chris Best asked about the school the 49 children from this area would attend and was told they would attend 50 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. Be questioned if the developer.. was 51 concerned that the schools were already operating at capacity and Buzz 5?,� Lloyd indicated that the development is not gaged by the schools but 5 hat by the time more schools will be necessary they will be built. 51 Chair Willhoit outlined the costs involved for providing 55 school space for additional children that this development would 56 generate. More classrooms will be needed which means taxes will need • • 6 to be raised or a bond 'issue will be necessary to build new schools or seek authority to charge an impact -fee to accumulate capital for new 3 schools. 4 Commissioner Marshall noted that Carrboro is one of the few 5 municipalities which has gained enabling legislation to levy impact 6 fees. Because of these fees, they can move toward a higher. density 7 development because the developers will be able to help pay for the 8 services. This will have an impact upon the services that must be • 9 provided by county governments. She agrees with the developer that it 10 is the responsibility of the county to build the schools as •necessary. . 11 but the complications of when and how to get the money needs to be 12 recognized at all times. '13 Commissioner Carey asked how far the sewer lines were from the 1 14 project and Buzz Lloyd indicated 4,000 to 5,000 feet. 15 COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS 16 JIM FURMAN, owner of one of the lots adjacent to the proposed 17 project expressed concern about the density and the slope of the area 18 which may lead to increased runoff and flooding in that area. 19 Larry.Reid, resident close to the new development, expressed 20 concern about the density and inquired about the necessity for one-half 21 acre lots when the lots in that area are R-1. 22 - Buzz Lloyd indicated that the value of the land and economics 23 would dictate a density of R-2. 24 Mary Jullian questioned the difference in the acreage as 25 shown on the tax map and what the applicant is requesting to be rezoned. Susan Smith indicated the applicant is only requesting that a _portion of the tax lot be rezoned and pointed out that area on the map. Chair Willhoit indicated he spoke with Mayor Porto and there 29 is concern about this project because of the fact that it is in the 30 Carrboro Joint Planning area but that all the details have not been 31 worked out on how Joint Planning is going to be administered and 32 specifically the implications dealing with annexation. Because of the 33 location of this parcel, Chair Willhoit suggested that gg the ublic 34 hearing be continued to March 18 to rovide an opportunity p p ppartunity to address 35 the issue of annexation. He expanded on the problems created for fire 36 protection services and the implications of annexation. 37 Steve Kizer asked Chair Willhoit to outline what Mr. Lloyd 38 must do to have the rezoning approved. 39 Chair Willhoit reiterated that an understanding needs to be 40 reached with Carrboro and Chapel Hill on how this area will be handled. 41 The towns will be contacted and requested to respond prior to March 18. 42 He explained that the County is in a process of working out a Joint 43 Planning arrangement and a new land use plan. Part of that process will 44 outline how development requests will 11 be handled in n she future including 45 fire police protection, sewer service, water supplies, etc. This parcel 46 is in Carrboro's Joint Planning area, but actually closer to the present 47 corporate limits of Chapel Hill and it would be likely that Chapel Hill 48 would be in a position to annex before Carrboro. ee Commissioner Walker questioned the importance of which town 50 would annex this parcel. 51 Chair Willhoit noted it is important that proper planning be 5? done and annexation is part of that process. Commissioner Marshall emphasized that good planning at this 5- `eime will help eliminate problems for the developer and the people who 55 will live in that area. She emphasized that the lack of a response from 56 Chapel Hill would not hold up the public hearing beyond March 18. • p' w 012 . • Motion'was made by Chair Willhoit,. seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the public hearing' until March 18, 1986. 3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 4 • 5 VERNON P. DAVIS 6 COMMERCIAL - 2 - AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL . TO NEIGHBORHOOD 7 PRESENTATION BY STAFF act statement is in the The im p 8 -agenda file in the Clerk's Office). permanent 9 10 Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public 11 comment a proposed rezoning request submitted by Vernon P. Davis for one = 12 (1) acre located on the south side of NC Highway 54, east of the Gulf 13 Station/Store and west of Larry's Alignment Shop in Bingham' Township. 14 The site has direct access onto NC Highway 54. The road is designated 15 as an arterial in the Land Use Plan. The property is currently 16 designated as A-R and as- Rural Community Activity Node in the Orange 17 County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property ,8 is A-R. The applicant is requesting _ st' 19 Approval of the request would allow for limited tcommercial edevelopment 20 use at this location. The property is presently located in an area '21 designated as Rural Community Transition Activity Node in the Land Use 22 Plan with property immediately to the east and west zoned A-R 23 Susan Smith made reference to the impact statement regarding 24 water and wastewater services, roads/traffic, e ads traff' / lc, olice 25 services, relationship between Land Use Plan and ZoninglOrdinance, and 26 permitted uses. The applicant has complied with all the criteria for rezoning and the staff recommends approval of the request. 29 _COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 30 Dr. Kizer questioned the total amount of land zoned commercial 31 in the activity node. He stated that the requested rezoning would. 32 exceed the five acres limit specified for the district and the node. 33 ' He questioned the amount of acreage included in- the zoning 34 request and noted a discrepancy. 35 PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT 36 Vernon Davis indicated that a larger rezonin g reques 37 years ago was denied because in the business node there was onlytsolmuch 38 commercial acreage allowed so the acreage requested for rezoning was 39 reduced to meet the requirements. ho hi WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 42 43 4. ALLEN AND DORIS TURNER REZONING 44 Barry Jacobs announced that this reque st was w 45 i thdxa;vn, 46 47 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the proposed text 48 amendments is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . 49 a. ARTICLE 20 - AMENDMENTS - 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD) 50 Planner Susan Smith summarized the proposed amendments to 51 Article 20 as identified on the agenda as itm 5a. 52 NO COMMENTS b. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES -- ADD "MASSAGE BUSINESS" c. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - DELETE "ADULT USES" 55 d. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - REQUIREMENTS FOR 56 MASSAGE BUSINESSES . --- - • . _.: 3-/e ?..611.4-.14,...-1k2,04 NV' '-' S Q 1 lii 3 110i2. HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS - CONTINUATION 2 Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of input from the 3 Towns on urban services and annexation policies within the Joint Planning 4 area the request from Piedmont Atlantic Inc. for a .general rezoning of 5 property located north of Homestead Road and 400 feet west of the 6 intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road in Chapel Hill Township. 7 Planning Director Marvin Collins identified and reported on the 8 two issues that were discussed at the February 24 meeting" 9 (3.) How Chapel Hill and Carrboro would deal • with the 10 annexation implications associated with the tract -and 11 (2) how service agencies such as volunteer fire departments 12 would be affected by annexation of development. �3 With regard to annexation both jurisdictions have indicated it 14 would be highly desirable to adopt a mutual growth boundary beyond which 15 neither jurisdiction would annex. Both have indicated, however, that 16 adoption of such a boundary would require staff analysis first, then 17 governing board review and action. 18 With regard to service implications, the general statutes 19 provide ' a basis for mitigating the net loss to a fire district if. 20 annexation is by municipal action. If annexation occurs as a result of 21 satellite annexation by petition of the owner,- the only easing of the tax 22 situation could be accomplished through prorating of taxes or through the 23 municipality setting the effective date of annexation such that taxing by 24 a fire district and a municipality would not overlap. - " In conclusion, Marvin Collins stated that at this time nothing can be done to address these two problems. This is a rezoning request and the annexation issue needs to be resolved by Chapel Hill and Carrboro 28 to avoid questions in the future.' 29 Chair Willhoit indicated the two issues need to be resolved 30 prior to the time development requests are received. 31 WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS THE HEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED. 32 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner 33 Carey to refer this rezoning request for Homestead Highlands to the 34 Planning Board for further consideration and recommendation. 35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 36 37 E. ITEMS FOR DECISION 38 1. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENTS (A copy of the 39 approved amendments are in the official Ordinance Book in the office of 40 the Clerk to the Board) . 41 Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval 42 proposed test amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as submitted topublic 43 hearing on November 25, 1985 and February 24, 1986. The Planning Board 44 recommends approval of the proposed amendments with the following 45 revisions: 46 AMEND Article 6.23 .9 and 6.24.9 Satisfaction of Watershed Standards 4=7 Off-Site with the revisions recommended by OWASA in addition to the 48 following revision: 49 II . . .The property subject to the easement may not be used for or 50 conve-led for the our ose of satisf ri impervious - - 51„._„, _-, the �u:rface and/pr undisturbed area requirements for any other development application. . . " 5 ` AMEND Article 2.2.4 Tenure with the following revision to 2.2.4a) : 5s�- '" . .After two consecutive terms a member shall be ineligible 54 for reappointment until they have been inactive for one year. " 55 56 • 014 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 - a number of changes in the names of roads serving the development. The designation of one additional lot does not constitute a subdivision.- The creation of the lot requires compliance with the Orange County Subdivision Regulations currently in effect. Approval of the requested changes will allow for the development of community facilities desired by the membership of the Lockridge Community. Approval of the designation of an additional lot is required before subdivision review can proceed and a residential building permit issued. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested amendments to the approved planned unit development site plan. The Planning Staff also- recommends approval of the site plan as the preliminary plat for the proposed additional lot. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval with staff recommendations. Seconded by Best. Kramer asked what the requirements are for establishing a cemetery on a private lot. Smith responded that the Health Department has indicated that they can be established,, but -*#e yr must be shown on the plat and be 100 feet from a well . VOTE: Unanimous. b. Z-3-86 HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider the rezoning request submitted by Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The public hearing on this Item was conducted on February 24, 1986 and continued to March 18, 1986 to receive information on urban services and annexation policies of the Towns within the Joint Planning Area. o1� DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 Piedmont Atlantic Inc. Is requesting a general rezoning of property located north of Homestead Road (SR 1777) and 400 feet west of the intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road (SR 1729) in Chapel Hill Township. The property is known as Lot 9 of Tax Map 109 for Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 49.17 acres or 2,141 ,845.2 square feet. The property is located within an areas designated Ten Year and Twenty Year Transition Areas. Approximately 15% of the property is located within the Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The proposed Joint Planning Area Plan designates this area as Suburban Residential which corresponds to residential densities of two to five dwelling units per acre. Rezoning of the property would . allow the development of the property in half-acre single-family residential lots. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the general rezoning request. Pilkey inquired if this was in the Joint Planning Area and had Chapel Hill presented comments. Smith responded it is in the Joint Planning Area and Carrboro had courtesy review. She noted that had been �io4441 public hearing. C�arnbaro s Caro+,r.,'r6 MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings on Article 20. Seconded by Lewis. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasx moved positive findings on Article 4.2. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the general rezoning request for Homestead Highlands. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: Unanimous. c. PD-2-85 SCOTSW00D O R A N G E COUNTY 01E ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting Date May 5, 1986 Action sends Item #e l& SUBJECT: LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING .LYes — No Attachment(s) Information Contact: SUSAN SMITH SEE 3-18-86 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA VICINITY MAP 3-18-86 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES T Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the approved Planned Unit Development plan for Lockridge Community for approval . To continue the public hearing to receive the Planning Board 's recommendation. This request was presented at public hearing on March 18, 1986. NEED: Lockridge Community is located on both sides of Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) north of New Hope Creek in Chapel Hill Township. It is known as all lots on Tax Map 8G and 16C and Lot #2D on Tax Map 8. The community was established following approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning on November 5, 1973 under the 1967 Zoning Ordinance for Chapel Hill Township. The approved planned unit development site plan was subsequently amended on April 4, 1977 to allow revisions necessary to complete subdivision procedures for proposed residential lots. Article 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Section 7.8 Changes in Approved final Pans of the 1981 Zoning Ordinance specifies that " . . . changes in approved final plans . . may be permitted by the Zoning Officer on application by or the original applicant or successor in interest, but only upon making a finding that such changes are: a) in accord with all applicable regulations in effect at the time of the amendment creating the PD district, as modified in the amending action; or b) in accord with all applicable regulations currently in effect, without modification; or c) in accord with the approved development concept plan, including any required modifications." Staff recommends that the request for amendment of the approved plan be handled in accordance with provision (a) listed above given the date of the establishment of the planned development district. The 1967 ordinance requires a public hearing for further amendment of the approved site plan. Proposed amendments must comply with the provisions of the 1967 ordinance regarding use and dimensional requirements. The applicant, Lockridge Community, is requesting an amendment to the approved site plan for designation of one new lot in Section B and the provision of areas within the common lands within Sections A and B for the establishment of a cemetery, community center, playground, pool , tractor shed, animal shelter, garden shed and studios/workshops. The applicants have indicated the general location and size of the requested facilities. Wlth respect to the studios/workshops the applicants have indicated the total floor area for the facilities, rather than the number and individual building floor area for each structure. The applicants are also requesting a number of changes in the names of roads serving the development. The designation of one additional lot does not constitute a subdivision. The creation of the lot requires compliance with the Orange County Subdivision Regulations currently in effect. IMPACT: Approval of the requested changes will allow for the development of community facilities desired by the membership of the Lockridge Community. Approval of the designation of an additional lot is required before subdivision review can proceed and a residential building permit issued. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the requested amendments to the approved planned unit development site plan. o1E The Planning Board also recommends approval of the site plan as the preliminary plat for the proposed additional lot. .I f ~-6r Iiiiiik 1'' s.1,01'‘‘��4 ..� Olt', . "--:7----\,. . • . • IA A DUKE UM VERSO/ <29a./Q Ace es - :!.."•-• • e")\ • s fir► 1 II! ,i . xi II . / . \ Loc 'cRwcEg ComYtumri ° „ie... ' -4( -...\ 6acrtoN, A., - (.e', , ,a : fr-- he-A kt;?E,-;---- ' .,-... - , ''':::,- 6 . C.,,,, ,;(...` -. . sue' ° I- L = v, f, �a . '' .-- - STDNelzAt7c.e. 6uortV15lo.( • 40 6 S; e.C.PAM UNITY t ` .` ' =Z) ONtr D i ' 01r 11/1 WHEREAS, the County of Wake and the Towns oP Wendell, Knight- 2 dale, and Zebulon have recently passed resolutions petitioning the State 3 of the Little River as WS-1, the strictest degree of water supply 4 protection available understate law; and,, 5 WHEREAS, Orange County is located' on a major interstate high-- 6 way corridor. that would probably be used in transportation of High Level 7 Nuclear Waste to the repository, and technology of"safe" containers has 8 -not yet been proven for transportation of nuclear waste; and 9 - WHEREAS, the Governor of North Carolina and Secretary of 10 Natural Resources and Community Development oppose the siting of a 11 nuclear waste repository anywhere in the state; 12 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Orange. County Commis-- 13sioners of the State of North Carolina oppose in the strongest possible lbterms the location of a high level nuclear waste repository in the - 15Rolesville Pluton study area. 16 . 17 Motion was made,by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner 16 Marshall to approve the resolution as stated above. 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 20 21c. MINUTES 22 Motion Was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner 23 Lloyd to approve the February 18, 1986 minutes as corrected. 24VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 25 Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner 26 Lloyd to approve the March 5, 1986 minutes as corrected. VO TE: UNANIMOUS. a g - 29 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 30 iggil. LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 31 Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment 32 proposed amendments to the approved Planned Unit Development plan for 33Lockridge Community which is located on both sides of Turkey Farm Road 3bnorth of New Hope Creek in Chapel Hill Township. 35 The applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved site 36 plan for designation of one new lot in Section B and the provision of 37areas within the common lands within Sections A and B for the 38establishment of a cemetery, community center, playground, pool, tractor 39 shed, animal shelter, garden shed and studios/workshops. They are also 1t0requesting a number of changes in the names of roads serving the i1 development. 42 Approval of the requested changes will allow for the '3development of community facilities desired by the membership of the 44Lockridge Community. Approval of the designation of an additional lot is 45 required before subdivision review can proceed and a residential building 26 permit issued. 47 The Planning Staff, in accordance with Article 7 PLANNED - �+8DEVELOPMENTS Section 7.8 Changes in Approved Final Plans of the 1981 )49 Zoning Ordinance, recommends approval of the requested amendments to the 50 approved planned unit development site plan. 51 r :' THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner 55Marshall to approve the Planning Staff's recommendation. 56 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 021 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 will be constructed as part of the development of a previously approved project. She reviewed the relationship of Section Ill and Section II Phase 6B to the Oakdale Drive Extension. Kizer inquired about the amount of the bond. Smith responded it was for the cost of construction of public improvements plus 10%. Pilkey asked if construction had begun. Smith responded some clearing of the rights-of-way had occurred. MOTION: Kizer moved approval with staff recommendations. Seconded by Shanklin. Hubbard inquired how this project fits in with surrounding densities. Smith responded that Section I of Wildwood was approved at four units to the acres, Section II was developed at five units to the acre. This project is to be developed at four units to the acre. Section IV, recently approved as a rezoning, would be developed at two units to the acre. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz due to professional conflict of interest. ) AGENDA ITEM #8 ITEMS SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC HEARING ON 2-24-86, 3-18-86 and 4-1-86. a. LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY • - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider proposed amendments to the approved Planned Unit Development plan for Lockridge Community for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. This request was presented at public hearing on March 18, 1986. Lockridge Community is located on both sides of Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) north of New Hope Creek in Chapel Hill Township. It is known as all lots on Tax Map 8G and 16C and Lot #2D on Tax Map 8. The community was established following approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning on November 5, 1973 under the 1967 zoning Ordinance for Chapel H111 022 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MiNUTES 13 Township. The approved planned unit development site plan was subsequently amended on April 4> 1977 to allow revisions necessary to complete subdivision procedures for proposed residential lots. Article ' 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Section 7.8 Changes in Approved_ Final,_,Pla, s of the 1981 Zoning Ordinance specifies that ". . . changes in approved final plans . . may be permitted by the Zoning Officer on application by the original applicant or successor in interest, but only upon making a finding that such changes are: . a) in accord with all applicable regulations in effect at the time of the amendment creating the PD district, as modified In the amending action; or b) in accord with all applicable regulations currently in effect, without modification; or c) in accord with the approved development concept plan, including any required modifications." Staff recommends that the request for amendment of the approved plan be handled in accordance with provision (a) listed above given the date of the establishment of the planned development district. The 1967 ordinance requires a public hearing for further amendment of the approved site plan. Proposed amendments must comply with the provisions of the 1967 ordinance regarding use and dimensional requirements. The applicant, Lockridge Community, is requesting an amendment to the approved site plan for designation of one new lot in Section B and the provision of areas within the common lands within Sections A and B for the establishment of a cemetary, community center, playground, pool , tractor shed, animal shelte r, garen shed and studios/workshops. The applicants have indicated the general location and size of the requested facilities. With respect to the studios/workshops the applicants have indicated the total floor area for the facilities, rather than the number and individual building floor area for each structure. The applicants are also requesting 02.4 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 a number of changes in the names of roads serving the development. The designation of one additional lot does not constitute a subdivision. The creation of the tot requires compliance with the Orange County Subdivision Regulations currently in effect. Approval of the requested changes will allow for the development of community facilities desired by the membership of the Lockridge Community. Approval of the designation of an additional lot is required before subdivision review can proceed and a residential building permit issued: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested amendments to the approved planned unit development site plan. The Planning Staff also recommends approval of the site plan as the preliminary plat for the proposed additional lot. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval with staff , recommendations. Seconded by Best. Kramer asked what the requirements are for establishing a cemetery on a private lot. Smith responded that the Health Department has indicated that they can be establishedjbut 4*e-y must be shown on the plat and be 100 feet from a well . VOTE: Unanimous. b. Z-3-86 HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider the rezoning request submitted by Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The public hearing on this item was conducted on February 24, 1986 and continued to March 18, 1986 to receive information on urban services and annexation policies of the Towns within the Joint Planning Area. ■ ORANGE COUNTY 024 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 5, 1986 Item i(1) 3 L CT: PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD TMENT: PLANNING `PUBLIC HEARING _ X Yes No hments) w information Contact: EDDIE KIRK ITY MAP 1-25-85, 1-6-86 AND 2-18-86 AND 3-25-86 AGENDA PACKETS 6 AND 4-1-86 PUBLIC HEARING MiNUTES 2-4-86 AND 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES IDUAL STATEMENTS OF PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS IC AND WATER USAGE IMPACTS NG BOARD FINDINGS (4-21-86)NG BOARD RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (4-21-86) hone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel HilI - 968-4501 SE: To consider for approval rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham eand dAYeIH. Graham, Jr. To continue the public hearing to receive the Planning Board 's recommendation. This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 and January 6, 1986. The Planning Board recommendation of denial was submitted to the Board of Commissioners on February 18, 1986. On February 18, 1986 the public hearing on Scotswood was continued to March 25, 1986 to receive further public comment on traffic and water supply issues, particularly current and proposed water withdrawals, possible improvements to the three reservoirs in northern Orange County and the State's recommendation regarding in-stream flow requirements. On March 25, 1986 the public hearing on Scotswood was continued to April 1 , 1986, due to the lateness of the hour for further public coment 19 t6 o the 02t: Planning Board for further consideration. The Planning Board reconsidered the application on April 21 , 1986. NEED: John W. Graham & A. H. Graham, Jr. are requesting approval planned development and rezoning for 331 .12 acsof land located along Highway 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road(SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough. The property is referenced as Tax map 6, Block B. , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, lot 17 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential-1 ) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290.03 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2, 29.50 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R5 and 10.43 acres to be rezoned PD-GC4. IMPACT: Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 216 attached multi-family dwelling units and a 65,460 square feet of commercial space on 10.43 acres. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with thirty-eight (38) conditions of approval at the February 4, 1986 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board recommended denial of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit at its February 4, 1986 meeting. Following the April 1 , 1986 directive of the Board of Commissioners the Planning Staff again recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions of approval . The Planning Board again recommends denial of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit. However, should the Board of Commissioners approve the planned development rezoning request, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the 42 conditions submitted as part of this abstract. SCOTSWOOD DEVELOPE • JOHN & A.H. GRAHAM Jr. N _ Present .one: R- Proposed2one. P©-H -R2, PD-H-R5 `� • e ion; 10- r Transition and I.UP D signatl y. Commercial Transition p .411 C' 21 vt Y�'rY+ to� v-1 p , , 1 290.031 AC4 s, i•:;w ti.,�; Hr...:'� 29.50'* AC. ..�.,.. •-, � N.Ja. .. ..1.• � {'�� rfrr.•ryrlffl.f•YIl11 i !ux•.�.Nw.•rW. 'I�Y� 43'± nC. : I ea�� aarV+:rte I• scoTSWaoQ `% �� I �,,� ZONING NA4 = d. L �mev. �� Yr.iIYN OMr LI W .,,, C�'l� 41n� pa,aril�kA�k'►siti}saK:w�:wr: •- • 02; Article 8.2.2 states that where a preponderance of evidence indicates compliance with the general standards, specific rules governing the specific use, and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found, in some specific manner that: 1 . The use will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; 2. The use will not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; 3. The use is not in compliance with the general plans for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The burden of proving one or more of the above findings is on those opposing the application. The proof must also be in the form of competent material and substantial evidence. The Planning Staff reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and found that no information was received which would established grounds for making one or more of the above findings. The Planning Board has reviewed the application, the site plan, all supporting documentation and the evidence received at public hearing and has found that the applicant does not comply with the general standard #1 regarding the public health, standard and welfare nor with the specific rules and required regulations referenced as 8.2.4 c) , 20.3.2 e) , and 7. 15. 10 a) 2. The Planning Board, therefore, recommends denial of the request. However, should the Board of Commissioners approve the request the Planning Board recommends the attachment of conditions to the approval as follows: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . The grantee of this' Special Use Permit shall post with Orange County, in a form acceptable to the County Attorney, a bond or letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of all public improvements plus 10%. The amount shall be determined on the basis of fully execute ed construction contracts or certification by a registered engineer employed by the grantee or this SpeciPermit. Security for construction of the improvements in this project may follow phasing in the project. Specifically, as improvements are completed in each phase a corresponding amount of money may be released from the security instruments or the security instruments may be renogotiated based on the "yet to do" portion of the improvements . 2. Security shall be provided for the grading, paving and stabilization of all cleared areas, streets and other vehicular trav'elways; sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways; erection of street signs; utility installation and hookups; recreational facilities; and landscaping. 3. All necessary easements to permit utility (electricity, telephone and cable television by any cable television provider franchised by Orange County to serve this development) installation, servicing and hookups to the development and to each unit within the development shall be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 4. The grantee shall promulgated Articles of incorporation governing tenancy in the development and shall record a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and regulations promulgated under this condition in the Orange County Registry of Deeds . 5 . Roads, parking areas, walkways, street signs, utilities, recreation facilities and sites, landscaping and muichin around units shall be maintained as constructed. All such improvements and facilities shall further be maintained and operated in a safe manner. 6. Left and right turn lanes shall be provided on St. Mary's Road at proposed Graham Drive. 7 . Graham Drive and Hamilton Way shall have a 60' right-of- way with a 41 ' paved cross section. (A motion to delete the Baldwin Road connection passed unanimously. A motion to reduce the paved cross section to 37 ' resulted in a 3-8 vote. In favor: Yuhasz, Walters, Shanklin, Opposed: Best, Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs. Kizer, Hubbard. 4-21-86) 8. Turn lanes to the east and west shall be constructed on Graham Drive at the intersection with St. Mary 's Road during the construction of Graham Drive. 9. Curb and gutter shall be provided along all streets. . 02w 10. A sidewalk shall be provided on one side of the street along all streets in the PD-H-R2 zone with' curb cuts for the handicapped at street intersections. 11 . Scotswood Boulevard shall have a 90 foot right-of-way, containing a 65 foot cross section with 24 foot wide pavement widths and a 12 foot median. This would allow appropriate room for heavier vehicles. 12. Left turn lanes shall be installed on Scotswood Boulevar into the multifamily and commerical areas. 13. The driveway off Scotswood Boulevard into the commercial section is inappropriate for the entrance of trucks. The radii should be reworked in this area to allow easier truck access. 14. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the southwestern end of Carolina Avenue and the entrance on St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) abandoned. 15 . A stubout to the western property line shall be provided from Scotswood Boulevard . This stubout shall be located to connect directly to the southern corner of Greentree Drive. 16. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at all stub-out streets. 17 . A third turn lane shall be constructed along US 70 between St. Mary's Road and Miller Road (SR 1555) immediately upon initial construction of the development (On February 17 a motion for approval of the condition resulted in a 4-4 vote. In favor: Margison, Pilkey, Jacbobs: Best. Opposed: Yuhasz, Walters, Shanklin, Kramer. See minutes for issues and position statements. No discussion of this item occurred at the April 21 , 1986 meeting. ) 18. Left turns onto or out of the southernmost entrance to the commercial area shall be restricted and only right turn movements permitted. 19. All roads shall be named and the names not duplicate any other names within Orange County. Road name signs to Orange County standards shall be erected at all inter- sections. 20 . A 10-foot non--access easement shall be provided along the rear of the lots adjoining Carolina Avenue and Second Street. This easement shall be labeled so as to prohibit driveway or vehicular access onto Carolina Avenue and Second Street. 21 . Mercury lights shall be installed throughout the develop ment as each phase develops. 22. The lift station at the southeast section of the project ( lift station #1 ) shall be of sufficient size to accom- 03L modate any future connections by property owners along St. Mary's Road. 23. Prior to paving streets, utility service laterals shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground . 24. All utility lines shall be installed to state standards. 25. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan including easements to adjoining property. All required easement documents shalt be recorded before final plat approval . 26. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be approved prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 27. The following recommendations apply to the recreation area and facilities. a. Provide a minimum of 15 acres recreational purposes (active and passive) . The passive recreation area would include the open space area along Nancy Hill Creek. b . A minimum of seven (7) acres are to be developed for active recreational purposes to include the following: - Tot lot/playground area with play apparatus for children, ages pre-school to 14 ( i .e. swings, slides, climber, whirl ) and benches for adult supervision . Some shaded areas are to be provided within the tot lot area. - One full--length basketball court - Picnic area which includes a small shelter with 3-4 tables, 5-7 individual picnic tables scattered throughout the woods with 1 trash receptacle and 1 grill per 2 tables. - Bicycle paths throughout - Open, grassed play area. - Adequate night lights for safety and security reasons - Appropriate landscaping c . Provide 10 parking spaces to serve the above activities within the 15 acre recreation area. d . Along either side of Nancy Hill Creek, designate 100 ft. as open space/passive areas with walking and hiking paths. Provide public walkways (to be part of the designted "open space area) to these areas from both Graham Drive and Cameron Circle. Install bridges across the creek at either end and midway, in conjunction with the public walkways . A pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be dedicated coterminous with the open space area. e. Multifamily recreation facilities are to include an open grassed area and a picnic area ( i .e. tables, trash receptacles, grills) . 031 f. Provide 13 parking spaces to serve the multifamily recreation facilities. g. Install a fence around the pool for safety reasons. h. Wherever appropriate, provide handicapped parking spaces and ramps. Construct all walking and bicycle paths on slopes no greater than 5%. 28. All plans for drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation control shall be reviewed and approved by Orange County and the site plan modified accordingly to satisfy the Soil and Erosion specifications. In addition, Orange County shall Inspect the installation of control devices and the on-going work for the total project. The project shall at all times meet the requirements of the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. 29. Construct and maintain stormwater devices to control the peak rate of runoff from the commercial and multifamily tract. The detention devices shall be designed and constructred so that the peak rate of runoff after development will not exceed the predevelopment rate for a 20 year 24 hour storm and for storms of greater intensity. 30. Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. in lieu of planted landscaping, existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. Clearing shall only be conducted for purposes of installing improvements. 31 . Final landscaping plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the Initiation of construction activity. 32. A landscape architect shall be employed by the applicant to prepare a landscaping/screening plan for the designat ed 100' buffer area. The plan must be prepared in consultation with adjacent property owners and approved by Orange County Planning Department. The plan shall be prepared following a survery of the existing vegetation of the buffer area and must identify and specify the retention of specimen trees twelve inches or more in diameter, provide for year round screening and include implementation details and schedules. At a minimum the screening shall be opaque from ground to a height of at least six (6) feet, with intermittent visual obstruction from the opaque portion to a height of a least twenty ( 20) feets. (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2--4-86) . 33. That all signs be erected in compliance with Article 9 Signs following issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any unit. No sign may be erected within the signt triangles for the entranceways to the development. 34. That all structures be erected in compliance with applicable building codes following submittal for and issuance of building permits. 35. Developer shall coordinate mail service with the 'HillQ3'c borough Postmaster prior to construction of phase one of the development. (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2-4-86) 36. The project shall be phased to limit construction of resiential units to a maximum of 25% of the total number of approved units within a give 2.5 year period . 37. The applicant shell request annexation by the Town of Hillsborough for each phase of the development following , the construction of required improvements. (ADDED BY PLANNING BOARD 2-4-86) . 38. A final boundary survey of the Planned Development and improvements shall be recorded by the developer. 39. The final site plan and narrative of the project incorporating , all changes, deletions And additions through the final approval of the project are incorporat ed herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. A copy of the final site plan and narrative are on file with the Orange County Planning Deprtment. Grading and building permits, upon applicat- ion, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 40. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and written narrative supplied by the developer and in compliance with or fulfillment of the above conditions and the Orange County development regulations and ordinances. 41 . If any of the above conditions shall be held invalid or void, then this approval shell be void and of no effect. THE PLANNING BOARD ADDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ON 4- 21-86: 42. The commercial area shall contain no more then 30,000 square feet floor space in either one high volume retail establishment or a series of small "boutique type" stores plus proportional service and parking areas. The remaining land previously designated as commercial floor space shall be maintained in buffers both between the shopping area and US 70 and between the shopping area and the multi-family housing. THE PLANNING BOARD DELETED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS 2-4-- 86: A. A traffic light shall be installed at the intersect ion of St. Mary 's Road and U.S. 70 during the development of the first phase. (A motion for deletion of the condition was approved on a 6-2 vote. ) B. A stub-out to the Guy Baldwin Jr. property shall be provided with the location to be reviewed and approved by the NCDOT. (Unanimous) Fr SUMMARY-OF-ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION 0&! Subject geotswood- Planned Development • . Recommendation: 1 - 4A-, . . - 110° - • - •• if Vote: 5-3 Meeting Date: 2/4/86 Issues Raised; Water shortage irl central and northern Orange County , as identified in county manager's report . Traffic hazards and congestion created by the proposed development on nearby roads and in Hillsborough Plan for Scotswood inconsistent with intent of county land use plan Impacts on public facilities Explanation of Dissenting Votes: Placed more credence in Hillsborough water estimates than those by county manager BP1 i Pvpfl it unfair to penalize this developer for impacts inevitably arising from any development Other Information and/or Citations from County Regulations: Planning Board Member Responsible for Report: Barry Jacobs FINDINGS Or THE CRANGE COUNTY PLAKIN114G BOARD ?FRTAWNG TO AP PL I r.AT;ON: SCOTSWOOD �o r t:i i n A r-,i c le r o r Sp i�c i a I Us s s, w t�� a s t h o 3 e c ,'"r Pl..nnud -D,:v op.t)e n s A i-i i 1 8 2 bj requiroF iritter. findings cc r z i f y i n 9 co in p I a r.c Q wi L h t e :ncc S ryJ vo rn rg in,2 i v I duL 1 c i 1 !U:;i:s as sot: for C h 1n iirtic1e R. These regulations arL.: d to 2 s c t on s h i ch c 1 L:d I i ca t On and c' f c s' ato� ndards f Piznnod t (Article 8.9.23 refers zo Article 7 sindards) , Sic 1 an 1 Us 'A 7 c I c 8.2 1; includlrl(,' the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional _C,.!1 ru i�i n t s z�� sir ford? in t h c ZGn ii c d n a ncc; L! _1 Ar L i cic- 6 ("Po 'I caL icn of LDi:-ncnblcrlil Requi reinents) i 017 -�170 Cr C 0 P I a Board ru,_�a rd ag C!,e ap. ? 1 ca t 1 on in question. Thy n d in s rctjU rl.sinunll' 'Lo us:: the Plinning 3oar(j ::-. its dalibLrations. "•' Ar'F>!_1C..',T: '%',1 CIMPON':NITS l• . icZrus comr_�Iiznce; ".NO" indicates noncon-,_-)) iP_ncC:) Board or Planning Board County C6mmissioner! R 12 r r, endings rviderice Submi ttt7d to Support Finlinins C L_y S -N Application, narrative and legal description -Y es NO V i:1(; 1 and accur_-tc r submitted. co X Yes 7"o Cc f t Site plans submitted. —Yes _Mo I. , J V ;(;rr;j :,ui!rt c,. i� ant.' dzi',v, X YQS No Shown on site plan. 1L5 No C1 ar: :0 LJe dcvcloped Yes NO Shown on site plan. Yes _N0 W X—Yes NO Drainage easements are shown on the -site plan. Yvs No Utili.ty easements will be provided as needdd, 'A'M CL r-"; 8.6 :,'ice a. AP';L I"'?`,T!ON CONPOUXIENT,, (Cent I Planning Board County COminissioners' Findinos Ev:!h;nct. SU-!j:r.itLCd to Support Findings Findings. X Yc-.� Slte Plan shows proposed structures y�-'s N,o or pro- 0 in the 1IL: S: multi-family & commercial districts. IndIvidual structures, -in the single family district have not been 'indicated. C) n c i car a 14 r,-:as on t X Yes t'cl The 100 year floodplain for Nancy Hill Y�G 0 C4 to fl-03-ci IIZZ3rd or inun(ja Creek is located within the open space area. sha.-;n on 'lood mJps c)r LJ c:, c,i of 1 1-,z4z:cr COC r5 5 X Yos ::3 Water courses are shown. —Y L; No t-, , 'ncluding ZsL ri ccr,Lou'r X Yu; No Topography at 5 root contour intcrvals Y"s NO of 1-,v'- fc-" has been shown. or 1-,Zncing, x Yc-'; Screening, parking, service and loadil'!g . Yis _40 areas have been shown. cL -VIC S; 'o s inc I"Id, n Q -s i te, x YUS 11"o Access to the site is proposed via new streets Yes No C:� On E: ro d.,; used or off US 70 and St. Mary's Road, Turn lanes and deceleration tapers have been indicated on the site plan. of al } LtrucIurL;!: —y—yas Q Structural elevations have been shown for Lu uSL�" in thc: the M'u I t i fami I y and commercial areas, o"':n�:rs X Yc;-; ':c Provided in application. Yes ENO $490.00 application fee paid. z o:i c�, J t a f; :r c{'- o L r County Col-.. i-1 s.i on( 1 arip, i!i" Board .2 Of erovisio X-Y Applicant indicates Hillsborough water Yes No ,:.:; and sewer service is available via po:�a C c n o a (r c r ur v 1 C a extension of existing lines. us IN 0 cue are to —Yas t!o v Fire protection, police and rescue C °t_-SCUU 521u&,; ;:rote— be provided by the Orange Rural Fire Department, Orange, Co. Sheriff' s Dept. and the Orange Co. Rescue-' Squ6d respectively. The Sheriff's Dept,. has ' lndicate'd they will require 3 additional personnel and 2 additional vehicles .. to provide adequate protection. The Fire Departrqent has indicated they can provide adequate service with proper'. sized water lines and fire hydrants properly spaced, 'The Rescue Squad indicated they can provide service fbr the.. development. 140 Yes X 0 d" a a Q q L.,a c Y r, vc improvements o US 70 and St. Mary's Rd. Mn,- on for approval - indicate turn lanes and deceleration 't apers.. 1 c. smooth traf f i C flow,. c :o;-..,I� ziround Intarior rands show a s;nq .(See minutes for position statement) C S DA MD 5 FOR I VALUAT O)N/P a D c a;, u C t on S o i%r c w up;w.; c • Cj!' V A L'j AT ,-s r.J i C- )(I i c,� 1CO-110 1 Z11 co s ;I(;, Board of P I ann 1 n g 'Boa i-d County Commissioners Find;nqs V I (:CIII)Ce11 Su!):;i*, To 5ur)2orL Findin��s Findings C) n A r Cfti Site plan has been submitted. X-y U s 3 Yep N I.-Ic LC�J�d W, n th.-n !..cnn ; &--scrlption c,, X-yc S I:n Legal description has been s.ubmitted. —Y C; a 1 iui,c.l VCS I'll) No error alledged Y,..�.; X0 Not applicable. to bc ccrrLcLclr 1 on 1� V Not applicable. Changed conditions not L.-C C-! C c�I y Z 0 0 0 t 0 s 0 d Ye; x N!o Property located in 10 Year Transition area YC. NO 1-1-"1 oils 0 U 0 0 S 0 --lotion for as as Cbmwrcial Activity Node. Designation approval Failed and GC-Ii zoning provided certain G permits R-2, R 6 oning criterin ro mcit and a Special -Use. Permit is minwLcs !'or obtained. position st2 I:crrc-Tlt) f Q 7 7! Board of C Na.nning, ,_-),jjjty o 2 fcr, t � L .01 Dcsi .inatcd b v the adopted La-ld c S T�c property is located in a 10 Year- 1 , Transition ,area, , Transition annexed— jF,e Flan as z Tr area which vjil.l probably be il by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. �,Jltch com rc-isonably be expected to b,z n e. c pjjmiciipil 1 ty in the r r my c c.-r s and s cwc r l i n e s should '!O The developer is proposing Killsborough —Yes at s i t e or be assured o f water and sewer service. 111 llsborough has as part of the indicated a willingness to serve the site proccss- OnG prcliminary ;ipproval of the Plans. Vch' rular ocscss must consist X Y a S do US 70 is classified as an arterial and Yes o of re c t access to a street St. Mary's Road is classified as an arte r cl f jed either arterial or in the Land Use Phan. cc, c-,or as designated by the t ,d Land Use Plan. O Sr L -1 T C 0°! n Board of Planning Soard Cou-ILY F i r.d i n q c: I n c:,,.t� a L t h w 1 n orrio 1 can 5 C CA '1c foi PC-H-R; C%'., cri 3 on for"]� In 3 Dcs r a te c' `,v the adopted yn '!o -I Tr.in-,', r The property is located i n a 10 Year i r-c:a s un a 1)1 y L, Transi tion area which vri I I probably be annexed tc annexed by a by Hillsborough within the next 10 to 20 years. 5'j r n a a ci r 11ines should X Yes n 10 The developer is proposing Hillsborough 0 be n55Jrcd Of r and sewer L 1 water :lust Consi-st X Yes US 70 is classified as an arterial and Yes --',o I is classified as an arterial or -cc L a- S' Si. Mary s Road s 1,o a street r e c 11, c I�j i d as either arterial or in the Land Use Plan. cc)' !Inctor a; 6esignatcd by the adopted Usc P'i,-,-,. L C;n a Th�-: full rango of urban services X Yes No See impact analysis Yes No -cx -t or arc., pro'c)ascd at Lhe Lime cF -� � CvcloprncrL including fire, I-cc-cation, educa-tion, cc,:,,:icrc 1,11 .-),-id cultural activities. B0.1 rr! o f Planning Board County Commissioners C:) Findinfs F i ngs L 4;.2 i C:C e r no; Y Tc r F o r t I in a s d, LUP F'I- roperty is located on commercial- Yes MO odn InCILIStrial HB-3 Node in Hillsborough C or"7:- ; vial or inudstriaj N 1 . . . - .. in Cno or H 1 1 1 sborough Townsh i p. -1 o wr 1 p s Yas NO 0 Water and sewer fz)cjljt*Ies could be r and, sz.,ier 1 i ncs exi Si: cxtr-nded to the site as evidenced by letter or �.�'c c:surcd of rom Town of Hillsborough.a IL-'1 0-1. I C5 N D rial rect access provided to US 70 and Y D 1 accts= t a rte N c or Mijryls Road, irterli,1 roads. T t VRI".i FOP U' Doird of County Conimissionars P! Intl Ing 1, indings e 0 C'_'Or'ort nn, d i Cie.' C iD, (I D�2 vc; C. X Yes Direct access will be provided to two ye; N 0 's S arterials (see impact stat ement) . i ii n c d- s a z not Ol nor s r YGs `1J Extension of water/sewer service from So t h r 3 5 C C C C!rz: Hillsborough. Cost for extension to be or borne by developer. S U it 'X Yes Lil rcsocc" to Letters regarding adequate service 'ices , provision have been received from police, r r'ery sc-F.'s LO fire and rescue se rvices (see 0 u or X Y 0 Soil survey.- streams topo indicate several s 1111OU L 1 ng with the majority of the property suitable 1 i Sul, Jz:.,-.cv ()I- for development. - -.C! "VA ',narrl nj*. noun:fir Planningr '�,ioord To 'inns --t7,[rldi c c S u d Su!)2ort Findi F i nd ro. 7 1 J t V Access ooints on US 70 and St. Marv's Road are desianed to orovide controlled traffic Y,;5 No t r-:, movements. Sinale, farm Iv development is frith con rD, i E;d turn- located behind multi-family so as to not affect the amount of traffic on minor streets. or by subst--n- Dg, rou,-CS Applicant has indicated walks in the Yes NO OV J C:;,J. .or P, L;S multifamily and commercial zones. Planning S. Cro"s i n(Is staff recommends a sidewalk on one side of the road and in the single family district. V]S:L;i ni-OvIcIcc! at —x2us Applicant has indicated sight triangles at the Intersections of streets. and entrance A r-L 1 C 1 c Z; drives. vzs NO I ::pace G Ye-, A loo-foot open space area is provided along__ D-I L, y,.r i ct, the perimeter .of- the PD-H-R2 and PD-H-R5 districts when the districts are not equivalent to the ct 75, adjacent zones. It r L y it Yus :'r0 Applicant has indicated that ex I s t i no Y,;:5 _!No where possible,Cg L� vegetatioh Wi ll remain V F!",-R VA C 1-:, Board of Ccij •ty Rl ann i ng F";i 0 n C,I F i n 6 1 n g v, f)c:r r J. F Inf-I i ng-, ----------- 7. X 14'Inx i'mum bu i I d 1 nq height in residential y districts is 25 feet. Building height proposed by applicant is 22 feet maximum I r c 1 end as sno•.m on elevation drawings. 'D y Y+ . r) Sign plans not submitted as part of appli- Ye 5 NIO Z " :X:c AI C'1 0 cation.- Plans can be required, as a condition of approval . j rk-1 3.1 --y— Site plans indicate that streets, drives C and parking areas are so designed as to provide safe ind convenient access. IS vin or X No Private drives as shosqn on the• site plans Yes IN 0. �Ov� Ind which serve 50 or less dwellings provide o' C'j "o direct access to parking spaces. v gr�"I cr YCS �No Yas Xo See Article 8.2.4 and Article 7.14 ' n�t rov above. Maximum o X Yes N See Article 7. 14.3a)2 Co. - OF access to d;stanco between dwellings and refuse collection does a Yceed 100 Z! on S QIOC;� noz 4:xcce Or FO R E V ALU AT Q N p 1., V C NI L'C', 1, C3 Boar:: of County "l.nnning Doord Co ...:ss i one rs 'i C U 7.,- FT nd i ngs S.,!:)Pc;rt 1711di"If35 'Widings J'a. s t 0, Os play X YQ:; X0 Sce comment on 7.14.3,0)2 and b)3. C' C; V C Ul a!- cc Ar r G S Board of County ?I ann irq i1oz-,rd Coimn i ss i oners 7 TI n o s -0: F T Findings 0!11.::�, n f% c-tri cps I C PD-H-R2 x Y,,S —`:,D Article 5.1 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, Yes No L -2 Planned devc1ormient-,; approved on site Yes _`:o b a-i s s t b S Same as above. Y C,- NO -Car Y k�s ",."o Y,2 S —!,,.o is above. N/A t. ' J1. o liar,imum bui Iding height shown on plan ye s No, provided by applicant is 25 feet. 0 z co V C r 0 C L1 C 11, C a t f-I cc r 01 C r,:i,, an cc T n J 1 cz?t F, co; Board. of Cou,nty r,)n Cunimission(�rs P I c nn I r t, Sul;r-lit"C:d 7C, support Findinqs F 1 n d i n c;s F i n d i n gs :�Wv to ro 1 e Q Cori,- Y o Yes NQ Anplicant's site contains 290 30 COCA L --Y—Y .I 1 .03 acres or I.P633, 706 sq. ft. YCS Article 5.1 .1 of Zoning Ordinance. Y X yo; No maximum permitted by ordinance is 960,161 .65 yk;5 ".1 j sq. ft. Applicant's plans indicate floor - a7 area will not exceed maximum permitted. Bosed" on a maximum floor area for the site and the number of units proposed the maximum sc. floor area per unit is 2342 sq. ft. i space Yes N mi n r, a n le NO Applicant's site plan indicates open - •.32 zirea coi,.Ipl ies with the land use requirements. T i v' !7 r ')!j Board of Planning P,o a rd County Com.,rissionars F 1 nd 1 ng i S i To S un n r t F i n d i Findings n v a- Yes Applicant's site plan indicates it complies Yes .o .-tith the liveability space ratio requirement r CL as specified in the Ordinance. 1! a 1 T t Y S D I C C 3 5 9 s q x 0 Applicant's plans indicate recreation Vu5 NO .022 are,-is totaling 745,572 sq. ft. SQ. 7 ii, .a;L: o n 'Iles N c o Applicant's submission indicates compliance with minimum spacing between buildings. No requirements established for tertiary walls r dt other than N.C. Building Code standards. C, f-y F -L -if I.:7( ("Y "s nd i noncomn" i znrr Board of ?canning Sozs rd County Cornmirssioners 77 Findings Sti:;)r�i 1:c.d To Fi_j',d4nqS _n On G C0 V 0 r 0 C-. C.z!)t hn S a P?1 it d PD-!4._5 C Z S i"N r c n:5 c c z c, a r Yes N, Yes NO•M/A Planned developments approved on site Das i s X h Ye- No Same as above, Yes No Same as above. Y Q S _N c iii r c,i Eck y N'o Jane as above.- /A ch t No May.1 mum bu i I d i ng he i ght p rov i ded by Yes 'CIO. . 2 1pDlicant is 25 feet. (I v 1 c !'J i s a c! i n c T L UI R r-Mi,17;' Planning Board of. Findings V1 C e County C0-!1`1iss ,crs ' ���r or t F 1 n d 1 nns Find;nas 12 Va- SPZCe r<<'0 Applicant's submission indicates 9509111.8 52 f-,,-qL:;red Sq. ft. :•1 ty $ri. C,3 -42 -LQ_14sq. C rl-�a on J Ycs :io Applicant'-s plans indicate recreation areas Yes rcr,:atic^ totaling 51,400.8 sq. ft. So. o i JJ C to APplicantls submission indicates that Y L minimum spacing between building walls is 18 _Ye_. ee—t The minimum spacing between building walls and off'- j'r Street parking areas oj, streets is 5.9 feet for a r Y v secondary walls -jild S 11.9 feet for primary wails, a2 No requ 1 remen ts er,tab 1 1'rihed f or te r itary walls oth r an N,C. Buildinc Code standards. Article 6. 16. 1 requires that x Yes N,o snit o,,-in e r s'i i t) of 'condominium Site Plan indicates a declaration in copipli- 's No d �- eve)opments e declared .and ance with the "Unit Ownership Act OF N orLh ---2c. P,-C,7 j i,') cc,,r.p I i on cc w i t h the Carolina" will be submitted for review and approval ''Jni Ownership Act of North by the County Attorney. Car, l ina. " a1) LO y 1 n ctr %c,:r;p Board of ir�d nr,4 County {:r,c 4ioncrs Sur,,,n -t r_re.+ nos Findings s � _ . .�r:.. — _ a .. ,Ld R • `r f'D;C { 5 (J: .C", } Yy . • t AD .P1;;o .Piicant proposes eleven (11) uses, - - !10,000 -- — ?oral land area is 45�+ 33 .8 sq. ft. Yes _No Not a-Ppl i cab le to P. D. Yes -rN0 ac`c - —Y;;, ';a Not applicable to P.D. o Yes Not a4plicable to P.D, Yes 140 ?{ Y s �.r° App l i cant has submitted detailed building Yes " `' - elevations and specified on site plan that p;a the proposed building height is 35' . S. el`,A L C 6 i rd I cii vc!i n!i ')nr ng Boa rd Poard of S,--'; Tc� �Omm i 9 S i or c r s. F;nd;nng ons ZQr)t Z j I 0c:'IL Cc ",-e I C Ll r rc,:. i md Z C- rt. xyc:i o Area of tract is 454,330.8 sq. ft. Y(;S L lurL, N r,r,-_ MOXImurn specified in ordinance Yes Nc ti X Yt� N,0 Applicant proposed 66,950 sq. ft. 0 6 f Yes f1loor area. Ll r... L q S NO .71 Applicant promses 386,181 . 18 sq. ft. of Yes INO OOCn space. 322574 LO CD .... - ..._�._•7 !• 5. Y _ .l!.}I:'u!:5� IP1i. �'_ '1rl• 1-41- j. - .} Planning �1., d . of County t t;;_. X a 11,,.:1 ;can� has spec „ �- - --,-- x,,...... •rc c' _ ---- -- P max! building r5 , ril a: d?n,c;s :.'• , elevatic•^s of 35' on the plan and -- --,o .. _ site S ri r'.r _.C,',: r n'� I^ tted d� a l l � � 5L.,fii r ed elevations for the proposed t % . ,.. s ax.,,... ; ic;n structures. ;•i'i .tom.. .III J L��' :J , 74 1 t,� r:c_ Appl i cant is proposing 104496.08 sq. ft. of Jes —.'do . lard for pedestrian use and landscaping. The C^Ci �.. vi ".4 rC�::, ��' '3C rCgC:•.4'GL� use- End icnn�sc.201n.� required area is 90866.16 sq. ft. t Inc: 'rp-cv c an_ ,M i^tC r.cc "rcy+ c_ ;ri Appllcan is proposing 294 spaces for off-street =!-s �'',o. parking. The required number of spaces is -291 . — �; } !nd spaces are designated on the revised itc plat• •CUi -Iii 1C t1 'cc �C �— 1�4plicant has specified in narrative that all y t3 C' y electrical and telephone lines will be located underground. .'-z;- Cif 1 VC`. '.� 4y.{+ —Y--' —.- Apal i cant has not submitted sign details; Ye ` -nc.v Y.r s No however, Article 9 Suns provisions will be — �r. met. V�7 FO VA L LAT! r,:' Planning F nd i,nqs d 1 F id.;figs 7 1 Z a) Vl C." L!Se ne Yes Direct access fc ''7rom the site is via US 70. No Yes —X— o Ore oriented to or near a minor csico^tiC.l "Cet in a residential neighborhood. 5 Yes x NO Access to the commercial site N from US 70 and Scotswood Boulevard. Yes- NQ r%-j7� 'lotion for With the turn lane approvai fa' is lanes proposed on HwY. 70 and deceleration 6) (see and the proposed traffic light at the intersectior, of St. Mary's Rd. and HWY. X, Ll r 7'!:-c zn- minutes for n n d! smooth traffic floor with controlled turninq position w r!<jvemen cs wi I I be gernra ted. cc .e r T external yards of 50' and 100' have be NO Z'rov,�,�d Z-t oo-r�,y been shown fo;- the northern and eastern property lines res�ef., e• '."M C r C t s External yards alojg the western and souther-, !--a e;n U-2 cz e d j ;nes provide a 50' buffer. Property C117 17 Cc)1. r a X YCS NO Appl ?cant has su�qq', Ye's N 0 :7 s t c n z, a L Ittod detailed landscaping on the site plan, The site plan shows setbacks of 1,2 50' alonr, US 70 and 1001 along Carolina Ave. with general landscaving indicated, z d X Y,-.s N Applicant has s' ') r c. ct u 1:1i tted deta 1 led landscap ing, on YQS the site Plan; 15' or greater side setbacks are shown t t 0 C, r.:; -Ig adjoining rosidelItW districts and general Iand- a 101 scaping indicated on the Site plan. t�nninc 2c�i.rii Doard of County rine:nc,s, _t Ccmm i s s i on e r s 7 To ran t F if?CfinGS Findlnqs i c. . .'.%: .{_� is it Ct,i•1^ ,.-CJ� 'l'1 an °<o Applicant indicatcs 10, or greater rear setbacks c : -cc n'. 'a cc',;"'c rc i a l or Yes as shown and general indicated on the -_:1�! districts .11� — _ ,, � � site plan. l landscaping -, .0 - • s rte to I:.r- ��-ty applicant has submitted site plan- indicating general Yes r'c'. Cr'C i^^ c r:-a:s � s,crvI c!••rr-- ^— -•�� z:ro^s c u-'c' s i re:; v i e..,«. landscaping and screening of parking areas. ncc,s er atc ,cs ;,C) Applicant has specified screening provisions on the Yes t:a sift: 1 o. pan 0 undcsirab'e V rr. 7 rn: , _s x16 access rai:tcs, ;"c; s r+: iiCC� G�i 11.Vii)eC �-2 Facilities for access, servicing etc. tare �v'%5 —+10 ' separated From areas associated with pedestrian to pr Dana in it's c st r , traff cc ic. p ia� tr�'If c, a'rvi L: d v Yes ,� Applicant satisfies this provision as evidenced Y�s -No. VICC i,-rc- arr:n re by general lznyout of uses and access ways on site. for•-r' n- _r �� - cc ccccp Its. , C CA Board of Count) ")oa rCi iurrin� Comm 1SSi©Hers t ' Find' . nq Cn [_. C:"tii C I7rron i i]:!4- y 1 Cy —``° General landscaping details are designated _"4s '%10 ', �cl;'ci;: on the site San which satisfy q t ��._,:p•�;: p Y this re u t rem,.n . z i L -ec _ i. it ;',I ,:rd u o; nroun.i oc —�—' "' General landscaping details are designated Ls " NO an the site plan Vihi.ch satisfy this requirement in i,c i ri; , J . . —Y ^:o Applicant has not submitted detai led landscaping _Yes NIa an F y o ei1c r plan; however general landscaping details are vL'. designated on the site plan which satisfy this i -i r u c orea requirement. The 'site plan specifies parking islands are' ' to be planted, I ri c.j of Count; _. , ., ..S s!O.C. S •r S .. ., .. __•i 5.....,..a: .... ..�.-_..`_-_.--.-_.._� , irL� :.l Ap7liC�r!tls sit(: plan comp wiCh the "i r'' `; _' s; ac:nn requirement and J islands specifies parEting will l be landscaped. `u� Applicant's site plan complies with the '4s iio ' spacing requirement and specifies parking - "ar islands will be landscaped. ye s N3 ��. 7 J,ti7;•y,. A Class A screen is required in some areas v`' ';u iTC u'_vc as specified on the site plan. a. ` ' nigh opaque screen, �. •Cr rich intcrmi *_tent visual rAbstruct ions from opaque screen, rk Type 8 screen is required Yes �ho A Class 8 screen is required in some ;n some areas. Standard's areas. Yes NO �vrr include the as specified on the site elan. rC7r :hat F71lowing: c3. i5' �!l�i; ;ntermit tor t Vlsual r ObSrruct;ons Q Cn er SCOTSWOOD 4-21-86 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS BY PHASE CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC PERCENTAGE CURRENT APPORTIONMENT BY DISTRIBUTION ADT 1 2 YEAR PROJECT CUMULATIVE 3 4 5-� 8 9 10 TOTAL TOTAL r_ PROJECT lOnc. ----- 590 660 511 3930 2400 532 560 732 540 850 11,305 US 70 EAST 35% 4,50;1 4707 4938 5117 64 n _---- � 93 7333 751. 7?i5 84 g 7971 8160 8458 3958 , 01 US 7a WEST 5 _ 20? 7,900 0018 8150 E252 9038 5515 51„ 9625 9737 98++ 9992 10,162 2262 10,162 ST, MARY'S EAST 15% 2,100 2189 2288 2365 3 5 295�5 3315 3395 3479 3589 3610 3798 1698 3,798 ST. MARY'S WEST 20% 3,100 3218 3350 3452 4238 4718 4825 4937 5084 5192 5362 2262 LAWRENCE ROAD 5,362 10% 250 309 375 426 819 1059 1112 1168 1241 1295 1380 1130 11,3 PO Notes; Traffic estimates per phase based on unit breakdown as shown,in the table of water usage below. Current ADT based on most available NCDOT data (1983 and 1984). Applicant conducted 1985 traffic count at intersection of US 70 and St. Mary's Road. St. Mary's Road (both north and south of US 70) is currently classified at Service Level "C" and has a capacity of 8-10,000 trips per day. us 70 is currently ciassified at Service Level "C" or "0" and has a capacity of 12,000 trips per day. Lawrence Road is currently classified at service level "B" and has a capacity of 8-10,000 trips per day. ESTIMATED WATER USAGE IMPACTS BY PHASE YEAR 1 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WATER USAGE MG UNITS WATER USAGE COMMERCIAL WATER USAGE PROJECT TOTAL - 2 bb 15,812 --- __ 3 17,688 --- --- _--- --- 15,812 4 6 1,6o8 74 I 832 - --- 17,608 5 --- --- --- 9. --- --- 21,440 6 43 11,524 -_ --- 2/3 3,094 3,004 7 56 10,988 20 5,360 1J3 1,502 13,026 $ 15,008 --- _ --- --- 16,348 10 54 14,472 122 32,596 --- --- 15,696 32,696 total 85 22,780 --- -- 410 109,8$D 21G 22,780 V{1TE5; Resident ial usage multiplier: 268 gals./unit; commercial usage multiplier based7o8S8j85 averaaecconsumetion JuneSA� ust of commerpEdl uses{HMS.}, 112,074 0-e5k SCOTSWOg1 • "In some places, great changes have been wro.ught. by the increase of trade and the .busy hum of manufacture, hut not so with Hillsborough. It remains as it was in olden times, the home of some of North Carolina's great men, the summer residence .of the wealthy citizens of the east, and is much admired for the beauty of its surrounding scenery. Devoid of all art, it has received a share of the blessings of Providence. . . Long may the whole town - a relic of the days when our forefathers fought and bled - be a place to wich the busy merchant may make a pilgrimage when weighted down by the labors of the dusty city. Let it remain an altar at whose shrine the poet, the historian, the statesman can worship, as having been hallowed by associations dear to all . " H.E. Colton, 156 Perhaps Scot swood 's greatest Service to Orange County is the quality of discourse and thought it has engendered among citizens, planners and other officials. Regardless of the. project' s relativecerits, or lack thereof, I believe I speak for the majority of the Orange County Planning Poard when I state that consideration of Scots��ood has led to a commitment to the following Positions : - Phasinry of this and other large developments is essential to addressing concerns of health, safety and welfare. This is particularly :ems: only in regard to water availability, but in ameliorating traffic innacts. Standard N.C. Department of Tr.ansnortation Procedure requires that our con�rnunities choke in traffic before profilers are addressed , [1e cannot accept this as our county' s sole response, - 1 - 05 , and look to phasing or staggering impacts to _lessen the hurden on our transportation infrastructure, especially while thoroughfare and road improvement planning is intensifying around Hillsborough and Orange County. Further, we ask the Orange County commissioners to join us in lobbying our legislators for a saner system by which counties can evaluate and address their own road priorities. - The planned development procedure can work to the benefit of developers and orange County, but only if more aggressive measures are taken to facilitate early negotiation of differences, if a more predictable system of requirements is established, and if a system of incentives and disincentives is formulated that will reward and ensure good faith bargaining. Orange County deserves hetter than a procedure whereby a developer can net away with pious nosturinns proclaiming he will be "happy to fulfill" the wishes of citizens and officials even as he fails to voluntarily adopt any of the record 41 conditions recommended by the Planning Staff and Planning Board. -30 Sha_r l yne Pilkey L' ,� r� l,. 06 Hillsborough is a small village of some 3,000 people soon to be acted by the addition of Scotswood and some 1 ,200 people, not to tion the people using the proposed shopping 4 0 ublic he � c-nt,.r. I have attended p arings and was one of the ."lanning Board members who met the developers prior to the presentation. I am not opposed to development of the three hundred acr? ,s, bat i havestrong '-"esrvations t the way it is to be done with the present plan. I am the only Planning Board member living on Highway 70.; Daily I watch from my porch the traffic and I know from personal ience the difficulty of driving towards Durham on thisroad. Ir'also know from personal experience how long it takes DOT to do anything about a dangerous intersection. It has taken 15 years of accidents at the intersection of Highway 70- and Palmers Grove Road to get anything corrected. Traffic accident re s those introduced at the public hearin to coadt, uch he record, as man q g, 11 only part of f Y pe ople do not report accidentsto avoid points n their insurance.illsborough is not Cary, it is not Durham, it is not your verage every day ordinary municipality. It is, however, a mall town with a rich historical ass� an V p ex-capitol of Colonial orth Carolina and a Indian village of note historically. To reat it with the same type of zoning used for municipalities n the Southern part of Orange County shows a lack of for :Se he presei�.� zonin.�- r,.: mood planning. of swood zs one house peracre and no e-zoning should be granted, except for the condominiums and the opping center. Cur land use plan addresses shopping areas d their spacing from each other, and the ropose d development rved ade uate ly by the x p velapment is d� and P, Eyrds, and the Family Supermarketshopping center for Scotsw ood should be r?duced in siz . i s is the first of the de lar�� e ge velopments that will be impacting rth,CL'Il Orange County J. :'later will be an on-going"vhlo,lmsnt ;;gill open the land St, 1�T 1 This alone arys Road ad all the nd to the north, already we hav^ r Ca ry careful not ± m, se and ` � fir ra% must bo alloy ha.phaza_rd -le--,-.Cnt which w;1,limited resources. tax 061 4. Scotswoo dshoald , � think hi_ phased, nk th,s ?°ngest phasing possible should impact a not r'= should be impos 11 at once. I YI= � the end, �.T final d� does SCOts�rood c l questio n is: people promote the safety, its s living health, present g ixi the � safq nt farm carefully In f, an welfare Is ly px�nod to enhance its present form of the it the bast ance the residential was it possible plan in its preSOnt form?s °urzd it? • os� Page 3 lieumma4130Assz Mu Kinn. 241-sce rezoning request to correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. MOTION: Shank ( in moved approval .PP Filke sec motion. Y onded i'he VOTE: • Unanimous • 10; AGENDA ITEM# 3b. PD--5-85 Scotswoo,d (Planned Development) Presentation by Smith. The purpose of this agenda item - is consider approval of a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. This .item was submitted to public hearing on 11-25 85 and January 6, 1986. John W. Graham & A. H. Graham,. Jr. are requesting a planned development and rezoning for 331 . 12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypass and �St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) northeast of Hilisborough. The property is referenced as Tax map 6, Block B. , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, lot 17 of Hillsborough Township. The property Is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential 1 ) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290.03 acres to be rezoned PD-H--R2, 29 .50 acres to be rezoned PD--H-R5 and 10 .43 acres to be rezoned PD GC4. Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, 216 attached multi-family ) ti family dwelling units and a 65,460 commercial space cn 10.43 acres. square feet of (See Impact Statement) The Planning Staff recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with conditions specified at public hearing with those specified on the 1-17-56 memorandum (See attachment on page of these minutes . ) MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 8.8 a) 1--3. seconded the motion. Yuhasz VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 8.8 a) 4-12. seconded the motion . Yuhasz • • 06 •• Page 4 • VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shankhin moved positive finding on 8.2.4 a) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. Best noted the issue of water availability is -a volatile area of discussion and that he was not. satisfied with its " availability based on the Manager's report. Yuhasz cited the evidence given by the Water Commissioner who stated the Town had the ability to serve the site. Margison questioned how to resolve the two sets of facts. Yuhasz suggested the Manager 's report was based on a hypothetical situation while Johnson's was based on daily exposure 1 ex re p to the situation on which to make judgements. . Kramer asked if a letter was received from Hillsborough. Smith responded yes, citing Town Board action. Margison asked if this decision was made with awareness of other projects. Smith responded they had considered this project while considering three other major projects. Best cited a statement from Collins' memorandum. Halters noted Hillsborough controls extensions and in the absence of a northern Orange County policy It is hard to say there would not be enough water if improvements were made. He added that other projects are being approved by the Town for water extension . Kramer raised the question of fairness citing that letters from Hillsborough had been accepted for past projects . Jacobs noted that he attended the Hillsborough Commissioners' meeting at which Scotswood was discussed and an attempt to total water usage was only made subsequent to Scotswood approval . Pilkey felt it was hard to get an accurate picture adding she was skeptical about Johnson's figures and was concerned with new projects coming in. Shanklin noted everyone was concerned to varying degrees with raw water supply. Kramer suggestion a narrower interpretation of the issue given the acceptance of past letters of approval from the Town . • o(3 • Page 5 • Margison suggested there was testimony that the Board may not have the true picture. Collins clarified his statement in the memorandum . regarding the lack of - information to make. an objective 'statement as being specifically related to the staging plan and solutions proposed to address the availability issue. VOTE: . 4 in favor - Shanklin, Yuhasz, Palters, Kramer 4 opposed -- Pilkey, Margison, Jacobs, Best MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 8.2.4 b) . Pilkey seconded the motion . VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed - Best. Best expressed concern with the need for Increased services. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 8.2.4 c) Yuhasz seconded the motion. Best cited accident reports and suggested- that improvements to the roads would not necessarily make the roads safe. Walters suggested road improvements at Cameron Park School . Shanklin felt the applicant should not be held responsible for a design flaw at the intersection of St. Mary 's and US �-� 70 given the acute angle at the crossing. He expressed a concern with the lack of NCDOT' s action prior to a problem reaching a severe level . Kramer expressed concern with traffic moving south. Pilkey expressed concern with internal traffic conditions. Yuhasz noted that limiting access points means more internal back—up. Margison expressed concern with traffic on East King Street. Yuhasz felt that all the traffic problems could not be attributed to even a project of this size. Kramer agreed that there was no direct impact except on St. Mary 's. Yuhasz maintained that the applicants addressed this situation as much as they could in their proposal . VOTE: 3 in favor -- Shanklin, Walker, Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion failed. • • • a� 4 Page 6 • Smith noted that condition 140, 'presented at the January 6 meeting -should be included as part of the • staff conditions. • MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 20,3.2 a-e) . Walters seconded the motion., Best questioned how 23.3 e) was satisfied by the project. He suggested the proposal was a "clone" of the area to the north. • Yuhasz noted the comprehensive plan has designated this area as an activity node where such uses are expected and allowed. Best felt the PD section allows . us to look at these uses and that the project did not carry out ' the purpose of the Land Use Plan. Walters • suggested that availability• y of urban utilities, roads, schools an d services does suggest the project complies wi.th, the Land Use Plan and. was an alternative to the destruction of rural natural resources. Best expressed concern with . redundant uses. Walters noted that an importance difference 1s that homes would be within walking distance of the commercial area. Best suggested it would serve as a magnet and that there was already a Pantry store immediately across St. Mary 's Road from Scotswood. Shanklin responded this would mean less traffic off-site rte on US 70. Pilkey inquired about separation requirements . Smith responded there were none specified, but that the Land Use Plan set the "density" . She cited the adopted Land Use Plan as the policy statement providing for four activity nodes along US 70 between the Durham County line and Hillsborough, adding that the node west of this site Is a Hillsborough activity node, not County. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Shanklin agreed to the consideration of a)-d) only. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding Walters seconded the notion, on 203.2c) . VOTE: 3 in favor - Walters, Shanklin, Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion failed. Jacobs stated that the vote is on the purpose/ intent of the Land Use Plan, not the strict interpretation that the activity node exists. • • Page O fi€ • Collins asked Board members to' state their position for information' ,to the Board of Commissioners. Smith ; added this is a critical decision and would provide direction in the future. She noted that the lack of discussion did ndt provide a clear statement of the dissenting positions. Best cited Jeerbst statement on ' page 57 of the agenda and the purpose of planned developments. Which reads as follows: - "Section 7. 15. 1 refers to all Planned Development Commercial Districts, including' the PD-GC4 requested by Scotswood. it states that . ."It is the intention of these regulations to provide for developments, in scale with surrounding .market areas, at locations appropriate in terms of the Land 'Use Plan and Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, and in accord with standards set forth herein, j serve _areas not a l roas4 conveniently gas[ adequately ',reviled N.1±Al commerc i ai and Servica fac i I itj of the kind. 9 r 9D ose�." (Emph asis added)" Kramer felt it was poor use of the node. - . Smith asked the Board members to clarify which aspect of the project they diagreed with. - Best and Kramer stated it was the commercial area. l'1argison felt the project does not enhance the town . Walters expressed concern ncern that the written comment of Jacobs and Best were their opinions, not the consensus of the Board. Pilkey expressed concern with the commercial aspects and the lack of separation between commercial areas. Jacobs cited his written statement. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 4.2 a-c) . Yuhasz seconded the motion . Best inquired if d) concerned water. Smith said b) was the specific provision . Best expressed concern with the statement of the Sheriff . Shanklin felt The Sheriff did not ray he "had to have" the vehicles and personnel . VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 4.2. 11 a-c) . Walters seconded the motion. A ()We'. Page 13 VOTE: Unanimous - MOTION: Shankiin moved a positive finding on 7.4. 1-3. Waiters seconded the motion. - Piikey. questioned 7.4.3. - Smith noted the statements at public hearing referred to timing of Installation of stormwater devices, not the devices. themselves. Plikey asked the classification of Miller . Road-, Smith responded it 1s a collector road. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Consideration of each item separately, VOTE (7.4.1 ) : 6 in favor 2 opposed - Pilkey, - Margison VOTE (7.4.2) : 3 In favor - Shankiin, Walters, Yuhasz 5 opposed Motion fails VOTE (7.4.3) : 7 in favor __ 1 opposed - Best MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 14.3 a) 1--5. Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE (7. 14 3a) 1 ) : 7 in favor - 2 opposed - Kramer, Pilkey VOTE (7 . 14 3a) 2-5) : Unanimous MOTION: Shankiin moved a positive finding on 7. 14.3 a) 6-7 and b) 1-3. Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 14.3 b) 4-5. Yuhasz seconded the motion. Margison asked if sidewalks were required on the main street. Shanklin cited statements by Don Cox requesting no sidewalks for drainage purposes. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 5. 1 . 1 . Walters seconded the motion. Margison indicated she was opposed as the project is uneconomical . Smith cautioned the Board that specific findings must be based on evidence presented and not on one's personal concerns. VOTE: Unanimous. Page 9°6E MOTION: Shanklin moved a -- posti�ive findings on 6. 12 a-d) . • •Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Yuhasz moved a positive finding on 6. 12 f) Shanklin seconded the motion. Kramer asked ifh)a distinction Is - made in the standards between passive and active recreation. Smith responded no. Pilkey asked how separation requirements are determined. Smith cited the formula 1n . the ordinance. VOTE: Unanimous _ MOTION: Shanklin moved a ositive P finding an 5. 1 . 1 a-e) . Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6. 12 f)-h) . Yuhasz seconded the- motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Kramer moved a positive inding on 5. 1 .2 a-e) . Shanklin seconded the motion VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved .a positive finding on 6. 12 a-d) . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 15 .6-9. Walters Seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 7. 15 . 10a) 1-3. Yuhasz seconded the motion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: Consideration o, items seperately. VOTE (7 .5. 10 a) 1 and a) - 3) : Unanimous VOTE (7. 15. 10 a)2: 3 in favor -- Walters, Yuhasz, Shanklin 5 opposed. Motion failed. Best expressed concern about the creation of hazardous situations. Margison and Kramer concurred with Best. Pilkey added it does not encourage smooth traffic flow . • • • 061 Page i0 Collins asked the Board to speak specifically to the design. Kramer felt the added lanes may not be sufficient for St. Mary's Road. Shanklin" noted that traffic on St. Mary's was not related to the commercial area. Kramer withdrew his comment. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive findin and d and 7. 15. 10b) . Yuhasz secondednthe'mot0iona) VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of 6.24 f) 1-3. Kramer seconded the motion. Shanklin inquired about specific landscaping. Smith noted the applicant had specified a screening - requirement on the plan which is described in the ordinance. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on 6.24 e) 3-4. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Smith informed the Board that they could consider the negative findings . as is in making their decision on the project or could attach conditions of approval to address these findings. Shanklin suggested that the Board consider the conditions whether or not the project is recommended for approval . The Board considered the general standards. MOTION: Walters moved a positive finding on the satisfaction of the standard that the project promotes the public health safety and welfare. Yuhasz seconded the motion. Kramer indicated there were substantive questions regarding public safety because of design, objections raised by neighbors, objection to the commercial area and concern with traffic flow. Walters felt no specific testimony to that effect had been provided at public hearing. Best expressed concern with water and transportation issues, noting the applicant did not address these problems adequately. He cited school capacity. • - •• Page 11 Walters felt this project could not address school capacity. He suggested that the school children would be there whether one project or many were approved. He noted the problem of overcrowding already exists and all projects impact the schools. Kramer expressed concern with the locational Impacts of water and traffic. Walters noted rural land cannot .be development is allowed to be dis ersed. He If if a town was desireable, it was bast have added where services are available. Yuhasz maintained that the roads but that. this projectrcould not imp responsible for all traffic problems on US 70. held He felt , the proposed improvements would address the impact of this project and that the applica nt • had expressed a willingness to make improvements as t o SolYe tra ffic problem s the project will generate. Best questioned if the Board was asking them to do their fair share. VOTE: 3 In fever - Walters, Yuhasz, Shanklin 5 opposed Motion failed. MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive findIn satisfaction of the standard o in the maintain or enhance the value that the project will property. Walters seconded the motion on contiguous n. Shanklin felt 'there was no testimony finding. Kramer indicated there was some the for less densffi desire closest to the project had objected the size the lots. He suggested one acre lots around the perimeter. VOTE: 7 in favor 1 opposed - Best Best was opposed due to concerns with density. MOTION; Shanklin moved a that the project complies ewithd1theon Land nde standard Walters seconded the motion , Use Plan. Shanklin noted the project way area designated In Year ic'cat ed within an Transition activity node. Transition and Commercial VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed - Jacobs, Best 071 • . . _ . ... : -..- . '-' Page 12 MOTION: . Yuhasz moved approval . ' with conditions to be attached. Walters- seconded the motion. Kramer, inquired how specific the conditions - needed to be. Smith noted they should be as specific as . possible. Kramer expressed concern with the lack of policy -by the Board of Commissioners. Smith cautioned the Board not to attach _conditions which the applicant has no control over. VOTE: 3-In favor - Shanklin, Walters, Yuhasz - 5 opposed Motion failed. The Board discussed the conditions of approval recommended by staff and attached on page of these minutes. . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of conditions 1-6. Walters - seconded the motion, VOTE: Unanimous Yuhasz questioned the responsibility of individual homeowners if the condition of the special use permit is violated. Smith responded they would be cited for the violation. The Board discussed condition #7.. Smith noted _ NCDOT had reaffirmed its recommendation for a 41 ' cross-section. Walters suggested deleting the connection to Baldwin Road to avoid creating a thoroughfare and a shortcut for traffic to the north. Best noted this would not provide for a traffic system in the area. MOTION: Waiters moved to delete the stubout to Baldwin Road and reduce the cross-section to 37' . Shanklin seconded the motion. VOTE : 4 In favor-Yuhasz, Kramer, Shanklin, Walters 4 opposed - Jacobs, Pilkey, Best, Margison Shanklin cited testimony from Don Cox supporting the deletion of curb/gutter .. MOTION: Shank I i n moved c:_ l et ion of condition `e. seconded the motion . Yuhasz Margison felt it was desireable to have curb/gutter with sidewalks. Collins noted such improvements would be provided following annexation. • • • Page 1 _= ,,. 071-:::--"-...7-1 Best noted that:. curb and gutter required less maintenance, defines the street and provides protection for pedestrians. VOTE: 2 in favor 6 Opposed _ Shanklin, Yuhasz Motion fails. MOTION: Best moved to amend condition turning 18 to specify. that the urning lane on hestun Burin St. Mary's Road should be g construction of Graham Drive. Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous . The Board accepted the staff revision to #10 b consensus, by There was no comment on conditions #13-15. MOTION: Walters moved the deletion seconded the motion, of #16. Shanklin VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed - Best, Jacobs Collins expressed concern to the Board that by this condition the staff is attempting to tie developments together: He noted that the Board has voted both ways on this kind of issue and that the . staff needs better direction from the Board. There was no comment on condition 117. MOTION: Best moved approval PP oval that condition 118 be amended to require that the improvements be constructed immediately upon initial construction of the project. hiargison seconded the motion. Walters cited cost factors. Best cited safety Kramer questioned at which time this requirement is reasonable. Yuhasz questioned the requirement that turn be constructed beyond the propert l lanes y s frontage. Smith clarified Ihz,I; the ;-hird lane serves as a turn lane and would be of no purpose without the direct entrances/exits on U5 70. Yuhasz asked staff if extensions beyond the site were required previously. Smith responded no. Best asked if that is an issue. yes. Best suggested the a Kramer to applicant needed t ed to harnma D7 _ Page 14 responsible. Yuhasz responded the applicant is not solely responsible as the first developer but should only share part of the burden. VOTE: 4 in favor -. Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs, Best 4 opposed - Yuhasz, Shanklin•, Kramer, Walters. The Board noted that the issues here were the length of improvements and the timing of construction of the turn lane. Smith informed the Board that NCOOT had verified it wanted no involvement by a developer in the installation or financing of traffic lights. Best concurred with the staff on NCDOT's position. MOTION: Best , moved deletion of condition #20. seconded the motion. Kramer VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved extension of the meeting minutes. Pilkey seconded the motion: for twenty VOTE: Unanimous Shanklin inquired if #22 should refer to both Carolina Avenue and Second Street. The Board directed that the references be corrected. The Board discussed condition #23. Jacobs asked about Town standards. Smith responded there are none. Pilkey asked what size was implied on Condition #24. Smith responded there was no information from the Town. Yuhasz questioned how far along St. Mary's was Intended by condition #24. There was no discussion of conditions #25 — 28. . The Board discussed #29. Jacobs questioned ( h) noting "wherever possible" should read "wherever appropriate", Waiters expressed concern with 1-he convenience of access for bikes and dirt bikes to these recreation areas. Collins suggested entrance obstruction. Yuhasz noted wheelchair access Is required.. Margison expressed a desire for shaded areas in the tot lots. • • 074 Page 15 • The Board amended h)-.to read "where appropriate" and by concensus added that "shaded areas are to be provided within the tot lot area". There was no. discussion of condition 030. The Board discussed condition 131 . Pilkey suggested- the hiring of a forester.• Margison inquired about internal tree retention. Smith noted if this was imposed on the Single- family area it would raise the question of the desirability of regulation beyond the imposed buffer requirements. Jacobs noted that Commissioner Marshall had requested specific criteria for protecting existing vegetation. Smith suggested in response. to the concern that the - condition be amended to control construction of improvements to limit clearing. MOTION: Pilkey moved approval of condition 131 to limit clearing on the entire area to installation/construction of. improvements. the seconded the motion . Kramer VOTE: 5 in favor 3 opposed -- Shanklin, Walters, Yuhasz MOTION: Shanklin- - moved the- extension of the meeting to conclude this item. Pilkey seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous There was no discussion of conditions 32--38. Yuhasz expressed concern about the responsibility of individual homeowners and the continued validity of the Special Use Permit if violation occur. Smith noted that condition 139 has been amended by staff to add specificity regarding the storm event standard. The Board discussed condition 140. Jacobs inquired how the different housing types were accounted for . Collins responded any combination resulting in 25% would satisfy the condition. Piikey inquired if commercial uses were included. Smith 'responded no as these were not typically high water users. • 077; • Page 16 Shanklin inquired why there was no- nescape clausen if the water crises is solved. Smith responded the • condition also addresses the impacts of the total project over time.. Kramer noted a water policy Is needed to guide the decisions of the Board. Walters questioned why the project is bound to conditions others are not tied to. Kramer expressed concern with the tinkering with unresolved .Issues. Smith reviewed the staff options provided for conditions /41 . Collins commented on annexation requirements and the general rule of thumb that projects be 60% built-out. The Board discussed phase related conditions. MOTION: Kramer moved approval of option a) .- seconded the motion. Shanklin VOTE: Unanimous. The Board discussed condition #43. recommended its deletion as the property onine served has other access. ' Y io be VOTE: 7 in favor 1 opposed - Best MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the addition of a condition requiring consultation with the Hillsborough Postmaster for the provision of mail service. Kramer seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous Kramer expressed opposition to the project on the basis of a lack of clarity with the water issue and traffic problems. He felt he could not act on the proposal in any form in the absence of a water policy. MOTION: Kramer moved that the Board ask the Commissioners to develop a water County consideration of approval of Scotswoodiory any iother pending projects that require water and sewer from Hillsborough. Margison seconded the motion. Smith questioned the application of this proposal to the Town of Hillsborough 's subdivision projects. Collins determined that these projects would also be subject to these decisions. VOTE : 3 in favor - Pilkey, Kramer, Margison 5 opposed Motion failed Jacobs noted that the Planning Board could Itself work on developing such a water policy, and that • • Page 17 the Commissioner s had voted their support to such an effort. MOTION: Shankkin moved approval of the conditions as revised. Best seconded the motion. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Pllkey moved extension of the meeting. Best seconded the motion. Margison announced the League of Women Voters workshop on February 11 and 12 and asked that a Board member attend. MOTION: Shanklin moved that the proposed amendments distributed by staff be sent forward to public hearing. Best seconded the motion. VOTE: 6 in favor Kramer and Yuhasz out of the room. Jacobs asked for written comments on the Joint Planning Area Plan if Board members the meeting on the 17th of February. did not attend Meeting adjourned at 11 :40 p.m. PREPARED BY APPROVED BY DATE DRAFT i - JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MARCH 25, 1986 BOCC PRESENT: Don Willhoit (Chair) , Mos_________________________________________________C Lloyd, Shirley Marshall , Norman Walker P/B PRESENT: Chris Best, Tim Hubbard, etty Margison, Sharlene Piikey, David' S Walters, Steve Yuhesz STAFF PRESENT: Marvin Collins, Susan Smith Laura Hiil ,Chair Willhoit presented t as the list of main issues to be discussed - the current reservoir capacity of Lake Ben Johnson,Lake and Lake Orange -- minor modifications to the reservoirs to incre storage capacity ase - purchase of water from Burlington - sale of water to OWASA -- possible purchase of water from the City of Durham - possible purchase of water from OWASA in the future - in-stream flow and its significance Chair iillhoit continued with the following statement. There are three phases to be considered in terms of the water supply situation in Orange County. The short range phase is one in which we have to determine what the supply situation is and take steps to augment that supply to get us through approximately a 3-5 year period. During the short range period It is possible to purchase water from Burlington, to make modifications to DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 2. 07 ` the reservoirs, to formulate a management plan for managing these water sources and to address the in- stream flow. At the end of the 3-5 year period when Cane Creek comes on line, OWASA should be in a position . to sell water to northern Orange County as a way to augment these supplies. This would be considered an intermediate solution and one which will give adequate lead time to plan for a more permanent solution which would be considered the third phase or the long term solution. The two most mentioned long term solutions would be an allocation from Lake Jordan and construction of a new reservoir. The development of Seven Mile Creek reservoir is one which has been discussed for a long time with no definite commitment. The State would like to see Orange County make a definite commitment to providing a long term solution. OVERVIEW PRESENTED BY COUNTY MANAGER-KEN THOMPSON Thompson reviewed the issue statement on Water Supply in Orange County included on pages of these minutes. STATEMENT BY JOHN WRAY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF N.C. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Wray introduced Meg Kerr, who is responsible for the division which writes the state permits for waste treatment facilities; Scott Van Horn, this region's fisheries biologist with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (most knowledgable of the fish in the Eno River) ; and Sam Bland, Superintendent of the Eno River State Park . He noted these individuals were present as resources to answer specific questions that may arise in any of these areas. Wray noted that there seemed to be many ways to resolve the problems concerning water supply. He stated that the NRCD has two main areas of responsibility: 1 ) to notify jurisdictions of an impending water shortage and 2) the stewardship of the state's streams and reservoirs. Wray pointed out that the source of stream flow data for this area is the US Geological Survey Guage which was in service from 1929 until 1971 and was started back into service a few months ago. He noted the guage is located downstream of the dam at Lake Ben Johnson . Wray continued that the Eno River has a small drainage area. A 1977 North Carolina framework study noted future water supply problems if there was extensive growth. He reviewed water use dating back to the 1930s as depicted on charts. Water use began to increase rapidly during the 1960s. He added water use would continue to increase due to construction and completion 07 DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 3 of 1-40. He noted there had been 40 years without failure, but that this trend cannot continue. He continued that conservation methods were only short range solutions for crisis situations and major long term decisions are needed to go beyond the crisis. Wray indicated that the State had done some analysis based on criteria provided by the County Manager. Yield with conservation and with stream flow was reviewed.. Total yield with conservation could run to about 2.,6 mgd with the existing facilities. With no stream flow at all , it would only go up to about 3 mgd. without stream flow, the difference is one only and mgd. He noted the situation becomes more critical y .4 after year with continued growth and there would have to be some outside source for water supply. Some lon range decisions need to be made to get out of the crisis situation. Wray stated that North Carolina is a riian There are a number of state policies and lawsrwhichtdeal with the riparian question. He noted since the construction of the OWASA pipeline in 1977, which was a response to a crisis, there has been a creeping "dewate ring" of the Eno River itself and as we future with upstream diversions, OWASA, move into the System and Hillsborough itself returns onlyaaboutla50nc- 60% of the water to the streams g e percentage does not come back to theaEno River. hire e are more impacts on the river as growth continues. The riparian law states that there is a right to use the water, but there is no ownership of the water. The State has jurisdiction over the water as statutory responsibility and w l Wit well as a h planning and implementation the conflict�between tprudeer r supply and in-stream flow can be resolved but it will be costly. There is a need to determine who pays if something is done. There is also a question of what flow to be released. The State had made a recommendation using 7Q10. Wray continued that 7010 was about 1 .78 for the period 1929 - 1950 ( 1 .462) ; up to 1960 ( .869) ; and up to 1970 ( .67) . The natural 7010 of the Eno River is low. WIIlhoit asked that Wray emphasize that these figures are cubic feet per second rather than million gallons per day. Wray noted that cubic feet or 1 mgd. = 1 .5 cfs. 10 mgd per second x 1 .55 Wiiihoit then noted that theseuwould range from .4sm d to about 1 . 1 mgd. Wray concurred. g Hillsborough permit to discharge wastewaterdwasacoming up for renewal and he asked for comments from Meg Kirk on the renewal of the permit. Meg Kirk stated that the Eno River is stressed at times and this does threaten the fish and other acquatic life. She noted this was an indication of a need for water quality protection. DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 4 There was a question from State considers a safe the audience as to what0 �e River. Wray responded minimum instream flow for the Recommendation toes onded that 1 .7 was the rim recommendation ommeeda water maintain survival interim to do eeal answer problems. He aquatic life and was nswer at this time necif that there expressed the feeling with specific numbers. capabilities available, that with the engineering could be oes vaila much better flow cos specifying The question was ►nsf th flow Wray y g a minimum figure during the it the State y responded that 1 .7 cfs was re g recommended iduring the Interim and this would commended Burin situation did occur. be cut back if a during the critical John Hartwell Inquired about the the treatment plant. Wray amount the treatment y responded that the flaw below the plant is known but the flow at could have been. made. He noted ono precise study be reasonable figure Josephine Barbour developed. will be enforced by asked if the recommendation of 1 , wtate would be the State. Wray responded that 1 .76 State Soule working with the Count the State a evaluated. There y and the County's St this time. but it is still in the possibility stage of reproducing tsm ands. Barbour continued the working stage drought returning to asking about fish was over. Wray the streams after the Van Horn. Van Horn referred the question to tremendous re responded that Scott can en Productive capabFlit fish have a Populate a stream fairly so a fewotedithas the timing Is critical as to whethercthe � Ne Hated that durng spawning seas drought occurs The question died ate was asked if 1 .76 was P wastewater. Me codeidetea sahe tpermit is issued it is issuediwithrthe°flod In mind and it thaf when a _______I min is calculated _ flow of tee river Y standards of the river at h lowerCf the the lower water 7 day 10 year low flow estimate flow before afi the 1 . The p using a woulr be 7 rate. When it efor ere issued calculated at what the a is up for renewal , it If is Haw. Kirk ctuai flow of continued the river dissolve oxygen In the recefvin they use a matsomveicxl seaedard to model t 9 tread and there it a decomposed once it hat can simulate haw des a is discharged Ito the the waste is wasp asked yes i .7 was considered a safe r sfirnow Kihe ate now and she Commissioner Lloyd Inquired ) Creek, y q whit Kirk responded she the 7010 was fo low. Lloyd was not sure, but for Morgan r lows continued asking if the ut ring i was the same for piyASA Hillsborough. responded that the as for Hillsborough. g limits } of the receiving that key was the water quality irk stream and the Y standards 1�1.' axYger, consum i n ab s l i t i3;: g waste, '., not look at Kirk emphasized y t4 accommodate `° treatment that she does i ` the ,�,' facility :+__ , . 08i DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 5 issuance of a permit. She looks at the eceing streamvs characteristics and nature and specifiesvthe level at which the plant must operate to meet the standard for the stream. Lloyd continued Inquiring if the Hillsborough treatment plant was one of the most modern and efficient treatment plants in the southeast. Kirk responded she could not say. Commissioner Carey inquired when the permit was up for renewal . Kirk responded early 1987. STATEMENT BY THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH idayor Frank Sheffield ld presented the of position the Town Hillsborough p statement of Development. The statemenwas read onIn its entirety. A copy of the statement t entirety.attached minutes. on pages utes, of Wilihoit asked for clarification of the safe yield of the combined reservoirs of 2.6 mgd whichntwould increase to something more than 4 mgd. He Mr. Cordell if the inquired o he figure now being discussed of Cordell responded there u ssng iq 3.ed. were many numbers asked that 4 mgd be s being quoted. 9 thought of as a theoretical maximum utilization of the three reservoirs on the Eno River. Willhoit noted that he uncertainity that goes along with an estimate the felt they should try to deal with a single but al fl le figure. Wray noted 9 theoretical Y ed that he felt the figure 4 arrived at based on some catastrophic as was "see what we can do situation" exercise and the State does not recommends that hwithtithe existing system and these changes made that this be counted upon as a dependable number. Willhoit referred to the handout that showed the capacity of the supply versus demand in which the figure 3.75 was listed. He asked if the 3.75 is basically the same as the figure 4 mgd referred to. Wray responded it was supposed to be the same figure, but that it could possibly need some adjustments and very Ilkley could be less than the 4 mgd. Planning Board member Yuhasz inquired what "safe yield" means. Wray responded it was a statistical you are willing to accept. calculation figdee a depends on the level of risk that is acceptable. ray dtte that 2.2 was a conservative figure meaning 1 Y state that f 50 year range. Wray noted again that the figures ut4 �0 and 3.75 were theoretical figures for catastrophic situations and not intended to be used as a basis, but for some extreme emergency. planning much risk was in the 2.6 safe yieid.CaWrayaresponded that 2.6 was a figure you would drop back from during conservation periods and the yield is less during the extreme conservation periods. That figure was given as a normal yield. Marshall inquired if NRCD was going to DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 6 Q8 provide figures that would be more adequate for a planning basis. Wray responded that the strongest recommendation is for a significant= water project versus the stop-gap measures. He noted his office could provide a reasonable figure depending on the system, but this was not available at this time. Chair Willhoit asked the public to restrict questions to those concerning water supply and not Scotswood at this time. The next public hearing will be on the Scotswood development. A question came from the audience as to whether there were existing communities with contaminated water that should be served by public water service before allocating water to new communities. Willhoit responded this was a policy question and has to do with allocation toward growth. The individual continued asking who would be addressing those needs and not just future needs. Don Cox inquired if Mayor Sheffield had a policy statement from the Town Board regarding in-stream flow. Sheffield responded he did not as there was insufficient information at the time of discussion. He continued acknowledging the area is facing a potential water shortage and expressed the desire to take steps to increase water supply. He also expressed the Town 's desire for in-stream flow requirements for the Eno because it runs through the Town and dilution is necessary for the treatment plant. The issue is level related to treatment capacity. He felt 1 .7 should be a starting point and to go below 1 .7 would require compelling reasons. Horace Johnson expressed the feeling that Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough needs to become Independent of other jurisdictions with regard to water supply. He continued with the recommendation of the merger of the County and Town regarding sites for resevoirs. He felt that Seven Mile Creek was the most feasible site for a reservoir. He recommended increasing the Hillsborough water treatment plant's capacity to 6 mgd. He recommended the increase of the sewage treatment plant' s capacity from 2 to 4 mgd and consideration of a new plant. He suggested the creation of a district for funding these improvements. He felt the key to solving the problem is to increase the raw water supply In Hillsborough by having raw water storage on Seven Mile Creek. Willhoit asked for clarification of the merger mentioned by Johnson. Johnson responded that it must be a joint undertaking for the financing of water and sewer for the Town and County. Marshall inquired if Johnson was recommending a tax Ink . DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 7 district to support such a project and Johnson responded yes. Planning Board member Best inquired about loss through infiltration. Johnson responded the loss was possibly 100,000 gallons. The question of the safe yield of Seven Mile Creek was asked of Johnson. He responded the safe yield would be Increased from 1 .7 to 2.2-2.3. The water in Seven Mile Creek would be used as a backup reservoir. Wilihoit noted that the County had some preliminary engineering done in the past and a reservoir could be built on Seven Mile Creek with the potential of 6 or 7 mgds. STATEMENT BY ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS, INC. In the absence of the president of Orange-Alamance Water, Inc. , Commissioner Ben Lloyd resent statement. presented the Lloyd stated that Orange-Alamance _ Water, Inc. Is a private, non-profit profit organization which began in 1967. There are approximately 1950 customers and it was organ- ized basically to serve medium to low income areas in Orange County. The plant is located on the Eno River west on Highway 70. The lines go west on Highway 70 near to the Alamance County line. The lines then go around Mebane on the north side back to Highway 70 and west to near Back Creek. From Mebane, the lines go southwest to cover an point just west to of Swepsonville. He noted the rates approximately ro double those of Hillsborough and Mebane. continued that approximately 2/3 of Orange-Alamance customers and drainage area is in Alamance County in the r Basin. An agreement has been reached with the Cape Hillsborough to replace 2 meters which would make it possible to pull water from Burlington through the Orange-Alamance system to Hillsborough. He stated that Orange-Alamance can pledge total Hillsborough, Orange County and Chapel Hill toraincrease to water supply. He noted the system had been in operation approximately 19 there Y years and here are repairs to be made. If water comes from Burlington, it must come through the Grange-Alamance system. He willingness to cooperate in any ewayestood help p the again Orange County with the needed water supply. help Proofed that as far as financing, the Board of Orange-Alamance would have to act. Willhoit asked if there had been any discussions with Burlington in transferring that part of the system in the Cape Fear over to another entity or in obtaining wafer from Burlington so that it does not result in an inter-basin diversion. Lloyd responded that no thought had been given to inter-basin transfer. DRAFT JPH MINUTES "PAGEopq Marshall inquired what percentage of the customers were in Alamance County and the answer was 2/3 in Alamance and 1/3 in Orange. Marshall continued expressed concern that Orange County would be sudsidizing Alamance County customers. Lloyd responded if a new reservoir came to Orange County the water would be used by all of the County and if it would provide water for good clean industry, the entire county would benefit. Marshall continued that Alamance County would also be receiving the same benefits and she felt it was not legal for one County's citizens to subsidize those of another county. Lloyd responded he was concerned with this thought since the County was possibly trying to pull water from Alamance County. Carey inquired which county did Lloyd expect the usage to grow from. Lloyd responded if industrial growth occurred in the 1-85 corridor, Orange County usage would be considerably more than Alamance County. Evelyn Poole-Kober raised the question concerning a conflict of interest in that Mr. Lloyd was on the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Directors for Orange-Alamance Water System. Lloyd responded the two were not competing but were working together to obtain needed water for citizens of Orange County. STATEMENT BY OWASA Everette Billingsley, Executive Director for OWASA presented the statement included on pages of these minutes. Lloyd asked about the difference in the dilution rate for Hillsborough and OWASA. Ms. Kirk responded that dilution flow is a minor factor adding that much more important are the hydrolic characteristics of the receiving stream. Lloyd expressed concern that he really did not understand this answer. Don Cox presented the following statement as president of the Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley, Inc. Cox stated that there were over 500 members in the association who are residents of Durham and Orange Counties and they are dedicated to the preservation and well -being of the Eno River. Chair Wilihoit interrupted at this point to inform the public and Board members that with the time still needed to compiete the discussion on water, insufficient time would be left for the he felt harng on Scotswood. He asked for a date for continuationiof the Scotswood public hearing. No agreement could be reached for a continuation date so the meeting resumed. 013t DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 9 Cox continued with a review of the history of the water situation. He noted that as far back as the 1930s and 1940s the Soil Conservation Service and Corp of Engineers identified a number of potential reservoir sites that were available in Orange County and in the Chapel Hill area. He noted that most of those identified were not protected or reserved and were, therefore, no longer available as reservoir sites. In the 1960s and 1970s the Soil Conservation offered Chapel H to assist 1n pill Service sedimentation control measures- for the watershediof University Lake to extend its capacity and useful life. No interest was expressed for such measures by Chapel Hill . Cox continued noting that 1977 was a minor drought year and OWASA proposed a pipeline to Hillsborough. In the summer of 1977, Hillsborough was not supplying water to Chapel Hill and the Orange-Alamance System was drawing considerably less than .6 mgd. There were approximately eight weeks of no flow over Lake Ben Johnson and the estimates were that Lake Orange was drawn down to about 509 of its capacity. Without the number of customers now served, the entire yield of the basin was being used and half of the storage capacity. Cox stated he had met twice with the OWASA Board, during the period of consideration of the decision whether or not to build the pipeline, with the intent of discussing stream flow impacts. He noted he was assured there would not be degradation of the natural stream flows and he very reluctantly agreed not to oppose the pipeline construction . In 1985 OWASA's attorney prepared a bill for introduction in the legislature which, if passed, would have given OWASA "quick-take" condemnation powers and would also have eliminated requirements that they obtain a certificate from the State to make inter-basin transfers of water. Cox continued that no certificate had been issued to permit OWASA to draw water from the Eno River. He noted that with the sewage treatment plant there has been considerable improvement in the downstream quality of the Eno. He noted that as Lake Orange, Lake Ben Johnson and Corporation Lake had been built, the Sumner and fall stream flows of the Eno have steadily become lower lower. He noted that when OWASA built the and Hillsborough, there was as much as three mont e hswith no flow around Hillsborough . He stated that Orange County had been responsive in trying to remedy the situation, but technical and management considerations have hampered this effort. The statement from the Board of Directors of the Eno Association is as follows; "lie have been patient and supportive. We have worked through the process of Boards and Commissions and Task Forces and freely given our • "DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 10 hearts and energies anal minds and financial resources to protect The river and to help seek a solution for our water resource problems. We encourage the various bodies to become concerned and deal with the increasingly critical nature of our water supply resources. We find the efforts to turn to the necessary in-stream flows as a source of water supply to support more growth and . development in all of Orange County an intolerable solution. We will reluctantly support a minimum flow of 1 .7 cfs knowing that it will most likely be sustained far more than 7 days and 10 years but we will observe the operation of the reservoirs, water uses, stream flows and conditions of the- river and will be prepared to take strong and immediate action to remedy an adverse condition by exercising all statutory legal means. We fully intend to protect the Eno River and its environment." PUBLIC COMMENT Betsy Tilley introduced Marshall Spears, an attorney representing a group of concerned Lake Orange property owners. Spears presented concerns owners regarding the raising oofth the adam.OrHeg noted pthat by studying deeds and maps it appears that Lake Orange controls to contour line 615. He noted that the raising of the dam would not provide a significant benefit but would cause more consternation . He continued that the cost benefit ratio must be looked at and that a part of that cost benefit ratio is humanity. He noted that if the docmentation That led to Lake Orange was studied, it would be found that it was done for the purpose of a number of recreational water-related activities and the deeds to the property go down to that point subject only to an easement, and would only go above 615 in the case of oppression ion or some temporary y measure. He expressed again his doubts that significant benefit would be gained by disturbing Lake Orange. Spears noted that there has not been an acceptable level of communication with Lake Orange residents about the raising of the dam. Willhoit inquired what the dam level is and Spears responded that the rights that exist in the legal document appear to be to the contour level 615. Willhoit asked if there was an interest in raising the dam more than one foot. Some residents stated that the figure they had been told was two feet or more. Willhoit noted that 614 is the current level of the dam and to put flashboards on the dam to raise it one foot would yield approximately 120,000 . Willhoit asked the County Manager the cost of raising the darn one foot. Thompson responded the expected expenditure is something over $100,000 and it is a cost- benefit question as to whether one foot is worth that type expenditure. Wilihoit asked if a new reservoir DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 11 could be built for this amount and the response was "just about that". Willhoit asked that it be clarified that the intent was to raise the dam only one foot and even that is not certain at this time. MOTION: Marshall moved Board adoption of a policy limiting the improvements to Lake Orange Dam to one foot of additional flashboard and in no case to exceed the 615 level . Seconded by Carey. VOTE: Unanimous. Ms. Tilley stated that at a meeting with management, one purpose was to get approval from the property owners to raise the water level of Lake Orange two feet. She noted that this would cause considerable flooding over and above • the property owned by the County. In the property owners ' opinion, the increase in water supply would not justify the high cost and damage to property. They felt that a more cost effective approach should be considered. She continued that if a reservoir were constructed on Seven Mile Creek, it would be much larger than Lake Orange and strongly suggested that this be the route the County take. Pat Key, Lake Orange property owner, stated that even with the motion stating only one foot, she still had concerns that the matter was not closed. She expressed concern with lack of notification also regarding the cost of "band-aid solution" . She felt a reservoir needed to be started that would benefit all of Orange County. Margaret Holton, speaking for the League of Women Voters presented the statement included on page of these minutes. Mary Frances Ramsey spoke as a concerned citizen who owns property on the Eno River. Ms. Ramsey expressed concern with the inadequate in-stream flow , Sh requested that the In-stream flow should never be lower than the minimum 1 .7 recommended by the State. Crawford Goodman spoke as Chair of the Preservation Fund of Hillsborough, a group concerned with the preservation of the beauty of the Town. Mr. Goodman expressed concern with the visible decline of the central natural feature of Hillsborough -the Eno River. he focused on what he termed "the missingllink"t between Lake Den Johnson and the treatment plant outfall . He indicated that this section of the river was severly impacted during periods of drought and/or low stream flow . He cited impacts upon wildlife and vegetation, in particular sycamores and river birches. He stated that during dry periods the river banks are subject to collapse resulting in the destruction of the tree species mentioned above. He also spoke as a concerned property owner along the river bank in regard to the 08E DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 12 sewer treatment plant- outfall . He asked that the Property owners Interests be taken Into account. Robert Rose, resident of Queen Street and Hillsborough Planning Board member, expressed concern that the banaid solutions mentioned would not work. any future development in Orange County He not co that him if it endangered the people, wildlife uand concern that are already present. He asked how could you keep taking from the river without showing any resnimumbiller flow. HeePlacement or at least keeping a minimum water continued that anything done i•n the Immediate future was just a stop-gap measure and still a breakeven point. John Hartwell , Eno River resident, expressed concern that as long as the sewage is must be water there . put into the river, there recommended t ded monitoring equipment at the to tolerate the sewage. He treatment plant itself mo that the plant is operating d orer er be constantly assured properly, Pete Thorn, representative of the Durham/Chapel Association, spoke in upportCoape) Hill efforts to sustain Hillsborough support until 01'rASthe completion of Cane Creek in three 'or until the urged that Hillsbrough uphold its four years. OWASA.He He stated a reasonable water supply commitment to nts is crucial to the economy. for all residents is V D. W. presented a resolution from the Orange Y Fish and Wildlife Club attached on pages of these minutes. Marshall no noted there where one two issues presented: mspecificall specifically. other to move ahead on Seven Mile Creek some motion of the Board needed to ) She hole areas- made in both these iWillhoit noted that the manager had re proposed policy positions. prepared a list of suggestion as to what he feltethennextestepat should had in the short range modification. n would be io have John Wray evaluate One action would be to flow. John also OWASArs proposal on in-stream Resources expressed a desire to ask the Division to make some additional runs on their model accounting for the purchase Burlington and also assuming the of 1 mto from reservoirs, and use the model to advise seont the timingtof the purchase of water by y OWASA from the Town of i He asked that they use a criterion number of days left at the point where the 1 cross to of the Propose a cutback in the transfer town systems d to develop a proposal in terms of OWASA and I stream flow as the reservoir capacity cutting back on in- ' y decreases, ,. DRAFT JPH MINUTES NUTES 0$4 PAGE 13 Wray noted that a response could be work load, but that -some of given depending would be on Judgment calls, f the answers would be assumptions were needed �onh which nto:basehthe model . Lloyd asked if this recommendation would be applicable other areas as well . Wray responded that one example was the recently completed project by tymp f Durham. He noted that much more Y the Bing of released in that project,. He than 7Q10 was being of .4 with no in-stream noted that the difference recommended for Orange County. is the figure . being the water does not belong y' He stressed again that there Is the right to use it. anyone in particular but Willhoit i ere noted ths a .should anteds ereesl policy question that the Board .whether •that point g the cutoff point to OWASA; .water shortage in northernfOrange eCount phase down process is used, a significant u Wray responded that whether a be a judgement call . Wra becommudgemint was a "sharing"Willhoit noted that the Manager's of reservoirs were drawn doncludin the cut-back but the a complete cud-off on the transfer a tot~back but ray responded that the study transfer fio OWASA. Wray Basin given that correlating the data stay within the Eno River difficult if not impos siblegotherwise. would be very office to Billingsley noted that he would like to work with Wray' could be reached in this complex problem erle s alternatives . Willhoit stated that he understood that the modeling was necessary to development responded that his office could management Pion within the Eno River, deal with aprr+anagemcnt Durham connection with OWASA Willhoit noted that as it needed to be explored again seems to be a critical link . 9 conservation and noted that Mayor Sheffield mentioned that the Town of Hillsborough is had stated issue. He also noted that the county to explore that is enforcing the current Y plumbing requires the state plumbing code inspector r quires, installation of low-volume code whing He also indicated thermg t plumbing some design type standards that could be possibly or the conservation of water, developed for W i l l h o i t noted that the engineering cf University Lake needed to work on the by-pass of ni ersity Hillsborough ken' proceed and that th Town with the Lake Ben Johnson amodificationr, gain the cost effectivenes 9 to proceed s of raising the n added angt from heke November needs to be reviewed as the figures 15, 1985 statement reads $32,000 and the The No stated at this public hearing was $100,000. figure stated Willhoit continued that the Burlington connection needed togproceedgasw on the well as the 091 DRAFT JPH MINUTES PAGE 14 development of a purchase agreement with the City of Burlington. Don Cox noted that there was no low flow staff guage at the USGS guaging station and requested that the County • purchase such a gunge. Willhoit asked that the County Manager work with the Town of Hillsborough to purchase this item. Marshall stated she felt serious consideration should be given to what and how the Board will move on Horace Johnson 's recommendations . She felt this was - the long range answer and in some ways the speed in which this is moved on might determine what is done as a short range answer. Wilihoit stated that a decision had not been made on Seven Mile Creek. Walker noted that fifteen years ago the County had begun purchasing land around Seven Mile Creek for a reservoir. Willhoit noted that the engineering study was done in 1981 , but the report had never been accepted nor a recommendation received from the Planning Board. Willhoit noted a recommendation was needed from the Planning Board on Seven Mile Creek and if this was the best solution, it should be included in the Land Use Plan. Willhoit asked Collins, Planning Director if Seven Mile Creek is in the Land Use Plan. Collins responded that, at the time the Boards were considering the zoning of Cheeks Township, the Planning Board considered a study done by John McAdams Company regarding reservoirs, The Planning Board supported Seven Mile Creek as fhe top priority reservoir and Seven Mile Creek was included in the Land Use Plan for Cheeks Township . Willhoit continued that a mechanism needed to be in place to acquire property as it becomes available and to flag development proposals for the reservoir site. Willhoit referred this to the Manager's Office for a proposal as how to proceed. Marshall asked that the minutes of this meeting be very detailed. MOTION: Willhoit moved to continue the Scatswood Planned Development public hearing to April 1 , 1986 in the Superior Courtroom. Seconded by Marshall . VOTE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned 11 : 30 p.m. 09.E MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 1 , 1986 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shirley Marshall , Don Wilihoit (Chair) , Norman Gustaveson, Ben Lloyd, Moses Carey PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Lewis, David Shanklin, Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Chris Best, Carl Waiters - STAFF PRESENT: Susan Smith, Marvin Collins, Eddie Kirk, Sylvia Clemmons • SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/REZONING Commissioner Marshall asked that the March 25, 1986 minutes be entered into the record of this public hearing. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, entered two items into the record: 1 ) the revised water usage projections for the Hillsborough service area and 2) the traffic accidents report for US 70, both distributed at the March 25, 1985 public hearing. Collins reviewed both documents noting that the Town of Hillsborough concurs with the revised water usage estimates. SWORN IN: Grainger Barrett, John Watkins, Dalton Loftin, Tom Metzguer, Joyce Brown, John Hartwell , Bill Wray John Watkins addressed the project in terms of its general transportation aspects. He reviewed previous comments regarding improvements to existing roads. He noted that NCDOT supported deleting the westernmost entrance to Carolina Loop as it creates a five-points situation that is difficult to control . He added that NCDOT would ultimately prefer right turn only arrangements in and out of the shopping center . He indicated that a traffic signal was likely at the intersec- tion of St. Mary 's road and US 70. He added that a second traffic may eventually be added at the westernmost entrance to the development along US 70, noting that the spacing would be adequate between the signals. Peter Kramer, Planning Board member cited the Town of Hillsborough 's comments regarding traffic along St. Mary 's Road. He specifically cited the recommendation regarding the widening of US 70 and the construction of the eastern bypass. He asked 'Watkins to comment on these recommendations and 0 on4 the broader traffic Issues. He suggested that NCDOT was simply tinkering the issues in their recommendations for turning lanes. He inquired who will pay for the Hillsborough bypass and the widening of US 70. He inquired how traffic would be handled around Cameron Park School . Watkins responded that given the 17-18.000 ADT safe capacity on US 70 NCDOT would have to address critical points only and later consider multi•- laning US 70. He noted that the safe capacity for St. Mary's Road Is 11-12,000 ADT. Kramer expressed concern that planning for these improvements was shortsighted given the problems and concerns cited by the Town of Hillsborough. Watkins responded that St. Mary 's Road is of the approved thoroughfare plan for Hillsborough. Hertcontinued that it is a function of NCDOT to construct roads included on a thoroughfare plan•. He noted that improvements to US 70 needed to get on the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) for Orange County and be approved by the Board of Transportation. Chris Best, Planning Board member, asked what the service level would be for US 70 at full capacity. Watkins responded level C which would mean minor traffic delays. Best inquired about St. Mary 's Road. Watkins responded that intersections are the critical points. He noted that a two lane road with a turn lane carries as much traffic as a four lane road with out much additional capacity. He added that a five lane road was preferable to a four lane road given the minimum additional capacity of a four lane road. Best inquired if NCDOT had investigated the need for a traffic light at the intersection of US 70 and St. Mary 's Road. Watkins responded that an investigation had conducted and It was determined that a traffic light was bnot warranted. Best noted that NCDOT had labeled US 70 as a thoroughfare and emphasized the need to maintain the continuity of the road as a travelway and now was suggesting the need to install two traffic lights along this road. Watkins responded that when Scotswood is fully developed two traffic lights will likely be needed. He noted that with the installation of a traffic light at an intersection the incidence of angle accidents decreases the incidence of rear end collisions increases. He added that a turn lane reduces the Iikelihood of rear end collisions by establishing a protected area for turning traffic. Pilkey inquired about- the desireable spacing between traffic lights on a main highway. Watkins responded 700-750 feet to allow for storage and coordination of the signals. Pilkey inquired if NCDOT considered anythin bes number of cars Ie. hills, narrowness r ides the classifying roads . Watkins resp that the rotc' id road _ . 094 characteristics are considered citing the example that narrow roads handle less capacity. Planning Board Chair Jacobs inquired the cost of a traffic signal . Watkins responded a signal costs from $5-6000 to $30,000, depending on the complexity of the signal . Jacobs asked what is the source of funds for traffic signals. Watkins responded channelization and safety funds. Jacobs noted that NCDOT has indicated they will not accept funds from a developer for a signal for a particular inter- section to be installed at the time NCDOT feels it is necessary. Watkins confirmed that that was NCDOT policy., Citing the liabilities involved, Watkins indicated that NCDOT desires full control of a given intersection, adding that NCDOT has been able to fund these improvements in a reasonable period of time when warrants have been satisfied. Jacobs expressed concern about the public bearing the costs warranted by the actions of the private sector. Watkins noted that a funding is based on user fees. Jacobs noted that the Town of Hillsborough recommended the widening of US 70 and that the County had recommended that the project be phased to provide 200 units within a 2.5-5 year period and asked where inprovements to US 70 are on the highway improvements program. Watkins responded that US 70 was not listed on the highway improvements program at this time adding that he did not know when the Board of Transportation would add it to the TIP. He noted the TIP is updated every year. Each community presents its requests based on the needs of the community and prioritized and presented in a unified manner . Commissioner (Walker inquired if the Board of Transportation set certain use levels before roads are improved through the program. Watkins responded that the highway program is based on the competition between projects throughout the state and that projects are considered on a state-wide basis. He added there is no magic date. Commissioner Marshall emphasized that this situation poses difficulty for local decision makers in making public health, safety and welfare decisions and anticipating needs, She added that NCDOT waits until there is a need, a problem created, while the local governing board is trying to avoid the problem. Watkins that anticipation of need is desireable, but that NCDOT needs to stay within the physical constraints of recognized needs. Commissioner Wiilhoit addressed the process, needs, the TIP and funding. He noted that service levels are deteriorating while funding is years off adding that there is a shortfall in the status of the highway fund . He added that there is a need to increase the gasoline fax to meet the needs. He con- tinued that local government needs to do more to assist in getting roads constructed including the possiblity of participation in funding improvements and in right-of-way acquisition . He asked what is needed in terms of Scotswood to provide fcr the highest level of service needed balanced with the equity question. He inquired what the ultimate cross-section of US 70 should be. Watkins responded that the ultimate cross-section for US 70 i5 five lanes including a center turn lane and curb and gutter or, if the right-of_wa is gutter. He added that NCDOT wouldoconcentratehonttherbleft and turn lane only at critical intersections. He noted that it would cost approximately $750,000 per mile to five lane 09c US 70. Commissioner Carey noted that NCDOT satisfaction with Hillsborough's recommendation regarding widening of US 70. g the Commissioner Willhoit noted that the situation regarding the need for funding will worsen. Watkins commented that there is a serious shortfall and that he hopes the legislature will address the funding needs. He added that Orange County has for many years required that additional right-of-way adjacent to major roads be provided through the development process, a requirement not found elsewhere. Tom Metzguer cited a discrepancy in the abstract on page two which cited a service level "C" and indicated 7500 trips per day versus the 17000 trips per day noted by Watkins. Plan- ning Director Marvin Collins indicated that the figure used in the abstract was obtained from Dwight Kelly, NCDOT. Watkins responded that he was not sure of the re , but that Dr. Goode of the Transportation PlanningfrDDepartment concurred with his estimates. He added that in urban areas roads may carry more traffic than we think the improvements are made only at critical points they can and . Commissioner Lloyd inquired how the project compares in the context of phasing with other areas of the state ability of the road system to handle the traffic generated. He asked if NCDOT speaks to needs within a reasonable period of time. Watkins responded that each situation is unique and that local governing boards need to keep in touch with the Board of Transportation and present their needs. Commissioner Lloyd noted the comment regarding Cameron Park School , but indicated that most of athectraffic will be on US 70. Watkins responded that the traffic consul- tant for the project had better data than NCDOT. that most of the traffic will travel east on US ae added there would be an increase in traffic traveling south on St 70 and tStt Mary 's Road. St. Pilkey noted that she lives on US 70 and asked what percen- tage of the ultimate traffic generated by development popmen y would travel east on US 70. Watkins again suggestedthatthe traffic consultant answer the question given his better data base. Grainger Barrett, representing the applicants, presented a statement on the project. He continued that the planned development process provides advantages, not shortcomings, in the proviion of improvements, expectations and a unified development s approach to the development of the property. Barrett commented on the water usage ' issue noting that a moratorium was not necessary. He continued that the sense of urgency was clear and that the Board needs to set policy, make choices and implement these choices. He noted the Burlington option is subject to definitive contracts and technical details; the Seven Mile Creek option is subject to planning and site acquisition; and that other options are available including other reservoir sites, water from Durham or the Jordan reservoir. He suggested that the water concerns can be met and solved emphasizing that Scotswood is not the problem. Barrett commented on the traffic issue. He reviewed data presented by the staff, NCDOT and the consultant. He noted that all of the experts cited indicated that the service level of the road system will be maintained with adequate improvements and safe traffic capacity and intersection movements. Noting that the Hillsborough thoroughfare plan is somewhat stale, he emphasized that Scotswood is located at the intersection of three major thoroughfares on the current plan: Miller Road, St. Mary 's Road and US 70. Barrett suggested that the the consultant, and the County work together to review the options available for road improvements and to assess the impacts of the Scotwood development on the road system. He emphasized that no single developer or even a group of developers can provide all the infrastructure in a community, they can only contribute to it. He noted that the historical role of local government is to finance infrastructure and provide for it. He continued that the Town of Hillsborough is responsible for updating its thoroughfare plan, which it is in the process of doing, an activity which is essential to handle growth whether or not it is associated with Scotswood. He added that the applicants are willing to participate in the update of the thoroughfare plan. Barrett continued that most of the traffic will not go to downtown Hillsborough. He added that the applicants were equally concerned with maintaining the scale and charm of downtown Hillsborough and do not wish to contribute to the ruination of the Town. Barrett noted that a functional bypass exists, Lawrence Road, with improvements as evidenced by the comments of Mayor Sheffield and the traffic consultant. He unpaved portion of Lawrence Road needs tontbeued vtedt the d. e commented on the bridge that presently exists over Eno noting that the alternative to the improvement of this bridge would result in environmental costs of recrossing the Eno and destroying historical homes. Barrett informed the Board that the applicant had had the routes to the project timed and that it was quicker to travel 09t Lawrence Road than to go through downtown Hillsborough, making provisions for the stoplights and stopsigns. Barrett cited the declinir:g trend in the accident statistics at the intersection of US 70 and St. Mary's Road adding that the turn lanes will improve the accident statistics. He added that all major road improvements will be in place in the first phase. He concluded that the consultant and NCDOT projected that the improvements proposed would be adequate. Commissioner Willhoit asked what the priority number for Lawrence Road is. Watkins did not know the answer. Larry Meisner, Kimbley-Horn, responded to an earlier question regarding US 70 that 35% of the traffic would be eastbound on US 70, approximately 4000 vehicles per day. He continued with peak hour data noting that the 7-9 am peak hour would account for 60% of the total traffic impact with 1/2 of the Impact based on the shopping center. He continued that there would be less traffic in the pm peak hours because the school traffic peak hours are not the same as those of the shopping center. He continued that in regards to the accident report the incidence of accidents was lower that the statewide average in more recent years. Shanklin inquired if there was greater incidence of an accident at an acute angle intersection than at a square intersection. Meisner responded that a square intersection was more desireable, but that the greater problem at the US 70 and St. Mary's Road intersection was that it is non- signalized. Pilkey inquired the number of cars per day on Lawrence Road. Meisner responded 1/3 of 3400 trips. John R. McAdams, representing the engineering firm, presented his statement. Jacobs inquired about the shopping center type and location. Barrett responded that it is a neighborhood facility. McAdams responded that 65,000 square feet of floor area is proposed as compared to 5-600,000 square feet of floor area for a mall complex. Jacobs asked the applicant to address the siting of the facility as opposed to a less impact location. McAdams responded that the facility was well suited to the location at the intersection of major thoroughfares. Jacobs questioned the location if the facility is intended to serve the internal service population. McAdams responded that the facility keeps residents from going off-site for such 091 services and reduces the traffic load on the road system. Barrett continued that in Chapel HiII the shopping centers are located within one mile of each other. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if NCDOT would condemn property for right-of-way if it was designated on a through- fare plan. Watkins responded that if the thoroughfare was located outside of the municipal limits then the right-of-way woui.d have to be acquired as part of the secondary road improvements program. Willhoit inquired if this would change if the road was part of the County thoroughfare plan. Watkins responded not necessarily. Willhoit asked at what point does NCDOT become involved in active acquisition; Watkins responded that NCDOT has the capability for active acquisition even on secondary roads. Barrett emphasized that there are a variety of avenues including special statute requested by the Town of Hillsborough. Bill Wray indicated that he was neither pro nor con Scots- wood. He informed the Board that he was representing Lake Orange Inc. which operates the recreation facility and which owns five feet above the contour controlled by . the County around Lake Orange. He informed the Board that Lake Orange Inc. has agreed to give the County an additional foot awhich would allow the dam to be raised two feet. Dalton Loftin, attorney, presented a statement regarding deeds which were prepared and recorded that raised the question of ownership of the land around the lake. He explained that the deeds which he drew up for four of the property owners .were erroneous as they left out the notation that the County controlled a specified portion of lands immediately surrounding the lake. He noted that the original survey of the lake property contained the referenced notation regarding the reservation of the land under county control . However, he had prepared the deeds in question from a subsequent survey which did not contain the notation regarding county control of adjoining property. Loftin concluded his statement- that the landowners around the lake cannot deed title to land owned by Lake Orange Incorporated. Commissioner Marshall indicated she understood that these mistakes do happen and inquired if any structures had been erected within the disputed area. Loftin responded that he was not aware of any structures. Commissioner Marshall noted that some owners had claimed that their houses would be flooded. Commissioner Lloyd clarified that the lake level is contour 614 and that Lake Orange Corporation owns from contour 615- 620 . Geoffrey Gledhill , County Attorney, inquired if any of the erroneous deeds are more than seven years old. Loftin responded that no visible boundaries had been established nor the area occupied . O9 Wray commented that the dam was designed to handle an additional two feet which, if . constructed, would provide enough time for the construction of another reservoir. Bobby Nichols, member of the Lake Orange Corporation, commented that given a shortage of storage capacity that raising the dam two feet would provide a 25% increase in storage capacity. He noted that pier owners needed permission from the Lake . orange Corporation to construct these facilities. Commissioner Willhost questioned a safe yield of 25%. Ken Thompson, County Manager, responded that the 25% referred to acre volume. - Commissioner Willhoit referred the matter to the staff for recommendation. Joyce Brown presented a statement on the Scotswood project. She noted that there is a diversity in Hillsborough evidenced by .those of varying economic status living side-by-side. She felt that a planned development would not provide for this type of diversity. She expressed concerns with traffic problems and expressed a desire for heavier control over the project. She expressed a concern with potential air quality problems as experienced by Durham and Raleigh. She .felt that a new development was unfairly taking precedence. Tom Metzguer expressed concern about additional traffic on Miller Road without any improvements suggested thereby creating a hazardous situation. He noted that Lawrence Road is presently unpaved and cited design problems with Old f10 . He indicated that he had learned by word of mouth of an additional 100 homes north of Scotswood. John Hartwell addressed the use of Lawrence Road as a bypass. He indicated that no comment on the use of Lawrence Road as a bypass had been made at earlier meetings. He commented on three points: 1 ) the maximum width of the bridge is 18' which does adequately provide for passing vehicles; 2) there is 5/ 10ths of a mile of unpaved road with both sharp curves and a right-of-way problem; and 3) there is a sight distance problem with the intersection with St. Mary 's Road. Eddie Kirk, Planner, indicated that Lawrence Road carried 230 ADT. Watkins indicated that there were no provisions in the current program to upgrade the bridge. Shirley Marshall and Barry Jacobs were sworn in. Commissioner Marshall commented that Scotswood alerted all of us and brought the problems to the forefront of the discussion . She expressed qualms with the ten year build-out period and identified the need for an implementation period. She continued that otherwise there would be a need to reserve resources for a long period of time for the development of the infrastructure. She cited a substantial difference in Mayor Sheffield 's testimony in that the first time he ccommented he had reservations and the second time he addressed the enlargement of facilities serving the area. 0 1)C • She added that she wanted the staff to keep track of cumulative development impacts and wanted both the start-up and completion timeframes for projects to be specified. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, raised the question of high publiccostts. He noted that two units per acre was minimally acceptable. He emphasized that minimums were used in the concept of Scotswood. Commissioner Carey inquired about the approval process for the project. Collins reviewed the process for the Board noting that the site plan for the planned development constituted the preliminary plat for the subdivision of the single-family area. A final plat for this portion of the development would have to be reviewed, approved and recorded. The multi-family section would be subject to staff review and approval of the construction plans. Commissioner Carey inquired when the commercial area would be developed. Barrett responded during the second phase. Carey inquired how many residential units would be in place at that time. Barrett responded 60 units. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about screening and landscaping of the site. Collins responded that detailed planting plans are required in order to secure building permits. These plans would be reviewed by staff for compliance with the ordinance. He clarified that the applicant had presented landscaping details on the site plan which showed general compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about the design of the commercial area and the possibility of reversing the location of the parking area. McAdams responded that customers need to get into the front side of the store and that a reversed parking area would be undesireable to merchants. He added that to reverse the location of the parking area would place the delivery docks and dumpsters next to the road . Willhoit questioned the 50 ' buffer in the front which the residential areas view the back of the commercial facility. McAdams responded that there was a 100' buffer to the rear of the commercial facility. The public hearing on Scotswood was closed at 9:50 p.m. The Board of Commissioners referred the matter to the Planning Board for recommendation. Commissioner Willhoit moved that Lhe public hearing on Scotswood be continued until May 5, 1986 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Board . Commissioner Carey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously , Commissioner Willhoit commented that phasing seemed the most equitable way to allocate the water resources and reserve the resources. Commissioner Marshall emphasized the need to keep a running balance, Willhoit added that the County does not need to make a commitment for the full number of units. L. Commissioner Marshall identified two concepts to consider: 1 ) over-commitment and 2) phasing of the project. She cited the Chapel Hill example that if a project does not build-out a certain phase within the stated timeframe then it drops to the bottom of the list. Jacobs supported the phasing concept and its use to regulate growth. He also supported the development of impact fees. Commissioner Walker felt the latter represented double taxation just to discourage growth. Commissioner Willhoit countered that impact fees serve as a way to finance infrastructure. The meeting ended at 10:00 pm. bQA DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 AGENDA ITEM #8c; * PD-5-85 SCOTSW00D Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for approval a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. This item was submitted to public hearing on November 25, 1985 and January 6, 1986. The Planning Board recommendation of denial was submitted to the Board of Commissioners on February 18, 1986. On February 18, 1986 the public hearing on Scotswood was continued to March 25, 1986 to receive further public comment on traffic and water supply issues, particularly current and proposed water withdrawals, possible improvements to the three reservoirs in northern Orange County and the State 's recommendation regarding in-stream flow requirements. On March 25, 1986 the public hearing on Scotswood was continued to April 1 , 1986, due to the lateness of the hour for further receipt of public comment on the request. On April 1 , 1986, the Board of Commissioners referred the proposal back to the Planning Board for further consideration . John W. Graham & A. H. Graham, Jr. are requesting approval of a planned development and rezoning for 331 . 12 acres of land located along Highway 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road(SR 1002) northeast of Hillsborough . The property is referenced as Tax map 6, Block B. , Lots 3 & 4 and Tax Map 22 Block A, lot 17 of Hillsborough Township. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification is (Residential 1 ) R-1 . The applicants are requesting 290.03 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R2, 29.50 acres to be rezoned PD-H-R5 and 10.43 acres to be rezoned PD GC4. Approval of the request would allow development of 410 residential lots with a minimum 20,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 216 attached multi-family dwelling units and a 65,460 square feet of commercial space on 10 .43 acres. .. 10' DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 The Planning Staff recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with thirty-eight (38) conditions of approval at the February 4, 1986 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board recommended denial of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit at its February 4, 1986 meeting, The Planning Staff again recommends approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of. a Class A Special Use Permit with attached conditions of approval . Smith reviewed the traffic and water usage impacts table. Smith noted that at no point on the table did the Scotswood development exceed the capacity of the roads in question according to information received from NCDOT. She noted that the water issue is affected by the agreement with the City of Burlington and the State proposed phasing plan. Pilkey presented a statement included on page of these minutes. Walters inquired the approximate number of units approved for Wildwood . Smith responded over 150. Walters noted that Wildwood had come in "hodge- podge" with limited control and Scotswood is coming in total with planned development and with the Boards being able to exercise control . Best responded that planned development is "the way to go", but that the content is what is in question. Lewis responded that density does have an Impact. He also noted that density has an impact on affordability as well . Walters continued that the opportunity is available to become a "mobile home community" and he would much prefer "affordable" housing rather than mobile homes. The Board reviewed the "Findings" related to the Scotswood application. MOTION: . Kizer moved positive findings on the Application Components. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: 10 in favor. Shanklin out of the room during this vote. 10e: DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 MOTION: Yuhasz moved positive findings on 8.2.4.a) (water/sewer service) . Seconded by Lewis. Smith informed the Board that she felt perhaps they wished to affirm or re-affirm their past decision on this finding. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Walters moved positive findings on 8.2.4b) (police/fire services) . Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 8.2.4c) (Vehicular access) . Seconded by Walters. Kramer stated that he was not convinced of traffic safety. Shanklin responded that NCDOT will not respond to a deficiency until a deficiency exists. Yuhasz noted that he felt the improvements proposed by the developer will help alleviate the problems which exist now on US 70. Kramer indicated that the argument as to "what is the applicant responsible for" is a tough argument He cited Commissioner Marshall 's argument regarding local governments responsibility for the future. Shanklin responded that NCDOT will not act unless a deficiency exists. He added that thinking men would like to have the road first. Best commented that the monies for construction must be generated first. Yuhasz inquired from what sources these benefits would come citing the benefits to the public from the development of this project. Lewis concurred with Yuhasz noting that the developer had made a committment to road improvements which would benefit the area. Yuhasz commented that the development process has to some extent focused interest on US 70. Hubbard expressed concern that we are "putting the cart before the horse" . He added that infrastructure needs to be in place first. Kizer cited Watkins statement of NCDOT policy regarding road improvements as presented at the public hearing. Kramer called the question. VOTE: 5 In favor. (Kizer, Shanklin, Lewis, Yuhasz, Waiters) . 104 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 6 opposed. (Kramer, Best, Hubbard, Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs) . Walters felt that those opposing the motion had not proven their point adding that one could not assume that everyone must travel to work at 55 mph on every road at all times. He continued that these decisions effectively deny the project. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 20.3.2 a) b) (Rezoning application materials) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 20.3.2 e) (Land Use Plan) . Seconded by Yuhasz. Pilkey expressed concern in the Land Use Plan with spacing requirements for commercial uses. Lewis suggested that the commercial proposal would keep residents of the development off US 70. Best commented that there was only one access to the commercial area from the development and, therefore, this was not truly a commercial area for Scotswood. Kramer asked if the size was different would that impact Best's decision . Best responded yes. Yuhasz added that Pilkey seemed concerned with uses ie. the grocery store adding that such a facility would serve the community. Collins asked the Board members to cite the provision in the ordinance regarding spacing of commercial uses. Jacobs read Section 7. 15 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Smith indicated that that provision did not set a spacing standard . VOTE: 5 in favor. (Walters, Lewis, Yuhasz, Shanklin, Kizer) 6 opposed. (Kramer, Best, Hubbard, Margison, Pilkey, Jacobs) MOTION: Kizer moved positive findings on all findings related to Sections 4.2.3 a) b ) c) , 4.2.3 a) b) c) d ) and 4.2. 11 a) b) c) (Criteria for PD-H-R2, PD H-R5 and PD(C)-GC-4 zoning districts) . Seconded by Walters. Margison questioned the wording "could be" in reference to provision of water and sewer facilities. Kizer responded that this provision 1U DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25 was in anticipation of rezoning. Collins added it was also in anticipation of . Hillsborough 's approval of the water and sewer plans. VTOE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 7.4. 1 (Streets) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 7.4.2 (Utilities) . Seconded by Walters. Best expressed a concern that there would be a cost to the taxpayers due to the necessity of upgrading lines In order to purchase water from the City of Burlington. Yuhasz responded that could happen if Scotswood is the only development to come in and no other development is approved that uses water and sewer. Yuhasz noted that this particular development is not responsible for the cost of upgrading water lines in order to purchase water from the City of Burlington. Collins commented that if there was no more development in the County at all there is still a water problem to be addressed by the upgrading of lines. S Pilkey inquired about stormwater drainage and the possibility of higher net public cost. Collins responded that no evidence was presented at the public hearing that indicated there would be an increase in net public cost. Kizer noted that there is not a development anywhere which would not result in some increase in public cost in the provision of services and expressed a concern that emphasis on this point was non-sensicai . Yuhasz commented that such developments generate additional tax revenues. He added that there are many factors that determine net public cost. Hubbard responded that the costs are borne by the public in advance of the receipt of revenues associated with the development. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Best, Jacobs, Hubbard) , MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 7.4.3 (Hazards) and 7 . 14.3 (Site planning standards external ) . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. 10€ DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on Article 5 (PD- H-R2-Dimensional requirements) , 6. 12 (LUI Standards) , Article 5 (PD-H-R5 Dimensional requirements) , 6. 12 (LUI Standards) , 6. 16. 1 (Unit ownership) , Article 5 (PD-C-GC-4 Dimensional requirements) , 6. 12 (LUI Standards) , 7. 15 .5 (Building Height) , 7. 15.6 (Landscaping) , 7. 15 .7 (Parking) , 7. 15.8 (Underground lines) and 7. 15.9 (Signs) . Seconded by Lewis. Kramer expressed concern that most of the recreation area was designated for passive use. Pilkey asked if there were requirements in the ordinance regarding handicap spaces. Smith responded there were none although there was a condition of approval attached which addressed this matter. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on 7. 15. 10 a) 1 (Site planning-minor streets) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Walters moved a positive finding on 7. 15. 10 a)2 ( Vehicular access) . Seconded by Shanklin . Best noted that this included the proposed traffic_ light which will be left up to NCDOT to install . Smith commented that NCDOT had testified at the public hearing that they wished to control the timing of the installation of the traffic light and bear all costs. Shanklin added that the professionals would determine when there is a need for the installation of a traffic light. VOTE: 5 in favor. (Yuhasz, Lewis, Kizer, Walters, Shanklin) . 6 opposed (Jacobs, Pilkey, Hubbard, Best, Kramer, Margison) . MOTION: Shanklin moved positive findings on Item 7. 15 . 10 a)c (External yards) , 7. 15 . 10 b) ( Internal relatinonships) , 6 .24 (Landscaping/Parking) . Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. 10 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 Kizer clarified that there is a distinction in the procedures and evidence for a planned development as opposed to a general rezoning. Smith noted that the Planning Board effectively denied the rezoning by the negative finding on the zoning criteria and must forward a recommendation for denial . She added, however, that the last time the Planning Board recommended to the Board of Commissioners denial and in addition, forwarded recommended conditions of approval should the Board of Commissioners approve the rezoning. MOTION; Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #1 (Public health, safety and welfare) . Seconded by Pilkey. Kizer commented that no evidence was presented at the public hearing to suggest that this project will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare. He added that the burden in the Special Use Permit process is on those opposing the development. Jacobs noted the finding needed to be based on a preponderance of the evidence. VOTE: 5 in favor (Yuhasz, Shanklin, Walters, Lewis, Kizer) . 6 opposed (Jacobs, Pilkey, Best, Kramer, Margison, Hubbard) . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #2 (Property Value) . Seconded by Lewis. Kizer emphasized that the decision must be based on the evidence presented not on a feeling. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Best, Hubbard) . MOTION: Shanklin moved a positive finding on general standard #3 (Land Use Plan) . Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Best, Hubbard, Jacobs) . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval Seconded by Kramer. Yuhasz asked cthat tthere be 8a friendly amendment limiting the motion to conditions 1-6. Amendment accepted. VOTE: Unanimous. 10k DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 28 • A special meeting ..was set for May 13, 1986 to complete subdivision applications. MOTION: Shanklin moved to delete Baldwin Road connection from condition #7. Seconded by Yuhasz. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved to reduce the 411 paved cross section to 371 . Seconded by Yuhasz. Shanklin noted he favored the reduction due to a • statement made by Don Cox at the public hearing in reference to water, infiltration. Yuhasz noted this would also discourage through traffic. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Hubbard, Kizer, Best) . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of condition #8. Seconded by Walters. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of condition #9. Seconded by Kizer. Pilkey referred to the statement by Don Cox that curb and gutter would allow more runoff . Kizer noted that he felt the curb and gutter would allow the opportunity to channel the runoff in an area he considers to be more urban. Yuhasz felt it was better not to have curb and gutter since there is no stormwater drainage system in the area. Jacobs noted that Dr. Moreau, UNC Water Resources, also expressed a serious concern about the use of curb and gutter. Best noted that curb and gutter has uses other than runoff . It aids in lower road maintenance. VOTE: 5 in favor (Kizer, Hubbard, Kramer, Best, Jacobs) . 6 opposed (Shanklin, Yuhasz, Lewis, Pilkey, Margison, Walters) . Adjournment time was reached. MOTION: Pilkey moved to continue the meeting for completion of Scotswood. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: Unanimous. Collins informed the Board If curb and gutter condition is deleted, condition #10 (sidewalks) lU DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 may as well be deleted as this would not be accepted by NCDOT. Margison asked for reconsideration of condition #9. Seconded by Kizer. VOTE: 6 in favor. 4 opposed (Shanklin, Walters, Lewis, Yuhasz Pilkey out of the room during this vote) - MOTION: Hubbard moved approval of conditions 10-13. Seconded by Kizer. VOTE: Unanimous. Walters , noted that condition #14 (cul-de-sac) imposes a hardship on those residents closest to St. Mary's Road. Yuhasz questioned if the applicant has the legal power to. close the road. Smith responded that NCDOT has regulations regarding abandoned roads. MOTION: Walters moved to delete condition #14. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: 4 in favor (Best, Yuhasz, Walters, Shanklin) 6 opposed (Kizer, Kramer, Hubbard, Pilkey, Jacobs, Margison) Lewis out of the room during this vote. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of conditions #15 and 116. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Margison moved approval of conditioh Seconded by Kizer. #17. VOTE: 7 in favor. 4 opposed (Yuhasz, Lewis, Walters, Shanklin) . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of conditions #18-20. Seconded by Pilkey. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Kizer moved approval of conditions #21-27. Seconded by Pilkey. Hubbard stated he would like to delete the words active and passive in condition #27a and reword as follows: Provide a minimum of 15 acres recreational purposes. The passive recreation area shall not include the open space area along • 111 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 30 Nancy Hill Creek. Kizer responded the applicant has already provided more than the minimum recreation requirements. Hubbard noted some of the area could later be released. Smith noted a change in condition would require a public hearing. Collins noted that the minimum standards is all that can be required of an applicant unless there is a specific showing that more area is needed and there has been no evidence that more is • needed. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz) . MOTION: Kizer moved approval of conditions 128 and 29. Seconded by Shanklin. VOTE: Unanimous. Kizer left the meeting 11 :00 p.m. Jacobs read the following as his recommended replacement for condition 130. "Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. Existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. Clearing shall only be conducted for the purposes of installing improvements (roads, utilities lines, etc. ) or for establishing a building site within an area delineated by required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Reasonable care should be taken to retain all existing vegetation." Smith commented that by this motion the opportunity has been eliminated to put up an accessory building on one of the single-family lots. Best disagreed stating that the developer would be responsible for compliance with this condition, not the owner. Smith responded that the developer will sell the lots and the purchasers of those lots will then be held responsible for compliance with the provisions of the special use permit. Jacobs indicated he would be willing to add to the statement that " changes in the existing vegetation shall be approved in consultation with the Planning Staff" . Smith questioned under what criteria would the staff review such requests from 400 single-family property owners, emphasizing 111 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 that the means to administer the provision must be known and the objective to be achieved by such a provision must be clear. Jacobs continued with his suggestion that "develooper shall retain a professional forests to make a survey of the development prior to the initiation of construction . Said forester shall mark all trees greater than twelve ( 12) inches in diamter; both on a plat of the. property and on the trees themselves. Where there is an unusual or outstanding group of trees, the entire stand should be noted. Specimen flowering trees such as dogwoods and redbuds, which do not ordinarily grwo to twelve inches in diameter, sdhail also be identified. The developer and Planning Staff shall then confer to produce site plans that protyet the maximum number of trees identified for protection." Smith asked if Jacobs was suggesting the combination of Condition /30 and 132 since the suggestion included provisions already included in these conditions. Jacobs responded that the buffer was different in intention and that he felt the issues should be considered separately. Kizer noted that a developer could clear all the property with the exception of the setbacks on the basis of this suggestion. Jacobs responded that currently there was no restriction at all and that he felt his suggestion is both reasonable for the owner and the Planning Staff . Shanklin suggested that the condition as presented by staff is sufficient. Walters felt that those who would move into the area would want to protect it. Yuhasz commented that the provision should not be applied to individual lots and raised the question that actions by an individual property owner could jeapardize the special use permit for the entire development. Kramer commented that there was potential In the suggestion, but he questioned the practicality in its enforcement. Shanklin added that conditions of approval run with the land. Jacobs indicated he had no intention to limit the individual property buyer from making changes. His intention was to give the buyer an option " in consultation with the Planning Department" . 114 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 32 Lewis expressed concern that members of the Board have a. very Jaded view of developers. He continuted that most developers are trying to market a product; therefore, most of them will try make their product as marketable as possible, which would include saving as many trees as possible. He, added that this suggestion would limit the individual homeowner. Best suggested that the homeowners? rules and regulations could be used to enforce the concept. Smith noted that discussion at the past meeting on this condition focused on separating the responsibilities of the developer as he prepares his site for marketing from the actions of the individual property owners who purchase the lots. Jacobs noted that the suggested condition was intended to address this relationship. Smith cited the problem that the condition, as worded, applied to both. Kizer noted that should you decide the homeowners ' association can cover this it should not necessarily imply wrongdoing only on the part of the developer given that many individual property owners do not appreciate the finer things we are considering. Smith cited an example that an in-ground pool may be located in a setback and an individual property owner may wish to install a pool with its accessory features on his half-acre lot, therefore building out his site. Margison cited homeowners? association regulations setting out those restrictions. Smith commented that the county does not regulate restrictions of private associations . 35 11•"-..r Kramer left the meeting. Jacobs suggested a revision to the wording of the condition as follows: "Grading on the site shall be kept to a minimum. At least until such time as the developer conveys title of the property to individual owners existing vegetation shall be retained." He added that the rest of the provision would remain as is. He continued that individual property owners, knowing which trees have been marked on the plat as being of significance, can come to the Planning Staff and ask to remove the trees. No restrictions would be listed on how they would do that. If at some subsequent point there is some kind of recognition of special environmental features on the site the County will make an attempt to preserve them. if they do not exist because there had. been no attempt to preserve .them, then it is a moot point. He indicated a desire to establish the option for the property owner. Lewis and Yuhasz indicated that the property owner is given the ultimate option at the time of purchase. Lewis expressed concern about regulating everything and requiring that the Planning Staff enforce it. Smith asked for clarification on the transition between the developer and property owner in maintenance. Jacobs suggested adding " the property owner and planning staff shall then confer" . Yuhasz inquired of the responsibility of the builder who will acquire the property from the Grahams and then sell to the ultimate individual property owner. Hubbard suggested the responsibility should also rest with the Kizer felt homeowners need to be included in the responsibility. Shanklin questioned what was wrong with the condition as originally worded . MOTION: Shanklin moved that Condition #30 be left as worded. The Board discussed the . intent and action on the original motion, REVISED MOTION: Shanklin moved for clarification that Condition #30 be left as worded. Hubbard recognized that there is the possibility that the development may not be as all of us want it to be. He continued that there are too many developments where developers to clear cut sites and that Jacobs suggestion was good although it may not be worded quite right. He added that that may or may not happen in this case. Lewis responded that that is not the cheapest was to develop in this area. He noted it is cheaper to leave trees than bear the cost for clearing. Waiters seconded the motion. 1 1 Hubbard expressed concern that the hour was so late and precluded the opportunity to work out some appropriate wording. Jacobs felt he could not vote against the condition, but he felt it was inadequate as worded. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Margison) . MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of conditions #31-41 . Walters seconded the motion. Smith suggested that it might be apprpriate to include some of the wording. Just discussed in the condition on the buffer. ' The Board discussed the difference between a professional forrester and a landscape architect. Jacobs commented that there is a difference in areas of expertise. A professional forester surveys and records, but does not recommend. Kizer noted that the landscape architect also knows the business. Shanklin suggested condition #32 was sufficient as worded . Best inquired how the wording was different. Jacobs noted the wording " or specimen flowering trees, such as dogwoods and redbuds, which do not ordinarily grow to 12" in diameter". This wording was added to condition #32 be consensus. Jacobs noted that " initiation" was spelled wrong in condition #31 , He also noted in condition #36 the wording should read "within a given 2.5 year period". Hubbard inquired what "specimen" means. Jacobs responded it means "healthy and representative". Best added it means "vigorous". Lewis questioned that 2.5% limit on the project phasing. Shanklin respnded that it addressed the water usage issue. Jacobs commented that it also addressed traffic impacts. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Yuhasz) Kizer left the meeting. Jacobs suggested the addition of condition #42 as follows: 35 11 "The commercial area shall contain no more , sgare feet of floor space in either one high than vo30lume 000 retail establishment or .a series of small "boutique-type stores, plus proportional service and parking areas. The remaining land previously designated as commercial floor space shall be maintained in buffers both between the shoppoing area and U.S. 70 and between the shopping area and the multi-family housing." Best commented that Collins had advised him that the suggested floor area is that required for a supermarket. MOTION: Best moved the wording . suggested by Jacobs. Pilkey seconded the motion. Jacobs indicated that this condition is an attempt to address traffic impacts. Shanklin expressed concern that the limitation to one major store 'would not allow for the inclusion of other uses associated with a neighborhood shopping center. He added that the development as proposed Is balanced. Lewis noted that the facility is anchored by a large retail facility. He expressed concern that this proposal would force the residents of Scotswood to drive to other commercial areas. VOTE: 5 in favor (Jacobs, Margison, Pilkey, Hubbard, Best) 4 opposed (Yuhasz, Shanklin, Lewis, Walters) Barry Jacobs indicated he wished to insert a written statement into the record. He summarized the statement found on pages of these minutes. MOTION; Lewis moved to continue the meeting to consider items 71 and D . Yuhasz seconded the motion. VOTE: 4 in favor(Shanklin, Yuhasz, Walters, Lewis) 5 opposed (Hubbard, Best, Pilkey, Margison, Jacobs) Motion failed. The meeting adjourned at 11 :30. 11 t. • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AG NDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. U4 MEETING DATE May 5, 1986 • SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Program Amendment Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING: X YES NO ,TTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Davis Budgeted Amount PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH - 732-8181 Current Budget HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Proposed Budget CHAPEL Hill -967-9251 MEBANE - 227-203.1 DURHAM-688-7331 PURPOSE: To receive comments from the public concerning a program amendment to transfer the remaining commmunity.devel.opment activities funds to the parks, playground and recreation facil- ities budget for park construction in the Northern Fairview Community Development Project Area. NEED: All community development activities have been completed in the Northern Fairview Community Development Project Area. Orange County has reclaimed, cleared and graded a landfill area for the development of a community park. Current parks, playground and recreation facilities budget has only $1,136.00 remaining. Staff proposes to submit to the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) a program amendment for trans- fer of remaining community development activities funds (approximately $133,461.59) to the parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities budget for park construction and re- creational facilities. NRCD regulation requires a public hear- ing prior to submission of a program amendment. IMPACT: Citizens input should be reviewed to determine whether comments are in approval or objection to program amendment for park construction and recreational facilities. The approval of a program amendment will make it feasible for park construction and the close-out of the community development block grant in the Northern Fairview Project Area. RECOMMENDATION(S): 11.E Community Development Program Amendment Budget Transfer Budgeted Amount Current Budget Proposed Budget Acquisition $74,564.00 $54,442.50 0 Parks, Play- $120,528.00 $1,136.49 $133,461.59 ground and Recreational Facilities Clearance $7,500.00 $2,900.00 0 Relocation $71,100.00 $55,690.00 0 Rehabili- $563,206.00 $26,973.19 0 tation of privately owned dwellings Adminis- $101,102.00 -$7,680.59 tration 0 TOTAL $938,000.00 $133,461.59 $133,461.59 ORANGE COUNTY 11 PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date MAY 5, 1986 . Action a da SUBJECT: EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES - REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION item ,�_ r . DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No Attachmentis) Information Contact: APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER SUSAN SMITH Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To continue the public hearing on PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses. The public hearing on the Eubanks Road planned development rezoning was held on March 13, 1986 and continue to May 5, 1986 to receive the Orange County Planning Board and Chapel Hill Town Council recommendations. NEED: The applicant, John Loving, has requested that the decision on Eubanks Road Townhouses be deferred until further review of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan has been completed. IMPACT: Continuation of the public hearing will represent additional delay for the applicant who has indicated that the scheduled June decision on the Land Use Plan would be acceptable to him. Continuation of the public hearing will allow for the finalization of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and would contribute to a clarification of the issues as they relate to this planned development rezoning request. RECOMMENDATION: To continue the public hearing until June 17, 1986 to receive the Orange County Planning Board and the Chapel Hill Town Council 's recommendations. it IL • &A .4;, April 16, 1986 Mr. Marvin Collins Director, Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Eubanks Road Townhomes Dear Mr. Collins: As you know, several members of the Chapel Hill Town Council voiced concern at the public hearing that our request for rezoning the Eubanks Road site was premature since the proposed comprehensive land use plan has not yet been adopted by the two governinn bodies. Since it is our desire to be as cooperative as possible, we hereby request that action on our rezoning be deferred until further review of the land use plan has taken place. The terms of our land purchase contract will not permit us to delay indefinately, but if the land use plan is approved in June as expected, we should have no problems. Cordially yours, John C. Loving JCL/bjm JOHN LOVING & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND CONSULTANTS P.O. BOX 51667, RALEIGH, N.C. 27609 (919) 878-5794 ORANGE COUNT Y 12 C Action Agenda BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS it No. 11/1 , ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE May 5, 1986 Subject: MMNUTES 1 Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes X no Attachments: Information Contact: Beverly A. BMitbe Under Separate Cover 1 i Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 9684501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: January 21, 1986 - Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 - Joint Quarterly Meeting March 18, 1986 - Regular Meeting ch 25, 1986 - Public Hearing on Water Resources April 1, 1986 - Public Hearing on Scotswood April 3, 1986 - Joint Quarterly Meeting April 7, 1986 - Regular Meeting April 14, 1986 - Special Meeting April 22, 1986 - Regular Meeting NEED: Approval so the minutes may- be entered into the official minute book in the Clerk's office. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. 8 121 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AG?" ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. LL MEETING DATE MAY 5, 1986 SUBJECT: COUNTY AUCTION, 1986 ************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES RESOLUTION EXT 497 AUCTION LISTING PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To declare as surplus, items on the attached list and to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to conduct an auction of those personal property items declared surplus or confiscated. Auction toss. be held Saturday, May 17, 1986 at the Public works Department located on Highway 86, Hillsborough. Requests for proposal were submitted by several area auctioneers with Phillip Walker submitting the successful proposal. NEED: General Statute 160A-270(b) requires the Board to authorize this action. IMPACT: The action will provide additional revenue-for the County while clearing storage areas. In the case of abandoned and:_cnnficated property sale - proceeds will be evenly divided between the_two school systems after deducting for expenses, as provided in the North Carolina statutes. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. 124 RESOLUTION WHEREAS: Orange County desires to dispose of surplus, confiscated and abandoned property in a manner prescribed by North Carolina State Law, WHEREAS, Orange County has given its own departments and funded agencies the opportunity to acquire this property prior to its disposal, WHEREAS, Orange County has determined that public auction would be the most equitable way to dispose of surplus, confiscated and abandoned property and at the same time produce the most revenue for the County, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Orange County Board of Commissioners do authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to conduct a public auction of those surplus and confiscated items found on the attached list on May 17, 1986. The auction to be held at 9:00 a.m. at the Orange County Public Works Department and to be conducted on an as is, highest bidder basis . FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to sign over the titles of those vehicles being sold at auction so that ownership may pass to the buyer and to direct the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners to send notice of such authorization to the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles and do hereby authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to make the necessary adjustments in inventory for items listed and items that have been stolen, salvaged, or destroyed or mistakenly placed in the inventory. BID FOR: Audi 64-Qy' BID TABULATION FOR OFFICE USE BID AWARDED TO: -^C�l' CLOSING DATE: 41 BID PRICE: CLOSING TIME: : �}p �, RJR BUDGETED AMOUNT: as cl-lb *lot sQ S/10 3�� W . I. CONFISCATED ITEMS ITEM SERIAL # a F.A. #(if applicable) 1. Kem 5 Ohas triple beam balance scales 2. Tennas Phase III AM-FM cassette in dash radio 3. Okowa 35 MM camera 976588 4. Bushnell binoculars 5. Bushnell binoculars Ser. MN6571 6. Walkman II casstte player R6571 7. Dynamic stero head phones 8. Proton stero head phones 9. Block Buster microvision game 10. GPX stero MINI-HI FI cassette player 11. Elite equalizer booster 12. Gold colored pins with red roses (2) 13. 2 Maxwell batteries 14. Auto fuses 15. Ray-o-vac 9 volt battery 16. Kodak instant camera 17. Yamaha stero receiver 18. Teac stero cassette deck 19. Set of Koss professional stero phones 20. Set of Superscope carbon condenser microphones 21. Set of Realistic stero head phones 22. Set of Koss pro head phones 23. JVC turntable 24. Gray tool box with assorted tools 25. yamaha head phones 26. Sony head phones 27. Hotpoint air conditioner 28. Ray-o-vac mangum light 29. Hewlet-Packard calculator 30. Texas Instrument adapter 31. Lava lamp 32. UHF/VHF/FM splitter 33. Black case superscope condenser microphone 34. Sony stero cassett player 35. Pentax 35 mm camera 36. Yashica TL-super 35 mm camera 37. Canon 35mm camera 38. Seiko quartz men's watch 39. Seiko digital man's watch 40. Halin quartz man's watch 41. G.E. stero sound cassette 42. Allen wrench set 43. AIWA stero cassette deck 44. Technics AM/FM stero receiver 45. Ball bat 46. Silverstone guitar 47. Black 3 cell flashlight 48. Old hickory butcher knige 49. White handle hunting knife 50. Ohaus balance scale 51. Black face watch & black lether band 52. Black case with pair of Mercury binoculars 53. Ohaus Beam balance scale 54. Pioneer stero turntable 55. Kenwood AM/FM stero receiver 56. Sansu amplifier 24610334 57. Sanyo stero cassette deck 58. Kenwood amplifier 310204 59. Black tire tool 60. Southbend rod with Zebco reel 61. Diwa rod with Garcia Mitchell reel 62. Stihl chain saw Model #085 63. Homelite super 2 chain saw 700500320 64. Monteverni AM-FM clock radio 70003C 65. GE black & white Television 66. White multi-purpose fire extinguisher 67. . Machette 68. Realistic AM/FM radio 10663-68 69. Blue submergible well pump 70. 2 Realistic scanner boxes 71. Hickory Maddock handle 72. Road patrol radar detector 73. Large Metal desk u 12i II. - OFFICE FURNITURE/OFFICE EQUIPMENT SERIAL # OR ITEM F.A. # (if applicable) 1. Olympia Typewriter 00135 2. Duplicating machine; 3M 28675 3. Mimeograph Machines; AB Dick, 2 each 525 4. Side Chairs; metal; 5 each 01959 01942 01995 01999 01973 5. Chair; green upholstered 6. Chairs; wooden, 4 each 7. Chairs; brown upholstered 0049 8. Chairs; dark brown 9. Chairs; swivel 1-brown 1-green 10. Desk; metal; woodgrain top 11. Copier; AB Dick 675 00477 12. Copier; Multiliter 0827 13. Desks; blonde; 5" , 2 each 14. Desks; metal 15. Benches; pecan 16. Desk; mahogany 17. Typewriter; Royal 00143 18. Footstools; three each 19. Desk; oak-stained 20. Desk; brown painted 21. Cabinet; metal; 3 ' 22. Chair; wooden; swivel 23. Chair; metal 24. Chair; metal; green 25. Copier; AB Dick 695 26. Copier; 3M 27. Desk top 28. Table; wooden; 6' ; dark 29. Chair; metal; blue 30. File holder; mini-rack 31. Desk; metal; 60" 32. Safe 33. Shelf; metal 34. 35. 36. Filing cabinet; index card size 37. Filing cabinet; 6"xl" drawers 38. Desk; metal 39. Stand; wooden 40. Cabinet; green 12 III. MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT (not office) ITEM SERIAi, # OR F.A. # (if applicable) 1. Washing machine; whirlpool 2. Hot water heater (2 each) 3. Dryer; electric; Whirlpool 4. Bases; dental chairs (2 each) 5. Table; metal/vinal exam table 6. Fam; pedestal-type 7. Pipe threading machine 01269 8. Heater; gas; 26000 BUT 9. System analyzer; KAL #4098 01128 4.CV. MISCELLANEOUS SERIAL .L Q ITEM F.A. #(if applicable 1. Door; wooden; 9 pane 2. Doors; louver; 30"x6'8" (2 each) V. VEHICLES : ITEM SERIAL UR F.A. (if pplicable) 1. 1 1947 Ford tractor 2. 2 C10 short truck beds Chevrolet 3. 75 Kentworth #300820 (front end loader sanitation tk.) 00882 4. 74 Ford Galaxie 500 - 4 dr. 4N54S119199 5. 79 Ford Fairmont -- 4 dr. 9X927236158 6. 76 Ford Ltd. - 4 dr. 6B635204834 7. 79 Ford Fairmont - 4 dr. 9X92T241653 8. 78 Ford Ltd.- 2 dr. 8H301109575 9. 77 Ford Ltd. - 4 dr. 78635221330 10. 73 Buick Limited - 2 dr. 4V37U3H502020 11. 82 Ford Ltd. - 4 dr. 2FABP31D3CB194104 12. 81 Plymouth Fury - 4 dr. 1P3BR27N3BA119489 13. 72 Chevrolet Custom 10 pickup 1/2 ton CCE142B124149 14. 80 Chevrolet Impala - 4 dr. 1L69LAJ217762 15. 80 Chevrolet Impala - 4 dr. 1L69LAJ219942 16. 79 Chevrolet Impala - 4 dr. 1L69L95301329 17. 80 Chevrolet Impala - 4 dr. 1L69LAJ224334 18. 81 Plymouth Fury - 4 dr. 1P3BR27NXBA119487 19. 70 Chevrolet Monte Carlo - 2 dr. 138570L148109 2o. 72 Ford F250 with camper shell - F25YNM01507 21. 76 Ford Ltd. - 4 dr. 6B638194390 22. 82 Ford Lt. - 4 dr. 2FABP31D5CB194105 23. 81 Plymouth Fury - 4 dr. 1P3BR27N8BA119486 24.' 78 Ford Courier pickup 56TAT093322 25. 76 Dodge Sportsman van (bus) B36BE6XD80840 26. 74 Chevreolet Sportvan 30 (bus) CGY36U154113 27, 75 Dodge Ambulance Tradesman 300-Bso 835BF5XD57114 28. 77 Dodge Ambulance Tradesman 300-B30 B35BJ7XD89814 29. 77 Dodge Ambulance Tradesman 300-B30 B35BF7XD83641 30. 62 Chevrolet schoolbus 60 256725138980 31. 71 Dodge pickup 1/2 ton D14AE15331496 13C ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. Ea, MEETING DATE MAY 5, 1986 SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID FOR ENGINE ANALYZER ************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PURCHASING & CENTRAL SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING YES _X_NO ************************************************************************** ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: PAM JONES EXT 497 PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8181 HILLSBOROUGH 732-9361 CHAPEL HILL 967-9251 MEBANE 227-2031 DURHAM 688-7331 ************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To award bid for engine analyzer. NEED: General Statutes require non-construction purchases in excess of $10,000. to have Board of Commissionersappr-oval. IMPACT: Budgetary impact will be $17,990. Funds are available. However, the efficiency impact will be much greater. Currently, the county has several different classes of vehicles, small autos - to large trucks. These differences often make diagnosis cumbersome and time-consuming. Through utilization of technologically advanced equipment such as this, mechanics time can be used in a more productive manner with more direct diagnosis to the real problem. This machine has the capability to be reprogrammed with updated vehicle specs via a floppy disc, thereby making the obsolescence factor minimal. RECOMMENDATION: Award the bid. • onAGE .zra 131 BOARD OF Ct •Z SSIONERS Action F nc? • Acric AGENDA 11.1.:4 ASSTI AG2 Item 1�?O I' ''I DA` May .. 5 , 1986 Subject: School Health Fund Dep n=: Health -1 J ( Public Hearing: yes g no- Attachment(s) : Info aticn Contact: Jerry Robinson • None ;:bale Ni : Ext. 311 Purpose: Increase the School Health Fund by $500 in 100% State money - no local match - in the FY '85-'86 budget. Need: The funds are used to purchase dental treatment for indigent school pupils from the Orange County dental program of the health department. Impact: Ten plus children who would otherwise not receive dental care will be treated. Recommendation(s): Accept the increased State funds. unisaum L A P L Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO.E q MEETING DATE May 5, 1986 tr F SUBJECT: Air-ambulance Communications Contract DEPARTMENT: Emergency Services j ['PUBLIC HEARING: YES g NO 1 LATTACHMENTS : No INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Baker PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH 732-8161 CHAPEL HILL 929--8109 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider entering into a contract with North Carolina Memorial Hospital for the purpose of providing County Employees (Dispatchers) for air-ambulance flight communications-. NEED: To continue a consolidated emergency services program within Orange County and assist North Carolina Memorial Hospital in implementing its Air Ambulance program. • 1 IMPACT: No County budget impact would be expected. All cost to Orange County would be reimbursed by North Carolina Memorial Hospital as stated in Paragraph eight (8) of the contract. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve contract. 13� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA THIS AGREEMENT, made effective the 1st day of April, 1986 by and between The North Carolina Memorial Hospital, hereinafter referred to as "The Hospital;" and Orange County, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "Orange. County," for its Office of Emergency Medical Services. W. I. T. N E, S SSF. T 1 WHEREAS, The Hospital desires to implement a hospital-based air ambulance program; and WHEREAS, The Hospital desires the services of Hospital-based Emergency Medical Services Communication coordinators ("EMS Communicators") ; and WHEREAS, Orange County desires to assist The Hospital in implementing its air ambulance program by supplying the services of EMS communicators; and WHEREAS, The Hospital desires to reimburse Orange County for such EMS communicator services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the following mutual promises, covenants and conditions, The Hospital and Orange County agree as follows: 1. Orange County agrees to make available to The Hospital the services of five full-time EMS communicators to assist The Hospital in implementing its air ambulance program. The EMS communicators shall be responsible for coordination of all communication relative to air ambulance flights, including, communications between The Hospital, the aircraft, referring facilities and agencies, ground EMS units, and the medical control officer. One of these EMS communicators shall act in a Supervisory role, with duties and responsibilities as determined by the Hospital and Orange County. 2. Both Orange County and The Hospital agree that for all purposes such EMS communicators shall be considered employees of Orange County. Orange County agrees to consult with The Hospital prior to assigning such EMS communicators to The Hospital air ambulance program. 134 3. Orange County agrees that the EMS communat icors whose services are provided. pursuant to this Agreement shall have at least two years of Emergency Medical Service Communication ' experience, or its equivalent. 4. Both Orange County and The Hospital understand and agree that The Hospital will have administrative and professional supervision of such EMS communicators while thay are rendering services to The Hospital under this Agreement. Professional activities and services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be in compliance with policies and protocols developed and agreed upon by designated representatives of The Hospital and Orange County. 5. Both Orange County and The Hospital agree and understand that if at any time The Hospital determines that an EMS communicator's performance or professional interactions are inadequate or inappropriate, The Hospital may request removal of the EMS communicator. The Hospital shall provide sufficient documentation to Orange County detailing the reasons for the Hospital's request for replacement. Such documentation shall be in a form that is in compliance with the Orange County Personnel Ordinance regarding disciplinary action. 6. The Hospital agrees to provide a training experience for the five full-time EMS communicators relevant to duties specific to their functions with The Hospital's air ambulance program. 7. Both Orange County and The Hospital understand and agree that Orange County may designate an in-Hospital liason accountable to Orange County Office of Emergency Medical Services for EMS communicator personnel functions such as discipline, scheduling, holidays, sick leave. 8. In return for the services of EMS communicators, as identified herein, The Hospital agrees to reimburse Orange County for the cost of salaries and fringe benefits of five full-time EMS communicators, including time during the training period referenced in paragraph 6 above. "Fringe benefits," as used herein, shall include Orange County's contributions to the local government employee's retirement system, health insurance, life insurance/accidental death and dismemberment and workers' compensation for the EMS communicators covered by this Agreement. At its option, The Hospital shall either reimburse Orange County for the cost of or provide coverage for professional liability insurance for the EMS communicators whose services are provided pursuant to this Agreement. Pursuant to these agreements, The Hospital shall reimburse Orange County at the rate of $10,000 per month, subject to such modification of this monthly amount as is necessary following specific agreement between the parties of the actual cost of salaries and fringe benefits. y 131. 9. Both Orange County and The Hospital understand and agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an exclusive arrangement between the parties. Orange County is free to provide services of any kind or nature to any other air or land ambulance service or program. 10. The Hospital agrees to notify Orange County when The Hospital's air ambulance is responding within the geographic area covered by Orange County Office of Emergency Medical Services. 11. This Agreement shall run for a period of 3 years, from the 1st day of April, 1986 to the 31st day of March, 1989 and shall be renewable thereafter upon written notice executed by both parties. 12. This Agreement or its renewals may be terminated at any time without penalty by either party provided that written notice of such termination is furnished to the other party at least 180 days prior to termination. In the event of such termination any payment due shall be prorated to the date of termination. 13. In compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395x(V) (1) (I) and implementing regulations, Orange County agrees, until the expiration of four years after the services are furnished under this contract, to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General access to this contract and to the books, documents and records of Orange County necessary to verify the nature and extent of the costs of this contract, subject to and consistent with the policies and procedures contained in OMB Circular A-102, Attachment P. Orange County further agrees that if any of the duties of this contract are carried out by a subcontractor of Orange County such subcontract shall contain a clause to the effect that, until the expiration of four years after the services are furnished under such subcontract, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General shall have access to such subcontract and to the books, documents and records of the subcontractor necessary to verify the nature and extent of the costs of such subcontract, subject to and consistent with the policies and procedures contained in OMB Circular A-102, Attachment P. 14. The Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and shall not be altered, amended or modified, except by an agreement in writing executed by the duly authorized officials of both parties. 15. The laws of North Carolina shall govern the validity and interpretation of the provisions, terms and conditions of the Agreement. 13t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the' parties , have hereunto signed this Agreement in their official capacities of the day and year listed below. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: THE NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR ON BEHALF OP: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Eric B. Munson ��. Executive Director Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: �--„�______� DATE: NM 13F� rIPr The North Carolina Memorial Hospital University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514 April 22, 1986 Geoffrey E. Gledhill Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill & Hargrave Attorneys at Law 110 Churton Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear Geoff: Round Two: Flight Coordinators. I have made minor changes to the EMT-P Contract, mostly substituting "EMS Communicator" for "paramedic". The only substantive changes are in paragraphs 1 and 5. Paragraph 1 identifies the responsibilities of the communicators. Paragraph 5 was altered, recognizing that it may not be necessary for the Hospital to seek immediate removal of one of the communicators; the Hospital will comply with the various warning steps of Orange County's Personnel Ordinance. Let me know your comments. Sincerely, 54/L. Benjamin Gilbert Director of Legal Affairs BG/mch Attachment lac Bobby Baker South Orange Rescue Squad 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 COLEMAN, BIERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 13t ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CRURTON STREET HTLLSBOROTIGIT.N.C. 27278 919.732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20,FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E.FRANIKLIN STREET. CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 911-929-7151 April 25, 19 8 6 ALONZO B.COLEMAN.JR STEVEN A.BEI1N}IOLZ DONALD R.DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J.DERNHOLZ RICHARD J.SNIDER,JR. JANE G.de LISSOVOY Benjamin Gilbert G.NLCHOLAS HERMAN ;. LYNN A.ANDREWS Director of Legal Affairs '.i Of Counsel The North Carolina Memorial Hospital BONNER D.SAWYER Universit y of North Carolina (1902-1972) Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Re: Round Two: slight Coordinators Dear Ben: The agreement accompanying your April 22, 1986 letter seems satisfactory. Very truly yours, .%A �j ff�' , E. Gledhill GEG/lsg cc: Bobby BakeX is V 13I ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ITEM NO. E5 MEETING DATE may 51 1986 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Program Amendment DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING: YES g NO ,TTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Davis Budgeted Amount PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSBOROUGH- 732-8181 Current Budget HILLSBOROUGH - 732-9361 Proposed Budget CHAPEL Hill -967-9251 MEBANE- 227-2031 DURHAM -688-7331 PURPOSE: Approve program amendment to transfer remaining community development activities funds to the parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities budget for park construction in the Northern Fairview Community Development Project Area. NEED: All community development activities have been completed in the Northern Fairview Community Development Project Area. Orange County has reclaimed, cleared and graded a landfill area for the development of a community park. Current parks, playground and recreation facilities budget has only $1,136.00 remaining. Staff proposes to submit to the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NRCD) a program amendment for transfer of remaining community development activities funds (approximately $133,461.59) to the parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities budget for park construction and recreational facilities. IMPACT: The approval of a program amendment will make it feasible for park construction and the close-out of the community development block grant in the Northern Fairview Project Area. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the submission of a program amendment for park construction and recreational facilities to NRCD. 141 Community Development Program Amendment Budget Transfer Budgeted Amount Current Budget Proposed.Budget Acquisition $74,564,00 $54,442.50 0 Parks, Play- $120,528.00 $1,136.49 $133,461.59 ground and Recreational Facilities Clearance $7,500.00 $2,900.00 0 Relocation $71,100.00 $55,690.00 0 Rehabili- $563,206.00 $26,973.19 0 tation of privately owned dwellings Adminis- $101,102.00 tration -$7,680.59 0 TOTAL $938,000.00 $.133,461.59 $133,461.59 ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTDAA l ITEM ri0.E_G_"__ • h1EETIUC; DATE May 5, 1986 - 141 SUBJECT: Proposed Budget Amendments — j DEPARTMENT: Finance.' . - [PUBLIC.HEAP,ING: YES X Irf!=_ • ATTACHMENT{S) : . INFORMATION .CONTACT: Donna Wagner • Proposed Budget Amendment PHONE NUMBERS: HILLSGOROUGH - 737 o . CHAPEL HILL E 967--9251 IIEi3ANE 227 ?_G 31 DURHAM -- 688--7331 PURPOSE: Consideration of proposed -budget amendments. • NEED: GENERAL FUND • 1. To budget for a supplemental appropriation for General Assistance funds. 2. To establish a budget for CAT Transportation leasing fees and ticket sales; 3. To accept project agreement and grant from the' Department of Transportation for updating the Orange County Transportation Plan. - • IMPACT: GENERAL FUND 1. This amendment will increase General Assistance funds for the Department of Social Services and decrease the County's Contingency account. 2. This amendment will require no County Funds since the leasing fees and ticket sales portion of CAT will be- self-supporting. 3. This amendment will increase Aging funds with federal monies (90%) and County monies (10%) . II:CGL`;j}," II°N(5) : Approve the motion to amend the 1985-86 Budget Ordinance by proposed amendments, 14 ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED 1985-86 BUDGET AMENDMENT The 1985-86 Budget Ordinance as adopted on July 3, 1985, and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows: BEFORE AFTER AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT GENERAL FUND 1. Appropriation Social Services $2,783,352 $10,000 $2,793,352 Source: Contingency 13,911 10,000 3,911 To budget for emergency General Assistance aid. 2. Appropriation: Aging $ 232,114 5,171 $ 237,285 Source: Lease Fees 0 3,171 3,171 Ticket Sales 0 2,000 2,000 To budget for CAT Transportation leasing fees and ticket sales. 3. Appropriation: Aging $237,285 $8,406 $245,691 Source: Aging Transportation Grant 0 8,406 8,406 To budget for transportation grant received by the Department on Aging. Approved this 5 day of May, 1986. 14k ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. F7 Meeting Date: MAY 6, 1986 SUBJECT: SCHOOL CAPITAL EXPANSION REQUESTS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY MANAGER PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) . INFORMATION CONTACT: MANAGER'S OFFICE, X501 TELEPHONE NUMBER: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider revised funding approaches to authorize the Orange County School System to award bids and execute contracts for the Orange High School project and to accommodate the Chapel Hill Carrboro School System request to expand the construction plans for Glenwood and Estes Hills Multipurpose Projects. NEED: Both systems have requested expansion funds for two projects based upon bid results or change in the scope-of-work intended. Orange High Renovation/Expansion was bid with three alterna- tives. The low bids range from $2,135,288 for the base project only to $2,761,771 for the base project plus the media center, auxiliary gymnasium and surfacing of the parking lot and drive- way. Neither figure includes architect fees, contingency or the cost of a project coordinator. Based upon previous estimate by the school system $2 million was set aside in a Long Range Finance Plan for the project. Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System has revised its plan for the two approved buildings at Glenwood and Estes Hills to include classroom space for the special activities of art, music and computer labs. The architect's estimate, based upon preliminary drawing, is that the resulting increase in size (from 8,000 to 12, 000 square feet) will raise the $816,000 to $1.8 million. The existing Long Range Financing Plan includes the $816,000 amount phased over two years. The Orange County Finance Director has developed alternatives for funding the increased costs through revisions to the Long Range Plan as outlined in a May 1, 1986 memorandum (attached) . Orange High could be completed under the existing Long Range Plan providing authorization were given to award bids and execute contracts for the base project plus the resurfacing of 1411 the parking lot and driveway. The Glenwood and Estes Hills projects could likewise be completed at the $1.8 million cost estimate based upon two alternatives. One is to reschedule other projects as shown. If the projects cannot be rescheduled then alternative two would apply which is to seek additional sources of revenue (bond issue, extension of the property tax dedicated to school capital, an additional 1/2 sales tax, a school impact fee funding from the General Fund due to lessened debt service requirements) . Apart from the cost increases in the two school system projects there are other capital needs not yet reflected in the Long Range Capital Financing Plan which could bring about the need for other revenue. RECOMMENDATION(S) : (1) Adopt the accompanying resolution authorizing the school system to award bids and execute contracts for the base project plus the surfacing of the parking lot and driveway. (2) Adopt the funding policy called for in Alternative No. 1 for the School Capital Reserve Fund Long Range Plan and Budget whereby the High School and the Multipurpose Space projects are completed within the revenue structure already in existence in the plan. This would be accomplished by rescheduling the remainder of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro System projects. volU FINANCE DEPARTMENT ` 14t rr 4''-f t!eYV��c ORANGE COUNTY GORDON R. BAKER DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: County Commissioners From: Finance Director Subject: Funding for Orange High School Renovation/ Expansion Project and Glenwood/Estes Hills Multipurpose Space Project Date: May 1, 1986 Accompanying this memorandum are two alternatives for funding the increase in cost of the Orange High School Renovation/Expansion Project and the Glenwood/ Estes Hills Multipurpose Space Project. The School Capital Reserve Fund Long Range Plan and Budget has been revised in both instances to show an additional cost of $451,000 for the High School project and $1 million for the Multipurpose Space Project. Both projects have a final payment in the 87-88 fiscal year. The cost shown=for-the High School will provide for the base project plus the surfacing of the parking lot and driveway. An explanation of the two alternatives follows. Alternative No. 1 This plan will allow both projects to be completed within the existing revenue structure called for in the Long Range-Plan. However, the planned projects (other than the multipurpose- space) for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system would be rescheduled as follows: FY of Funding FY of Funding Project In Present Plan In Revised Plan 1. CHHS cafeteria expansion/ renovation 86-87 88-89 2. CHHS media center renovation 87-88 88-89 3. Carrboro/Estes Hills/ Glenwood media center expansion 87-88 88-89 4. Kitchen renovations 87-88 88-89 5. Phillips A/C 86-87/87-88 6. FPG A/C 87-88 86-87/87-88 88-89 106 EAST MARGARET LANE • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 • 919/732-8181 14 t. Alternative No. 2 If the Chapel Hill-Carrboro projects are not rescheduled-additional revenues will be needed in order to complete the High School and Multipurpose Space projects in the time-frame desired by the school systems. As shown in the second alternative a deficit of approximately $384,000 is projected for 86-87. An additional deficit of $685,000 is projected for 87-88, making a total deficit of approximately $1,069,000 for the two-year period. Some possible sources of additional revenue are a bond issue, an increase and/or extension of the property tax dedicated to school capital, an additional zC sales tax, a school impact fee on new development, and funding from the General Fund due to the decrease in debt service requirements as a result of the retirement of school bonds (see schedule attached) . However, due to the uncertainties involved in some of these revenue sources and the time factors involved, the property tax and the funding from the General Fund related to the debt service reduction are the only sources that can be counted on now to offset the deficits beginning in 86-87. It should be noted that the 1fi sales tax revenue in the two alternatives presented here has been revised downward from previous projections. These new amounts are more realistic estimates and are based on the history of actual results and on information received regarding growth in this revenue for the upcoming fiscal year. Also, it should be noted that the amount for undesignated roofs that are included in the present plan have been removed and applied to the High School and Multipurpose Space Projects. attachments ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 14 re SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Estimate 1988-89 Estimate Estimate Estimate REVENUES Beginning Balance $ 755,805 Transfer from General $ 385,823 $ 181,275 $ 141,975 Fund (80% of C Sales Tax) 1,100,000 1,240,000 Property Tax (21/2c er 1 1,360,000 1,500,000 00 p $ ) 550,000 0 0 Property Tax (3c per $100) 0 693,000 0 Transfer from Orange County 0 0 Schools Current Capital Investment Earnings 18,000 0 20,000 0 0 _ 8 000 0 20,000 Total Revenues 2,423,$05 2,346,823 1,541,275 1,661,975 APPROPRIATIONS Orange County Schools: Roofs 432,400 0 0 0 H.S. Expansion 650,000 1,350,000 451,000 0 Subtotal 1,082,400 1,350,000 451,000 0 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools: Roofs 341,130 CHHS Science Lab 0 0 0 Glenwood/Estes Hills (1) 80,000 0 0 0 Multipurpose Space 486,000 864,000 CHHS Cafeteria Expansion/ 450,000 0 Renovation 0 CHHS Media Center 0 0 250,000 Renovation 0 Carrboro/Estes Hills/ 0 0 235,000 Glenwood Media Center Expansion 0 0 0 225,000 T�itchen Renovations Phillips Air Conditioning 0 0 0 225,000 FPG Air Conditioning 0 0 498,300 0 0 0 0 275,880 CH Schematics Subtotal (1) 48'452 (48,452) 0 0 955,582 - 815,548 948,300 1,210,880 Total Appropriations 2,037,982 2,165,548 1,399,300 1,210,880 BALANCE $ 3$5,823 3 $ 181,275 $ 141,975 $ 451,095 (1): These items were originally scheduled for 1984-85. However, the school - system did not request these funds during 1984-85. Therefore, they have been moved to 1985-86. 14t SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Estimate Estimate 1992-93 3 Estimate Estimate Beginning Balance $. 451,095 $2,131,095 Transfer from General Fund $3,966,095 $6,006,095 (80% of Sales Tax) 1,650,000 1,800,000 ,000 2,000,000 2,200,000 Investment Earnings 30 35,000 40,000 45,000 Total Revenues 2,1 3 1,095 3,966,095 6,006,095 8,251,095 APPROPRIATIONS Orange County Schools Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Appropriations 0 0 0 BALANCE 0 0 0 _ 0 $2,131,095 3,9.— 66,095 6,006,095 8,251.095 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 4 T SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 REVENUES Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Beginning Balance $ 755,805 Transfer from General $ 385,823 $ (383,725) $(1,068,905) Fund (80% of liC Sales Tax) 1,100,000 1,240,000 Property Tax (21/20 per $100) 550,000 1,360,.000 1,500,000 Property Tax (3c per $100) 0 0 0 0 693,000 0 0 Transfer from Orange County Schools Current Capital 0 20,000 Investment Earnings 18,000 0 0 8,000 0 20,000 Total Revenues 2,423,805 2,346,823 976,275 451,095 APPROPRIATIONS Orange County Schools: Roofs 432,400 400 0 0 0 H.S. Expansion Subtotal 650 000 1,350,000 451,000 0 1,082,400 1,350,000 451,000 0 Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools: Roofs 341,130 CHHS Science Lab 0 0 0 Glenwood/Estes Hills (1) 80,000 0 0 0 Multipurpose Space 486,000 864,000 CHHS Cafeteria Expansion/ 450,000 0 Renovation 0 250,000 CHHS Media Center 0 0 Renovation 0 Carrboro/Estes Hills/ 0 235,000 0 Glenwood Media Center Expansion 0 0 Kitchen Renovations 225,000 0 Phillips Air Conditioning 0 0 225,000 0 202,808 295,492 0 FPG Air Conditioning CH Schematics (1) 48,450 112,192 163,688 0 Subtotal (48,452) 0 0 955,582 1,380,548 1,594,180 0 Total Appropriations 2,037,982 2,730,548 2,045,180 0 BALANCE $ 385,823 $ (383,725) $(1,068,905) $ 451 095 (1): These items were originally scheduled for 1984-85. However, the school ' system did not request these funds during 1984-85. Therefore, they have been moved to 1985-86. 151 SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE FUND LONG RANGE PLAN AND BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Estimate Estimate 1�ti93 REVENUES Estimate Estimate Beginning Balance Transfer from General Fund $ 451,095 $2,131,095 $3,966,095 (80% of '-�� Sales Tax) $6,006,095 1,650 1 800 Investment Earnings OQO 1,800,000 2,000 000 2,200,000 > 000 33 0 000 35 000 Total Revenues ? 40000 4 _ 2,131 095 3,966 095 APPROPRIATIONS 6°0-- 95 8,251.095 595 Orange County Schools 0 0 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 0 0 0 0 Total Appropriations 0 0 .BALANCE 0 0 0 0 $2,131,095 3 966 095 -----� -��— 6 095 8 251 09 _ 151 1111111 BONDS TO BE RETIRED WITHIN VE FISCAL YEARS YEAR DEBT SERVICE DESCRIPTION OF FOR FISCAL RETIREMENT YEAR 85-86 1. School Bldg. 85-86 $ 35,875 2. School Bldg. - Series B - 6/1/57 85-86 35,175 3. School Bldg. - 12/1/61 85-86 45,113 Subtotal after 85-86 116,163 4. School Bldg. - 12/1/68 89-90 202,875 Total after 89-90 $319,038 156 ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATION/EXPANSION - ESTIMATED COST FOR EACH POSSIBLE BID AWARD LOW ARCHITECT 3% TOTAL FEE F PROJECT ESTIMATED BID CONTINGENCY NGENCY COORDINATOR COST 1. Base only $2,135,288 $ 149,500(1) 2. Base & Alt. 1 $ 65,000 $ 30,000 $2,379,788 2,324,663 159,500(2) 70,000 30,000 2,584,163 3. Base & Alt. 2 2,498,467 171,500(2) 75,000 30,000 2,774,967 4. Base & Alt. 3 2,200,288 ' 154,000(1) 66,000 30,000 2,450,288 5. Base & Alts_• ; & 2 2,698,551 179,500(3) 81,000 6. Base & A1ts. 1 & 3 2,387,911 30,000 2,989,051 164,000(2) 72,000 30,000 2,653,911 7. Base & Alts.1 ,2, ' & 3 2,761,771 184,000(3) 83,000 8. Base & Alts. 2&3 2,561,687 171,000(3) 30,000 3,058,771 77,000 30,000 2,839,687 (1) at 7% (2) at 6.85% (3) at 6.65% Alternative 1: Media Center - Wing A Alternative 2: Auxilary Gymnasium Alternative 3: Surface Treatment to Parking Lot and Driveway RESOLUTION 154 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution on December 17, 1985 authorizing the Orange County School System to begin the process of letting a contract or contracts for the renovation and expansion of Orange High School, and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners also assured the Orange County School System in the same resolution that funds would be appropriated for the renovation and expansion of Orange High School in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 county budgets, and WHEREAS, the Orange County School System advertised for bids for this project, and WHEREAS, bids have been received and were opened on April. 17, 1986, and WHEREAS, the Orange County School System needs authorization from the Orange County Board of Commissioners to award bids and execute contracts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners authorizes the Orange County School System to award bids and execute contracts for the base project and the parking lot and driveway alternate for the renovation and expansion of Orange High School. Adopted this fifth day of May, 1986. Don Willhoit, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Beverly Blythe, Clerk Orange County Board of Commissioners ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: MAY 5, 1986 Item No. 171 SUBJECT: DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY INTEREST AND ASSETS BY COUNTY OFFICIALS DEPARTMENT: COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: DON WILLHOIT RESOLUTION CHAIR, X505 GENERAL STATUTE TELEPHONE NUMBER: WAKE COUNTY ETHIGS POLICY Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To consider a request b pertaining to ethical standardsOrasgeapplied elected Party appointed officials. NEED: Following a 1985 resolution the Orange County Democratic Party has once again adopted a resolution calling for the Board of Commissioners to request the N. C. General Assembly to enact a ethics for Orange County. Similar codes been for Guilford Count y' Wake, Raleigh, Charlotte an d the City of Durham. Text of the resolution adopted unanimously at the April 5, 1986 Democratic Party Convention is attached together with the statute which applies to Guilford County and the Wake County Ethics Policy. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. tit (1,4444 CO/I&A , • / drA43 77° -- • 4, WHEREAS, the 1985 Oran e Platform state WHEREAS, the elected County Democratic Party Platform state high policy m officials official din high policyimaning positions ' and be required annually disclose prop'ert , should be l dings to disclose sn of which may reasonably holdings, or judgment office y affect their and, North C WHEREAS, other jurisdictions North Carolina, including Guilford # in fast County and Durham, have ethics County, Wake Count growing areas of their adoptions; and policies or are Y: Raleigh, : considering WHEREAS, a stiff conflict of County (requested by Guilford offci interest code in Legislature in 197b has worked als and inacted by Guilford i Commissioners; and, lx for Guilford County he N.C. WHEREAS, the potential f public officials i Orange or conflict of interest by development in the area.the County is increasing because of rapid • • BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commissioners be urged to request the aN.0 County Legislature of enact a code of ethics for members of the Orange CognsyaBoar to Commissioners. This code should of real property provide for Orange complete disclosure re of in holdings in Orange County and ownership disclosure members shin firms doing business with Orange ownership members matter involving to disqualify themselves County. Board -- --...... . E any ownership Y themselves for voting on ------.--_ .__ p interest. r Q 1. y A lion ass--1973 CHAPTER 298 i'' and ot+�end hY�t:t1a �z�' N. B. 696. CHAPTER 298 :I .der this Peetion AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE DiSCLOSURE OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ctyees m the Pry AND ASSETS BY GUILFORD COUNTY QFFICIALS. r:ate Agencies sod The Genera/Aaaeata 4y d North Caroline enacts: a and empo+ d .. Bootlor i. £ as or as other Stair very member the Board of Commissioners of Guilford aicipslity, 4 't tetthin thirty(30)days after the effective date of this act or within Y.or .- flrirty(30)theft aft assim• office administrate and ! i ice err his n anyae any rope,egtitable f or beneficial Which h is the sort have in any real property in Guilford (`aunty toning. water and sewer jurisdiction of the Board of County 40,6'141a ate Art. gre' 41; v . ;.. aa+mtraiaoew "bts diedoette trCa thaJ)iNerd b>Co ttat Cadad y, ht writing with the Clerk of Superior Court i , he sufficient to tt and shall u'L!atde all real property may,Commanion member holds title to, s`rite funds to the ri idrd and tlta�ruper tMeaest he have is y property held m trust as well as any pecuniary g any firm or corporation of whatever at.11a1s Lever nature, rated maiact t3uf1 grad sewer of die$hard of(i`ent property ethnic origin, or film.fit. Every (lithe Board ' shall disclose any Commissioners of Guilford County T y kigd,equitable or l+eneficial ownership interett he may have i .scion refused to or 1 in any business,firm,or corporation,of whatever nature,which is doing business +r neprraryttetivaa in with Guilford County pursuant to contracts which have :-t which been contains or Board of caiinty Commissionero n awarded by the i iderstial, provided Sec. L Every member of Board of County Commissioners of Guilford st this act or when it County shall disclose any legal, equitable.or beneficial ownership interest he �t tJ p5 or may i'4'any business, firm, or corporation, of whatever nature, which is orders may 1 . attempting to secure the award of a bid from the County.prior to the award of any contract. Sec. 4. The acquisition by any member subject to this art of any legal. crafts Federal-irate equitable or beneficial interest in real property within the zoning, water and prutide in that sewer jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of Guilford County shall be �f l,st„Kg approval distloud within thirty (30) day' after the acquisition of same. Any legal, :tr with other federal equitable or beneficial Owmerahip interest which any niember has in any safe t. and heafth business,firm or corporation,of whatever nature,with whom Guilford County to of North Carolina u now doing business, shall be disclnsed within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this act or within thirty (30) days after acquisition of the r, s. is act shall receive• ownertship interest. I!w employees of the ( Sec. G. Every Board member who has an ownership interest required •:. of thh art or the dbclraasd by this act shall d calif' h any matter to el to'be.invald.much involving any w�n �' s� y himself from voting oil any matter of the act which can a '., Board ofCauntvCammim interred which carets,for official arluua before the seers of Guilford County. +,,and to this end the ! - C. Any member who violates any provision of this act shall be guilty ' I of a misdemeanor and may he fined not more than one thousand dollars 19 73,with respect to ($1.000) or imprisoned not more than one year,or both. Any member who is Trent and trusiraesB�d 1 convicted of a violation of any provision of this act shall forfeit his elected or :'iyixinns, and their appointed office.and such office shall be considered vacant as of the date of the j final judgment of conviction. J.this the 1st day of t Sec. 7. This act shall sec erne effective on January 1, 1974. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified• this the 1st day of May,1973_ - :327 H' • _ 15', WAKE COUNTY ETHICS POLICY I. Declaration of Policy The proper operation of democratic The and employees be independent government officials that governmental decisions and requires that public : impartial and responsible an the °f the governmental Policy be made in proper Pfrsohal structure; that public office P P channels gain; and that the public have confidence in not i integrity for personal government. In recognition of these goals, a code of ethics for County hereby adopted. The her ethical p standards of conduct for all such of i officials es purpose this policy is to establish those acts or actions that are incompatible with officials best in guidelines the County. by setting forth erects of II. Applicability of Ethics Policy The Th provisions of this The p officials policy shall apply to all elected and a County Count , members of County boards and commissions pPainted Y Commissioners, and other County emplo ee appointed by III. Financial and Personal Disclosure Y s. __Any County official or em mater ty of involving employee who must officially consider an matter family, his financial or personal interests, any public such interest and shall abstainufromlactinclose the nature and o extent of state law require otherwise. S thereon unless provisions of IV. Gifts and Favors No official or employee shall knowingly No f money, thing, favor, g y acce k inferred that , loan or promise, wheany gift, whether in the action the gift was intended to could reasonably be an his part. Gifts, influence or reward an and of minor value, , meals, other favors of official included , or legitimate an incidental nature in this policy, political contributions shall not be V. Partment, Employment: or Contract ppneroners Award of Relatives or Business Public officials of Public any the appointing authority record business y person of their immediate must disclose on interest who is being family related by the public or contract award by g considered for o blood or marriage, Y that authority, appointment, employment Immediate family y related by blood and child, parents, brothers, sisters marriage are Co include: chil_, and in-law relationships othrs s ' grandparents, for preceding categories. spouse,ke gorses. 15t VI. Incompatible Service No public official or employee shall engage in, or accept private employ- ment or render service for private interest, when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties. VII. Special Treatment No public official or employee shall grant any treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that swhichlisoavailable consideration, every other citizen. VIII. Disclosure of Confidential Information No public official or employee shall disclose confidential information concerning the property, government, or affairs of the County in such a manner as to advance the financial or other private interest of himself or others. IX. Penalty for Violation If any appointed public official or employee is found to have violated any provision of this policy, he may be subject to forfeiture of his appointed office or dismissal from his position. If any elected public official is found to have violated any provision of this policy, he may be subject to public censure. X. All elected and appointed County officials, members of County boards and commissions appointed by the County Commissioners, and other County employees who are serving in these roles at the date this policy becomes effective and those hereafter elected or appointed shall be issued a copy of this policy. XI. Effective Date of Policy This policy shall be effective as of the date of its adoption, December 2, 1985. ( 2 ) ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 1 5 Meeting Date: May 5, 1986. Action Agenda Item I F9 SUBJECT: NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM *************************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No *************************************************************************** ATTACHMENTS: Draft Statement CONTACT: Marvin Collins Chapel Hill Request Carrboro Request TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Request Hillsborough 732-8181 (To be distributed) Chapel Hill 967-9251 TIP Hearing Schedule Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 . *************************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider proposed highway improvement requests by the Towns of Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough and authorize the Chair of the Board to support the requests before the N.C. Board of Transportation. NEED: The N.C. Board of Transportation adopts annually a multi-year Transportation Improvement Program outlining needed highway improvements and the method and schedule for funding such projects. Prior to adoption of the Program, the Board of Transportation conducts a series of public hearings around the state to obtain advice from local officials and citizens on needed improvements. On May 12, 1986, a public hearing will be held at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown for officials and citizens from District 7, the district in which Orange County is located. Representatives from each of the municipalities will be presenting their requests for highway improvements to the Board of Transportation. Each year, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners has attended the hearing and spoken in support of each municipality's request as well as other needs which the Commissioners have identified. IMPACT: A coordinated effort to support pp projects within Orange County increases the Likelihood of specific projects being included in the Transportation Improvement Program, particularly 161 when improvement needs are great and funding resources limited. RECOMMENDATION; Authorize Commission Chair to attend Transportation Improvement Program hearing and speak in support of improvement needs identified by municipalities as well as the County. • • ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108.EAST MARGARET LANE ' HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 - 16.i MOSES CAREY BEN LLOYD SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL NORMANWALRRR STATEMENT TO THE N.C. • BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION DON WILWOIT May 12., 1986 There are numerous road improvement needs in Orange County. The County is one of the fastest growing counties and - the impacts of this growth is resulting in severe deficiencies in our road network . To address these deficiencies, Orange County requests that specific projects be included in the Transportation Improvement Program. The projects include those listed in each of. the attached requests of the County's three municipal jurisdictions. The Orange County Board of Commissioners endorses , those requests and respectfully asks that each of the projects be included in the 1987-1996 Transportation Improvement Program. Submitted this 12th day of May, 1986 ORANGE `,COUNTY BOARD OF;.COMMISSiONERS B ; Don Wilihoit,' Chair • AGENDA #8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager SUBJECT: Request for projects to be included in the State Highway Improvement Program DATE: April 28, 1986 The North Carolina Board of Transportation will hold public hearings during May and June to gather information on state-wide transportation needs. The meeting for our highway district will be held at Guilford Technical Community College, Business Careers Auditorium, Jamestown, on May 12, 1986. Information presented at these hearings will be used to update the State's Transportation Improvement Program. The State's Transportation Improvement Program schedules Federal and State funds for transportation projects state-wide. Attached is the Manager's Recommended List of highway projects needed for Chapel Hill. The priority ranking that we propose is based on previous requests made to the State as well as on our analysis of congestion currently experienced in the community. All of the projects listed are consistent with the Town's adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Since the State has separate sources of highway improvement funds, we recommend a priority list for each source of funds. We also recommend includin bikeway facilities be included in roadway v requests that we be allowed to participate in designing new ofacilities. that The recommended resolution also states that we continue to su or projects currently programmed for Chapel Hill. Pprt The requests are grouped by four Federal funding sources, highway funding categories include: These Fed Federal-Aid Secondary, Federal-Aid Urban,Federal-Aid Primary, System Maintenance. ► and Transportation Federal-Aid Primary routes within our community include : - US 15-501 from the Durham County Line to Franklin Street - US 15-501 Bypass -- US 15-501 from the Bypass to the Chatham County line NC 54 from the Durham County line to the Bypass. Federal-Aid Secondary routes include ma ' roads outside the city limits. These include�r State-maintained - NC 54 between the Durham County line and the new I-40 interchange - NC 86 north of Homestead Road 2 Gol - Mt. Carmel Church Road (SR 1008) - Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road. Federal-Aid Urban funds can be used to improve major roads within the municipality which are not included on the regular Federal-Aid system. For example, the widening of South Columbia Street between Manning Drive and the Bypass will be funded from . the -Federal-Aid Urban category. Transportation System Maintenance (TSM) improvements are generally "adjustments" to the transportation system improvements that are not as capital-intensive and not as expensive as major road improvements. TSM improvements can generally be implemented on a faster time schedule than other improvements. Attached are the Manager's recommendation and two alternative priority lists recommended by the Planning Board and Transportation Board. (Included on all 3 recommendations is a new request for funding of signalization improvements. ) Recommendations Planning Board Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution C, identical to the Manager's recommended list, except it: - Eliminates the proposal to extend and improve frontage roads along 15-501 from Franklin Street to I-40 - Combines the Sage Road/Scarlette intersection work into the entire 15-501 corridor improvements Transportation Board Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution B, identical to the Manager's list, except it: - Adds the proposed improvements to Estes/Airport intersection to TSM category - Adds widening and improving Estes Drive from Franklin Street to Carrboro town limits in this as the third priority under Secondary category - Ranks Estes Drive improvements as the third priority under Secondary category Manager's Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution C, listing Town priorities for the State's Transportation Improvement Program (same as last year's request, with the addition of a traffic signalization system and intersection improvements under "Transportation System Maintenance") . 3 e Please note that it came to our attention that these 'intersection improvements are eligible projects under TSM after preliminary work was presented to advisory boards. Therefore, lack of listing these in board recommendations does not necessarily indicate disagreement with their inclusion. All recommendations include continued support for items already in the State's Transportation Improvement Program and requests for bicycle facilities. 164 Planning Board's RecoRESOLUTION A mmendation A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CHAPEL HILL TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (86-4-28/R-5a) WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to develop a system of major thoroughfares which will provide access to and between major neighborhood centers and which will be integrated with inter-city movements; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to discourage through traffic on residential streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby requests the North Carolina Board of Transportation to include the following road improvements in the State's Transportation Program: A. Federal-Aid Primar Fundin 1. Widen US 15-501 from US 15-501 Bypass to the Chatham County line to a median-divided four lane cross-section; 2. Improve US 15-501 intersection with Sage Road and Scarlette Drive. B. Federal-Aid Secondar Fundin 1. Widen NC 86 from Homestead Road to the I-40 interchange to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 2. Build the missing section of the Weaver Dairy Road alignment from Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) to Erwin Road (SR1734) ; 3. Build Laurel Hill Parkway from US 15-501 to NC 54 along new alignment; 4. Widen and improve Mt. Carmel Church Road SR 1008) from US 15-501 to the Chatham County line; 5. Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette Drive to the Durham County line. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town the opportunity to participate in the design of any State-supported road improvements that might be programmed in the Town. This the 28th day of April, 1986. `tp RESOLUTION A Planning Board TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL HISHNAY IMPROVEMENT REQUESTS Priority listing of needs by eligible Federal funding source: Transporation Board Recommendation FEDERAL AID FUNDS Priority Primary Secondary Urban Transportation -w Ttati System Management 1 Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen Sage Road US 15-501 from the 86 from Homestead e Road, improved and install US 15-501 Bypass 2-lane segment north improved traffic Yp Road to the 1-40 of US 15-501 to the Chatham interchange signal system County line 2 Improve the US Build the missing Complete Pittsboro Improve the intersection 15-5 Sage Rd. and section of the St. Extension from of Estes and Airport g Weaver Dairy Road Cameron Ave. to Road Scarlette Drive realignment fro. Airport Road Weaver Dairy Road to Erwin Road 3 Improve and extend Widen and improve frontage roads along Estes Drive fro. Widen and improve US 15-501 from Weaver Dairy Franklin Street to Road Franklin Street to Carborro Town limits the 1-40 interchange 4 Widen and improve Build Laurel Hill US 15-501 from Widen NC 86 from Franklin Street to 15-501ytorNC 54 Estes eadvR to the 1-40 interchange along a new Homestead Road alignment 5 Widen and improve mR Complete the connection Mt. Carmel Church of Frances Street Rd. from US 15-501 fray the US 15-501 to Chatham County Bypass via Willow line Drive to Ephesus Church 6 Road Widen Old Durham- Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette Dr. to the Durham County line . 167 Transportation Board's RecommendatOiog A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CHAPEL HILL TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF T O NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (86 4 28/R 5b)THE WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Ch system of major thoroughfares which will providel access e to nand between major neighborhood centers and which will be integrated with inter-city movements; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the To of discourage through traffic on residential streets Chapel Hill to NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Chapel Hill hereby that the Council of the Town of Transportation to include the sfolowi North rd improvements he State's Transportation Program; the A. Federal-Aid PrimaryFundin 1. Widen US 15-501 from US 15-501 B County line to a Bypass to the Chatham cross-section; median-divided four lane 2. Improve US 15-501 intersection with Sage Road Scarlette Drive; and 3. Improve and extend frontage roads along US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the 1-40 interchange; 4. Widen and improve US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the I-40 interchange. B. Federal-Aid Secondar Fundin 1. Widen NC 86 from Homestead Road to the 1-40 interchange to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 2. Build the missing alignment from W aver Da r t of the Weaver Dairy Road Road (SR1734) ; y Road (SR 1733) to Erwin 3. Widen and improve Estes Drive from Franklin Street to Carrboro Town Limits. 4. Build Laurel Hill Parkway from US 15-501 to NC 54 along new alignment; 5. Widen and improve Mt. Carmel Church US 15-501 to the Chatham County line; Road SR 1008) from lee 2b. C. Federal-Aid Urban Funding 1. Widen Sage Road, a 2-lane segment north of US 15-501; . 2. Complete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron Avenue to Airport Road; 3. Widen and improve Weaver Dairy Road 4. Widen NC 86 from Estes Drive to Homestead Road to a 5-lane urban cross-section; 5. Complete the connection of Frances Street from the US 15-501 Bypass via Willow Drive to Ephesus Church Road (SR 1742) . D. Transportation System Maintenance 1. Purchase and install improved traffic signal system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continues to endorse and support those projects currently programmed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program, including: 1. Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the existing 2 lanes to at least 4 lanes; 2. Widening S. Columbia Street from Mt. Carmel Church Road to Manning Drive from the existing 2-lane section to a 4-lane curb and gutter section; 3. Widening Merritt Mill Road (SR 1927) from Cameron Avenue to S. Greensboro Street (SR 1919) to a 41-foot cross-section; 4. Replacement of the Morgan Creek Bridge at US 15-501 with a new bridge; and 5. Bicycle improvements along Estes Drive between Airport Road (NC 86) and the Carrboro town limits; and 6. Train gates on Cameron Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town an opportunity to request bikeways facilities in conjunction with any future State-supported road improvements programmed in the Town; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town the opportunity to participate in the design of any State-supported road improvements that might be programmed in the Town. This the 28th day of April, 1986. RESOLUTION B Transportation Board TOM OF CHAPEL HILL HIGHWAY MOVEMENT REOUESTS Priority listing of needs by eligible Federal funding source: 1 `� Planning Board Recommendation FEDERAL AID FUNDS Priority Primary Secondary Urban Transportation System Management 1 Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen Sage Road, Purchase and install US 15-501 from the 86 from H 2-lane segment north improved traffic US 15-501 Bypass Road to the I-40 to the Chatham of US 15-501 signal system interchange County line 2 Widen and improve Build the missin g Complete Pittsboro US 15-501 from section of the St. Extension from Franklin Street to Weaver Dairy Road Cameron Ave. to the I-40 interchange realignment from Airport Road Weaver Dairy Road to Erwin Road 3 Build Laurel Hill Widen and improve Parkway from US Weaver Dairy Road 15-501 to NC 54 along a new alignment 4 Widen and improve Widen NC 86 from Mt. Carmel Church Estes Drive to Rd. from US 15-501 Homestead Road to Chatham County line 5 Widen Old Durham- Complete the connection Chapel Hill Road of Frances Street from Scarlette Dr. from the US 15-501 to the Durham County Bypass via Willow line Drive to Ephesus Church Road RESOLUTION C Manager's Recommendation A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CHAPEL HILL TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (86-4-28/R-5c) WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to develop a system of major thoroughfares which will provide access to and between major neighborhood centers and which will be integrated with inter-city movements; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Hill to discourage through traffic on residential streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill hereby requests the North Carolina Board of Transportation to include the following road improvements in the State's Transportation Program: A. Federal-Aid Primar Fundin 1. Widen US 15-501 from US 15-501 Bypass County line to a median-iidedto four Chatham cross-section; lane Improve US 15-501 intersection with Sage Road and Scarlette Drive; 3. Improve and extend frontage roads along US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the 1-40 interchange; _2. . Widen and improve US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the I-40 interchange. ederal-Aid Secondar Fundin .171 Widen NC 86 from Homestead Road to the I-40 interchange to a 5-lane urban cross-section; . Build the missing section of the Weaver Dairy Road alignment from Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) to Erwin Road (SR1734) ; . Build Laurel Hill Parkway from US 15-501 to NC 54 along new alignment; Widen and improve Mt. Carmel Church Road SR 1008) from US 15-501 to the Chatham County line; Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette Drive to the Durham County line. 2c 171 C. Federal-Aid Urban Fundin 1. Widen Sage Road, a 2-lane segment north of US 15-501; 2. Complete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron Avenue to Airport Road; 3. Widen and improve Weaver Dairy Road 4. Widen NC 86 from Estes Drive to Homestead Road to a 5--lane urban cross-section; 5. Complete the connection of Frances Street from the US 15-501 Bypass via Willow Drive to Ephesus Church Road (SR 1742) . D. Trans ortation S stem Maintenance 1. Purchase and install improved traffic signal system. 2. Improve Estes/Airport Road intersection. 3. Improve Estes/Franklin intersection. 4. Improve Piney Mountain Road/Airport Road intersection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continues to endorse and support those projects currently programmed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program, including: 1. Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the existin lanes to at least 4 lanes; g 2 2. Widening S. Columbia Street from Mt. Carmel Church Road to Manning Drive from the existing 2-lane section to a 4-lane curb and gutter section; 3. Widening Merritt Mill Road (SR 1927) from Cameron Avenue to S. Greensboro Street (SR 1919) to a 41-foot cross-section; 4. Replacement of the Morgan Creek Bridge at US 15-501 with a new bridge; and 5. Bicycle improvements along Estes Drive between Airport Road (NC 86) and the Carrboro town limits; and 6. Train gates on Cameron Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the State give the Town an opportunity to request bikeways facilities in conjunction with any future State-supported road improvements programmed in the Town; and 17'4 3c 6. Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Scarlette to the Durham County line. Drive C. Federal-Aid Urban Fundin 1. Widen Sage Road, a 2-lane segment north of US 15-501; 2. Complete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron Avenue to Airport Road; 3. Widen and improve Weaver Dairy Road. 4. Widen NC 86 from Estes Drive to Homestead Road to a 5-lane urban Cross-section; 5. Complete the connection of Frances Street from the US 15-501 Bypass via Willow Drive to Ephesus Church Road (SR 1742) . D. Trans ortation S stem Maintenance 1. Purchase and install improved traffic signal system. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continues to endorse and support those projects currently programmed in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program, including: 1. Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the existin g 2 lanes to at least 4 lanes; 2. Widening S. Columbia Street from Mt. Ca Manning Drive from the existin rtnel Church Road to curb and gutter section; g 2-lane section to a 4-lane Road 3. Widening sborriStreet l(R 919(SR 1927) S. from Cameron Avenue to to a 41-foot cross-section: ; 4. Replacement of the Morgan Creek Bridge at US 15-501 with a new bridge; and 5. Bicycle improvements along Estes Drive between (NC 86) and the Carrboro town limits; and Airport Road 6. Train gates on Cameron Avenue. SStatBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby requests that the g e give the Town an opportunity to request bikeways facilities programmed in the Town Y future State-supported road improvements and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby the State give the Town the opportunity requests that design of any State-supported road improvements that participate in the ra med in the Town. might be programmed This the 28th day of April, 1986. RESOLUTION C TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Manager HI&HWAY IMPROVEMENT REDUESTS 174 Priority listing of needs by eligible Federal funding source: Manager's Recoeeendation FEDERAL AID FUNDS Priority Primary Secondary Urban Transportation -- - System Management 1 Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen Sage Road, Purchase and install US 15-501 from the 86 from Homestead 2-lane segment north improved traffic US 15-501 Bypass Road to the I-40 of US 15-501 to the Chatham interchange signal system County line 2 Improve the US Build the missing Complete Pittsboro Improve the intersection with Sage Rd. and Weaver Dairy Road Came oneAve.ntorom of Estes and Airport Scarlette Drive realignment from Road g Airport Road Weaver Dairy Road to Erwin Road 3 Improve and extend Build Laurel Hill Widen and *rove ap frontage roads along Parkway from US P l Este the intersection US 15-501 from Weaver Dairy Road of Estes and 15-501 to NC 54 Franklin Street to along a new Franklin the I-40 interchange alignment 4 Widen and improve Widen and improve US 15-501 from p Widen NC 86 from Improve the intersection Mt. Careel Church Estes Drive to Franklin Street to Rd. from US 15-501 Honestead Road of Piney Mountain Roadn the I-40 interchange to Chatham County and Airport Road line 5 Widen Old Durhae- Complete the connection Chapel Hill Road of Frances Street from Scarlette Dr. from the US 15-501 to the Durham County Bypass via Willow line Drive to Ephesus Church Road IWIErtiP*V#9 11 174 1. MEMORANDUM . Trat, Mayor and Council FROM: David R. Taylor, Town Manager smjECT; Request for Projects to be Included On the State 'High' provement Program DATE May 13, 1985 The North Carolina Board of Transportation- tall hold public hearings dtaring May and June to gather information on state-sIlde transportation needS The meeting for our highway district will :behelid in /441 !liver on Ofilde 4 at 2 p•m at the Technical College of Alartatice. Information ptesented at these hearings will be used to update thO Stato'S Transpor- taion ImproVement Program (TIP). The State's TIP schedules Federal and St#1.4 440100 for transportation projects state-wide, Attached is .a proposed list of highway 'projects-needed for Chalet Hill. Tice priority ranking that we propose is based en previous requests made to the Stag as well as on our anal ysis of congestion: ;currently experienced in the CoMmunity. All of the projects listed are Included on 11.te Town! adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Since the State has separate sources of highway improvement funds, vire recoMMend -a Priority list for each source of funds. We also,recommend includinig reqUests that bikeway fad!it ies and landscaping be included in roadway Imprevemerfts and that the Town be allowed to participate in designing new facilities, The reitommencled resolution also states that we Conti hue to Support projects currently programmed for Chapel Hill, and that we would tike to see the widening of the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass rescheduled from j1889 to I956 . The ref:4*5W are grouped to correspond with three Federal, funding Soto-ces. These highway funding categories include: Federal-Aka Primary, Pederal-Ald Secondary, and Federal-Aid Urban. Federal-Aid Primary routes within our community includ : US 15-501 from the Durham County line to Franklin' Street; US, 15-501 Bypass; US 15401 from the Bypass to the Chatham CoUnty line; and NC 54 from'the Durham County line to the Bypass. Federall-Ald Secondary routes include major State-maititolilted roads outside the city limits. These include: NC 54 between the Durham County line and the new. 14-40 interchange; MC 86 north of Homestead Road; Mt. Carmel Church Road (SR 1008); and Old burhamFChapel Hill Road. , Federdt,+ id Urban funds cans be, used to improve ,rr jor row within.the moraa10,01 ity . which are not Anetoded on the i raJ Al l --.SYSterfl.:. For I.. example, the widening of South Columbia Street been nnind thrive ' and the Bypass will be funded from the Federal-�,rd ben to 'Y. Also attached :is the Town's 1084 Highway #*p vement :Request. We . recommend the following changes: ,1 it 1. Delete ,.the: widening.of US 1.501/NC 54 Bypass; Emmaus . it ,tjs, now ,, included .in the State's TIP. I 2. Delete the widening of Merritt.. Mill Road because it'' is nt ro � - 3. Delete the widening ,and. extension of Saget_llapd from Weaver;Dairy d to .US: 15=501!, because' the developer. of'' Greenf'taelds IS itr the ss of constructing most of that road now. 4. 'Add'to the "Secondary" category the building 'Of be i rto section of the _Weaver Dairy Road re, lignm€nt fr ? er'Dairy Ro c4 to 5. a{Add to the "Urban" category the wielen,ing if .mod, fry US # 501 to the S.-lane section. This is'':'in,+�'t ! t1oar ifiitts, ,;running approximately 750' along the side of Br' ndle':s. n category completion of `Pitt ro Stmt X- b. -Add .to the- Urban" Cate ar the comb, _ � - , tension from Cameron. Avenue to Airport:Road. 7. Add to the "Urban" category.,the widening,,Rinitli,tmroyement ° , 1"Fr Recom !ndation: That Council adopt the attached re s010000 autherixing sy414rri'tri of funding requests to the State Iasi of ,Tnr"tation for inclusion in ..the State's Transportation Imprint _ .Prograis. The. Planning Board and Transportation Board concurred With ,uunanr ►r -votes their a t. respective ay 7th meetings. May We .also recommend that Council authorize the .MAYO' and -Manager to , poem these requests at the TIP,; Pub!is Hearing :pry,Junta 4s. ' • • May.18, 1985 • TOWN ,OF CHAPEL HILL.; , , c , H I:GHWAY IMPROVEMENT RE $Jf 1 (fir-iarity listing of needs by eligible!!Federai iundi g., * : • FEDERAL AID FUNDS n Prixwi,ty Primary Secondary :Urban 1 Widen and improve Widen and improve Wien is i ,E dt . US'15--501 from the 86 from Homestead 4'fr r, US 15$1 to LIS 15-501 Bypass Road to the 1-40 the plane section to the Chatham interchange County line 2 Improve the US Build the rnissiny ccirip:lop,i it oro 15. 501 intersection section of. the +, Ettoonsior+ from with Sage Rd. and Weaver Dairy;Rdi ' ICatoOlvn Ave to 1 Scarlette Drive . realignment from Airport-Road- • Weaver Dairy,Rd. to Erwin Road . 3 improve and ex- Build Laurel Hitt Widen'and ti:nprove. . tend frontage Parkway from.USi. Weever Dairy. Road roads a long US 15-501 to NC :54 16.501 from along a new Franklin St. alignment to .the 1-40 interchange 4 .Widen and improve Widen and improve Widen NC 86 from US 15..501 from Mt. Carmel Church, Estes,Drive to Franklin ,St. to Rd. from U S 15=501. Hbotosead i d - , the 1-40 inter- to the Chatha change County line 5 Widen Old Durham- Cape the,con- Chapel Hi I I Road , neqtiOrt.pf.Fr€ances from Scarlette,Dr. Street f the,.;iIS; to the Durham . 15401 ,Bypass via County 1 i ne Mfi,i oW_Di'i ve:too eats Church Rd. • TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT itgautsTs " i • 2..forloOtr#istinp ort,weeds by 01181.6kr FadOr& tettnellaWilanntarat. FEDERAL AID FUUIOS P.rio Ity Primary Secondary 11l!Itrn 501/54 Sy- N.C. SI (Airport s-44111 Road`- ,pass from In- ltd.) Ho teal Ca en-Awe,. to toned,ftir000s ton With Rd. to 1.40 gold S.'), :Ot.- u:.S. 1S 501 oust_ an and Improwe w to,41'.cross» 'MIM to carprorate ' limits widen and .laiprove �.; U.S. 15.501 from Laurel Hill ■*rk•,. ,Rd.}:heaver •y. s:to Chat- Way from-ii.S. °Ad U.S. Sap County line 15*d01 to Nt.0 c$4 ;1�1'wider *++d *odour and Ire- build.along new - **id Provo, alignment S:; U.S. *5-501 lot- Mt. Carmel Church N.0 I S (Airport .prove,Inueriec- ltd. (5.11. '10E01 ; 1.) Eat ` IrIWo tlai'r with Scar- U.S. IS '50,1 to i4itkolorls d Rood letr Drw/OId county line widen :. kt rove • Durham-Chapel and Improve Hil l Road A U.S.. 15-501 Old Dur n_ Fra . .Willow Franklin St.. to Chapel Mill Rd. va to Emss 140 improve end Scarlette dr. to . Onistitb a d,**• *Sind frontage county OlOte.,sentiOstlen roods an and Improve Sn. U.S. 15501 Pr?*nklln St. to 1.40 widen ■nd Improve 3 0000,110 liar 149 11 Q11 anck011“ TAM COUNCIL . - q..,•- a.— , ,:-• -ter• •_ 17€ A FIE.SOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CHAPEL HILL TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF 1R e 11110$POtTATiON FOR THE NORTH•CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM• (135-4-83 ) WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Town of Chapel rtirifl tO ekvelep a system of major thoroughfares which will provide eccess gind betWeen Major neigliborhood centers and which will be integrated with Inter-city move- mentkr and WHEIREAk it is the policy of the Town of Chapel Mill to discourage through tiaffic on residential streets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the TOwn of Chapel HALherehy requests the North Carolina Board of Transportatiors toThinclude t road improvements in the State'• TranspOrtation Program:. A. Foujeral- id Primary Funding, 1. Widen US 15-$01 from US 15-501 Bypass to Ole Chatiiatu County line; • 2. improve US 15-501 intersection with Sage Road, and Scarlette Drive; 3. Improve and extend frontage roads along US 10-501 from Frank- lin Street to the 1-40 interchange; 4. Widen and improve US 15-501 from Franklin Street to the 1-40 interchange. B. F.4ftti40...EtiarsfFEitna 1. Widen NC 66 from Homestead Road to thi,14.40 interchange; 2. Build the missing section of the Weaver Dairy, Road alignment • from Weaver Dairy Road..(SR 1733) to Erwin Road°(SR 1734); 3 . Laurel Hill Parkway from US 154C11 to NC 54 along new alignment; 4. Widen and improve Mt. Carmel Church Road (SR 1000) from US 150401 to the Chatham County line; S. Widen Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road from Pearlefte, Drive to the Durham County line. • C. n 1. Widen Sage Road, from US 15-501 to the 5-11One section; 2. COmolete Pittsboro Street extension from Cameron Aventje to Airport Road. a .. • . Widen and::itnp O re ver Dairy Road;, 4. Widen NC86from Estes Dri 17 Drive to,�fkKResteadii"�l1000.) 5. Complete "=the,, connection of Frances "�4 � L ld IS 1 -501 Bypass via Willow Drive to E phesus F rc Fit( (iii 1742). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council r Atilt(trr 10 endOrSe and support thite projects currently programmed,•iin this North:Carolina Trans. pr "'tit$on Improvement Program* including: 1.: Widening the US 15-501/NC 54 Bypass from the:existing 2 lamas, to at. • least. 4' lanes (State TIP I,iD. #11-2003); .2 :..?Wider i3Og: NC; 54 from the Orange.County line,to the 140 In hange -;-‘oloom the existing 2 lanes to a 4-lane divided highway ifiptate'.. TIP. 1,;0.' 404,15); . 3.. Wideni;rnO:S. Columbia Street from Mt.. Cermel:PhOrch d tnn i r99 from the existing 2-lane section to a 4-.lane c And gut ctiori (Skate'.TIP 1.0. #U-624); 4. 't Widening ..Merritt Mill Road (SR 1927) frog'Caaieton Ay .:;tov. S. # Street (SR 1919) to a 41-fciot csectisrrl;. ,geplacentent of the Morgan Creek Bridge .at US S' ',,t withk a new bridge (State TIP 1.D. #B=131:1); and S. ,,Bicycle ;improvements along Estes Drive between.Alrpart end INC. 66) and tfie•Carrbor o town limits; and BED 1l ,FUOTTHER. RESOLVED that the widening of, thre LUS,1S 01/RC;54:-, ypase State TIP I..0..#U-2003) be rescheduled from 19139 to TOM., IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby;"reqa is that the.:State give the TTwn an opportunity to request bikeways' ",factlkOsis and landscaping g In conjunction with any future StateisuPported road )m ts.pr egrarnmed in the Town; and :IT -ructittER" RESOLVED that the Council; hereby ,regU,reets. that,tl a State give the Tim the opportunity to participate in.. the design. of any State.suppor.'ted road improvements that might sheianogranieoed.in the Town. This the 13th.,day of May, 1985. • • it - L +. . .. ,.r.. :-3o- r �._.s • w to . April 24, 1986 18( 1986 - 1987 TOWN OF CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM EGLIUE (] STATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS N4-30-8(.0 First Year Priorities 1) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of 54 Bypass and 54 Business. 2) Widen the following streets to 36 feet with curb and gutter and bike lanes: a) Hillsborough Road from Main Street to North Greensboro Street, b) North Greensboro from Estes Drive to Hillsborough, c) North Hillsborough from Greensboro to the Town limits, and, d) Main Street from Hilisboro•ugh Road to 54 Bypass. 3) Widen the bridge on Smith Level. Road over Morgan Creek to four lanes. 4) Implement the recommendations of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Signalization Study to purchase and install improved signal equipment in the Town. Second Year Priorities 1) Widen Smith Level Road to five lanes from Merritt Mill Road to Culbreth Road. 2) Widen 54 Bypass to a duel-lane facility from 15-501 to the intersection of 54 West and Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107 & SR 1937). 3) Widen Estes Drive to four lanes from Airport Road to North Greensboro Street. and include bike lanes. Third Year Priorities 1) Widen Smith Level Road to four lanes from Culbreth to U.S. 15-501. 2) Widen 54 West between the Bypass intersection and the Old Fayetteville Road intersection. 3) Widen Jones Ferry Road to four lanes from Old Fayetteville Road to the Bypass. Lon Ran e Priores 1) The extension of Carr Street from the Chapel Hill/ Carrboro municipal limits to intersect with Main Street and Jones Ferry Road. The Carr Street extension will be built to a 48' roadway cross- section. 2) Improve Main Street to three lanes from Roberson Street to Jones Ferry Road. 3) Widen Main Street to 36' with curb and gutter from Jones Ferry Road to Weaver Street. 4) Widen Greensboro Street to four lanes from Estes Drive to Merritt Mill Road. .. REC'D APP 9 1986 18 r J STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RALEIGH 27611 JAMES G MARTIN GOVERNOR April .3, 1986 JAMES E.HARRINGTON SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: County.Managers FROM: James E. Harrington ,,--- SUBJECT: Public Meetings to Update Transportation Improvement Program Governor Martin, the Board of Transportation and I invite you to attend and participate in a public meeting to update our Transportation Improvement Program. We have scheduled a series of 15 public meetings to obtain advice from local officials and citizens on needed highway improvements in their area. This advice is carefully considered by our Board of Transportation Members when they update our Program and they depend on your participation at these meetings, We need your appearance at these meetings in order to have accurate transcript of all discussions and presentations. A copy of our statewide schedule is attached for your information. We believe the Transportation Improvement Program is a positive approach to scheduling all types of transportation improvements and we need your help in assisting us in keeping it viable and responsive. Although the TIP hearing process has always been important, perhaps its importance is heightened this year by the instabill it y of federal hi hwa di nd a shortage hi as funds iso, as we ;ave done in prior of St we concerning 1a rport, public transportation, rail yand sbicycle come your area. If it is not convenient for you to attend one of these scheduled meetings, you may wish to coordinate your priorities with other officials of your area and present a combined priority listing of all projects that your area would like for our Board of Transportation to consider. If you cannot attend the meeting in your area, please send your recommendations in priority order to Mr. George Wells, State Highway Administrator, North Carolina Department of Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611. JEH/aa Attachment cc: Mr. George Wells An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer • r • AA/Z, Rte ApR 9 TA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O.BOX 25201 JAMES G.MARTIN RALEIGH 27611 GOVERNOR JAMES E.HARRINGTON April 17, 1986 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayors, County Commissioners, Chambers of Commerce, etal. • FROM: Frank R. Price, P.E. Long Range Planning Engineer ' SUBJECT: 1986 TIP Meetings The meeting and registration times were omitted from the schedule of meetings which were attached to Secretary Harrington's recent memorandum to you. The meeting time is :Q0 with be in at 1:00 p.m. Please excuse any confusion this mayrhavetcaused to you, ' Also, the meeting place has been changed for Division 2 to the Carteret County Administration Building. A corrected schedule is attached for your benefit, FRP/dsp Attachment An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer { 18 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE MEETINGS - 1986 DIVISION 1 Thursday, May 1 - Albemarle Commission, 512 South Church Street, Hertford DIVISION 2 Wednesday, April 30 - Carteret County Administration Bldg., Court House Square, US 70, Beaufort DIVISION 3 Tuesday, April 29 - UNC Wilmington, University Union Room 100, Wilmington DIVISION 4 Monday, May 5 -- Wilson County Technical Institute Auditorium, Wilson DIVISION 5 Wednesday, May 14 - Council Chambers City Hall, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham DIVISION 6 Tuesday, May 13 - Robeson County Public Library, 101 North Chestnut Street, Lumberton DIVISION 7 Monday, May 12 - Guilford Technical Community College, Business Careers Auditorium, Jamestown DIVISION 8 Thursday, May 15 - City Hall , 225 East Weatherspoon Street, Sanford DIVISION 9 Monday, May 19 - Library, 371 North Main Street, Mocksville DIVISION 10 Tuesday, May 20 - UNC Charlotte, Denny Building, Room 200, Charlotte DIVISION 11 Thursday, May 22 - Wilkes Community College, John A. Walker Center Auditorium, Wilkesboro DIVISION 12 Wednesday, May 21 - Gaston College, Lena Sue Beam Auditorium, New Dallas Highway, Dallas DIVISION 13 Thursday, May 29 - McDowell Technical College, Auditorium, Marion DIVISION 14 Tuesday, May 27 - Swain County Administration Building, Bryson City lti'ednesda May and y, May 28 - Blue Ridge Technical College, Auditorium, Flat Rock ALL MEETINGS BEGIN AT 2:00 P.M. REGISTRATION AT 1:00 P.N. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 184 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: May 5, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM # Ff 3 SUBJECT: DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING **,*************************************g******************************** ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: JANE ATWATER APPLICATION VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AGENCY COMMENTS DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider the Durell Dobbins Subdivision, ra ert H. Kirkpatrick and Durell Dobbins, for approval . Y of Erma To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation. NEED: The property 9 Querr in uestion is located on SR 1115 (Bradshaw Bingham The property residential development. The 10. It is signated as by Agricultural tract Is designated as Watershed on thee LandnUselPland Cane Creek Water Supply There are six (6) lots proposed; the sizes are 1 .0 ac, 1 . 11 ac. , 1 .23 ac. , 2.21 ac. , 3.22 ac. , and 3.53 ac. The property is zoned Agricultural-Residential with an overlay district of Protected Watershed-II . provided to the site via an Orange County Pro p r is road named Morning Glory Lane. pri vate Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Grove Rural Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. patrolled on a 24 hour basis. It will be IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation subdivision is approximatel rps for lots)this trips per day. Y 57.06 (9.51 trips x 6 lots) Transportation, the 1984c(most ncurrent) traffDicpcount nfor of SR1115 as determined from the east side of SR 1116 is 70 average daily trips. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. 18k -\�, 1 J'<..- )4 _IV _ j 04345 \DRIVE', I G� 01145 ...--�! 6174 333 AC 30.29 AC. ,,i% � 472 c fl-.f� 18 AC. /j. 14. i- *. 1.6 AC.CAL. /''� 2625 21 J �-.. . // - 2 // _'- .,_ 3641 f l 15.913 AC, 2 . // -7-?,-"...,.. � �/i 11 - s::: '� 14 254C a //4 +_6_ ' _ ?/ — °_ ,.... .35 6 `1//,.fo. 4/ ..,. .. -: //0 4N �' 49 //•5669 /�' * 2$ � �p',`��,5�[,�-3 AC, f/'/ 3Q 3624 ..51 A°�^ �� r�/roq� •47g3 //`� A 878 AC. 'c4.- 5 /-f - SsAC. ,/ • 153 1322G1B 4362 -'-' 10 Ac. /1 ii /*� 8.477 AC. f.- - . 1 �►'- I/• 29 .f 110 '4 40 ilk ,Ail ' ' 14.95 AC. 30 2e50 44-. '"�' 'A.� 59.445 AC. OWASA % ' 4 i 10 '*I. ----- ____ - 4. %* - --10:4;001 \\t\\........„<„,\ 6ULL.o D8881 5 APPLICANT: AUQcu.. Do$BINS 1 ZONING: A-PJPw-u -A6121eL l.ruo u.2.651DgAITAI.IPRnTSCM>WAT0611.0 84 1-uP D651G1L471014:,KifJG1UUJLkt• Qe JD Jnm.'WATe2.544001 wAronsI 5cAlE:1"�400'-0" 1 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) 11/85 1$�si APP ICATIDN FO U BOIVI I O A PR O. ORANGE MINTY DATE: E'g-- J' SUBDIVISION NAME: D ,inrz S 1 LOCATION: 'r.6.AL -%,) we 1. 11! >..., f. OWNER/DEVELOPER: ! _ / ADDRESS: 4,417 0v2d..11-1,6Ak r �[°, TELEPHONE NO. : _suerr ,r7m7 4tt AGENT/CONTACT: 5e ,/,, 6.4,e/1/4?_‹. _ie., 5 TELEPHONE NO. : �- �F� �r .�� .rrle A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: o7. 5-o Orange County Tax Map 1/7 Black Lot(s) 30-17 Township 400.4- ,y, Zoning District(s): Total Number of Acres: /0. 1, Total Number of Lots: <5 Average Lot Size: Phases: Number/Type of Structures: (existing] ,�,� Minimos Lot Size( , Lineal Feat in Streets: 4 :7,7 Acres in Open SpaceProposed) Water Supply: ,• - Public(apecify) Communit Irndi vi dua l Wastewater Disposal: PubLic(specify] Community di vi dua l Schoo l District: /2A Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: �, Critical Areas: stream/dreinageweys flood :ratershed(specify) prone areas other(explain] historic sites B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch a ua s hundred feet (1",2001 ] and no Larger than one inch a uals f L feet (1 "=50' ] and must contain the following information: R fifty fast w subdivision nave .,: name of owner(el ...4'14k buiLding wstbeck lingo ;heck items at name of surveyor, engineer or _¢"' by notation or typical Lot �Ompleted) - !I' ; lend planner existing and sees- [title) Preliminary Plan n;:,;.,_' proposed ties, scale, north arrow (North at ; road. (drainage, utilities, S :Cr top of map] raad8, etc.) date (including revision dotes! "` existing, proposed end .:Zr. townshlD, tax map-block-lot adjoining rights-4f-way referent including �y«M boundary described with :, street names end state road { bearings and dietanoea '••f:' numbers total ecreege of the tract s utilities, end proposed and acreage """• utilities, ge of lots, including type, •=: . end excluding area within '"`' ydr, sixes. ..Y rights-of--Vey }r:'i! hydrants, valves and { :antral corner " existing -JC 4i12. existing and pro proposed Lot lines with " ' poead culvert ::?>:•�' dimensions ;....:i/ including sizes end grades - lot numbers �- w. :.: typical street crash-sections JLL� phasing Linea _ ` and intersection detai L6 topography at ten foot (1p) including design and width intervals of travels(' and shoulders I. 0 water hodiee, stream,, flood- horizontal alignment and way end Pies. streams,e - 2 general curve data (public stream buffers and natation roads) ^ 3? indicating restricted — buildings,features such ea 1:: development potential buildings, cemeteries, tdevelop p historic landmarks, , p. corporate and extra- territorial planning -+'+„ adjoining tot le out 'rS jurisdiction lines which names of adjoining ley out the owners and g property property su601vis1one location and size of parcels dedicated for in common public use or reserved � Location and alza of < notation on lots of restricted development potential and 'tea *torawatar eenateaentrpla! sees first 1/2 inch of runoff from nimpervious aurfecee for Control 4f the (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ( IS. r�i.gw►tD C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 S 1 . Twenty—six (26) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked] . 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a Letter from the Orange County Health Department Certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 lots or less) or a $370.00 fee (subdivisions of 16 lots or more) is due at the time of application. A $5.00 par lot fee is due at the time the final pLet is presented for recordation . AlOir APPLICANT 'S SIGNATURE �, - OiNNEA 'S SIGNATURE - -� 2/2 s/ DATE DATE FEES: Amount `§2'/0° Date Paid /---2g-86 Receipt /08(p0 • DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION ORANQB_COUNTX 181-: GEBTIEICATIQN_ANEERQYALL_z_ERELIMIEABX::::: STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Iant_Aiwaltz SKETCH PLAN: Received 1:7_21=AB Reviewed 2-5-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2.=_21=Afi Reviewed 3-5-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE _3-21-86 CERTIFICATION SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 3-6-86 Certification UTLITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE __N/A Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 3-26-86 (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other Soil & Erosion Health Department (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial I ' 19( I STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EMENT REPORT FOR SITE OF DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION I BRADSHAW QUARRY ROAD (NC SR 1115) I BINGHAM TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 FEBRUARY 1986 PROJECT NO. 28601 PREPARED FOR: ROGER BARNES 111 SOUTH HUGHES STREET APEX, NORTH CAROLINA 27502 ly PREPARED BY: PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC. li ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA x. 4.- 4 19:1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR SITE OF DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION BRADSHAW QUARRY ROAD (NC SR 1115) BINGHAM TOWNSHIP ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FEBRUARY 1986 PROJECT NO. 28601 PREPARED FOR: ROGER BARNES 111 SOUTH HUGHES STREET APEX, NORTH CAROLINA 27502 { PREPARED BY: ., PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA I , , •-,- • PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. - . JOB D.4.-.,.,_ a.Z.".,4 ,. C a / •.. A - -84 Engineers/Planners/Surveyors SHEET NO. i OF f, 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 1 .. CHAPEL HILL. NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)929-1173 493-2600 CALCULATED BY-te-41Z[6.L . DATE rte. e.7, i f 4 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE - 1Tyrtar7&IA-Tvtar- 11.4e4 AA er...44..fr- li'epocr-- li, . • • . : . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . ... . . .... . . . . . . . 1 -.. ," " ,_.,. ' !! ., Th , i i • ! : ... : . ! -1 Aqsfir.A44 • :SCA t.Mr1.04 ! ' . !•... : - - i. . . • _ . . . . . . . 1-- ' .• 7 7- N I GL.ICCAL PricOOi+ ''S frCL #• • •A ..4z0.04,4*Y. 1 fec-covw4.0.04. -...PAA44,44. -PA-di:4 -01,c4s4s ' i ' cado-rr-zi thv j ing:of.. i at*,',- ,,o-ic 4:be : 6444:s,?:44,4 gr-0,t4 /zooro 1 (74cl*. fits-) • . , • ;..1 ,........ ".. 45/yy 14-$.04i 7,1i4;64*44.* ,...044 .;..c iCo4fAtri. ,...?-10,i,n+i. (3,44„3,,,,,,J..oltr._....i_...6*1.__/! .........i.Z.Oke.0.00($.0H!_.......i___....... 4-Aci ?An. 644. /0 7 30P "...zewgo'. :!A 7i.Z ,.Ps..)zz.: - ! r. 4....)4./* 19* .4 4-4• 07eb-iv-r7.-- ---4."-.°44-------4----.4------.1.----4 44s5 6.! Per4vrtrg,i, I7 (1.119: ',..... q..4.04,e ,..:_.-*Trz..4....1 -4. ..7.44.74/7.1....._"#_..:70S7 ,, r...........: .:. i , + : i . ; ! ; i t i t ! i.:- ; i . "i.-- -1- . $ -t• r, r -t- :. i c m Lg : 0.5..t,A,.,. .t... .._, . 1..,. ...... L LI.Oz" 041■4ck ..P.Cov. s. •sr-e, ....CZodQtz. ips1771 /.4.For.tin ...j. trig; i.. .4,40p1....:1...i Poe...16,I rl4s...... .!77?, 711..... 49111714=i. ti e:19-$.77 :47-; A :. i2.1,,Inti.. ois- • • 9 ] a ro :"7"-u■ex ,t.! J . Cti..04,4-: . o -oviitp,••• 76-00 ; ''..413t.i tlitc- 1 54;i7C4-J i : v : . 7474 Siti .. ' /. ‘1,7.4ir_.../4/4 ,-; •.S.4__T-1 4tel..4. fose...../qeg./..;___.-...;-__.-... ;1. ....: e.')! r.o..46.0,,..ti ,. S.,4,74 e..0H.Pvi' . 4 Vo' (.4r.4) !.r.,..,,.,:: -7:4,,,,,:... ,,..,..='... 4 [... .:2:: -.- t..;„. i: ;:' !.: 1 .... i: i.= :, , i , .,, ; !' .: _. : ......: ..._.7.:........__.;........__ 1.,1,• 1 : . . . , . , ..... ,.., , . . . :. .-- . -. -b___2........r___..____a..■ r% S,:c..1...;-....t '. , . . ; ,,i...4..,..;;. , . . IA,' •,, . . : ! CM f* 7121c-Nk 4 • :Q.: 64 1 . ! :' '..._ i........ .,4.'..:"-... ' ,.,.. eQ: _ rtt, iCr , • • - • ..,.,..... • .,,, .... , .. . 10S1/4/.:,.....In. 7. 26Y7 .' • • : , . : i ,:s • ; ; q ' : " ; . . : ........,,,........., ...... s.......... ../' i..j- ij/ (:), 1 (....h.de .pea-.1...1 - r • • S..ctie. .. ;....... iz.,"..I.::: • , , • I . . (--,5+.,;104-..;14 c-1-4, ' .5 up -tre,,,,, oC e CIIP.•@.k1 .. ' • i ........... .. ..7P;11, - 6044.-., t...1 W : I --,:4 .5.1.,.....& ... . -.,„ .:. ,' ,4.,'.. . .. 1. . . :.... ----" clie • iii • -' __ado 4 ril ' B .. . . ... . _ ... .. . . .. . , ... -. ..- .-. .• Pll ' ii PRODUCT204,1(A-reihnc.Gmton.M•.C1471 i. PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. „84` z66." a 11; Engineers/Planners/Surveyors yy w 104 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 SHEET NO. CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 °F�"- (919)929,-1173 493-2600 4932600 CALCULATED BY re DATE / f{ 19 .CHECKED BY i' DATE• SCALE zonal L r 'Nlk ..1 2 . r t.. „ ..•n 'GPn.. 1 Ord' a ;Po-.1t., J'M'�My G R -4::' y. Oc,1sdq _....._. i ? J ((yjam� .7,4...p .--.11,.0.,...S Sk.-gce . _. .., . ......1'�.,,,r;.--.�.+,p�r_y,pu s� ce Aces, /4.70 .� _.; ._ . s ; ....... ., .Ca S ;5�i.aun :a 1 nn z a A,te ,„i. tc .4. it raid W>'..i ' :14..€: l la 4v it In n1u_ lop s)-IcaL_ ..be. 4 d Go ...fir,,, , I': d .. � . . .. .� t3 . ...)n. f.J...CI . pre..4fi--v Q!.Cf.-.,a„,y- ru„ - ( 1 0�'�' ate,4. .p . ... ve(4,,pq n1t..hY.. r t.„7. .. ..C+.f-Lr4_zi. . Q.,,4 ............... 1 ,,,,OS7'RN- Lp.GrIv.M43 Will : • PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. jo,„ a, '"0 • sc.) Engineers/Planners/Surveyors SHEET 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY-. e41S_________- (919) 929-1173 493-2600 I.. CHECKED BY_. ,_ DATE SCALE I. 6 6 . . . -. : . •• : 6 . 6 ; : 6 . : E• 6 , . 6. . . 6 _ 6 6 6 •6 6 , I • , 0-1 - 01; : ; ' : •::„. : .. ):17.4,i,... :..7.:0 0 e.,f41:10r::.: ° ..) c '. , ,: 6 : t• I : . , /tJ • , : : ' •': j::, 4,..„..! . i 4-,? ; ; 6. ,id. i 2;:, . •: ,: ,; : (0 ..A, i ,: I: ............L..... .;. .....i .. ,......4s,ft.di . .', . ' .,..., . . .; 0441 i tiVe14,..(.. ...114.044. ..' .. ....e.t, 66 I ' ! . . 6 . ..........L..... ,..4. .......L i ,. : . f ' i I,,: 4;' ..".......7".... '''II '. 1 I i'. et.-10A.67- ' 1i . . ..•,...cc4.-- ..r.. ; ;4 , • fl_,.- . . i e. ! (.,„- : , , „,,,... . % 1:. c rut , i -. c ; ' i(4. ,.._a___e,-,;• We,' 'e, i .. . . . . , . . . ... ...Z.)40. i i.0 0;.1. 0, 4.. ...$0 i i 0 :ti ; l'- i .1 0.40 4... ' "....... ..; ; ] !, : ; ' I ,I ' ' ; : ; ; ; •r :I f i• i i i i i i ! i 1 : : 6 4 : - '. ..;•.:7•' I: „::::Ii :::6: :1:: • . .7,: i ,I ./.01ye4.. .S4cre. .. ,!r-41,!, .1 'IntAw*. 0.. ' .i. . ;.,_... 1._ .j.......•,,. . • . : . . : , . : . : ■ 4 . .. i. . ... .. 14-sA. S .4;....... .-4, ! i , •. 1.. : 4- .i., .5:60 . ,..4 54. , pi„ 6. 4 : .., .i. aS. , ,t-i -, , .f (6.0: ..;. ..._..t .._....L....._,..._....4..........,. •-1[,.: - . 6 • 6 ; , ; , ; I, ;,::7.• : 6 il : • ., ..; ,i . 7c!C,.,3. i 4 ,,,..1( .i 04,: ÷rag... , I,.:,... 4 . . . . . , • ; ; —'S . i 7.9 7o .5 e_. ' ' 6 . . ,.-,..6 .,..7::. . 6 . : i 7001: . . . . . . . : . . 14'..,:.:.. 6 . : . • - , . :. • ,-'-,. , : ,, ,6 i ......;•7 : ■ . : , • 6 . 1 • 7 . 6..". . . l• , . . • • •C: .. . .1k.'6 n 6 I'• = 3 z - - ' ,'( 6.4,1 t) •, ,; , : i : : • • .• • • • - 6: "-73zal• ' 4-: 5 ' - - . ` (4 "tc,-- S . • : • : : . :e: • . :.n. , r . eii,n. ..../....... tg_... :.....: : •'I' „ 'h.'et: ; • , : . 6 :,,::6•, ::::.. : , • : : . 7.. _. . .. . • 6 . . ..,..... 6 , • e lo• t, 4 .. . . . . . 6 . . ,:::... . ,. " • 6 . '• .." I , 6 : • . Q .. 0.z 0(7 s.S tz. 3 "-- : /6, eiS c-Cs -= Q ...--- Pt--c.', - prc - 4,_ • 6. •: I,LI:,A . OnS le_ ois. 1. • . ____________________ . _ . • . • - - .6 . .... . .... _ ... , . PROMO 204-1 EVirg*:).Ix,Gwon,Mrs 011il 6 PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. SHEET NO No ,st.,, . Engineers/Planners/Surveyors . 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 :I. CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED SY ,e4IS DATE--.4/A2/8_14_,.._..____ _I • (919)929-1173 493-2600 . CHECKED DV 1 DATE-___.„_„_____.....,.._. • .,. , . SCALE •• . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . , . _ •, . , , ., . . . . : . . . ., . . . . . . ' - ' - • • • . , - • : : , ; : : ; ! : : : : .: ' : , i . . , . . . : . , . . . . . . . ..,. .. . . . . _ . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • - • _ . • • ... , . . • Y'Rtl. ,47''4•S,1-0.'e,144"sa.4..iL 7.1*4' I. (Ofite,4.4.: A i 1 :'- . : :- , .: : .., ii . i i, ; i i . -: .,i ; -4- i : H . 4 : i , ;; •4 ; ; ; ; ; . ; -- sE- •1---•;--- ---TE---- , , E. , .i.'.I - EJIE 4 E.."-% • -. E i ibe41.4444141; 41 i Q ; i. 6ku. . . . tiove : c.ae=7-C.t.: A " ,1 .. ...ii.c..,it i n-g,i • ! 4 .;- -; ! ;-- -; t if i ;4 ; i ; i : ; Hi ; . 4 : : : •; - ;---i-----1------; ; 4 ; ; ; :041S, ; : : ; : : : E . ; ; ; : t • H ! ! • ; : i44 f.'• . . . . ... • . . • • . . . 5r.r L r .9,... .....I.... 4r Q...0. 414 JJ :c , ,. ., , -,- ■ . + i i : i , i- , !. ,■ •• :. : •4 .---4.---i---.—i---,,-i----- /1,.. -i....../..142,,,,,,k.4..a..! ..., ! .„.iL q8 Ae s /4(4;5 1 :p,7 -490....: 0. ; L ....i:,ta.........._;___i_...... /2 V, or4i .1 0 , ,i,.-„, •-', 1 I. . -/-034:47.- 7,,,• !e.,„-,,,,,,,x.„;.s, ...: . :4).,. . A ''.. ; ? °4 ! .0.77 .7.0•,:10. 0,.50 :. „a.oz„._....1...,._..L_.... . . • .....i.,.t16' .A 2,-O.0c*, . . . . i:i •••...2 ■•,1-...• ,[ (414441017.4.0-•-•4;0414.3.4 •-•••.•'--. •••••• .._LaidAs'4 '...6s,9047, i 6,te 4 0,' ,P' 1 0:.zo' ; .1 O.4.3.1......._;..._....L....._ ! 1 .i.„.... ..i... ....; .....! . ...1. ....; .. i 7741-61.... 42..1.A ; -men/..,4444i!C..4...o4z,...1..„.....__!__..4..._ .... .,.. ..:,• . _ ; : : • ; : Q :1„„ : .' 0.3 Z.- ( S.7. ; a i,1 ! n , 2 9 5Z. i (-CS l'r: • . . . . . . . : . . . 1 .., .. . .__145LLI.P440, 41.!..„ ;.. .Z9,51- - ,:-... -.11 ' L '..., ...i....-- fe,,.:.!is,: • . ''---; . .. ., . z.q;5Z- CC5 . •-• . . - IS.4 5 t CS 1:: .,::...,:: •... : ., :. • . • - • • . • P". bis.ct .' . '. • . - . . • ft //,0 7. CC-5 • A - .. . . . . . - •• - ••• . . . . , . . . . . • • 1 . . . . . • II .. . . . , . . . .. . .. . . . , i . . • . . . . . _- ., , . _ . . . 111. . . . . . . . . .. Ii . • . : . .. . . . . . 11411 • . . . . . : . PPOUKT2'04.1Se=d.VIns..CAM him 61471 • • . . . 7.____::i;.,,,:.:.:.:..,,..,.::l::!.:.::..i.:,i;,,,:..r:::.7:,:,..,..:i.:...i::i,:z.i::.:...:.:.:,,f::..::.::,,_..;.,r.:,,.::,.:.:..,,:,,:i.:. .:,..-:"......,1,H11.1131,05 T84 AS SO CI KrES,...: INC, Engineers/planners/Surveyors 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 SHEET NO.- _,.....________''S OF.a____________. CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY-&A__________L_____ (919)929-1173 493-2600 ,..0 HECKED BY____,____.___-. SCALE, • • - - - . _.,. . . r : -, , , , . : : r . ,- -: f • : • : • • ; • • 2,- L : L : -•,. , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .-7- .1"IY 1 ,i ';'■ 1 • f: i 't : ; i '• ' ;, -; ' F - :L 4- ; :i '• ; - ! .. • : 2 2 : • : • • 2 „ : : . 2 . • : • f • . : i 2 : , 2 • , , ; ; 2 ;• : : : : : • ; : : : : : f ;• : I - • " . -1" • • I . ' ' ' ' I. ' ..1_ i• s4i742,4,1 ....rif.c,. ...:.v&o.cei... 54-oe-c. JA ,%.1.0.13:•-ti, ; '-.ic i 1. ; . ! , . f _.. I , 1, i ! 1 I etlt 4.14„ .1,..FlasiArl. .1 /.9. * : jig 40-; r44-' &o 4401-' ', %%Agt • ' i - I- L -.1 • i ! 1 IQ ; 42 (Aik:rj2.• ,!ci.oie.4 il,ot .0,,,j :4, ii4, if i; 6,.:,,....1 : i 1 ; 4-• t t --i--, -,---i --.4-•, - ----- ••.: : : : i i t•-• •i i i : : : : t i - : t i- - I : -I----f-----i---i--...---1.----- , / is), f , 1 , 4/ ; i t ;A ., 7 3 z 4 e 1 i . . . . ,. .i.- . : • - - •,:, • , ,... • • •••.- . : : : !-• i ,., . -t 4 : ,... ;- -i--. 4----i-- .1.- --- /.. . . i . _ . . . . , : , .. 1 . . : 114..k ! si.(41 i 4,1: ii, 49,etc . : t- ; ---1--- -i t -i, f- -H... 1----±-.—I--. .-i-- . . . . - i- f ! t f ' i • . . ,.; :, i I ! .i .Q.:..7 „,0,..s.i.(424) 17, 1... :. 1545?-g5 1 ! II . . . • • • ... . . . . , . • . , • • , , : : , f f f • i• : : : ,, i f : i ------t ---f-----1-:-----;-----1-------- 1 . . . . . ., rpkw,.. 4,f10,00.4,,,z_l 9, i• -4 (0 - ,, 4,./ -ct.s , : : . : , - - - -.-- , - .Dsi--•• . , . , ,-...8.., r , 1 t- i I • '1- .1- --1-- i- i• MI : : ; : , , . .:; : : : ,•. , ! : : j ; [ Iii; : i ; :' :' . . : .;- ..., ? ' :; : . , , - : , , t ; , -f t : - : - • tit -+• : f f 1, ili . !, .i. i I• ! 1 1 ;, 1 •,4,...„,:., 112,4,1• .v..c.. tt.i.o,..o. . . • .,.. . .r..pte .4 CI.Ice. ,. ./8,.VS .,.43 . . . I • . - •.: . : : : , ; : : • i. :, .• , - . ' /5 0Z c4; .::.. . ; i .. ...i : I i .•' 1 . . . 1 . . . : • . . II .. ..., . i •,,..,..., • -14,:, .,. 4-.L: 1 LcIlls.w' : -C-4,0•;;--; <-0:4 4 "i i i i I . . 1.1 . . : ;, on a, it_ ' •A- = :z 79 4c - (,..o.a ) 7 SI= 439 er.s 1' i Iii 4. : : , f • 4 t 6•(4 4C. , !:. .g.,-. .(,.0' 2,..S.....- .... . ...... . . . • iq.sS.0 g ; • : - . - .• . , . ... . NI ... .... .. . ... . .. .. .... . ... 1 •• • • .. , . . : • "• - " -- - -- "- - • •• • • I' . .. . . . .. . ... ..... . PROCIX1.2041/7 ./...hc..GONI.kf...011/1 PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB, c Engineers/Planners/Surveyors w Kill i:: . _,,..:i .::,. iQ0 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 SHEE.TNO,_& , CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 ���`��_ oF� �91��gZ9-�,],�'� +4�.��dCld� CALCULATED 8Y� �� • ��j�y DATE +� [6 , • Jai 811 CHECKED 6Y DATE • SCALE.• • . . ' 5, ,,,. ....4� 41.. (.•,,;C i ..p.,pe C�2.P. w!• fir 4I. . 4.A1 4r111,0.. :....... .._ 3y3c- 4 1. 9 Iii tAlrrr .._4n v ``� - S f�e..� i a/Q,, n= J 'fir S - K .... Z:83 :1 MO 0.3��/z 8" $ 7 . ---v-- Quad GyP T __. .. .. /f• .... 7 I� Ns • 'iQ ry r1.sAl{/ J?: t f�R! JO - fn0,• ; 58y,7, ---- paw-.,,u Gk P.t�,. G oer• S ¢ r ,d s� 1) - D. : : . .:: .;, : ... , .... : ,--„: ...„.._•..' ' .- 7.' 3,.J � . : -,,,,,, „rp, p■pg_ : „..7..::: ,„.Q.,g,...,.. ,i, ,....1. :; :i .rt, _,. ,! . i/AD) H 4.-4 , p.'!. fa ! ' ; 4liQ :: ;1'g■.S5 ' I- .': !I ;;,, 1 k.7 ; -1-. .404 :I '„e11.1. ' ' 1 ; 1 ; ' 't 1 • . . . • 3,*/3 �S ii7 .1 , ailli . : . . : . • 9. •I - 5gY.7 fnfJ. ,,: . to . . .. . ..• ... . ,! • So,3 ' • are r • - 7•S ,-,.-n. . Vol -, /r, 't. r}J ( • , ) G., r rt a S Sao�!. • • �t7701-1��-F+'�!2.c,mn.Mau 01471. PHILIP POST& ASSOCIATES, INC. roe to o Ais. ,I • Engineers/Planners/Surveyors q 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 20$ SHEET N0. ':' CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 of (919)929-1173 493-2600 CALCULATED BY ��'S DATE 2�t dG _ CHECKED BY PATE SCALE ■L• �- .d4lcla Slop< r. F._.. i. 1 ; 9- P'� crx+ r rr i i + -... �pE /.. Oar . i _% 4xr, rnw d 3h� N � e/ T c.cis G, 1, Gr1P ,/3 '' xh 2. .',/1 . V r 3 d:o,y • . LF ills . O . 2,L .IZ414 r y .. . 453.3.. • •30$3 Y 75,a 7. a /y,4uy . 333.3 . . ...,'' c�'' d'' ., u',i II fr'I-5) PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB tt3Goi .AD . sy Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 1 100 Eastowrle Drive Suite 208 SHEET NO. OF-,--L? CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 ♦ 919) 929-1173 49,3-2600 CALCULATED BY DATE 1 �"' CHECKED BY 11 . . - DATE SCALE : .. .. , . .. . . : .• .• .. : . . : :. . . . . : . . .,. , . : : „ . II • 51 ,1,/ _,•:.L04.4' s " cm P D,� 4._ tk B - B 2' rr4,, ► --� , :: : 3•Y3 _ -rp,... ,Z (.,.e...7—`:"---"sc.44.0z :- ":"' .ii..,‘ • .:S.,?,r;Y___111...!t5... ._ , a .7:::f7."4 ; ?-4 ,.1 i r t - ,,.: ..:' f . ........' . ,.:-I : ,:.: /.1.,_� Qovr S./8ee5 7 �r • Y : _, . .: • ..: 4...___ 4..... ..,„......... 4 9/0,49 Tlr nJ 1 1 - i ,'_r 1. I F e ■ 1: • '.: . ; • y • __... :'-•..--'r--•-.-,..,—-'. ,::: Ilit: : ......:::' • r,_ , ::: ,: „i 3,4.8 fz 1 l •3 Zy t,45•+an. . •ii .. � � .21 � u ' • • • • • III 8.76,0_ 11 ..4..... • • iill i . . . : PN;,fl7M-1/;V es:Irs G.'xx.4m UI.71. . :.. .: . .. .. - l i I^`. 1f` ), 11 )) 'f'2 ( �--.k.i ` �J' / , (6.0)) - %1, •,' 1)0. / 1 ( r�~'//ul --�,.., .., t.,'�` i/. ,� , 1 t 1''\\ ;,...( � � ( f t( c(D 1. t '..... �1;, ,, , . �C.: ,' ) I! )� 1- . . ;�� ,��,r 1. o :�, ,'� ;(1� (1� .: V., )iii '',.)2.,*7 - 1 j$ ;>f ` 1 �'`i,��:> > k „ k. Ci 1 /0 ,)1( '..—\\- -----2-1--` - .-,)(1,), ( — )).)» )\`' ''' 1 . - ) - pll ri ) "('-';'% ').??,--,...-. 1 t/ I--- j ." .,,,,---/ •-..,.-..- N---,_..„,„,,..z. p• ,.:,\,„„,. ii.._ ...,c , j---- ELI 4 I \ / J (a.,.-=1-\'',..".ti t y�l\ r'1 '-./ }.2-`):-I,;(';',7-1 :-. - 5 �__s`.;. `- 1� �''-�- \ ,., -fl\..._',,! ; :, `lti�... '' _=:` �%�.\ --.-",mot F•�C'J_-_ - (\ .�1, _ __..•1,1 'r �a - 'ri�.w ,pit' �C�.1 .,, lJ - I � - •_ •') , f_ _ __- - })% 2 �•.�:• 1 . �� ' `�qrw ; (1/7,01::l'!�� ..;'`— _.��` �n:--. 1. �_ - T,;-._= --------; . -- —(....-/"\-wi7.:41:--,II, ,J / 1)\:::'..12-:-/.. , .. _.,, . E1L ,,, . 4:r. ',, , (�<� /.., 1�r�) ):'j\�•- r--- .\.r �` _//I, _)'_.-. -\1 ' `/���1, -•,-.-- 1 : 1 ...0 `\ \ .` . �—\-!% / - `l. -fit!Zi f:� �� ,...T--------__:•::^‘•,0'.7.,„di.,/,•;; ;,•.-,_,..?;,,,__47„( ,,..e.:::..:-_\ ,./r \...-_-, , Iv 1_,,,_:...:„.,... . ),...\,0, _7:4, ..,, (,( r.r. IA -1 : :-, \—. --,\c.: ._-'.._-...-."'-'■..,----Z.7---.. ."__j i'---O'N(.1( :.\‘1 V-Vir -\ )._,,,Iir q ,-) ---.7.-_- re -f/((i-- \ ) 4, .:,. ,i'..t , T..) rn I\LL:-. - )/ .9.,:',;---'. .,,,,., ' .,..,:;:::),0- -. --..i f---•k.r..,....5.,,,71 ci.:.,t__ , 16-,•:-/-;-7.-.- (--.) 40 -,;_,--///-,*,i \ — raZ.71 �I'/�}I /.mil \`` ,."?f .�� �. / ��J�` I' 0 \ _ L keM;: t \ .lf-�f ),.)\--1'-, f L \ rlra `•` , - rry :•t_ v ', r- ' h{( / \('\•\ `--''- � • %1=-� -- jam.\gi; „`-,I --__ (,-::.. 'II VI i N 4 t, , (r , 4 I \IN, ( -,. .. ... \1?-:'''-.t. \,<.;\))))._:-1) iiii.... 1,1.--.,, - 1\,--.) ,,) .)2,\.-.,,.-„.1 - ..,- :-.■/, , --.. \. / ' , .,./..d ' ' ____-....:,--/y..AC-,.• /' i.,.:,,,f• -:......!,,,, / 4 - tc_--,.11.,i',1 7r,„,„..,:::::,-.,,,,, „:-. ,).1,1::::.:,--_'..--:,;--- ,l ! t 1 , r S ,.o „ S• _ o�g v IIIi _ 1 :� ��- !• f I t5 ' ., u \ \ \, ��1) r-(III.VV V 4 I 1/•y )\:.C--.------k t 1 �r -� 1�. -' ) I �i-174,r il, /.b11'I I�(, ;/-',-,s-� 1 ( l � \ hl I UlI11l -•- w, . . ,I '',,,), )`••I' ig ,1\ . ;( O '�/ . moo' t/ ( / i ;I )j ' o 'p �!i `,�!/•++ 4"-....... a� '.,,' •i.QQ/r .,,•.-„.• T) ciT j (t_ ) , , +._ j•, i I ... -, I �( 11 k ixO /is ; �,. e' , ,; 4 ii,i 1----. >-. , ,,- ,.,,,.,..,,, , , .4 W /" fl 1 l!�,` 1r j . )•I' I -- ; ') r �.(�' , ri t l,r r, f '-•' > 1, �)/,, )I Vi , '` ( ;? ■ • rcs '1I (l.} ( /'� W r)\ rr.., �' ..I,',t ,, ` ' +'-1`^_ 1/, L& rr 1,'ll) t. -.-,'dU,'!' � 4+. , �. t; (' �. \ , r-, p4S C\r Ifti t L. 2U1 . 1MOW FEET ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ------ SHEET e ��,y,.-►�r ,r,�;tit ,, B, .� T. B NUMBER 21 if l _+�,1+' a� . ' w r.-pA w .�_ (fans sheet 17) R • f y `dam .,1,, . 4: V � �.- -�*'_ 1�r t"_ -y s 3 `4.1• -4'.y ... � L,' Y .';: • �. -r-'t ' .>•• * '� t▪ `: k i f.4 4:0.K.1:44.;.' J ��^•.a ir? ,'+�lI- .=•• " i r " y�ylitC� �+� Z _ It:"" ,.a� 9 , . `� q -m-ti 'r +, +� rry'"� 1� . „ ,,,r__.„.„,-,,r.,, `„ � :,`,• ' •e,,,..,y' .- . r• q,..,...” Iii, •�;y, ia.1,,a h - ' .?•-.';�{ �,?'C ,.s,.1,-., ,., ' #b •ti 1r,-14.-,,� {a�,r b ;.• ^M, -4.R M, •• t :1�'-.,�: 1- {_S o. •�. �x :: ti !JRy�'s ' w.r f� �, nB tf Y .t,..: 1cr '�vC° A "..15-r--,, Y "*.,t '� ... -)y r r:`� `1 ' j •.,Y i- --1:-t'.1- ?i- ..* - -.mot �7 ";+jc'=,-�te%,.: ;.A Grr fr ! '1 - J�q ., 1 -1R t "�f� 7c' . .. '�� ^{ `'}''}. y 'G''l.` yaUi @@ ^q �- a �q°., t+1 C Fes- it . �` ."4+k'S ,AFL r 4' ;•c :r ' ` k t"'a + "AC', P � � '1,'=-.f�' 1• :,z'• ;�2r .,r,.:;y -�i . y,'_�,'^}5$ x �_`'.., ,_ •-r .....—.-- 7„ " t ,.�" ""` •' ,y ��f��1! { f -5 �:5:} cgi, ,- •1 J t -',' :AA.� �Xt: ate'%``C'�. .fit R` .tr ,. h i , t, IFS t�.• Q ., 11 `."` '-- •j .- t'4" r4 ,'-V i.S". s �` .. `w,"ti<x ,"1� \ .'C„'� µ Y j am +' z -.}; .., r{r0.t y.�.p' ' ��aa.w el � ,gig �R� Y �:0.ri 4 r 4 I H 7,:-.4.-:,„„.-- �iS/ ss .. A iF* `u r1,-. Iv �; t,. tiRr x--4?4 t-waC ,4r R ` " s 4..41 `f' 3r � `• 17.,-. y x.- < x "'"' w'� Sp � � _,:e1'511._ ,,,..71., s r Zi'.M e .?4,- yam•`)°` Ca- `- ,h.-.. k �•-!'- �y t`L- v it-7+�w1 L+ L P 'L �r u C'[._-C;F 6i�^ a +"i' ((A�� Y.t" P ea i .77 I1•,l ,rr"i_�y V• Z..t 5r. 7 -r 1. M•-'- < .c YU:,- �' w .4 t _ ,,.e rep ' -,,.- _ 'zisi;` `"-% - r' !`cry a Pk - - -'- t. r,-: "� „..k...4, i . - ` '' �:_ �ate" '"' -• ` � �- y :, t `k W.I. s �:2 ,, •tr*. _ 4.f ;. , 1 _• i � alv,„.„ fyr:"), -.. ►\,r,' / yacr -' !'4 ,'. "s�C . }y /�y-, 7i`'`'`y Y t. ��: t.IRk + Ct': ,^.-',F kT' ' '� YES '. "y• !� r- - �'*m�:," �.. v +�t, `:� 1 Fes-,'+;-.�`•y-1 .p - 0s�r+ . � i^ - .s.""' ., "'', >yg• [•,1\.-i"t"�a Y, ;6r� .,.• ":a 7 - ``• �. art h Lf•�`s " -` ro .t.A,c't•5k s .%"" !"ti,1x IiL•,G�P �,p�.y.. ''r._ GNC,u__� :"K sr:; L4cr oKx�`i`-z,i+* yi<Ge d a*"�i�, `}r'+y�+y-,- fit.°�� r .,�� 3 _X pH`tl„'•�r» ,., �+•� 4 ) �. .AL ',t hCie f3 r,.. k4- y/A E . T 4r,'y r.; 1 i 1 q.hy r , ¢. \ .V;r 'u '2.,m^-' t 'T a '9 �+" J \"T.tl}�' r� .- -.:i f fi •� ''dr.?" rB ,�',' eB t o>� .0 a}t'Y`.CaeB 1gy1 f ^1. j. ,F _e.i S = r� s. +,�{7E t. .. 4:'.;:-Md �". °K b�14 a '` r's. °' ,y o d s y"lI`s �� t \ f `Ws'y Y+ �qd s` ' Hr$ T ..,",i r r 9 'S 4jrB e� GeB sa i � N'-5, y r d„*`R;� p/ 'S...M., -w.:.- .C'.t -r, 1. 1 i N�� . 1`�Ge+e - °r-Y ` w ...t, tr r ,'-.: it 2• i}{ -c-3 F! t' t''''C6.,r n '. L •' a'rC rc aGeB 1f°•Ge�y` \ •� ''-4 S zi t,14n�e, } k ♦ Ge /,,V 1 (, :la -!'f.. J" F is i N F S° +. : , , .tl`'J" !d!': _ - Q . y 4 .i�. �I"`.t" 61.• ai1 Ge --;''''':"k"44,.. .' '' ' { F,,,, t. y A "4c- fi.�•'+ h.La, :,,yyY S r 7 a -9•'1 eBi Ta ba Seir '� r �. 7s/ "" y arEt •(• `. -v 4 v�"{ GeC ;-t,r• •••5:•-•-'...,:, ) ,.c.4? •5;;;;;;•? ^ ',��p "'�iy,.T,� _ 2t�.� •r.` ,. .4c t re- .y Ur�y^,_ L ,.',c,' .;;Jr. r _ t-• - �s +. .s. S7°G �. 1:.hrC, ,ola .r.x..*,...e--' r; .! I - F Yet Y ...ilia. f•i'�. '.k1r,*x�i " ',�'c'•. .T 31:. e + - fie T%, • •,k1••b'- `.. . saY - a py. 4, a•., p . a V7'f 4 t, t"' q Ge \ti�.q .T n i ..L+r � s•6•t ,.` �I.J w • B t . HrB N s._'r W �rI. Gee _ " P ..C' ` 1 dr•..` wr+r.• w11t ' .<. * w4 7 t i 't';'- . ,a°"Q Gee •„ � r ,I rG z� r k• '� • '(�" •, ^. °7Y '>r t.07 h _'•i. t `S'� 1.'1'1`t-` 1. ,AI W .'• .Y Y.Y'"'L:'_ �. p "� � ' ✓gY"V) B .711, fiu" �' Vii. 4 Yy ',..„•j.4 � Ge6 st r i._r� aid}*.. ..• ! F+r ^.1 9 ti w1_tr _ - A G• r Tap [ f1 �q \-; t } y, yr.: r. 1' HrB ,:--- 6iP=ir• 1' _ �C - .Y ±` \ Hr6 _ ; j ...Ge8 N 1uy,�.• :rcsorr r r Y we''''' ' �� ±'r,� , I Lg c - C•1 1r .,. V r,\ 0v ' GeC t Hrsz 5'. �a r p . rs . Y " :r,./ 1 GeC e� .G06 °:� ",'14 ,/,' WB Tap ,t�� r .�,, } - ,. -•• Hrs t ‘,1c;`,...._'-`1,...,, - tr Hw6 ` :.1•-i",.,•7- \. R GeB 0 tt.YCp'!�' 'ti'v'- g r `�. ., `A_4 ~ 10 •If u GEs �m x+A 1,..1----_t„ Hre Hrt f r��' TaE- ) ; �.,. r~ :3•fieB HrC m . Ges , 4.- s ': , Tap • f-; GeC ... • HrC .S qt .. ,...:4-,:.... li 1 204 $. , t It H(FT.) 500 f f 400 Te (MIN.) =- 300 EXAMPLE f_- 200 Height =•100 Ft. 150 N — 200 Length=3,000 Ft, - - w = Time of concentration:14 Min. = 150 — 100 -- �`' 10,000 '-- 60 70 _ °� -_ �— .`EX-4 M,o so S�1 S �0 ` ,� - - z -- 40 z 4 ........... i- 5,000 4 1 '�., h 3 0 �:� a 3,000 u' Note: _ F- __ 0 20 Use nomograP t •r na .I = 2,000 w T 20 basins with well d than u' "v "— 15 I a for overland fl 9w o „ e 1 500 Q- I Q 1350 F — 10 ear th,and for mowed grate`'+�.`.d- F- — — 10 o _ side channels. `�� 1,000 u_ For overland flow, grassed sur- :�- 700 + ` $- O _ faces, multiply Tc by 2. — 6 — 5 For overland flow, concrete or 5"."---_ w 5 x — 4 asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc — by0.4. — 300 4 w ' For concrete channels,multiply s Tcby0.2. ` 3 2 — 200 -- 150 — 2 L141 ___ I 1 Based on study by P.Z, Kirpich, Oli . Civil Engineering, Vol.TO, No G, June 1940,p.362 C i iA f;T 2 •7,7 RI U. S. DEPARTMEPO:F COMMERCE WEATHER BUREAU COOPERATIVE STUDIES SECTI PI RAINFALL INTENS IT Y - DURATION-- FREQUENCY CURVES Iii ....% RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 1903-1943, 1945-1951 • I I 111111111111111 I 15. .0 1111111111111111111 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS BY METHOD OF . ii:1.-1111111111111115111111111111111111MMIMMAIII EXTREME VALUES, 'AFTER GUMBEL 8 o =ItiallrgraMMIHINNIIIIIIIIM I I El ' 1 Vila. 11...MilimmilliMiniliNIMINIIIIII IININIMEIMMUMMONI 0111%MI'4 ainatifigallillIM111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 ":11111_1111. 111 I■ratMiliiiin 1111111111111111111111111111 0.1111111111211. I_ flik"olgi1111.11111111111111111111___111111111111111111111 4.__Imuniril st:k /0("'i.4„, ammimmosma hihh. .0 Ili 2.0 III N4,,<O--'s" rail'x I 0 1 VIIII I 16, i,\111111111111 m2: 01-, ....... ii.. ..„„,,,.....-maimommiumm..... .8 - 1 IRMO NVIREMPORMINIII.1.1.111.1 I —NOTE— • I 111111■1111111131■1■111 MI°.6 = THEG.E CURVES ARE BASED ON ANNUAL SERIES DATA. 1111MINNNIIIMIIIIIiiillilli .‘5.::11L=,IL.;YE SS IS FOR RP.ATRuiR1 ANL p:REIF/010E5S UP TO YIELDS A f 1 sl G H AND 4 0 '111111116L11 ,Iiih. z P'4 v Illh' IS GENERALLY FAVORED BY ENGINEERS. It:/■DJUST ‘111 illiihNI , THE 2, 5 TO, AND 10-YEAR CURVES TO 'PARTIAL' SER/ES / a -I MULTIPLY INDICATED INTENSITIES ay 113, 1.04, AND 1.01, ., RESPECTIVELY. NO ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED FOR LONGER RETURN PERIODS_ • 1,- III ! I l • I • 1-- - , - 1...— I I 110 I L [- r______..., ______:_l I r--= _____, 1,, . ,___ I , i. ;._ r_7...._.....,_ _ _, _______ I -o 8 IIIM I 1 ___ _ 1 Milliiill ___. 06 ! i 1 I - -T1 I . 1 r----1--- , .-771- -1 I I I I • I i---F-1-1- 1 i. ••• • 1 i i , , Pi --n___ i , : ----T-' I IT , , i '`,.1 I --I -'-r---.1 1 1 I , i I L I, , ___r________________ ; ; 71 ! 1 0, „_.1.1 L. .1 ; I i . ' : i ! I . : -.....:,,- .-„---- -:. A --- ,g.:, '''" 4 . '7', 1 111 . 2U c.. . , ! 180- .:10,000 . • 168 8,000 EXAMPLE 11 156 7 6,000 D.36 indica(3.0 lam 6. (2) . 5,000. Q*66 cis ( - 144 4,000 (3) /18 uNs wi i 1 5. 6, 132 3,000 5. 6. (11) 1.8 3.4 . ti .20 5. a 2,000 (21 2.1 6.3 Li se• 108 LI cz (31 2.2 6.6 110 1,WI . 4,t , a 3.7 :----) 1,000 1 i. 0 -.-17.- SOO CC I- 84 .fi . 600 i - I . I . 500 400 72 2. 0 300 .....•". .0 r . 4.1 X 1.5 1 LI Z cn i. LI 200 II Z a 56 04 z .... 6 „......... cf.v.i."9‘'‘'..--- ...-- cn ----!-- tr- LA, f- lu 1.5 I- CC W 100 .......• t.7 ......". M 4. 6.1 48 er 80 a › x- .... 0 60 ill 1 . 42 ' in - 50 L. 1.0 40 • 1.0 I- 36 30 ENTRANCE •I . Li m < 30 33 20 D I TYPE Headwall t--- .6 .9 c i , (2 Mitered to conform L'f, 1 d r , /I to slaps X io 27 r- 10 (31 Pre/jetting Iea 24 .7 .7 r 6 ci 2 F , [ 1_ .7 ..c t- o G To use scale(2)a o ,13)p, .., I_ I 1 I 2 I 4 /18 3 ;7 2 nor':woolly tiil ...ii. (I),than use straight inclined lint Waugh 0 and 0 tool... or terpt. 117,g inU0,014d. . _____r_ .6 .6 1---- li - i: .Z.) 1 , 1- I.0 HEADWATF.R DEPTH FOR G. M. PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLLT CONTROL 1 ouncAu •v,-,,,c,....:,,:s J.,,t: V)6.: B - Ill 1• El CHAT;a', 7b 2 U t. s. ✓.,.io, _ TIME INFLOW STORAGE 1Nf 1 0 r -HEAR , (MIN) (CES) (CF) OUTFLOW FEET) ��• 00 0, 00 (CFS) 0.0. 5 0. 00 0. 16 0. 00 0.00 0.00 1. 0 4. 77 G. 63 4. 77 0. 0P O.00 1. 50 18. 87 1. 39 23. 64 0. 11 O.00 c. 00 41. 67 2. 41 65. 31 0.29 0.01 72. 06 I 2. S0 3. 64 137. 37 0.62 0.03 3. 00 108. 14 5. 03 5. 51 -. I �4�; 1. 02 0� II 0. 12 147. 34 3. S0 . 6. 51 392. 85, 1 1. 17 0. 16 1:1 4. 00 190. 6,? • $, 04 583. 47 1.35 1 O.23 M 4. 50 9. 5,2 234. 08 817. 55 1. 58 1 27� 0. 34 111 ,. 5. C_!0 10. 91 .�, 37 1 093. 98 1.65 O. 51 312. 09 ...1r `r0 9 •.. 1.4 1405. 01 -� bil 2. o7 O. 68 344. 04 6. c_�! 13. 16 1749. c�05 `t 1 E. 50 13. 92 370. 56 29.19. E'c 2 IN 382, ,!7, 0. 250 16 IA 7. `:. 1., 1`. 397 ,.4 d,-.. ' .. .__.. . a14. 39 3 LI,. Li jC3 1. 57 III ...3,. .:r,, ..3. .-f3 2.64.i e-4 1 1. 73 1:,. _ c., ,6tc.I _.., I 10. 00 11. 16 4695.89 3.aE 2.09 1547 Pi 10. 50 10. 23 271. 92. 4967. 81 i 3. 32 20t a.20 240. 98 11. 00 9. 38 5.208. 79 3.38 2. 29 212. 63 i • 1 I. 50 8. 60 5421. 42 3.43 2. 38 186. 67 ri 12. 00 7. 89 5608. 09 3.48 2.46 12. 50 7.23 5771. 01 3.51 2. 53 162.. 92 13. 00 2' ill 6. 63 141. 21 5912. 3 3. 55 2.59 11611 121. 38 13. 50 6. 08 3.58 . : 14. 50 15. 00 =-. -IQ n 6136. 88 , 5. 11 6223. 64 4. 69 6033. 60 103. 28 14. 00 ..1 ',;* 60 86. 76 . 3.62 6295. 36 71. 72 3. 64 8.64 2. 69 .76 58. 02 I!" 15. 50 4. 30 6353. 36 4E. '55 3. 65 2. 78 16c0 3. 94 63'96. 93 3. 66 II , II 1!-:,. 50 3 6,2 64- . _6 3. 67 Li'. 6.1.- 23. 94 P11 17. 00 3. 32 64 10 57. 1, 3. 88 2. 83 PM 1A . 50 3. 66 mi .... ,,,_ all ,- f2 . .',--+ E- '. -- - 3. 6,rl 2. Rs - .7.. 111 S. `-•;-' -:_. 6 - _ , .- XI -29. 9 21.00 20 7. 1. 66 6377. 51 3.66 e. 79 it/7-34. 06 i 21. 50 1. 52 6343. 45 3. 65 • 2.78 Pi 22. 00 1. 39 -37. 73 - 6305. 78 3.64 2. 76 i 22. 50 1. 28 -41. 01 6264. 71 3• 63 2.74 -43. 93 23. 00 1. 17 6220. 78 3. 62 2. 7 -46. 52 2 i az,. 5c) 1. 07 6174. 26 3.61 2. 70 -48. 82 24. 00 O. 99 6125. 4 24. 50 O.. 90 . -50. 85 :g 6074, 58 3, 60 3.59 2.68 2.66 El 25. 00 0. 83 -52. 63 ,. 6021. 95 3. 7 2. 64 nal 0. 76 -54. 19 5967. 75 3. 56 2. 61 -55. 55 El 26. 00 0. 70 5912. 20 3. 5 2. 59 -56. 72 26. 50 0. 64 5855. 48 3. 53 2. 56 I - 7. 72 II 27, 00 0. 59 .5797. 76 .3. 52 . 2. 54 -5t57-3. 9 5 7 054 . 3 8 3. 5 t X -5'3. 88 00 0. 49 5679. '30 3. 49 2.49 IX --59. 87 0. 45 ,:-,,t,zu, 03 3. 48 a. 46 1.1 0, 41 Sf.,5`w,'. 69 3 45 ;;;;,. 44 II u 3 E-, -■.•,%, 1 , =•f.7,'LL . ')6 3. -.1 t. '1.2. I II (:) a', --,.,0. 39 5437. 99'3"5, 3. 44 li .1 111 1 1 � _ G l4-S atsu+.• Lri M I n hn h•craa ��J 1 i ='�,,�6�'�S- / U is►h.Ffrata Raad Only, � s Area A6 AC. a D vff Ma+.1mp+rplw+ 12%mm �2 f3C' � � Ara�2.21 AC 1 f 1 Surleea.r8,I32 S0,rT, s �. +'++parRlaay ^I Area 1.23 Ataa I , -q0 +MA4184.FL 1 i 2Yo Mda.raverrreu. Araa■1.00 AC: 7 ��e�l Sarlaca.I1.5S2 so.FT,i IP 9b Moclmprrvlaae l{'\[I!P°A+1tae.larp.rrlavf I iPArea a ! A {�{SLrrM,a"2Y$a ara.?617P SQL' �, parrloas — \\'�\hq\\ i i � i -I bAyl'wlaea a5227 Sa�: L • I � !/ 7 37' / � C.$. Williams / �'C+IP Cnre 1�;� CLASS �B PRIVATE ROAD �, "';'••� ��'^•tee I sECnara """r a .- 4;./VN CROSS ��._� gg1i�u1o.t'star f /1u*�� S+oa..w RIGHT OF WAY � s C0"�e+�•�Rrta.+M) / as LDF]II �R�a+' 0t , 1 AiAn.,iw.y>, b4 DI1Y'A IPwdRiLa. E2 y• TRAVELWAY E'—�•--■I ir�y i coca treentt �° IA-A• r< � au `J L - '�tcu. 7t bTanr,.J I.Yty PI•eNminarY Plan Of The 1'S _ ©URELL !i©BBINS Sr�dd/r�a/o� t rJfp 8lnpham TWP, Orange CQ NC ti a.ly Scala !"�lOO-'-- . Jan 24 1988 1711ca1. ewl a JTS Rw1+fd FrB. 24 1989 • BSR.4ssoclalea P.A. ��111 8 Hughes sf. AP&M NO 27502 919-362-9185 OwnerlDan Duroll0bbbins 25..• ; .,. 140,'Raiendars Ave. Ddrham NC 27707 C, '91-9-469-80419 fti ,FLARE AT ENTERSECTIQN,WITH•�YE3LIC_RQAD . tiu ,� 440 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. The proposed Tots have direct access on SR 1323. Fire protection for the property Orange Rural Fire District, aws enforcement tis provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. it will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The generation for this subdivision is traffic 76.08 (9.51 trips x 8 lots) trips day. 1981 (most current) NCDOT traffic pcountay� The 1323, determined from both directions, is r 200 average daily trips. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval . Seconded by Yuhasz. z. Pilkey inquired the distance to Lake Orange. The response was 1/4 mile or more by road. Kizer inquired if the Health Department had checked the site for repair sites for septic systems since this was in a watershed. Atwater responded only one perk site was checked for each lot. Yuhasz noted that he felt the Health Department does not approve the sites unless there is sufficient repair area. Kizer stated since this is an unzoned Township, this is the only control the County has over a site which is in the watershed and very close to a water supply reservoir. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Kramer) 4...* AGENDA ITEM #7b: DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Durell Dobbins Subdivision, Property of Erma H. Kirkpatrick and Durell Dobbins. The property In question is (Bradshaw Quarry located on SR 1115 y Road) in Bingham Township. The DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 property Is referenced as Lot 300 of Tax Map 10. It is bordered by residential development. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Cane Creek Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. There are six (6) lots proposed; the sizes are 1 .0 ac, 1 . 11 ac.,. 1 .23 ac., 2.21 ac., 3.22 ac. , and 3.53 ac. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential with an overlay district of Protected Watershed--1i . Proposed access is provided to the site via an Orange County Class "B" private road named Morning Glory Lane. Fire protection for the property Is provided by the Orange Grove Rural Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 57.06 (9.51 trips x 6 lots) trips per da According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1115 as determined from the east side of SR 1116 is 70 average daily trips. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval . Seconded by Shanklin. Margison inquired If OWASA facilities could serve this subdivision. Kizer responded that the OWASA Iine shown on the tax map was not a tap-on line. It is a major line carrying raw water to the quarry. It is also the policy of the Board not to allow tap-ons in the water supply watersheds. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 17c: BEECHWOOD KNOLL - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda Item is to consider approval of the Beechwood Knoll Subdivision, property of Cyrus Green. O R A N G E C O U N T Y 2 ' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: May 5, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM 1 n� SUBJECT: LAKE ORANGE SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ***********************************************************S************ ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: JANE ATWATER APPLICATION VICINITY MAP PRELIMINARY PLAN MEMO FROM S&E DIVISION RE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AGENCY COMMENTS DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227- 031 *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider the Lake Orange Subdivision, property of Jesse Marvin Rogers, Sr. for approval . To receive the Planning Board 's recommendation . NEED: The property in question is located on SR 1323 (Lake Orange Road) in Cedar Grove Township. The property is referenced as Lot 8G of Tax Ma p 46. residential development. The tract It is eorgenaed as Agricultural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. There are eight (8) lots proposed; the sizes are 1 .73 ac. , 1 .43. , 1 .55 . , 1 .46. , 1 .37 ac. , 1 .28 ac. , 1 .27 ac. , and 1 .26 ac. No zoning has been adopted in Cedar Grove Township. However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV-B-1A) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet where the lots are to be served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. The proposed lots have direct access on SR 1323. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District, Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. 21� LAKE ORANGE SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 76.08 (9.51 trips x 8 lots) trips per day. The 1981 (most current) NCDOT traffic count for SR 1323,sdetermined from both directions, is 200 average daily trip . RECOMMENDATION. The Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan. n1.10 VIcANGE APPUeAArr: .7r65a AlA2v,N 2061z5 Se.. Zo14/14(r: NOrAPPUCAbLE,CEDAQ(•&rI mit O LUA befacr+unoh:AGIMieuaugAG,rzes,afuruc/a 81‹ WIDE RIPPLY WAf>AMCD N c. ..37Ac. cr, 21 1 3 6390 9238 0471111r1IFI*P4P-IIPP `\\ 4178 3.31 LAC• \2 8M I • \\• 1 /CSC) \ 7947 .0 ► stiCi■- �► \ • B . Ili As 7 _am0., o- ° -'' — a/2.-373; = ` w " , ,j \ AC. - ---- \ Zill ' \\�. a L X6.9 4 1.09AC i f 8499 ��' 0562 1 3+6-94. \• 1.82 AI 21.81 AC. I . S+y Fu 9521 \\ 1 I • \\ 5373 I \\ 7055 Eu 1 FL/ \\\ I 1 .1245 \ '086 O.j\9I6O( I 8H \`5.055 A �-' I \ \ 3.72 •• 1 !3.42Ac. I • _ II I;+ SEE. MAP 46A �+ HILLSBOROUGH , FOREST SEC_ l ' 255 epFN 5 AC_ I 1 `• J - - �-.. III SEE MAP 4613-' \_ '� .,;ti;9 I ' --'�L`Rr�o-* �\, 2 4 AC.5200 1 11 , •,Rr� 22 \ \ j ► IO l S80ROUG H FOREST `� r I 11 3937 I I SEC 2 '�, _ _ _ 11Pi / / �� — JERtc0 ... 3-95 AC. I / '� / / / '- .-'. 1 / /l I -`:°4i-� 4700. 1 I + / / I a ., 4.45 AC.°.� I ` --. -- j--- -, � H jl±a1c0� SC :I.+;400s-a" ! I _f. ��BEYHE M-9516- — �NAIAN — CIRLE .�— — l /r 214 • 71J8 APP ICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPR vA RANGE COUNTY DATE: 2`10-86 SUBDIVISION NAME: Lake Orange LOCATION: Lake Oran.e Road OWNER/DEVELOPER: Jesse Marvin Rogers, Sr. ADDRESS; __JILL_______ Hills . h North Caro ins TELEPHONE NO . : b oro AGENT/CONTACT; or allem n Land Surveyor . o St- Y TELEPHONE NO . : 732-38$3 Hillsborough, N.C. A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Ma 0 8G Zoning Count District(s) : p 46 Stack �-' Lot(s) Cedar Grove Total Number of Acres: �-� Township Total Number of Lots: Phases; Number/T R Average Lot S Ype of Structural: (existing) Minimum Lot SizeOOS Lineal Feet in Streets; Nja (proposed) Water Supply; Well ��. Acres in Open Space N/A Water Supply: Disposal: ep 1Public(specity) Communal X School District: Ce ar rove Puhlicfspecify) Community X`x�dividuaL General Lend Uses in Area: Housing/Framing Fire pistrict: �=Individual Critical Areas: no 4Firaming RAC �ostreem/drainageaay$ n no Ratarshed(specify) lood prone areas other(expLain) None . r:�htstoric sites S. ALL plats must be submitted on sheet no smatter hundred feet (1 "°2001) and no Larger than than one inch und5ed and gust contain one squats twat the following information: inch equals fifty feet X V subdivision her* X.- none of ern X building :heck i terns ,ale] a setback tins. Z� heap of surveyor, engineer or by natation or tYpieel lot O�1p�eted? Land Dlenner Layout -- [tails) Prrltein■ry Plan f.1s, existing and pro seats, '' Roped ties, north arse■ (North et ';• •rats (tl scan cgs, uti llctee, :.‘: top of ■.p] ?� rattle, via.) �'r- data (including revision tletre)� axlsting, PrbVOard end �- township, tax ■srevisionlot adjoining --, reference* Including rights-of-wily ".�&�r. ' ' g dimensions end 3r- boundary tleacribed with street nerse and stets reed bearings end dietenara nuebers X_ total acreage of the tract Njp fA., existing end * : and .cr.rg. of tots, including util!ttea, proposed and preluding area within - hydrants,e, alzse, including X rights-df-say .. hydrants, ratrec ca r.:rot corner * - armholes end X cropoeed Lot *��/��� existing to Lines with nr.Ga f_ g and proposed culvert diransiona n/a d, including aim and grease NE Aag lot nur4arr _.re typieel sorrel ph■ein X: cross-sections g lth.. .. and intersection In tsaralry at tan foot (1g) `-'-` inCluCing design ant vi Cthl la N/A x ? ✓of tnreterr end shoulders eater bodies, streams, flood- '"�: horizontal rllgnarnt anC TT lx, way end f LCa QO Line is-. .:::- general Currtr N..L-Cl (p6 sues, N arLe -LD i Lit "T"^ buffer: end note:iom jAfF�t, recd.! .. indicating restricted -�.. perrenant devalOneent - - builCln features such es peter,tial ge, taeeteriaa, -X- . tornar.ie. eorperetr ■rd extra- X `rf hietorit tender-", i tot Layout ut territorial planning names Of adjoining property adialning Saner, inc sobetraion: crc.. c. p rblines . 1 C X j, )deepen and pHt■ of to ceerdn Dercrts dedicated for public UPS or -+�' 2�(dA lcaation r•p.rvrd ,9"/� pna sit■ of Lots of y/', rotation on restricted developeent �- .. ,,, rotation o :let regarding sere potential and ech of plan provision urface: for Conte :M tint ate Inch o■rvtous ■ of of (GRAY AREAS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)surface: i4 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL, REi1UIREMEHTSo 1 . Twenty—six 12B) copies of the preliminary plat 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map (one c parcels involved clearly marked) . copy with tax 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available County Health Department certifying the a Letter from the Orange each Lot . proposed wastewater system for I , the applicant , hereby certify that the foregoing application is accurate . I understand that a *210.00 fee (subdivisions of 1S or a *37D.DD fee (eubdivisiona of 18 complete end application . A *5,00 tote or more) is due Lthe ar less) per Lot fee is due at the time the the time i presented for recordation . final plat is APPL.ICANT '5 SIGNATURE �✓r"'r N R 'S SIGNATURE �h".~ DATE �" DATE FEES: Amount '�2/C�- � Date Paid ' —� /24'6 Receipt JOt 77 21E LAKE ORANGE SUBDIVISION STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Atwater SKETCH PLAN: Received 6-17-85 Reviewed 6-19-$5 PRELIMINARY FLAT: Received 2-12-86 __�__________ "` Reviewed L__3-1,186 REVISED PRELIMINARY FLAT: Received _____ Reviewed NAT: DATE___�,� E� CERTIFICATION _---___-__- SCHOOL BOARD (Oran _________________�._________________ ge/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 3-6-86 Certification UTLITIES (OyyASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE N/A Certification "_""_ OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council Carrboro Fire Department -26-86 (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other Soil a Erosion (Date) 2-16 (Date) Health Department 2-11i-R6 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT mz LSBOROU GH NORTH CAROLIN. 21 27278 . m.+\t0 Of b�, �*•a ��Er MEMORANDUM TO: JANE ATWATER FROM: KEITH ROSEMOND DATE: MARCH 7, '1986 SUBJECT: ROGERS SUBDIVISION In my opinion as Erosion Control Inspector,subdivision along Lake Crane Road Jesse t the Marvin stormwater management requirement can meet t infiltration. The topography, through natural property allow soils and vegetation for natural infiltration. Installation the additional storrnwater management devices would result site disturbance than is desirable. tilt ir, more ORANGE COUNT' PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT 21 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 r w P • P March 10, 1986 Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic Engineer N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 RE: Lake Orange Subdivision Dear Mr. Kelly: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the aboverefereneed subdivision for your review. The property is referenced as Tax Map 46 Lot 8G in Cedar Township and located approximately 550' west of N. North on SR r 1323 (Lake Orange Road) . The nt 8s proposing eight (8)d lots tocbesused for 13 applicant i . single family units. 23. Please provide your comments by April 4, 1986. It will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, A._ s 'd Jane L. Atwater Planner This is ade;luate for single family units. 'Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance EnEAneer rUcav& 3-6-4b r, _ 21E ®range (Cantu Etrreatiun Arno Parks Department 43 300 West T ryon Street �{ °7OM x • to I1�YkfT�� HILLSBOROUGH,N.C-27278 Li#e.Beinit. MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director 7t}73 DATE: March 24, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review Comments Thank you for sending the preliminary plans for the proposed Lake Orange, Dwell Debbins, and Acres of New Hope subdivisions to me in such a timely fashion. Your memo, dated March 10, 1986 requested these comments by April 4, 1986 and I appreciate the "lead time"! Upon review of the preliminary plans i see no element(s) on the plans warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff continents. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their April meeting and will forward to your any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council ittett -LL. 3-21 -8‘ Hillsborough, 732_9361 Durham, 688-7333 0 Chanel Hill, 968-4501 o Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 221ORANGE COUNrI'x PLANNING DEPARTMENT IIILLSEOROUGR NORTH CAROLINA 27278 b All •. _ y •`g, dac•N MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner //'' '' FROM; Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Plan for Durell • Dobbins Subdivision DATE: April 7 , 1986 This stormwater management plan proposes to control the peak rate of runoff by the use of a detention structure to capture the runoff from the development , hold it and release it at a rate that does not exceed the predevelopment rate of runoff. design will achieve this goal . The proposed On page two of the plan , it is stated that the plan 's purpose is to capture the increased runoff and infiltrate it on the site; however , the proposed device is not an infiltration structure but a deten- tion structure to only slow the rate of runoff. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT rnLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 22i eP March 10, 1986 Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic Engineer N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 RE: Durell Dobbins Subdivision Dear Mr. Kelly: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. B Towr pirtisocreferenced as Tax Map P ynd PProximately 3600'Osouthwestt of intersection of Sr 1114 (Buckhorn Road) and SR 1115 shaw Quarry Road) . The applicant is o to be used for single family units . Ang Oran eso (nt"B" prive road will be constructed from SR 1115to de access for all lots in the subdivisolease provide your comments by April 4, 1986. It. will atly appreciated. Yours truly, qiik,k_Lt- ktrictUii Jane L. Atwater Planner This drive entrance is adequate. A driveway permit is required. )z.....„. f / .mot-. Joe 13. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer • ..,- , • N OxE[IT P(taint' ii latcreiitirrn FIItb arkfl partinz t 1: 7. 4Nf 300 West Tryon Street !r A i. HILLS80ROUGH;N.C.27278 Life;B in it. MEMORANDUM , MO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director 7) 3 • DATE: March 24, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review Comments Thank you for sending the preliminary plans for the ro set Orange, Durell Debbins, and Acres of New subdivision Lake in such a timely fashion. Your memo, dated rcch10, 1986 requested these comments by April 4, 1986 and I a predate the "lead time"! • Upon review of the preliminary plans 1 see no element(s) on the plans warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments_ I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their April meeting and will forward to your any changes/additional comments they may have. MAR/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council • / ttt .L S-26' -86 Hillsborough, 732-9361 * Durham, 688-7333 a Chapel Hill, 963- 501 * Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 • 22;1 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 MOTION: Margison moved to approve amended. Seconded by l . Minutes of 3--6-86 as VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 abstained (Lewis - new member) . March 17, 1986 Typos were noted on pages 13 and 14 of the minutes. (These have been corrected) . AGENDA ITEM #3: ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Smith noted she had a Resolution adopted by the Bingham TAC which the TAC wished to send direct to the Board of Commissioners. (Copy attached on page of these minutes) . AGENDA ITEM #7a: LAKE ORANGE SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Lake Orange Subdivision, property of Jesse Marvin Rogers, Sr. The property in question is located on SR 1323 (Lake Orange Road) in Cedar Grove Township. The property is referenced as Lot 8G of Tax Map 46. It is bordered by residential development. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Upper Eno Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. There are eight (8) lots proposed; the sizes are 1 .73 ac., 1 .43. , 1 .55., 1 .46. , 1 .37 ac. , 1 .28 ac. , 1 .27 ac. , and 1 .26 ac. No zoning has been adopted in Cedar Grove Township. However, the Subdivision Regulations (Section IV B 1A) require a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet where the lots are to be 224 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems as is the case in this development. The proposed lots have direct access on SR 1323. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District, Law enforcement provided by the Orange County Sheriffrs Departments It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The generation for this subdivision pis�eappr traffic 76.08 (9.51 trips x 8 lots) trips approximately 1981 (most current) NCDOT traffic pcountay' The 1323, determined from both directions, for 200 average daily trips. 2O0 The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. MOTION: Shanklin moved approval . Seconded by Yuhasz. Allkey inquired the distance to Lake Orange. The response was 1/4 mile or more by road. Kizer inquired if the Health Department had checked the site for repair sites for septic systems since this was in a watershed. Atwater responded only one perk site was checked for each lot. Yuhasz noted that he felt the Health Department does not approve the sites unless there is sufficient repair area. Kizer stated since this is an unzoned Township, this is the only control the County a site which is in the watershed and yvery close to a water supply reservoir. VOTE: 10 in favor. 1 opposed (Kramer) AGENDA ITEM 17b: DURELL DOBBINS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider Property of f Erma H. Kirkpatrick band sDurell Subdivision, The property in question is located on SR 1115 (Bradshaw Quarry Road) in Bingham Township. The 22Ia O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: May 5, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM # F15 SUBJECT: WILDWOOD SECTION III - PRELIMINARY v *****************- ****** ****************** r*************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: YES X _ NO ***********************-************************************************ ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: SUSAN SMITH VICINITY MAP APPLICATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AGENCY COMMENTS DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES *********************************************************************** PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for Wildwood Section III for approval . To receive the Planning Board ' s recommendation. NEED: The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township west of NC 86, south of the Southern Railroad and north of Wildwood Section II and the proposed Oakdale Drive Extension. The property is referenced as part of Lot 4 Orange County Tax Map 145 for Hillsborough Township. It is bordered by residential and undeveloped land. The tract is designated Ten Year Transition on the Land Use Plan and is zoned Residential- IV (R-4) . The rezoning was approved on January 7, 1985 . There are 35 lots proposed out of 12.97 acres. The lot sizes range from .23 acres to .62 acres, excluding rights- of-way. All lots are to be served by public water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough . The subdivision will be served by George Anderson Drive, Oakdale Drive Extension, Alexander Stewart Road and William Hardee Court, roads constructed to NCDOT standards and dedicated public. Fire protection for the property in question is provided by Hillsborough Fire Department. Law enforcement is to be provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. Emergency services are to be provided by the Orange County Emergency Medical Services. IMPACT: Subdivision of Wildwood Section III would provide for the sale of individual tracts to be developed for single family residences. The applicant proposes to develop the property in two phases. Twenty-seven (27) lots will be developed In Phase One and eight (8) lots in Phase Two. WILDWOOD SECTION iII - PRELIMINARY PAGE 2 The construction of Oakdale Drive Extension along the frontage of Phase One of Section III was imposed as a 22€ condition of approval on Section II of Wildwood subdivision. This section of Oakdale Drive Extension will be constructed during the development of Phase 6B of Section II . Development of Phase 2 of Section III is subject to the construction of Oakdale Drive Extension along the remaining frontage. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Board recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1 ) submittal and approval of the letters of credit for the required road and utility improvements by the County Attorney 2) reference on the plat to the erection of street signs in accordance with Orange County standards at all intersections. 3) reference to the recorded Homeowners Association Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants by deed book and page number. ).7 WILDWOOD SECTION iI 22 71" • APPLICANT: WILDWOOD CORPORATION Zoning g Distrrct : R-4 N 3.34 aC. ~ '.AL. . M1 -/4,7C Z 377 AC aeleaVeXki .9cS1 6159 I 2.9 p__«A. _ \7308_ �- �. 7575 `�Ry cc 3a3r. 382 C: • ]05 sC. '3 :,manse �'oe. BAJ'-AC. `✓' -20Y9 - f t9yct IIIAC• .I Bd106 4.135- =7 A(,. I','C.:j. :E RA: 9'aGw G • •` (/,"° � AC.CAL, \ 'FN , 5F.cri0 3 I ltiQl ;MAP.45,i \� • 75 SEf s.. / 5 8 ; - gas �^ r (I '.a:9S{ _ 26 +EE MAP SE= •.L:a y5 a. - _lam l __ _. �- -- • CJ I+ . l AC- !Ir6E• 1 3 8Aw31---/8 3. { 95E8 1s na • �Z / —� PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) 22r _ 1 11/85 APPLICATION FOR Si18DIVISIOPi APPROVAL ORANGE COUNTY DATE: £1Z5I SUBDIVISION NAME: Section Three - WILDWOOD LOCATION: fitiono0130614 -yap i W.Sr or- ,.1.c. B s0uT4 oc Soup pI RM. OWNER/DEVELOPER: WILDWOOD CORPORATION OF HILLSBOROUGH INC. ADDRESS: l.e.yri 765" TELEPHONE NO. : 1.32-286 I ` AU15 oRob6w .Ag- ' - AGENT/CONTACT; ENT Land Surveys, Inc. TELEPHONE NO. : 732-6262 2210-S. e#uR Ypy9 ss r. A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 45 Block - Lot(s)ftoo Township 4 Zoning District(sl : R-4 Total Number of Acres: 12.97 Total Number of Lots: Phases: 2 _ _3 Average Lot Size: o+a Minimum Lot Si a 0.23. Number/Type of Structu res: (existing] none Lineal Feat in Streets: 1900' Acres in Open Space proposed] Single Faai. Water Supply: Hillghorounh Public(specify) x Community Individual Wastewater DispoeaL: u:'lshacimapubtic(specifyl Communit School District: -i Y Individual Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: Residential/Va ant Critical Areas: x stream/dreinageways __flood watershed(epecifyl prone areas other(expLainl historic sites B. ALL plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two- hundred feet (16=2001] and. no Larger than one inch equals fifty feat (1 "=50' 1 and must contain the following information : xM Y . - ; subdivision name / <? oars of ownar(s) —..4t„;,;, building setback lines eck i tems �.. nerr of surveyor, engineer or ::-:. by notation or typical Lot .;>_si land planner < layout.44.mpletBd) (tltlml Preliminary Plan ✓ :j.:: existing and proposed ease- saale, north arrow (North et ,Z.',:: rends (drainage, utilitiew, ~� F top of mepl .;;:� roads, ate.) ,, date (including rrvleion dates)_LL r`x`•: existing, prgpaeed and tornahip. tax map-block-tot including rights-o. n. :us$ references = `f including direnslanr and i "' street none■ and state road boundary described with 4 numbers .� bearings end distances existing and erg p ropoasd ;, ; total acreage of the treat ?:'q and acreage of lots, including ' v"sr.: utilities, including . end excludin : .? typo. sues, g area within v-:` hydrants, valves and E1,-2,1 righte-of-mmy i i.3 content corner ,:.•;; ranh°ire prgpoasd tat lines with --- �; existing and proposed culvert .{ di.enslons ' ::_:? Including sizes and grates . lot numbers .:;.;±r typical street cross-sections -..� -i;.:7 'mooing Linea : and intarsectlan details �... 4 topography at tan foot (la) including may design and shoulders ;. Intervals .: ho zontalwey and ahpuldand meter bodies, strasaa, flood- •'!!..► horizontal alignment and way and floodpt.1nq goners'. Curve data (public ,. strain buffsra and notation • -- nerds] :":.• indicating restricted buildings features such e■ ' "^'• drralopmant potential buildings, oereteriae, �_ :r township, corporate and extra- `.% historic Landmarks. ;:.:, territorial planning --- +: adjoining ion Layout i.S<` jurisdiction lines which owner of adjoining property Y cross the property owners and subdivisions — :i i location and size of parcels dedicated for public Use or reserved '.....,tin in common -._ ;w+:„: location and size of lots of restricted drvelop.snt potsntiat end 'u notation on plat regarding se.e -__ ,, .. stormmeter management plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff ?roe impervious surfaces jf+r.et, wnr.w _--- -_ - C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 1 . Twenty—six (261 copies of the preliminary plat 224 2. Two full size copies of an Orange County Tax map Lone copy with tax parcels involved clearly marked] . 3. Where municipal or OWASA newer is not avai Lab Le, a Letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and orcar3370.00I fee d(subdivisions of $160 lotsfeor(smore) ' ison of 15 Lots or Less) application. A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the timeuethet i plat s final time s presented for recordation. AA, CANT 'S SIGMA`'? E `��'�`�=. A 0 , ER '5 .SIGNAT " 1 DATE DATE \ FEES: Amount Date Paid Receipt P 23t 11/85 CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS - PRELIMINARYOPPLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: SUSAN SMITH SKETCH PLAN; Received February 1986 Reviewed February 1986 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-28-86 ---�.� Reviewed �2-28-86 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 3-10-86_ Reviewed ___1710-86 NCDOT: DATE 3-11-86 CERTIFICATION ORAL OK - PENDING FINAL ROAD PLAN APPROVALS SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 2-28-8(-CertificetionNO GAT UTLITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE 104L9/82.1____ Certification Ste, i1_G L DiE OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 2-28-86 Carrboro Fire Department Date) ( Chapel Hill — [Date) Carrboro - �•- ----- (Date] Hillsborough 3 - ----�� (Date) Durham -- - (Date) Other --___�-___`_ fDatel S&E (Date) -- -- ^_fDatel PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial WId OWWD_ DBBDIY WON WILDWOOD SECTION I REZONIN ��� APPROVED G R-1 to R-4 3-7-83 WILDWOOD SECTION I FINAL PLAT APPROVED 4-25-83 W I LDWOOD SECTION - II REZONING R-1 TO R-5 APPROVED 8-1-83 WILDWOOD SECTION - II PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED 11-7-83 WILDWOOD SECTION - II PHASES 1-6A FINAL PLATS PRASE 6B PENDING FINAL PLAT APPROVED; APPROVAL WILDWOOD SECTION - III REZONING R-1 TO R-4 APPROVED 1-7-85 WILDWOOD SECTION - IV REZONING R-1 TO R-2 APPROVED 1-6-86 23 STORMWATER MANAG6MENT PLAN WILDWOOD SUBDIVISION A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT • ORANGE COUNTY,INORTH CAROLINA ' MARCH, 1986 PROJECT NO. 42504 PREPARED FOR: APPLE CREEK REALTY HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA PREPARED BY: PHILIP POST AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS/PLANNERS/SURVEYORS CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA I I PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. roB LJ►LP4)O 1 5ECT.6,J 7}IRec Engineers/Planners/Surveyors SHEET No. • 1 g 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY Trill4 • DATE .3�O6 (919)929-1173 493-2600 ��] CHECKED BY DATE ?!)4- SCALE ST 1 h1WATh1 P AMAG6MSF4T - P c,1MINARY . a ,o++s. s[,bw I►� TDllbwr Cc.-1� 14474 J. 4.7.4vyv4�._.�___-� i .... ±�... ;41451.144. 9e,„.QA, CZ, kg. L t stc f►e,,, r~f;l;�ed hg01 d� �y . 000:4 O f sf' dPe a must •. 44.1.a 4L4itt.!1. e ► 6,-.14,- of'......_tot_#....: z'. 7�.Q. am` t = d .._ ...� may 414.11i.&" 1.1144rd _i_......... . r.11. ... O f - .... u;ve s( na ....., Udf'c[2.s T Y 1C�Y Qt.tS...:_ der s yiu , / � l dw(ot... tip.. .. adt;e,Y . to StUfl nary pr y...:`Dtvd.Drh .....kt41∎f Co _ Q.20 I Uc f:..-t .d..y..)„ I?LL, C,fI4(7 .0 wl. 3 — _ / . .Ia7 •;■e4 tat,c'6 m . •-A- 1b.,7 'CFS. 9,7 cFs To-1-0,f chsn:2041 ,Y,.,, i-,cMlen.■ sl 0101 -sEc PHILIP POST& ASSOCIATES, INC." .706 W160WODD 77oN TNREB Engineers/Planners/Surveyors NO. SHEET B 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY TPMh? DATE 3/5/84 /(919)929-1173 493-2600 ,... 23-y CHECKEb BY' ' DATE • SCALE• • • i i i i - -�- iT' v •a a 1 a'7Ytit .l0_..!1'Prs. , Off, . 'vim'° _ � [ r �� n�*.l t 1 �p i ; I if has ...._... a ,, • , N, .'� 7 )) 1J T( � i_ _ s _ f • �x !-_ ,1la0 • II • _ 17 Zp w Avg....... : IS z Ac-. • • H 628 58 s G '.z' I.._ _ L. !r.pc / r.0 S iD/7.tS • ° r / r :..� • CfA' (OZX67X,5.) = �p� za� i .......... r 1 Pad I)eVeippm . o-Yeav Fiat.) Tram safe • L --- ( ..... !D d- f0 L0..._....4 - .... C. Eeyy,Qy 03S 045 143'. tpnafs (8tra sE ._ • D .t,0;44' s • • o O Ra D D$ ,.. l0or s es Gras s .. . azo_ 033 : 466 t Z lr oc� 0.373 ay. rc00uatw 1( .1 .Goan 7m.01474. PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. .io CTIDg4 1•M Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA 27514 (919)929-1173 493-2600 L SHEET oF CALCULATED DATE it CHECKED DATE SCALE • "' op ; 6?-5- P IL37 - gel 7 31 C..F.S 1 i + 4 ' r p-A.L, ipete,46."1 . • . I 7 ache- ( 7)(6 ( ",7 • •t. ,t 4 • 4 4•;- t • 4- • ; ` I ; t • ` I i t ••t- •••-•- - 4 -4-• .` , ; • t ; ; ! • • :" I ■ 4 , 4 .4 - : • .E E • P:H66 • - E. 44t J 4, ert), E , • 1 El ; . 11111 _ L ... I .•_.4 1 I t -i, ? ; : ! ; • ; • ; E I 1 I 8 f —4— 4 4 "*j( :4/7 Ch-C 6s1.94. L.4-7•10.00 e • • : ; i 4 i- 4,- ■•• .1-• • -4--•••-'-- 4 - : t ? f f• • , I Q. T," CI6 '1 105.8.)0•54; ; • ; • 4 E 7 . et-) • 6 : • itsfyided b ces 7 E IE E /.4%, MAU 4,1 „.. JO/AK/2,Y trer;', 231 ' 5_c: CKs A / EE4E.- Eg E---; 4 .4 . . . 4-- 4 • .! "; • • " /44); t • ppy9," Or4-147. .0731 460 '47i %SOD ' roo -1 • . 1111;'154°E; o c, _RCP. • • : 4- p / E -iier.41.3,4vegrI/ $7-914.. . oyq1,14: : relittre•Aitnts „ . •Si •- 'GE : -ray . : , • O *Op: . -,-.- I 1 Rik, INFLOW STORP6E • 23( HEAD (fora OUTFLOW --- (MIN) (CFS) (CF) (FEET) (CFS) 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 0 0. 3 u. 0 0.0 0. 0 20. 0 2. 0 1. 3 20. 0 0. 0 0. 0 • 78. 411 3. 0 2. 9 98. 4 0. 1 0. 0 169. 8 4. 0 4. 9 268. 2 0. 2 0. 2 283. 4 5. 0 7. 4 551. 6 0. 4 0.. 7 404. 8 6. 0 i 0. 1 95.5. 8 0. 8 . 1. 6 506. 4 7. 12. 8 14E2. 2 1. 2 -2 Q •L.N. , 534, 1 8. 0 15. 5 1996. 3 1. 6 5. 9 578. 7 9. 0 n 18. 0 2574. 9 2. 0 7. 6 624. 3 10. 0 20. 0 3199. 2 2.3 8. 4 694. 4 11. 0 .21. 6 3692'. 6 2. 7 9. 3 -7,:;ff. S 0 22. 6 • 46::5. 4 2. 0 10. 2 744. 8 3. 0 22. 9 5373. 7 3. 3 10. 9 721. ..-4. 0 22. 6 604., a 3, 5 11. 4 663, 0 It. 0 2 L. S. 671",,.:. I-. 3. 5 11. 5 .,t-_. ( ,-.(.2. ■...) 7;.--;.E... 3 3. 7 11. 5 _ F.,. .7 7P,77.7,--_• _ 3. 8 r_. 1 3, 5 . 5 . ' _ . . • .. . _ - •, "J • ' ._ . -. • . -PHILIP POST & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB WILD W ooD 5f•GTio,f TiHPEE 23'I . Engineers/Planners/Surveyors 100 Eastowne Drive Suite 208 • SHEET NO. OF $ CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 CALCULATED BY TMW .(919)929-1173 493-2600 DATE 3/1016 CHECKED BV, DATE SCALE • - ;_r!trw to be s Ate.'• # Z 4 H = 4Q 52E L 400! . it. ■ 4 r �/ ' Ito 62:e7 (hr !_..._F.. - . 1 1 : , cii (a c) 7)(lb q) .0 r d , : ... .. __ �__.' i =Via._:._ f4nnaw re4.'C ._� b k,., # l 2Zg _t . iz z io7 cry imi d �� X0.7 _. w_...._ n 1 1 CFS • , . ar. ,,, ayn 6asll� 7a,/ yy����F• v a �P>,". QrP LC..CE Y 1 ,•rCi Mlh�Yr.Itnn tY.IDYGQQ l b ar ... : .. .,...-. . ..GI lfi�( .4(O�VL /1SV2Y�� �1T - 's Ci=f :_ 0 . D • :2.p . JB 6t7 3.0, . 36crn 3.5 • 510z� 71^ :ot, 2' -/1 7j oiy ....IKVer �zG Sq�{ .. .. : • pmc.Ti1 ,—. irc Gaon-Man,owl, .. - stZ /8.4"Ec17 ItiE 23 INFLOW STORAGE HEAD C •F 8 OUTFLOW --- (MIN) (CFS) (CF) (FEET) (CFS) 0, 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 • 0. 0 0. 5 0, 2 O. 0 0. 0 0. 0 7. u 1, 0 7. 2 11 0. 0 0. c 1. 5 2. 1 35. a 0. 0 0. 0 . 8 a. 0 3. 7 98. 7 0. 1 O. 1 107. 4 . 2. 5 5. 5 206. 0 158. 5 3. 0 7. 7 364. 5 0. 4 0. 7 10. 1 576. 3 O. 6 1. 4 4. 0 12. 6 83e. 0. 9 2. 6 297. 1 4. 5 15. 0 1135. 3 1. 3 5. 2 294. 2-2 5. 0 17. 4 14294 1. 6 7. 4 e9c1. 9 15. 5 1723 1. 9 9. 3 3o7. 4 t) 21. 4 2066. 7 a. 1 10. 5 2.3. 0 236- 2. 3 344. 24. 1 2706. 4 2. 5 12. 3 24. iE2. L: 2. 7 13. 26. _ .---;41 b 249 3. 0 4. 1 4. 5 II., 4 PEAr 15. 0 9. 5 4605. 5 3. 3 15. 0 -165. 5 7 oc 8 15. 5 8. 8 4440. 0 3. 2 14. 9 -183. 2 16_ 0 8. 1 4256. 7 3, a 14. 7 -19a. 6 7- 5 4056. 2 3. 1 14. 5 17. 0 6. 384E. 5 3. 1 14. 3 -,-...-.1.--.. 6 I 17. 3 6. 3 36.23. 9 1 3. 0 14. 1 -231. 6 18. 0 5. 8 33c'2. 4 2. g 13.7 -234. 2 18. 5 5. 4 3158. 2 2. 6 -234. 5 13. 0 5. 0 2923. 7 2, 7 12,7 -233. 0 19. E_ 4• 6 .2630. 6 2. 5 12. 2 -2.23. 9 4. 2 .2460. 7 2, 4 11. 7 T ..,._ :\.• . , .... ,, -.% , k . , - - 1 1 '\ iv.issi). i • 1 ' .,,.. co 1 i • ' I, e9L i I ' . 241, ; z _4 '''.,-, ,-,.•...%. . .. 7 ,.. ,4, . .._ _ as_ s , ,_...•.• ., .:,,. . . 1. ,. 21.: . .; , / ,, , : k. .,• . - , .. .., ,!' 0 11 pug . p,..._.._ N. , . i.F._ _dig 4 ,,.. I .., • tillill""ridill, 41 - I . . v t . I, - • . , ,,, MOP , Y.?: - -. ::,., . •: •-A ...'"'"' / 1 1 „.00.p.,...,.. - .11410AW1 . fi .. >l< .. ii ---' :N. • - • ,• • ...... ..e -1111g. 1,11, . . , NIIIVisii.;-" ittrapr.‘ 41Filk-k ., • ■W< . 4 ;aerial, iiik Neill _ . . ,f_- i * XIII:-:,111 • i;;.-- '. a -•.._, c) - re c < ., iri*I . ••-... -.*:24aga . , ,,,,.. ,!.... mw---.., / it" Iiii-..-'?'i( .. ii3"e*--- artadifril • litZEIIIIPAP'- a thaerzfa.ww...'- '1 " k , i'''' • 1 * ' ,,-. --,.. .. , t if&AlkiarW-- . 0: • . in,/,.• ..,,,, A ...il,r , . _ •41f4rb,, ,Icii7 Y•i'•,r • • , 1/ / 1 . s,.. , - •..;":;.' -. - •'-..---. .1 '.., - ••■ • •• -re., --' I t%llig ...t• .-.4ie 43-,...:„...--si.: :: .-,,,: - t9 11 ;I' F— . ....44,........ ,,,s . ,. ...„...„11....% ..:: • zt. . --voot..: 400-7N-Arisi,. . . ....., . . 11.• ,/ y,... i OA: . . ....,..,., irallik e. ' • ig : . lrimErt •ra....., I ■.ti a •4.•:- / • •• --:.:----T-!-:-',"-• ' V, 4.•'0,- ""Are, . . .,.._ .1%-_ .:.:., .:_.. _ :,....: '.i... .!, 7--------yit .• -„. - , . • f • • ... • ....., .,. . ,..,• . ..,,•••• •;,..,. •• :,.. ..,,,, , ... :.. -..-: .• ••. - • . --- . • • .t7 . , . .v.V• 111"Mirli . - '. • T • 01/ .4_. ai,,,,,:i.--"...;,,:. 9'-7"- OffirtillOWN 7 . 1/4• '4?•. -• • 111111MO - .6. . gamrriamfri .„ • ,-, :,,, '!.. 7 . ,.),, • Apilillirj-. ; ; - ; !--, . r 3061I/._;•1401r1r. . ' ':-•.;', ' A "...Z. . - -. P- •--.11. ' ''' . Nilli All i - ' V ".' / . , ".j-/IP•,/ '1^.'r'._;. ! 1 , ... .",r - ill?„, . w. •/ -r.,:...,._..,,, ..i i ..--P ; ' 1 • •• ' ...,.. ;: ..,..,. ; :: ' ''''‘,‘' li t '.--,' r. •:. ...•.'.. . ' . . :-..;‘':-:.:;,. • ..% ...... ,,. .. .z.„ .,-.! ,-.- ' . : ,..._- •-- \ ..- . �# 2 4 1 I. HardingAHughes Mayor Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Town Clerk Agatha HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. W ater W or k s Commissioners Myron L. Martin James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd ' • L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith Chief of Police Rachel H. Stevens Arnold W. Hamlett r' r *p Fire Chief John Forrest -Tl t 5;844. L.1 TO: Orange County Planning Department FROM: Laura Hill, Hillsborough Planning Department RE: Courtesy Review of Wildwood Section III DATE: March 7, 1986 On March 6, the Hillsborough Planning Board conducted a courtesy review of Wildwaod Section III The Planning Board expressed their concern about the impact on the water supply for Northern Orange County. Where it is necessary to construct streets and a bridge over the stream buffer area, they should enter the area as nearly perpen- dicular to the stream as possible. - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT rr�� TS EILLSBOROL"GU 24� NORTH CAROLINA r 3-/bet' ;! j 27278 Osee t, or lib 6 .e 07,'� a1 -;i1- 4.,, co*`se MEMORANDUM TO: Susan Smith, Planner III FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Officer SUBJECT: Wildwood Section III DATE: March 10, 1986 I have reviewed the preliminary plan for this sub- division and see no conditions that would prevent the design and implementation of an acceptable erosion control plan. An erosion control plan must be submitted, approved and the appropriate fees paid prior to the start of construction. DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 9 - were no greenways or parks shown we could require payment in lieu which would then be used to finance and develop those parks. Best inquired the width of the stream buffer. Calleymn responded 30 feet on each side for a total of 60 feet. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Best, Jacobs) Smith noted that she understands the Board 's desire to recognize and impose conditions on a site by site basis. She expressed concern regarding the lack of direction from the Boards and the inconsistency in application of standards in Board decisions on specific projects. Kizer stated that payment in lieu is actually a recreation tax and new development is being asked to take care of the recreational needs of the existing people in the County. He felt there had been no consensus on the Board in this regard. Hubbard asked when would be the proper time to discuss pedestrian easements. Jacobs responded that would be when the recreation standards come back to the Planning Board from public hearing. Yuhasz stated that mere convenience to the County was not a Justification for anything. Kizer reminded the Board that any time anything is taken for public interest, it is done by condemnation and reimbursment. f AGENDA ITEM 7h: WILDW00D SECTION III - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to further consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Wildwood Section Ill . On March 17, 1986 the Planning Board continued the discussion of this request to receive additional information on the water supply situation in Northern Orange County at the March 25th public ► hearing. The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township west of NC 86, south of the Southern DRAFT PLA NING BOARD MiNUTES 9 were no greenways or parks shown we could require payment in lieu which would then be used to finance and develop those parks. Best inquired the width of the stream buffer. Calleymn responded 30 feet on each side for a total of 60 feet. VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Best, Jacobs) Smith noted that she understands the Board's desire to recognize and impose conditions on a site by site basis. She expressed concern regarding the lack of direction from the Boards and the inconsistency in application of standards in Board decisions on specific projects. Kizer stated that payment In lieu is actually a recreation tax and new development is being asked to take care of the recreational needs of the existing people in the County. He felt there had been no consensus on the Board in this regard. Hubbard asked when would be the proper time to discuss pedestrian easements. Jacobs responded that would be when the recreation standards come back to the Planning Board from public hearing. Yuhasz stated that mere convenience to the County was not a Justification for anything. Kizer reminded the Board that any time anything Is taken for public interest, it is done by condemnation and reimbursment. AGENDA ITEM 7h: WILDWOOD SECTION iII - PRELIMINARY PLAN Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to further consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Wildwood Section III . On March 17, 1986 the Planning Board continued the discussion of this request to receive additional information on the water supply situation in Northern Orange County at the March 25th public hearing. The property in question is located in Hillsborough Township west of NC 86, south of the Southern DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 Railroad and north of Wildwood Section II and the proposed Oakdale Drive Extension. The property is referenced as part of Lot 4 Orange County Tax Map /45 for Hillsborough Township. It is bordered by residential and undeveloped land. The tract is designated Ten Year Transition on the Land Use Plan and is zoned Residential-IV (R-4) . The rezoning was approved on January 7, 1985. There are 35 lots proposed out of 12.97 acres. The lot sizes range from .23 acres to .62 acres, excluding rights-of-way. All lots are to be served by public water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough. The subdivision will be served by George Anderson Drive, Oakdale Drive Extension, Alexander Stewart Road and William Hardee Court, roads constructed to NCDOT standards and dedicated public. Fire protection for the property in question is provided by Hillsborough Fire Department. Law enforcement is to be provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. Emergency services are to be provided by the Orange County Emergency Medical Services. Subdivision of Wildwood Section III would provide for the sale of individual tracts to be developed for single family residences. The applicant proposes to develop the property in two phases. Twenty seven (27) lots will be developed in Phase One and eight (8) lots in Phase Two. The construction of Oakdale Drive Extension along the frontage of Phase One of Section III was imposed as a condition of approval on Section 11 of Wildwood subdivision. This section of Oakdale Drive Extension will be constructed during the development of Phase 6B of Section I1 . Development of Phase 2 of Section 111 is subject to the construction of Oakdale Drive Extension along the remaining frontage. The Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1 ) submittal and approval of the letters of credit for the required road and utility improvements by the County Attorney 2) reference on the plat to the erection of street 24t DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 signs in accordance with Orange County standards at all intersections 3) reference to the recorded Homeowners Association Bylaws, Articles of incorporation and Declaration of Covenants by deed book and page number. Collins informed the Board that the County has received an official letter of intent from the City of Burlington entering into an agreement to provide up to 1 .2 mgd of water during drought situations. The engineering for the water lines which will provide the connection between Burlington, Graham and the Orange Alamance Water System will begin very soon. Also, the County Manager and John Wray: with the Division of Water Resources, have met and negotiated in stream flow standards which would apply and these do match up with what the Natural Resources Sub-Committee of the Planning Board has recommended which is 1 .1 mgd. That would be decreased during drought periods depending upon the stage of the drought and the level of the lakes. Collins continued that the State is drafting a letter stating the above and also sending a proposal to the County which identifies how the in- stream flow requirement would be lowered during periods of drought. He noted that the 1 .2 mgd from the City of Burlington would kick in when the level of water in Lake Orange is down to 60% of the safe yield of the lake. According to the County Manager as well as the State, this will place the County in a good position as far as water supply for the interim period. Best inquired if the lines from Burlington were already in place. Collins responded the lines were there but some upgrading needs to be done. Best continued asking the source of funding for the upgrading. Collins responded that Orange County would be responsible for the upgrading and possibly some of the other water providers within the County would contribute. He indicated the State had given the County some grant funds which can be used for water or sewer and some of these funds would probably be used for the upgrading of the lines. Best expressed concerns that more than just the users of the water would be sharing the cost . Collins noted that the water provider who needed the water would be the purchaser. Jacobs inquired why the construction of Oakdale Drive Extension was to be in a later phase. Smith explained that 2/3 of the Oakdale Drive project • DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Uri 12 will be constructed as part of the development of a previously approved project. She reviewed the relationship of Section III and' Section 11 Phase 6B to the Oakdale Drive Extension. Kizer inquired about the amount of the bond. Smith responded it was for the cost of construction of public improvements plus 10%. Pilkey asked if construction had begun. Smith responded some clearing of the rights-of-way had occurred. - MOTION: Kizer moved approval with staff recommendations. Seconded by Shanklin. Hubbard inquired ' how this project fits in with surrounding densities. Smith responded that Section 1 of Wildwood was approved at four units to the acres, Section 11 was developed at five units to the acre. This project Is to be developed at four units to the acre. Section iV, recently approved as a rezoning, would be developed at two units to the acre. VOTE:. 10 in favor. 1 abstained (Yuhasz due to professional conflict of interest. ) AGENDA ITEM 18 ITEMS SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC HEARING ON 2-24-86, 3-18-86 and 4-1-86. a. LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider proposed amendments to the approved Planned Unit Development plan for Lockridge Community for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. This request was presented at public hearing on March 18, 1986. Lockridge Community is located on both sides of Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) north of New Hope Creek in Chapel Hill Township. It is known as all lots on Tax Map 8G and 16C and Lot #2D on Tax Map 8. The community was established following approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning on November 5, 1973 under the 1967 Zoning Ordinance for Chapel Hill O R A N G E C O U N T Y 2 4 E BOARD OF COMMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: May 5, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM if FIC L ECT: BEECHWOOD KNOLL - PRELIMINARY PLAN b********************************* ***************************RTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: :YES X NO *************************************************************CHMENTS: CONTACT: JANE ATWATER ICATION NITY MAP IMINARY PLAN ER FROM ORANGE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION ICT RE: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Y COMMENTS 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS:Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331************************************************************SE: To consider the Beechwood Knoll Subdivision, property of Cyrus Green, for approval .To receive the Planning Board's recommendation.D: The property in question is located off of SR 1554 (Baldwin Road) in Hillsborough Township. The property is referenced as part of Lot 2 of Tax Map 6, Block B. It is bordered by agricultural development. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential on the Land Use Plan. There are three (3) lots proposed out of 45.7 acres. The lot sizes are 1 .47 acres, 1 .09 acres and 1 . 17 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural-Residential . Two (2) Orange County Class "C" private roads are proposed to provide access from SR 1554 . Meadowbrook Trail provides access for Lot #1 to SR 1554 via Friendship Lane. The proposed lots will be served by on site sewage disposal and water systems. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. 24� BEECHWOOD KNOLL PAGE 2 IMPACT: Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 28.53 (9.51 trips x 3 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1554, determined from the east side of the intersection of SR 1554 and SR 1555, is 60 average daily trips. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: 1 ) Survey and designate the location of the floodplain and buffer for Nancy Hill Creek on the Final Plat 2) Provide a notation on the plat stating that development is restricted within the floodway, floodplain and buffer areas. 3) Designate a 60 foot pedestrian easement along either side of Nancy Hill Creek for a total easement of 120 feet. This area shall be dedicated as a pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement. providing for the dedication shall be placed oontthe plat. The Planning Board recommends approval of conditions # 1 and #2 and the condition which follows: Provide a septic easement which assures that Lots #1 , 2 and 3 will have access to the remaining acreage for septic tank repair areas and provide a notation on the plat and documentation for recordation in the Register of Deeds stating the same. The Planning Board did not recommend the attachment of condition #3 listed above. ECRWOO to . . I 9875 APpucaur: cyr 251: i 7 86 UM/4%W 4-a 6e4— TU AL 12E41bE.UnAL. g.re tic. j, law paIGr4Ariou:A¢GnicartL2A. £EWEAMAL oco„,,... . . 4 / Na .. —h Jo, ,..J , . 4' /., ______ ____— i,,‘,E g .41 „„Ni-c,, --A-- M `fr ------ 2 29 9 // 1 o ra 65 isAC , ..J 1, . . I tc, SAME AS NO ENO 13-14 Pro 1313-51 AC. rholli..._ `4),5Kt lob If411111 8A ST%AAA2y 5 Ir . __:r w.igripp ..„___. _________ , -0 FU 0 Pia* 4k 0, *-.411pr .4 I 1557 ( 11,4* Air_ Air Allk,„, % A7141F4101*- . \\ PiFr-wk 4 129.67AC 4■Pr 404p 41P _,/ A___--, 4„,,,,_ , a. ,/ \_41,,, ...... . .,., ------,\* :-.T., I ,/-7' 0 a .. ,..,B tik P 0 cc °r int 1� 6 :I” 7:11.001-011 7 Ft-LASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) 251 „/e APP ICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APpBAULL gataLlamix DATE; February 26, 1986 SUBDIVISION NAME: BEECHWOOD KNOLL LOCATION: off Baldwin Road (S.R.1554) OWNER/DEVELOPER: Cyrus Green ADDRESS: ""Irt triissborough, N.L. TELEPHONE NO.7-77:7117- AGENT/CONTACT: Alois Callemyn . 732-3883 122 S. 2:nurton bt TELEPHONE N0. Hillsborougn, N.L. + A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: B Orange County Tax Map 6 Black Lot(s) 2 Hillsborough Zoning District(s) : A-x _ Township Total Number of Acres: 45. I ac ses: N/A Tote!. Number of Lots: _.3 Average Lot Size: 1.2 Minimum Lot Size 40000sf Number/Type of Structures:(existing) Lineal Feet in Streets: A iproposeN Water Su L �---- Acres in Open Space pp Ya %Jcll Public(specify) Community SastaLater septic Community Individeel General Land Uses in Area: framing ioe District: _gj ] 1ern,^r,,,nr Critical Areas: , stream/d re i na awe g `� using 9 Y e x flood prone areas watershed(specify) N/Ahistoric sites other(explain] B. ALL plats 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 "=501 ) and must contain the following information: X subdivision vane X .X :''.:� nubs of subdivision � :+5 building setback linos eck items '" .p name of surveyor, engineer or -''"' by notation or typical let �Tipll4ted) t tand•plenner g layout �. [titlel Preliminary plan ` existing end proposed ease- scale, north arrow [North at ' "•` roads [dtcinage, utilities, ry _{y %4 existing,s proposed�?_•,, tap of arpl .. k`_sn data [including revision date.) """" mi o end -L r"2 taaaahih. tax a■ adjoining rights-of-way M.�. refmrencas p-bLock-lot Sy i3 Including dimensions ll'✓ "' street names and state road boundary described with ` bearings and distances numbers . o total acreage of the tract existing end .. utilities. PraPOeed '•••:;§ and scrooge of lots, including si;i%�:, t including �`}? and excluding erne within ...•,=-- ydr, sires, x .t.,�`'''• rights-of.-way }::%^: hydrants, relies and ? control corner X ;S menhotee -Y.... .' proposed Lot Lines with existing and proposed culvert dimensions including silos and grace, .,�}-' tot numbers - typicat street cross-eectiona phasing Linea .•+,:: and intararction details topography at ten foot [101 .... including daaigo end width :?: ' intervals /a 4 of trev.Lemy and ohoutdere rater bodies', straaee, n/�„ -:. hers=onset flood- ,••'" alignment (public and .x.:.'` way end ftoodpLaineTHIS i5, Equig,f. '_ vandal curve date [public 'truss buffers and notation vandal '-' �' permanent features such as �•-•:;=: lntlicating raatrietad _�-••. development potantlellui6,„wlilN.�lai=:''•=:3 uildings, cemeteries, n township, corporate and extra- "Ins: historic L°nOmarka, ::•.fit territorial planning adjoining lot Layout ''>i:F jurisdiction lines which names of adjoining property X crow the property owners and subdivisions , location and site of percale dedicated for public use or reserved in common 1-1,4a LOOstlon and mite of Lots of restricted davelopasnt potential and Vt notation on pier regarding beau .Y s..4: storwseter management plan indicating provision for control of the first 1/2 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces (GRAY AREAS FIR QFFI f_E 115E iNi v) C. OTHER SUBMITTAL. REQUIREMENTS: �5 1 . Twenty—six (281 copies of the preliminary plat 2. Tr.: fu L L 31 iQ copies of en Grange Caunrcy Tax map involved clearly marked) . P (one copy with tax 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the proposed wastewater system for each Lot. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 15 Lots or Less) or a 3370.00 fee (subdivisions of' 16 Lots or more) is due at the time of application . A $5.00 per Lot fee is due at the time the fins for recordation . plat is C . „di e - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE OWNER 'S SIGNATURE February 26, 1986 February 26, 1986 DATE DATE FEES: Amount 42 �Li�� 4 20 no Date Paid /-22-8(e Receipt )py-V) °L) 106.97 25` BEECHWOOD KNOLL CERTIFICATION-AED_AP�RQY�� _�_ L LIMINABY_E AT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Jane Atwater SKETCH PLAN: Received 1-21-86 Reviewed 1-22-86 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2-28-86 3-5-86 Reviewed REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE 3- 86 CERTIFICATION SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE 3-6-86 Certification UTLITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/141ebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE N/A Certification OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council 1-26-86 (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough 436 (Date) Durham (Date) Soil & Erosion 3- 7-$6" (Date) Health Department 2-2 `8-6 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date Approval Approval with Conditions____ Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Date Approval Approval with Conditions Denial New 254 110 East King Street-Hillsborough,l borough,Water orth Carolina 27278-Pone 732-9361,Ext.451 January 23, 1986 Mr. Cyrus Greene P. O. Box 36 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Greene: Included in this letter is the information you requested per our conversation on Tuesday, January 21 , .1986 concerning your subdivision project and farm, Beachwood Knoll. You requested assistance in November of 1985 from the Soil Conservation Service in planning the best soil and water conservation plan for your farm located off SR #1554 (Baldwin Road). In December, 1985, you entered into a contract with the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District under the Nutrient Sensitive Watershed cost-share program. This contract and plan of operations is considered the 'Best Management Practices' (BMP) for your farm. The plan includes seeding a 40 acres of cropland to permanent vegetation by the fall of 1 te986xandiy maintaining this vegetation for the life of the contract - 10 years. The homes are to be built in the woodland areas. All the woodland will be left natural , except where the building sites will be. The soil on the farm is Georgeville. This soil type is generally a well drained soil that abosrbs water at a permeability rate of .6 - 2.0 inches per hour. Due to the area being left natural , runoff from the home sites should be absorbed by the soil and natural cover. This plan includes proper woodland maintenance, such as harvesting dead or diseased trees, therefore leaving other trees to remain healthy. Presently your farm has a soil and water conservation plan and is under contract with the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District. I feel you have an excellent erosion control plan for your subdivision Beachwood Knoll . If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, J � {Lcg�c t L Gail M. Hughes Orange Conservation District Technician GMH/jw CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT ORANGE COT.M.TTY PLAN LNG DEPARTMENT • IHLLSBOROT:GH i; NORTH CAROLINA 27278 oelt °."4'des �• March 10, 1986 Dwight Kelly, Division Traffic Engineer N.C. Department of Transportation P.O. Box 9278 Greensboro, NC 27408 RE: Beeehwood Knoll Dear Mr. Kelly: Enclosed is the Preliminary Plan of the abovereferenced subdivision for your review. The property is referenced as Tax Map 6 Lot 2, Block B in Hillsborough Township and located approximately 4400' north of SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road ) on private roads off of SR 1554 (Baldwin Road) . The proposed lots will have direct access on Friendship Lane and Meadowbrook Trail which will be constructed to Orange County's Class "C" private road standards. Please provide your comments by April 4, 1986. It will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, glut., - itifirr-go Jane L. Atwater Planner Na Comment -- Private Road ::?-r-4' /3 Joe B. Haynes Highway Maintenance Engineer CP " �c (orange (�uuntq laureation and /larks Department y� �Y � 300 West Tryon Street .14#06-7:, 47''o"° HILLSBOROUGH,N.C.27278 Life.Balit. MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Atwater, Planner FROM: Mary Anne Black, Director -,h73 DATE: March 24, 1986 RE: Courtesy Review Comments --- Beechwood Knoll Upon review of the preliminary plan for the proposed Beechwood Knoll subdivision, please be advised that the only element warranting comment from a recreation and park perspective is the stream buffer of 60 feet. There is no "flood plain area" designated on the preliminary plan. I would like to see this area noted on the plan to make recom- mendation concerning the stream buffer width. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these staff comments. I will present my recommendations to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council at their April meeting and will forward to you any changes/additional comments they may have. MAB/pbl CC: Lorraine Parker, Chair, Recreation & Parks Advisory Council Hillsborough, 732-9361 " Durham, 688-7333 • Chapel Hill, 968-4501 " Mebane, 227-2032 Area Code 919 an Mayor titibianalt Frank H. Sheffield, Jr, Town Clerk HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Agatha Johnson Commissioners Supt. Water Works Myron L. Martin James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Allen A. Lloyd ,* Y:rt Street Supt, Remus J. Smith L.D. Wagoner Rachel H. Stevens t r - Chief of Police Arnold W. Hamlett P Fire Chief • l John Forrest TO: Orange County.Planning Department FROM: Laura Hill, Planning Department l RE: Courtesy Review of Beechwood Knoll Subdivision, Tax Map 6, Block B, Lot 2F DATE: April 4, 1986 On April 3 the Hillsborough Planning Board conducted a courtesy review of the abovereferenced property. It was noted that the location of the floodplain was not shown on the site plan, and that it may be wider than the stream buffer indicated on the plan. Therefore, the board requested that the floodway and floodplain for Nancy Hill creek be recorded on the site plan prior to approval of the subdivision. rL wrdc, +-'7-86 • 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES d erby ncredatiaat 30D lof Ta Map 4 T0e t opes ty bois ere tract is designated as Agricultural Residential and Cane Creek Water Supply Watershed on the Land Use Plan. There are six (6) lots proposed. ac, 1 . 11 ac.,. 1 .23 ac., 2.21 ac., 3.22 ac.,are ind. 3.53 ac. The property ac•l and Residential with an overlay district ofrProtected Watershed-11 . Proposed access is provided to the site via an Orange County Class "B" private road named Morning Glory Lane. Fire protection for the property Is provided b te Oranga Grove Rural Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 57.06 (9.51 trips x 6 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1115 as determined from the east side of SR 1116 is 70 average daily trips. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval . Seconded by Shanklin. Margison inquired if OWASA facilities could serYe this subdivision. Kizer responded that the OWASA line shown on the tax map was not a tap-on line. It is a major line carrying raw water to the quarry. it is also the policy of the Board not to allow tap--ons in the water supply watersheds. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM 7c_ BEECHWOOD KNOLL - PRELiMINARY PLAN • Presentation by Jane Atwater. The purpose of this agenda item Is to consider approval of the Beechwood Knoll. Subdivision, property of Cyrus Green. 25.. DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 The property in question is located off of SR 1554 (Baldwin Road) in Hilisborough Township. The property is referenced as part of Lot 2 of Tax Map 6, Block B. it. is bordered by agricultural development. The tract . is Agricultural Residential on the Land dUse gPlan. as . There are three (3) lots proposed out of 45.7 acres. The lot sizes are 1 .47 acres, 1 .09 acres and 1 .17 acres. The property is zoned Agricultural Residential . Two (2) Orange County Class "Cu private roads are proposed to provide access from . Meadowbrook Trail provides access for Lot S11 toSSR 1554 Via Friendship Lane. The proposed lots will be served by on site sewage disposal and water systems. Fire protection for the property is provided by the Orange Rural Fire District. Law enforcement is provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. It will be patrolled on a 24 hour basis. Development of this subdivision would have minimal impact on the area. The projected traffic generation for this subdivision is approximately 28.53 (9.51 trips x 3 lots) trips per day. According to the Department of Transportation, the 1984 (most current) traffic count for SR 1554, determined from the east side of the intersection of SR 1554 and SR 1555, is 60 average daily trips. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan contingent upon the following conditions: - Survey and designate the location of the floodplain and buffer for Nancy Hill Creek on the Final Plat - Provide a notation on the plat stating that development is restricted within the floodway, floodplain and buffer areas. - Designate a 60 foot pedestrian easement along either side of Nancy Hill Creek for a total easement of 120 feet. This area shall be dedicated as a pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement. A notation providing for the dedication shall be placed on the plat. DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 26L Jacobs inquired if the easement. is the same size as that of Scotswood. Eddie Kirk responded that the easement for Scotswood was 100 feet. Kramer inquired the location of Oak Rise In relation to _ this subdivision-. The response was directly to the north. Pilkey inquired the location of Scotswood in relation to this property. The response was southeast of the site. Alois Callemyn, Surveyor, responded to a request by Kramer to comment'on the relationship between Oak Rise and Beechwood Knoll in regard to the development of roads. Callemyn responded that neither developer wanted through roads, but George Horton, developer of Oak Rise agreed to a stub-out to the south. He noted that the developer preferred to see the roads dead-end. Kramer continued asking if there are any plans to connect the road system and Callemyn responded no. Callemyn stated that he wished to address the pedestrian easement. He noted that is development Is for the retirement residenceshof associated persons. He noted that there is a 40 foot bluff along the creek. Each house is to be designed to the site. He continued that the developer, Cyrus Green, owns the land across the creek and thus desires to control the privacy of the homeowners. Mr. Green also has a sheep farm operation and the pedestrian easement would interfere with the sheep operation. Callemyn noted that this property was purchased for the isolation and agricultural aspects and he felt the pedestrian easement would be detrimental to the plans and futures of these owners. Kramer asked the reason for requiring a pedestrian easement. Atwater responded that this requirement is in line with the request of the Recreation Director. Best inquired why a 100 foot easement was not required like that of Scotswood. Smith noted that the applicants for Scotswood had offered the 100 foot easement. Best continued that this was listed as a condition for Scotswood. Smith noted that for clarification purposes conditions often duplicate the provisions of the site plan. 261 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 ' Yuhasz Indicated he felt .this requirement would "eat up the site" and this development does not compare with Scotswood. He felt the same requirements do not apply to this subdivision as apply to Scotswood. Kramer noted that Mr. GreenVs operation is also a medical research operation connected with Duke University and the pedestrian easement would interfere with this operation. Mr. Green stated that he was in the process of purchasing this property before the Scotswood plan was presented. He noted the property had been landlocked and it took almost a ear negotiations to be completed for the property fhe needed for an easement due to travel absences of the owner. Caiiemyn stated that Mr. Green had worked with SCS for thirty years and was under contract with the SCS that this property would remain in sod for the next ten years. Kizer asked how far the floodplain extends and expressed concern with Lot #2 as to whether it is buildable and the possibilities of septic system failure. Caliemyn responded that there is Health Department approval for a primary system and a repair system in the pasture area. He continued that due to the size of the research operation the developer must hold the lot sizes to a minimum. Kizer continued asking Caliemyn if he would object to a condition requiring that arrangements be made for a repair site. Caliemyn responded he thought it was an excellent recommendation for lots 1 ,2 and 3. Collins responded to the comments about the pedestrian easement. He noted that this would provide a continuation of the greenways system and a potential for linking the segments. Mr. Green noted that the land adjoining that which belonged to Mr. Miller was a wide floodplain, but that he felt his property was not suitable for a pedestrian easement. Jacobs noted that If the County wants a greenways system the same problem will continue to occur Just as other easements and rights-of-way problems occur as more land Is developed. He stated that the applicant and future applicants may have good reasons to argue against the easements, but there is a need for some consistency. DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Kizer noted that this is not a. planned development and that this would constitute a "taking" without compensation. He continued that if the County wants a greenways system he felt the y purchase the land. He did not feel there was hoany Justification to require that Mr. Green provide a public easement through his property. Kramer stated if the applicant feels the easement affects his agricultural operation, he would be willing to strike this requirement. MOTION: Kramer moved approval with the first tw requirements as recommended by staff, striking the pedestrian easement requirement and adding a requirement to provide easements to be recorded on plat to be sure that Lots 1, 2 and 3 have access to the remaining 42 acres for replacement and repair of septic lines. Seconded by Kizer. Hubbard stated that he was uncomfortable with the pedestrian easement deletion. He felt a way was needed to base such a decision on something other than Just case by case. Pilkey stated she would like to have the County Attorney's comments regarding public taking. Smith responded that his position on this was that the applicant was not being deprived of reasonable use of his property. Kizer disagreed. Kizer continued that there is nothing in the Subdivision Regulations that requires that we demand a pedestrian was imposed asthe napplicant iwould suhave requirement grounds to challenge. Kramer responded that if it was Important enough the Board could ask for a planned development. Kizer emphasized again that he felt if the County wanted recreation easements for public use, the County should pay for it. Collins noted that there had been a public hearing on a dedication or payment in lieu provision which would be added to the Subdivision Regulations and coupled with that is a proposal by the Recreation Department for a Master Recreation Plan for the County next year. With the Recreation Plan and this included in the Land Use Plan It would designate future park sites and also greenway systems. If the dedication or payment in lieu provision is adopted, we could require any greenway that is shown on the adopted Land Use . Plan be dedicated to the County. For areas where there O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS , ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE: May 5, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM # FI7 / SUBJECT: PEELER CREEK - PRELIMINARY PLAT *********************************************************************** DEPARTMENT: PLANNING IC HEARING: YES*****************************************B******************** ********NO ATTACHMENTS: CONTACT: EDDIE KIRK VICINITY MAP CHECKLIST APPLICANT'S LETTER PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT 4-21-86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 ebane 227-2031 ********************+ ******+ *********M*********************************- PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plat for Peeler Creek Subdivision for approval . To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, The Planning Board recommended approval of the plan for Peeler Creek Subdivision on February preliminary County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan 1on5.March 6, 1985. The Final Plat was approved by Y a on Board on April 15, 1986. However, the applicant Y tae Planning cordd he Final Plat within the six month period 'specified eciind the Subdivision Regulations and noted on the mylar copy. of the plat for recordation. NEED: p - - = - Section III-EPJrofa the lDranai for 6 months stated in 9 e C ounty Subdivision sRegulations. This approval has expired and the the plat. To avoid an additional deve delayotinecthe approval schedule, the planning staff recommends that the preliminary and final plat be reconsidered for approval at the same meeting. The property in question Is located in Bingham Township off Ferguson Road (SR 1948) . It is known as Lot 8, Tax Map 37B. PEELER CREEK PAGE 2 There are 8 lots proposed out of approximately 16. 16 acres. Each lot is 1 .5 acres or larger. The property is zoned A-R and is designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The front portion of the property Is in the University Lake Watershed and a stormwater management report has been received for this portion of the subdivision which includes 4 lots. These lots are referenced as Lots #5, 6, 7 and 8 on the plat. The applicant is proposing a Class B road to serve the eight lots. IMPACT: The addition of 8 lots to this area could add approximately 60 trips per day to Ferguson Road. There is no traffic count date available on Ferguson Road. However, the addition of this subdivision would have a minimal impact on the road system. RECOMMENDATION: There has been no change In the development ordinances or in the conditions around the site which would affect the reapproval of this subdivision . Therefore, the Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. • 3 AC. . 2024 ~ PEELER CREi~ ' , AC. Applicant : Buz Lloyd t _-� t 40 • G Zoning : A R 4. 63 Ac LUP Designation:- Agricultural Res., ! ss a �e Rural Res., Water 3.4A'C. Supply Watershedr Scale: 1 "- 200' l._./ N ' 12.16 AC. ' (DA ass I 6 AC. _5d R/w` cap BS i DRIVE I 3A $A 1 .9266 A,: 2725 L 18,16 AC, r;- MAJOR SUBDIVISTOOW CHECKLIST I111I1E OF SUBDIVISION FEELER CREEK OWNER OR DEVELOPER_ Buz Lloyd ADDRESS Post Office .Drawer J. Carrboro, N.C. 27510 TOWNSHIP Bingham TAX MAP 37B BLOCK LOT � NAME OF SURVEYOR OR•ENGINEER Freehold Surveyors (Sketch Plan Drawn by B. Lloyd) ' Total number of lots 9 To be developed in 1 phase(s), Total number of acres 16.16 Typical dwelling units at present None or proposed 8 STATER SUPPLY: Public (Name) Commnuity Individual_ Well SE14AGE TREATMENT: Public_ Community Individual Septic tank y, S t� CIi00L DISTRICT County FIRE DISTRICT S nnw Access onto State Road ft 1940 Road Standard: Public or Private C1ass,A , B , C Existing critical areas such as streams (X ), Flood prone areas { ), Watershed (7)-, Historic Sites ( . ), ..Other ( ) Explain: Uhf I VFRS I TY UKE llATFRSNFp Lard uses in the general area Undeveloped, Some Residential Some Agrirt�lY�rra� t c1 A«rn c��v b .-1-ratty SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 1/23/85 Approved ( } Recommended Changes (x ) PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED {Date]2/4/ 5 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVE;, (Date) -Prel,iminary Review by Health Department 2/1/85 Erosion Control Officer�� Hoard of Education 2/11/85 Department of Transportation OWASA (if possible) Other -Mebane (if possible) .-Hillsborough (if possible) -Orange/Alamance (if possible) Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Recommended approval 2/18/85 Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners A FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Bate)-- 4-5-85 - - / ( X ) All lots were approved by the Health Department ( } Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the ,plat ` (X } Road Maintenance Agreement silbmitted (where applicable) . Approved ,(X } Improvemcnts have been provided for; completed; board, letter of credit, cash. Date��„�_8c ( } Final OPIASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications, Date ( } Final DOT approval on plat { �' ) Final action by the Planning Board 4-15-85 y` LLOYD - N- �26 . MIMID ASSQCIA7ES '...,,,.. -.:�,. ES*irf BPOAFPS ..,-E.±_ ' April 4, 1986 Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department Orange County Courthouse Building Hillsborough, North .Carolina 27278 Dear Eddie: Please place the re-approval of the final plat for Peeler Creek on the- consent: agenda for the Planning Board for their meeting April 21, 1986. Marvin has advised me that you should not need additional co- pies of the plat. However, please give me a call if there is any additional information I can provide you to expedite the handling of this matter. I am also sending you a revised road maintenance agreement for Peeler Creek. Please forward it to the county attorney for his review and, I hope, approval . Again, let me know if I can provide any further information on this or if fur- ther changes are needed. We are hoping to be able to transfer ownership of lots beginning later this month. Thank you for your assistance in these matters. Sincerely, L 'IL? Post Office Drawer J Carrbsro. North Caroiina.27510 919/967-9948 26k. DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Resources Committee to bring a recommendation to the regular May 19, 1986 meeting. Those making the motion agreed. Smith noted that the Bingham TAC will be meeting May 1 , 1986 to receive more TheoTACthas requested thattthe Commissionersdattend • this meeting'. AGENDA ITEM #4: COMMISSIONERS BRIEFS - INFORMATION ONLY AGENDA ITEM #5: CHAIR COMMENTS Jacobs informed the Board of a meeting on April 29, 1986 at the Barn at Hillsborough Town Hall at 7:30 p•m• for an informational session on the Pantry Area Study and at 8:30 Hillsborough Planning Board and Hillsborough TAC members will meet with the County Planning Board. Jacobs asked that the Board consent to allow staff to advertise ordinance amendments for public hearing in late May. Ordinance Review Committee will meet April 30 and bring its recommendation to the Planning Board on May 19. Jacobs informed the Board that at the Public Hearing on March 25, at least three people asked for another public hearing on the Calvander Industrial Node and Commissioner Chair Willhait had referred this matter to the Planning Board for its decision. He proposed that the Orange County Planning Board host a public hearing on the Calvander Industrial Node as near the site as possible inviting the Carrboro Planning Board and Staff and ask that Carrboro Planning Staff present reasons for requesting the industrial node giving the citizens of Calvander the opportunity for. discussion of the pros and cons of such a node. The date set for this meeting was May 7, 1986. Pilkey asked that the Economic Development Director also be invited to hopefully help answer questions. Jacobs announced the Communications Committee will be meeting in early May to finalize plans for a potluck meeting for the TACs and Planning Board members at Moorefields on Sunday afternoon, May 25, 1986. \\\\ GENDA ITEM # REAPPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PEELER CREEK - REAP ��'� EL I hl I NARY AND FINAL DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats for Peeler Creek Subdivision. The Planning Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan for Peeler Creek Subdivision on February 18, 19$5. The County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan on March 6, 1985. The Final Plat was approved by the Planning Board on April 15, 1986. Final plat approval is valid for 6 months as stated in Section III-E-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. This approval has expired and the developer did not record the plat. To avoid an additional month 's delay in the approval schedule, the planning staff recommends that the preliminary and final plat be reconsidered for approval at the same meeting. The property in question is located in Bingham Township off Ferguson Road (SR 1948) . it Is known as Lot 8, Tax Map 37B. There are 8 lots proposed out of approximately 16. 16 acres. Each lot is 1 .5 acres or larger. The property is zoned A-R and is designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The front portion of the property is in the University Lake Watershed and a stormwater management report has been received for this portion of the subdivision which includes 4 lots. These lots are referenced as Lots #5, 6, 7 and 8 on the plat. The applicant is proposing a Class B road to serve the eight lots. The addition of 8 lots to this area could add approximately 60 trips per day to Ferguson Road. There is no traffic count date available on Ferguson Road . However, the addition of this subdivision would have a minimal impact on the road system. There has been no change in the development ordinances or in the conditions around the site which would affect the reapproval of this subdivision. Therefore, the Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. NOTION: Shanklin moved approval of the preliminary and final plats for Peeler Creek. Seconded by Yuhasz. 271 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 Best inquired why the plat was not 'recorded. Buz Lloyd, developer, responded he thought he had twelve months to record. the plat. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #6b: LAUREL SPRINGS - PHASE 1 - FINAL Presentation by Susan Smith. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider for approval a Final Plat for Laurel Springs Phase I . The property in question is located in Chapel Hill Township off .Dairyland Road (SR 1104) . It is known as Tax Map 110 Lot 24 in Chapel Hill Township. The Preliminary Plat for Laurel Springs was approvded by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners with conditions on February 17 and March 3, 1986 respectively. The applicant is submitting the Final Plat for Phase I only. The total number of lots proposed for Laurel Springs in the preliminary plan was seventy-six (76) . The submitted final plat for Phase I contains twenty-three (23) lots, including additional lot to the number approved on the prelimiery plan for Laurel Springs . This lot was designated to take advantage of sufficient area for an additional lot as determined in the survey of the site. Upon further on-site inspection the applicant determined that t ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT 271 L eeting Date May 5, 1286 Action Age nda Woods Edge Mobile Home Park NT: PLANNING nt(s)From Applicant e Excerpts phs (to be provided at meeting) Item �(PUBLIC HEARING Yes X _ No information Contact: Susan Smith Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 To consider a waiver of the public hearing requirement for a modification to the Woods Edge Mobile Home Park planned development special use permit. The applicant Roger Dale Stephens, is requesting that the Board waive the requirement for a public hearing on a request for modification to the approved planned development special use permit for Woods Edge Mobile Home Park . Mr. Stephens wishes to make permanent an office mobile home which was installed on a temporary basis to assist placement of tenants on the park . In addition, he wishes to use an existing foundation (not shown on the site plan) submitted to public hearing and approved to erect a storage facility composed of individual cubicles for each mobile home unit. Both requests would increase the floor area for the planned development. Section 8.7. 1 of the Orange Zoning Ordinance states that an increase in usable floor area constitutes a modification to an approved planned development. Section 8.7 further states that The Zoning officer "shall not have the power to approve changes that constitute a modification" of the planned development special use permit. Section 8.7.2 provides that " If it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning officer shall require the applicant to submit a request for modification of the approval special use permit . . . shall submit the request to the Board which approved the original application (and) the Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the modification request." The Board shall subsequently approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application for modification. 27 IMPACT: Approval of the applicant's request would allow the placement of an office mobile home and construction of a storage facility on the site following staff review and approval . Disapproval of the request would require conducting public hearing and approval procedures in accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: To set a public hearing on the request for modification of the planned development special use permit for May 27, 1986. Route 4, Box 61 Hillsborough, NC 27278 April 28, 1986 To: Orange County Board of Commissioners Re: Request modification in Wood's Edge Mobile Home Park, Article 8.7 Dear Sirs: Please accept this. letter as a request for two modifications in my original plans. 1. I would'like to build a storage building on a pre-existing footing. The building would contain individual units assigned to each mobile home. This would eliminate storage buildings being strown throughout the park and give occupants of the park a place to store such things as furniture, motorcycles and household goods. Since the footing has been on the property for at least seven to ten years and is occuping the area anyway, with no effect at all to the recreational area or open space, i feel this minor modification will serve two purposes, it will give the mobile home owners a place to store their valuables in sight of their home, plus protect the appearance of the park by centralizing all storage buildings. 2. I have a temporary office at the entrance of the park. I would like permissions to leave it there to use as a permanent office. Since these are minor changes, would not affect anyone's property outside the park and would only add to the appearance and convenience of the park and its occupants, but represent a modification of the original plan I ask that you approved these changes under Article 8. 7 without going through the lengthy, costly and time consuming process of a new application. Thanking you, I am, Yoursy trulyi --u- Roger'Dale Stephens • 274 -1 8.4.7 Imposed Conditions The Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Ad}UStn+�nt as appropriate, may impose such reasonable conditions upon , approval of a Special Use as will afford protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, ensure that sub- stantial justice is done and equitable treatment provided. Such Conditions shall run with the land and use, and shall be binding on the original, applicant (s) as well as all successors, assigns and heirs. * 8.4.8 Withdrawal of Application • An applicant may withdraw their application at any time by written notice to the County Manager. However, any withdrawal of an application after the printing of the first notice as required in 8.4.4 shall have the same effect as a denial of the petition. *8.4.9 Effect of Denial on Subsequent petitions When the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Ad' as appropriate, shall have denied an application, 7ustment, of County Commissioners or Board of Adjusmentshall enotd 11[ receive another application for the same O affecting the same property r similar petition ended 10-4-82* pert y or a portion thereof until the ex- p'1 ration of a one year period, extending from the date of denial. 8.5 Action Subse ent To The Board Action The Zoning Officer shall within seven days cause notice of the disposition of the application to be sent by certified mail to the applicant and a copy of the decision to be filed in the office .of the Zoning Officer. The Zoning Officer, in the case of ac roval o conditions, shall issue the necessary p or approval with the Board's action. permit in accord with * The Orange County Manager shall certify that the Special Use Permit with any imposed conditions is as approved by the Board of County Commissioners or Board of Adjustment, as appropriate. 8.6 Contents of Application for Anprova7, of A S cial Use The application for approval of a Special Use shall be submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such '°d 7/6/82 forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its 8-5 i:; 27�.' location, appearance, and operational characteristics shall be disclosed. Additionally, the forms shall, when completed by the applicant, disclose the name (s) - and address (es) of the owner (s) of the property involved, and all relevant information needed to show compliance with the general and specific stan- dards governing the Special Use which is the subject of the application. (See Section 8.2) 8.7 Minor Changes To Be Approved By Zoning Officer; Modifi- cations Require Action By Approving Board The Zoning Officer is authorized to approve minor changes in the approved plans of Special Uses, as long as they are in harmony with action of the approving Board, but shall not have the power to approve changes that constitute a modification of the approval. A modification shall require approval of the Board having jurisdiction. 8.7.1 Criteria To Be Used In Determination The Zoning Officer shall use the following criteria in determining whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification: *Amended 7-5-83 a) Any change in a condition imposed during the approval , of a special use permit shall consititute a modifi- cation. `Amended 7-5-83 b) Any change. in use or enlargement of existing use shall constitute a modification. c) Any increase in intensity of use shall constitute a modification. An increase in intensity of use shall be considered to be an increase in usable floor area, an increase in the number of dwelling or lodging units. d) Structural alterations which significantly affects the basic size, form, style, ornamentation, and or character of the building as shown on the approved site plan or described in the applicants narrative shall be con- sidered a modification. e) Substantial change in the amount and/or location of open space, recreation facilities or landscape screening shall constitute a modification. f) Any increase in the size or number of approved signs shall constitute a modification. g) Any change in parking areas resulting in an increase , reduction of five percent or more in the number of sr, approved shall constitute a modification, h) Substantial changes in pedestrian and/or vehicular access or circulation shall constitute a modification. 8-5A *Amended i) Any change 'in a setback required by the 7-5-E3 o'f this Ordinance or imposed as a conditionvofyoas approval shall constitute a modification. *Amended j) Any change in the location or extent of street and 7-5-83 . utility improvements or rights-of-way, including water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, which would provide a different level of service shall constitute a modification. 8.7.2 Review of Record Required r nded -83 The Zoning Officer shall, before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification review the record of the proceedings on the original application for approval of the Special Use. The determination shall be based upon the request of the applicant; the review of the record of the approval of -the original request and the Zoning Officer's findings under the criteria of Section 8.7.1. Required on proposed Minor Changes or Modifications ded 83 The Zoning Officer shall, if it is' determined that the proposed action is a minor change, state the findings in writing to the applicant. The applicant shall file with the Zoning Officer an amended site plan, or written statement, outlining in detail the minor change(s) proposed. The Zoning Officer shall file the amended site plan or written statement with the approved site plan. If it is determined that the proposed action is a modification, the Zoning Officer shall require the applicant to submit a request for modification of the approved special use permit. The applicant shall provide an amended site plan and written narrative outlining the specific changes requested. The Zoning Officer shall submit the request to the Board which approved the original application. The Board shall set a public hearing to receive testimony concerning the modification request. Any public hearing called pursuant to a modification of an approved special use permit shall be held in conformity with the require- ments of Section 8.4.4. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the application for a modification. The Zoning Officer shall file the Board's action in his office as an amendment request to the original application. 8.8 Regulations Governing Individual Special Uses The regulations for each Class A and Class B Special Use are divided generally into two sections: the first consists of additional and specific components of the application beyond those necessary to comply with Section 8.6, while the second consists of the specific standards which are supplementary to the general standards in Section 8.2 and to the required con- ditions in Subsection 8.4.7. 8-6 ORANGE COUNTY 277 PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT L eeting Date May 5, 1986 Action nda Meadow Lane - PPP Petition Item NT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No Information Contact: Susan Smith nt(s)tition liminary Assessment Resolution Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 To consider the petition for the (Meadow Lane (SR 1195) participatory paving project for acceptance. To adopt the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the project. To set a public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. The Meadow Lane PPP project was accepted as a project by the Board of Commissioners on April 16, 1985 . Meadow Lane is listed on the NCDOT 1985-86 Secondary Road Improvements Program. The project is listed as priority #2 on the Orange County PPP Program.14 of 17 property owners (82% of the property owners) owning 14 of 17 lots have signed the petition accounting for approximately 2160.24 feet of frontage or 87% of the total road frontage. The petition meets the criteria for eligibility to participate in the program.To continue with the procedures, the Preliminary Assessment Resolution must be adopted and a public hearing on the same scheduled. The Resolution provides for assessment on the basis of an equal rate per foot of frontage. Upon approval of the petition the assessment resolution and assessment roll can be prepared and public hearings on both items scheduled.TION: Accept the petition. 27cAdopt the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. Schedule a public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for May 20, 1986. NORTH CAROLINA L• 27t ORANGE COUNTY PETITION FOR PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD 11195 ALSO KNOWN AS MEADOW LANE We the undersigned, being property owners of land that will be assessed if a Final Assessment Resolution is adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County providing for the financing of the local share of the costs of paving North Carolina State Road 01195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and assessment by Orange County of the total local share of the project, which local share is estimated to be 310,514.01, do hereby petition the Department of Transportation to pave the above described road and do hereby petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to finance the local share of the cost of the paving of the above described road. Township Tax Map, Block & Lot �.u.mtze r dr s Ilam4Iaza 7. IiiA. ,2 Charles & Jackie Rector Rt. 4, 305 Ro l l i ngwood Rd. Chapel Htll , NC 27514 ^ .1 7. I I I A. .5 AA& Charlotte Lewis c� _ Rt. 4, 200 Meadow Lane Chapel Hill , NC 27514 (_' ' �. . : '. 7. IIIA. .6 George & Wanda Inscoe f Lam, 202 Meadow Lane q 1 Chapel Hill , NC 27514 Jack & Ann Mellott Rt• 6, Box 93 Columbus, MD 39702 . 22 r•�f�lA. .$ David &Chanela Hayes 508 N. Wrightsville Beach,Drive Beach, SC 28480 7. 111A. .9 Thomas & Norma Bell Rt. 4, Box 208 Meadow Lane = �' Chapel Hill , NC . 27514 "'' 2 7. IIIA. . 10 William & Agnes Steiner / Rt. 4, Box 210 Meadow Lane G�� ' Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. IIIA. . 11 � Steve & Cedonla Edwards Rt. 4, 212 Meadow Lane Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 11lA. . 12 Daniel & lie Stallings i 10 Riverview Circle 1 - / djr Granite Falls, NC '� 28630 // i 7. 111A. . 13 Johnnie Obie �- .r r " �� Rt. r 4, 213 Meadow Lane t E,' 1," fig —e. Chapel Hill , NC 27514 r A07 7. 11 (A. . 15 � �..� j� Pat Gallarelli Rt. 4, 211 Meadow Lane i ' , f� Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 111A. . 16 Margaret Holmes 644 Massachusetts Ave. NE Washington, DC 20002 7. 111A. . 16A Harrell Chotas Rt. 4 207 Meadow Lane "`� Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. IlIA. . 17 Robert & Fern Clark Rt. 4, Box 205 Meadow Lane ' �'� J Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1IIA. . 17A Geddes Ramsey Rt. 4, 203 Meadow Lane 7 �- Vii' Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. IIIA. . 18 James Rt. 4 201 Kimberly Meadow Lane /'Lt, i Chapel Hill , NC 27 �.~ 7. IIIA. 1g 514 r John '�'-" Karen Bryant Rt. 4, Box 312 ,.�1 I ��-� ` Chapel Hill , NC 27514 If 4 I A A meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, was held at Hillsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 5th day of May, 1986. Present: Absent: ****************************************************************** The following resolution was read to the Board:. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCING BY ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD #1195, ALSO KNOWN AS MEADOW LANE, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County has received a petition requesting the paving of North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, which petition has been signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of property adjoining the said roads, which property represents at least seventy-five (75%) of the lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting the said roads, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205 (c) ; and 28'4 WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has elected to finance the local share of the costs of paving the said road (s) , as permitted by North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-185 (4) and as provided for in North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205; IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. That the basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of th total project cost. the 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with 28 the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that a public hearing on - all matters covered by this Preliminary Assessment Resolution will be held on the 20th day of May, 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , during the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, at the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986, the date set for the hearing, in a newspaper having a general circulation in Orange County. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO FINANCE THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD #1195, ALSO IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP,' MEADOW ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has adopted a Preliminary Assessment Resolution as follows: ... 28 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. The basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. 28 .: A public hearing will be held at 7:30 o!clock' p.m. , on the 20th day of May, 1986 , at the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North . Carolina, the regular place of meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, in order to discuss all matters covered by the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. At the time and place above stated, any resident of Orange County or any other interested person may appear and be heard. This the day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, N.C. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this Preliminary Assessment Resolution to be mailed by first-class mail to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986 . The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby directed to file with the Board of Commissioners a certificate that the Preliminary Assessment Resolution was mailed as directed using a form substantially as follows: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or before 28t the 9th day of May, 1986, I mailed, by first-class mail, osta ge prepaid, A a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of ert ro assessment if the project is undertaken. P A Y subject to WITNESS my hand and official seal of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, this the of May, 1986. day BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] This resolution is effective upon its passage. Thereupon Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following ollowing vote; Ayes: Noes: I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the proceedings of said Board of Commissioners at a meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1986, so far as the same relate to the Preliminary Assessment Resolution 2� for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road #1195., also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, as such proceedings are recorded in Minute Book WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said Board, this the day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] O R APLANNINGCBOARDN T Y ' $ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date SUBJECT: Rollingwood and Stallings Roads Action ends Petition Item - PPP P DEPARTMENT; PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes �f No Attachment(s) Information Contact; Susan Smith Petition Preliminary Assessment Resolution Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968_4501 PURPOSE: To consider the petition for the 9 Road (SR (Rollingwood Road (SR 1194) and tallin s Sceptagce. 1198) ) participatory paving project for To adopt the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the To set a project. public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. NEED: The Rollingwood and Stallings Roads PPP project by the Board of Commissioners onpJulyc1 ,w1985. Roll ng a Road ndrotallingsPRoadaa are The on the NCDOT Rollingwood Road Orange project is listed as Secondary County PPP Program. priority #3 on 28 of 31 property of of lots opee ys owners,toe 90% of the property of 37 lots feet petition forers, owning f a 32 of frontage or $9% accounting for approximately petition meets the criteria of the total road frontage. The program. for eligibility to participate in the Tosclnti continue mwithbthedoroceduresa the Preliminary Assessment r Public hearin of an equal rate per foot of frontageQr assessment on the scheduled. The Resolution basis IMPACT: Upon approval of the petition the assessment resolution sessment roll can be prepared and public hearings on and it a ems scheduled. 28s RECOMMENDATION. Accept the petition. Adopt the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. Schedule a public hearing on the Preliminary Assessment Resol for May 20, 1986. ution A NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY PETITION FOR PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROADS 11194 and 1198 ALSO KNOWN AS ROLLINGWOOD ROAD AND STALLINGS ROAD We the undersigned, being Property owners of land that will be assessed if a Final Assessment Resolution is adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County providing for the financing of the local share of the costs of Carolina State roads. 11194 and 11198, also known Paving. North as Rollingw.. oodRoad and Stallings Road, in Chapel. Hill Orange Township, a 9 County, North Carolina, and assessment by County of the total local share of the project, which range share Is estimated to be $20,768.63, do hereby h local Y petition the Department of Transportation to pave the above described road and do hereby petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to finance the local share of the cost of the paving of the above described roads. Township, Tax Map, Block & Lot 1111.m.hat _— jys3m_v_sIld Addrac� 7. 1118. .4 Sara Young 101 Roll ingwood Drive i,4 it/ ;'KP Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1118. .5 Helen & Vernon Worley 2-11:--- --' Rt. 4 Roll Ingwood A r Chapel Hill , NC 27514 Y1 7. 1118. .6 Helen & Vernon Worley F 9-6,-,e---2 , Rt. 4 Roilingwood '� 1 Chapel Hill , NC 27514 29 7. III8. .7 Helen & Vernon Worley ` ®\ Rt.. 4 Rollingwood. Chapel Hi11 , NC 27514 7. 1 l I B. .8 111 19 n pAr„, °%f� � r�tri _ � Ma r`garet-g I aiE ' A / S trern-Par-d er s ey Ave. 2.3.7,v3.--/-4:e s,--NC 28.387 c?� !. 7. I I 1 B. .9 c1+,)./k1 /4.)/( --�_ Gustavo & Charlene Fernande e_ 109 Rol Kingwood Rd. ;" !J. Chapel Hill , NC 27514 1' '' Elizabeth Lackey I Joseph Buckner �`- ✓ 214 W. Rosemary Chapel Hill , NC S2r5et AL 27514 . 7. 1118. . 11 Daniel & Davey i Rt. 4, Box 16 Yo S a ? m-4 _ ... .ice Lys/ Granite Falls, NC 28630 7. 1116. . 12 Richard & Sara Phillips Box 2351 r ' , r► �r/o Chapel Hill , NC 25714 f',2/- 7. I 1 16. . 13 c Delma & Ann Register 207 Rollingwood Road A . Chapel Hill , NC 27514 r' 7. I I f B. . 15 Doyl e & Frances Smith 301 Rollingwood Road Chapel Hill , NC 27514 w j/ 7. 1116. . 17 Ronald & Millie Holmes 300 Rollingwood Road Chapel Hill , NC 27514 ---/) 7. 11113. .1B Victor & Gall Benoit y� G 204 Ro i l i ngwood Road Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1118„ 19 David & Joanne Drake P.O. Box 904 �'`rf`�'� 1!�, Chapel Hill , NC 27514 1 7. 1116. .20 Allen & Marquita Barker 200 Rollingwood Rd. 1G�2� �,-� Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7 . 1 1 16. .21 Richard Sparrow -4% 412- ard & Kathy p ' ' ' 100 Keith Lane Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 111B. .22 Richard & Joan Ward 104 Rollingwood Road t �C-.�•�i( Chapel Hill , NC 27514 • • 7. 1118. .30 Ronald Madeline �! �� r! 9� ne Goldstein 1 BOX 716 yX. Carrboro, NC 27510 zi � rfAr 7. 1118. .31 Thomas & Rhonda Cheek 1� / 101 Stallings Road :/ _�w.Ce r . f r ip,Chapel Hill , �NC 27514 .._,./-14„,--1/,..42.0.- ! ' 7. 1118. .32 Charlie & Tammfe Bynum � Rt. 4 Box 100 4.�� .�. . Chapel H i l l , NC 27514 IMMA` ''�-� 7.1 1118. .33 Cynthia Kromer 1 102 Stallings Road 4'6e` , Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1118. .34 Arlene .Smart 104 Stallings Road Rt.4 Chapel Hill , NC 27514 I Ara M 7. 1118. .33 ary4Garner 100 Howell Lane Chapel Hill , NC 27514 ivMvi 7. 111B. 3 6 Mary Garner 100 Nowell Lane Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1118. .37 Deborah Beauchaine c`' () 1 1 10 Stallings Road :_,,-6,..1(„ A ,(., `A" � Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 111A. . 1 Frederick & Carolyn Merricks ' Rt. 4, Box 426C " ./" �, Chapel Hill , NC 27514 f 7. 111A. .2 Charles & Jackie Rector -/ .. it Rt. 4, 305 Rollingwood Road �" "r '� � `� `"" Chapel Hill , NC 27514 _. `y 7. I I IA. .3 Bobby � '� Y & Kay Crissman � �r 7 302 Rollingwood Road Chapel Hill , NC 27514 '1 , 7. I I iA. .4 - .2."-- Bobby. & Sylvia Crissman �� 302 Rollingwood Road /f ` ' � . Chapel Hill , NC 27514 David & Charlotte Lewis Rt. 4 200 Meadow Lane ''�` ,, < Gz Chapel Hill , NC 27514 /' / a GyRI. 7. 1116. .23 Richard $ Joan Ward ,rj 104 Rollingwood Road d urn/ Chapel Hill , NC 27514 ', i ( 7. I118. .24 Anthony 1 Y Betty Moore ff y, 102 Huckleberry Drive �t"`"' /G Chapel mil , NC 27514 ,L� • 7. I I PB. .25 . '''' - Rufus & Sara Lee 100 Rol I ingwood Road � ' .-^ Chapel Hill', NC 25714 / --1 An Brinkhous, Rt. 4 1 1 1 Stallings Road C. v1.v1. Chapel Hill , NC 27514 F 1 4 4-44,0 7. 11 16. .27 �00 Y�Garner Dwell Lane • Chapel Hill , NC 27514 7. 1116. .28 William Bunch ,, „ P.O. Box 3678 :�`�'� Chapel Hills NC 27514- . 7. 1118. .29 Warren & Alberta Via 307 Clayton Road Chapel Hill , NC 27514 ',y 29 A meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, was held at Hillsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 5th day of May, 1986. Present: Absent: The following resolution was read to the Board: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCING BY ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD (s) ALSO KNOWN AS ROLLINGWOOD ROAD AND STALLINGS ROAD, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County has received a petition requesting the paving of North Ca State Road s rolina { ) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, which petition has been signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of property adjoining the said roads, which property represents at least seventy-five (75$ "' (75%) of the ;; lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting the said roads, ` R pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205 (0 and 153A-205 (c) ; WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has s 1 •L 29 elected to finance the local share of the costs of paving the said road (s) , as permitted by North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-185 (4) and as provided for in North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205; IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood .Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. That the basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at . an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-nine and one-tenth percent (99.1%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) 29r days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that a public hearing on all matters covered by this Preliminary Assessment Resolution will be held on the 20th day of May, 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , during the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, at the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time, not less than ten (10) days . prior to May 20, 1986, the date set for the hearing, in a newspaper having a general circulation in Orange County. Such notice shall be in substantially the• following form: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO FINANCE THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD(S) #1194 AND #1198 , ALSO KNOWN AS ROLLINGWOOD ROAD AND STALLINGS ROAD, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has adopted a Preliminary Assessment Resolution as follows: 29' 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. The basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-nine and one-tenth percent (99.1%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not y paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, due sixt y (6D) with interest, d ,} days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. 29 • A public hearing will be held at 7: 30 o'clock p.m. , on the 20th day of May, 1986, at the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, in order to discuss all matters covered by the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. At the time and place above stated, any resident of Orange County or any other interested person may appear and be heard. This the day of May, 1986, BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, N.C. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this Preliminary Assessment Resolution to be mailed by first-class mail to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby directed to file with the Board of Commissioners a certificate that the Preliminary Assessment Resolution was mailed as directed using a form substantially as follows: 29 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING , I , Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or before the 9th day of May, 1986, I mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, y, North Carolina, to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken. WITNESS my hand and official seal of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, this the of May, 1986. day BEVERLY BLYTHE Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] This resolution is effective upon its passage. Thereupon Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner • the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following owing vote: Ayes: Noes: Y � 1 • 30i I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the proceedings of said Board of Commissioners at a meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1986, so far as the same relate to the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, as such proceedings are recorded in Minute Book WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said Board, this the day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL) ORANGE C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD 301 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date MAY��9g6 SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT OF Action enda REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ----PUBLIC HEARING Yes --� No Attachment(s) � Information Contact: LEGAL NOTICE (TO BE DISTRIBUTED) SUSAN SMITH • Telephone Numbers Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 ---- Chapel H i l l - 968-4501 PURPOSE: To review the legal advertisement for matte to public hearing on May 27, 1986. rs to be presented NEED: The Board of Commissioners has expressed a desire to proposal for text amendments to the County di an review ane legal notices advertising the same prior to advertisement. the The Planning Board reviewed following receipt the proposed text amendments rocoomengatio , of the Ordinance Review Both the Committee and the Board recommended that the amendments be forwarded to public eharing. The Planning Staff proposed that the o following amendments be presented to public hearing n May 27, 2086. 0 h' .LG 0EQLNA -Article 7 Planned Developments and Article 8 Special Use Perm' consolidation of the provisions of the articles it Article 7 Planned Development amend subsection 7.2.8 to extend the time initiation of construction for period for rezonings planned development Article 8 Special Use Permits - amend subsections 8.4.2 and 8.4.6 to period for review by staff and the Planning Boar the the time rd Article 8 Special Use Permit 30‹ - amend subsection 8.4 to establish pre-application meeting requirement -Article 5 Establishment of Dimensional Requirements - Modification of LUI requirements for recreation space Article 6 Application of Dimensional Requirements amend subsection 6.2 to provide for establishment of cluster development provisions Article 22 Definitions - establishment of .definition of "Cluster subdivision" Article 6 Application of Dimensional Requirements amend subsection 6.21 to provide option to screen skirt individual mobile homes on individual lots or Article 22 Definitions - provision of definition of "skirting" B Section IV establishment of cluster development provisions Section II Definitions - establishment of definition of "cluster development" Section IV Required Minimum Design Standards establishment of landscaping and buffer requirements Section IV Required Minimum Design Standards establishment of recreation standards ND _PLAN Amend the Land Use Plan for the area northeast of the Hillsborough along US 70, specifically called the "PA AREA PLAN" Town of "PANTRY STUDY A IMPACT: Review of the notice of the proposed advertisement would insure t understood by Public hearing is in a form that legal y persons not familiar with the that can be RECOMMENDATION: Accept as to form. subject. ORANGE COUNTY 30 Action Agenda L BOARD OF CO MSSIONERS xtem Ho.ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT E TING DA7 May 5, 1986 Governor's Stat ewide Volunteer Awards Program t: BOARD of CO SSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes g s: Information Contact: Shirley Marsll Under Separate Cover Phone limbers. 732`$lgl, 96$-4201, 227-0231 o submit nominees to the Governor for his S rogra . tatewide Volunteer Awards t the direction of the Board, various civic and community s wer ntacted and requested to submi nominees n three ferentocate ories. g e Board needs to select four (4) nominees lunteer Organization and -two y _ tee School Volunteer, one one vernor's Award for Communit Volunteers as recipients of the Outstanding Volunteer Service. 'These must be submitted the Governor`s office by June 16, 1986.e Governor will honor all nominees in the fall.:he Board decides. 3041 ORANGE COUNTY • BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Ag da lb Item No. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT STING DATE may 5, 1986 . Subject: APPOINTMENTS Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Public Hearing: Yes _ono Attachments: Under S information Contact: Beverly A. Blythe eparate Cover Phone Numbers: 732-8181, 9688-$501, 2270231 �E: To maintain membership at effective levels on Commissioners' . appointed Boar. The following vacan cy is announced for the first time for information only. B-3 �TAL HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCIES INC. - One vacancy due to an expiratio. of term for Bernard Segal on April 1, 198.. The following vacancies are announced together with the indication of the status bf securing candidates for appointment consideration. These vacancie- have all been advertised. A--13 - RECREATION AnD PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL - submitted for consideration. 5 vacancies; 6 resumes are fr5 - DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE • is submitted for consideration. vacancy; 1 resume • B'11 - SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE - 2 new resumes are C-7 ORANGE COUNTY ubmitted for consideration NTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 1 vacancy; res submitted for consideration. Ya limas are C-8 - ORANGE COUNTY FLAPtl'F M BOA - 3 resumes are submitted for considerat • OFFICIAL CBcjOj OF TEE WEIGHTS AND is requested by the Orange Count Historic FOR O GE COUNTY Y storic al Museum. - Appointment RECOMMENDATION: 1, As the Board decides.. • ' . .ORABGE COUNTY v - . Action Agtda. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Item Bo. ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MEETING DATE MAY 5, 1986 . ' Subject: . aNMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD I Department: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Xes COUNTY MANAGER I I Public Hearing: �._. no I Atta ts: Information Contact: William T. Laws Beverly Blythe • Phone Numbers: 732-51$1, 968-1501, 227-0231 PURPOSE: To consider appointments to an Environmental Affairs Board of repress from Cl) The Orange County Planning Board, _ nta3) g �., (2) Agricultural Extension, (3) Soil and Water Conservation, (4) Solid Waste Task Force, OWASA, (7) Board of Health and (8) Orange County Command Team.Towns, (6) Orange County was selected to receive a grant to help establish a board to advise and assist county commissioners on local environmental issues. Orange County would serve as a role model for other counties. The Orange County Board of Commissioners approved acceptance of the grant on March 18, 1986. It is important that members be appointed to this Board so that goals can be addressed and a written report done by June 20, 1986. After the composition of the Board is revised and/or approved, each agency will be contacted and asked to submit names of persons who would be willing to serve on this board. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the composition of the Environmental Affairs Board. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. MOSES CAREY 27278 BEN LLOYD $}DALEY E.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHOIT May 9, 1986 Cindy Sharer Traffic Engineer 101 City Hall Durham, NC 27701 Dear Ms, Sharer: Susan Smith of our Planning Staff re to you the NCDOT transportation Program thatewasdapprt I send roved the Orange County Board of Commn.ssionersi meeting heldon May 5, 1986. Please add to this request the endorse 1& for improvements, of Old Lystra Road 'co the edaby Chatham County , SR19 � gcommended by me know. I can provide any addito7 1nfo3iir , please let Sincerely, ` r Beverly A. Blythe Clerk Orange County Board of Commissioners /bab File Attachments _:_->_— A meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, was held at Hillsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 5th day of May, 1986. Present: Don Willhoit Chair Commissione. s se- C r Ben LLD d and Shirl Marshall Absent: Commissioner Norman Walker ****************************************************************** The following resolution was read to the Board: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCING BY ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD #1195, ALSO KNOWN AS MEADOW IN CHAPEL HILLTOWNSHIIP, ORANGE COUNTY,. NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County has received a petition requesting the paving of North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County,y, North Carolina, which petition has been signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of Property adjoining the said roads, which property represents at least seventy-five (75%) of the lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting the said roads, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205 (c) . and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has elected to finance the local share of the costs of paving the said road (s) , as permitted by North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-185 (4) and as provided for in North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205; IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. That the basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that a public hearing on all matters covered by this Preliminary Assessment Resolution will be held on the 20th day of May, 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , during the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, at the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986, the date set for the hearing, in a newspaper having a general circulation in Orange County. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO FINANCE THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD 11195, IN CHAPEL ALSO AS MEADOW LANE, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has adopted a Preliminary Assessment Resolution as follows: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. The basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. A public hearing will be held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 20th day of May, 1986, at the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, in order to discuss all matters covered by the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. At the time and place above stated, any resident of Orange County or any other interested person may appear and be heard. This the 5th day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, N.C. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this Preliminary Assessment Resolution to be mailed by first-class mail to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby directed to file with the Board of Commissioners a certificate that the Preliminary Assessment Resolution was mailed as directed using a form substantially as follows: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or before the 9th day of May, 1986 I mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken. WITNESS my hand and official seal of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, this the of May, 1986. day BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] This resolution is effective upon its passage. Thereupon Commissioner Llo d moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Care the motion, passed by seconded and the resolution was assed b the following vote: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the proceedings of said Board of Commissioners at a meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1986, so far as the same relate to the Preliminary Assessment Resolution a f . for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road #1195, also known as Meadow Lane, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, as such proceedings are recorded in Minute Book 1 WITNESS my ��. Y hand and the official seal of said Board, this the 5th day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] • A meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, was held at Hillsborough, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 5th day of May, 1986. Present: Don Willhoit Chair Commissioners Moses Care Be Lloyd and Shinl Marshall Absent: Commissioner Norman Walker The following resolution was read to the Board: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCING BY ORANGE COUNTY OF THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD(s) #1194 AND #1198, ALSO KNOWN AS ROLLINGWOOD ROAD AND STALLINGS ROAD, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County has received a petition requesting the paving of North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, which petition has been signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of property adjoining the said roads, which property represents at least seventy-five (75%) of the lineal feet of frontage of the lands abutting the said roads, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205 (c) ; and WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has elected to finance the local share of the costs of paving the said road(s) , as permitted by North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-185 (4) and as provided for in North Carolina General Statutes Section 153A-205; IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. That the basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-nine and one-tenth percent (99.1%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that a public hearing on all matters covered by this Preliminary Assessment Resolution will be held on the 20th day of May, 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , during the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, at the old Post Office in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a notice of the public hearing to be given by publication one time, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986, the date set for the hearing, in a newspaper having a general circulation in Orange County. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO THE FINANCE THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PAVING NORTH CAROLINA STATE ROAD(S) #1194 AND #1198, ALSO KNOWN AS ROLLINGWOOD ROAD AND STALLINGS ROAD, IN CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Article 9 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County has adopted a Preliminary Assessment Resolution as follows: 1. Orange County shall undertake financing of the local share of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. 2. The basis for assessment for the local share of the costs of this project shall be frontage abutting the road at an equal rate per foot of frontage. 3. Orange County will assess the total local share according to the basis set out in number 2 above, which local share represents approximately ninety-nine and one-tenth percent (99.1%) of the total project cost. 4. No assessments of this project will be held in abeyance. 5. The assessments shall be paid in the following manner: a. Within thirty (30) days after the Notice of Confirmation of the Assessment Roll is published, each owner of the property may pay his or her assessment in full. b. Any assessment not paid in full as provided above shall be paid in five (5) equal annual installments with the first such installment, with interest, due sixty (60) days after the date that the assessment roll is confirmed, and the remaining installments, with interest, due on the same date in each successive year until the assessment is paid in full. A public hearing will be held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. , on the 20th day of May, 1986, at the old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the regular place of meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, in order to discuss all matters covered by the Preliminary Assessment Resolution. At the time and place above stated, any resident of Orange County or any other interested person may appear and be heard. This the 11th day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, N.C. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby authorized and directed to cause a copy of this Preliminary Assessment Resolution to be mailed by first-class mail to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken, not less than ten (10) days prior to May 20, 1986. The Clerk to the Board of Commissioners is hereby directed to file with the Board of Commissioners a certificate that the Preliminary Assessment Resolution was mailed as directed using a form substantially as follows: CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or before the 9th day of May, 1986, I mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, to each owner, as shown on the county tax records of property subject to assessment if the project is undertaken. WITNESS my hand and official seal of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, this the 9th day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL] This resolution is effective upon its passage. Thereupon Commissioner Llo d moved the passage of the foregoing resolution and Commissioner Carey seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: ****************************************************************** I, Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the proceedings of said Board of Commissioners at a meeting held on the 5th day of May, 1986, so far as the same relate to the Preliminary Assessment Resolution for the financing by Orange County of the local share of the cost of paving North Carolina State Road (s) #1194 and #1198, also known as Rollingwood Road and Stallings Road, in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina as such proceedings are recorded in Minute Book 1 WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said Board, this the 5th day of May, 1986. BEVERLY BLYTHE, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C. [SEAL) • • • • RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN ORANGE WATER AND, SEWER AUTHORITY (OWASA)OFVOLUNTARIILYGSUBMIT TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FARM PROPERTIES, WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough and OWASA current) cond municipal sewage sludge application operations at Y ucc rates on privately owned farm properties, and agronomic WHEREAS, OWASA plans to apply agronomic rates to property owned bynOWASAIandeIntendeddto be used for the raising of an agricultural product., and privatelYmownedsand aOWASAuownedwirhin which a number of expressed properties are the P concerns with the loseted have application activities and with potential of impactse oniuthe physical , environmental and social conditions of the community, and the WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is the permitti ng and inspections agency for the conduct of these operations, and WHEREAS, the General Statutes of Orange County Zoning Ordinance exempt Noagh Carolina and the from local government land use reguation, iantural land use d WHEREAS, the Board of WHEREAS, County Commissioners recognizes that is a need to exercise local review procedures for the application of municipal sewage sludge by public agencies to both and approval private and public properties, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Orange Count Commissioners requests that the Town of Hillsborough and OWASA County Board of voluntarily submit to respective municipal slud e a a local review of their eipete 9 application operations to both Properties and properties owned by either agency. Adopted this the fifth day of May, 1$86. .. / //,, DON WILLHOIT, CHAIR ----------- ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: CHANGE ORDER Distribution to: OWNER ❑ AM DOCUMENT G701 ARCHITECT 0 CONTRACTOR ❑ FIELD ❑ OTHER ❑ PROJECT: Orange County Animal Shelter (name,address) Expansion CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: Animal Shelter Drive TO (Contractor chapel Hill, N.C. INITIATION DATE: 4-24-86 Holt Construction Co. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 85-101 P.O. Drawer 118 CONTRACT FOR: Graham, N.C. 27253 Orange County Animal L_ Shelter Expansion CONTRACT DATE: You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: 3-17-86 1. Actual hardware costs of $1,247.00 exceeded the contract hardware allowance of $1,000.00 by $247.00 plus 10% overhead and profit of $24.70. Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ....••,,- $ The(Contract Sum) (_.. .- •••--.•••-....._ _ _ 56,460 , 00 —- - prior to this Change . 00 The (Contract Sum) (_•. •- - —- - g Order was by this Change Order = ) will be (increased) (deFC _c._ $ 56,460 . 00 The new(Contract Sum) (_ $ The Contract Time will be ( a including this Change'Order will be $ 271 . 70- The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of thi 'Change} Order therefore is 56,731 . 70 by ( 0 ) Days. Dail Dion & Associates September 12, 1986 Holt Construction Co, Authorized: ,gRCNITECI Orange County Suite L20A, Carr Mill CONTRACTOR • Address P.0. Drawer 118 OWNER Carrboro, N.C. 27510 Address lO5 E. Mar aret Lane r- / C' m N.C. Address 'M272 3 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 a/BYDATE +y C 8 B a� BY RiAt DATE / 3 C) 'j AI DOCUMENT'c7o1 DATE THE E AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTSS,,1735 NEW YORK AVE.,NTW WASHINGTON,• ©1978 D.C.20006• APRIL 1978 I, Moses Carey, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faith fully discharge the duties of my office as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review to be influenced by personal or political friendships or obligations, so help me God. Jhae Signature I, Don Willhoit, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faith fully discharge the duties of my office as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review of Orange County, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review to be influenced by personal or political friendships or obligations, so help me God. A -- 0-J1/42/1/ 1 Signature I, Shirley Marshall, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faith fully discharge the duties of any office as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review of orange County, North Carolina, and that I will not allow my actions as a member of the Board of Equalization and Review to be influenced by personal or political friendships or obligations, so help me God. ■ f7V4.-14-467 Sig nature ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 106 EAST l cjj T•°,,,y HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. MORES 27278 BEN LLOYD SIHRLEYE.MARSHALL NORMAN WALKER DON WILLHQIT June 2, 1986 Mr. Eric B. Munson Executive Director Office of the Director North Carolina Memorial Hospital Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Mr. Munson: Carolina Attached Memorial is a Hospital copy of the agreement between the North and Qrange County for its office of Emergency Medical Services. If this office can be of any further s 3 not hesitate to�,contact me. e� please do Sincerely, Mrs. Beverly A. Blythe , Clerk /bab Attachment • • • RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY (OWASA) VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FARM PROPERTIES.; • WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough and OWASA currentl municipal sewage Sludge application operations at Y conduct rates on privately owned farm properties, and agronomic ic WHEREAS, OWASA plans to a WHEREAS, rates to property pply municipal sewage sludge at . used for the raising of agriculturall product, and to be WHEREAS, members of a community within which a number of the privad-e:ly-owned and OWASA-owned properties expressed concerns with the ' f these sludge application activities and with conduct. of these sludge Physical , environmental and social impacts on the community, and ocial canditlons of the WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is the permitting inspections agency for the conduct of these operations, and WHEREAS, the General Statutes of North Carolina and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance exempt agricultural land uses from local government land use regulation, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes that there is a need to exercise local review procedures for the application of municipal sewage sludge public agencies to both private and public properties, by NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners requests that the Town OWASA voluntarily submit to a of evlew of t and respective municipal sludge application'local i heir on' operations to both private properties and properties owned by either agency. Adopted this the fifth day of May, i, 86. r DON k i L L HO I T, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSiONERS ATTEST: / �f yr • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IHLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .4.011 •r )40 rit Cat.- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND LAND USE PLAN OF ORANGE COUNTY ' Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 323 and 343, Article 20 Sections 20.5 and 20.6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Section VIIi of the orange County Subdivision Regulations and the Procedures for Amending the. Orange County Land Use Plan, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County 'Courthouse, 106. East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina on Monday, May 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all. interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS Proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas under consideration are as follows: 1 . Z-6-86 JAMES M. AND MYRA KIRKMAN The property in question is located south of US 70 on the southwest side of the Interstate 85/US 70 interchange in Eno Township. It is known as Lot 778 on Orange County Tax Map /25 for Eno Township. It contains 51 ,400.80 square feet or 1 . 18 acres. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1 ) . The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property to General Commercial - IV (GC-4) . 2. PD-2-86 HEARTWOOD The property in question is located on the west side of Mill House Road (SR 1725) in Chapel Hill Township . it is known as Lot 26A on Orange County Tax Map f19 for Chapel Hill Township . It contains 1 ,533,747 .6 square feet or 35.21 acres. present zoning of the property is Residential -1T(R 1 ) . The applicant is requesting a planned development rezoning of the property to Planned Development- • Housing-Residentis1-1 (.PD-H-R1 ). and the issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit to allow the development of the site for attached and detached single-family homes at an overall density of one unit to the acre. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance under consideration are as follows: 1 . Amend Article 5 ESTABLISHMENT OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, Section 5. 1 .2 Schedule for Non- residential Development Lot by Lot (and) Planned Development, to modify the Pedestrian/Landscape Area Ratios (LSR) requirements specified in the Land Use Intensity (LUi ) System. This amendment would establish landscaping requirements for non--residential uses for all zoning districts based on 25% of the open space required. 2. Amend Article 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS and Article 8 SPECIAL USE PERMITS to consolidate provisions of both articles. These amendments would consolidate the provisions of the two articles and would relocate the specific standards for planned developments within the Special Use Permit article. 3. Amend Article 7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, Section 7.2.8 Time Limit on Start of Construct-ion for Planned Use Developments, to modify the provision specifying the initiation period for construction activity for planned development rezonings. This amendment would extend the time period for the initiation of construction activity for planned development rezonings from six (6) months to twelve ( 12) months . 4. Amend Article 8 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, Section 8.4.2 Zoning Officer Prepares Analysis and Recommendations and Section 8.4.6 Action on the Application, to modify the provisions specifying the application review period for the Planning Staff and Planning Board. These amendments would extend the review period by the Planning Board and Planning Staff on special use permit applications. 5 . Amend Article 8 SPECIAL USE PERMITS, Section 8.4 Procedure for Submission and Consideration of Application for Approval of Special Uses, to establish a pre-application meeting requirement. This amendment would establish a mandatory pre- application meeting for special use permit applications. . 6. Amend Article 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, Section 6.2 Height Limitations, to establish provisions for cluster developments. This amendment would re-title the sub-section Modification of Dimensional Requirements and would establish requirements for cluster developments and standards for their development. 7. Amend Article 22 DEFINITIONS to establish a definition of "cluster development". 8. Amend Article 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, Section 6.21 .2 Mobile Homes on Individual Lots Sub-sections 6.21 .2d)2)a, and 6.21 .2e) 1 )', to modify provisions for the skirting of individual mobile homes. This amendment would establish standards for the screening or skirting of individual mobile homes on individual lots. 9. Amend Article 22 DEFINITIONS to establish a definition of "skirting". GRANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Proposed amendments to the text of the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1 . Amend Section IV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS, Sub-section iV-B-7 Sites for Public Use, to replace the current provisions of Section IV-B-7-b. The proposed amendments would establish recreation and open space requirements and standards for their development, including payment In-lieu--of dedication of such sites. 2. Amend Section iV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS, Sub--section IV-B-5 Lot Layout, to include cluster development provisions. The proposed amendments- would establish cluster development requirements and standards for their development. 3. Amend Section Ii DEFINITIONS to establish a definition of "cluster development" . 4. Amend Section IV REQUIRED MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS, Sub-section IV-B-8 Buffer Strip, to establish provisions for landscaping and buffers. ' , The proposed amendments -would establish landscaping and buffer requirements and standards for their development for all subdivisions. ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN 1 . :1:7' nTlsd b omrSotTnr u hdUge mcD h tTOord-wat nnsgP e ht ihiAp o oatuned nx t t y speLfc aonitd f oic wUaOslr e la y n gPte h le n C oufnotr y Land sen d ua area known as "The Pantry" activity node. The study area is bound by Governor Burke Road (SR 1562) and Miller Road (SR 1555) to the north, New Sharon Church Road (SR 1538) and Lawrence Road (SR 1561 ) on the east, Highway 70 and the Eno River on the south and the Town of Hillsborough's • extraterritorial planning Jurisdiction to the west. This amendment would refine the provisions of the Land Use Plan for the area focused on end surrounding The Pantry Commercial_Transition Activity Node. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment on any item must be received during the public hearing. Those wishing to oppose a provide competent material and substantial evidencegasstomthe specific manner in whish the proposed use does not sati the ordinance. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at public hearing vIl l be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision on the request. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussions at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals should be directed to to the Orange County Planning Department. Copies of the proposed full amendments are available in the Planning Department for public review. The Planning Department is localedin the New Courthouse, 106 East Marageret Lane, Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m Monday through Friday. MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISH: May 14, 1986 May 21 , 1986 The following resolution was passed by the Orange County Democratic Con- vention on April 5, 1986, with the recommendation that it be forwarded to the Orange County Commissioners. Whereas, the 1985 Orange County Democratic Party Platorm states that: "All elected officials, and appointed officials in high policy making posi- tions, should be required to annually disclose significant property or bus- iness holdings, or disclose sources of income which may reasonably affect their judgement in office"; and, Whereas, other jurisdictions, in fast growing areas of North Carolina, including Guilford County, Wake County, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Durham have ethics policies or are considering their adoptions; and, Whereas, a stiff conflict of interest code in Guilford County (re- quested by Guilford officials and enacted by the N.C. Legislature in 1974) has worked well for Guilford County Commissioners; and, whereas, the potential for conflict of interest by public officials in Orange County is increasing because of rapid development in the area, Be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners be urged to request the N.C. State Legislature to enact a code of ethics for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. This code should provide for complete disclosure of real property holdings in Orange County and ownership of interests in firms doing business with Orange County. Board members should be required to disqualify themselves for voting on any matter in- volving any ownership interest. Philip M --vlik -'^//yam 6f. 7/2.-"e---rf Secretary, Orange County Party y ATTACHMENT TO 4/21/86 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES SCOTSWOOID "In some places, great changes have been wrought by the increase of trade and the busy hum of manufacture, but not so with Hillsborough. It remains as it was in olden times, the home of some of North Carolina's great men, the summer residence of the wealthy citizens of the east, and is much admired for the beauty of its surrounding scenery. Devoid of all art, it has received a share of the blessings of Providence. . . Long may the whole town -- a relic of the days when our forefathers fought and bled - be a place to which the busy merchant may make a pilgrimage when weighted down by the labors of the dusty city. Let it remain an altar at whose shrine the poet, the historian, the statesman can worship, as having been hallowed by associations dear to all . " H.E. Colton, 1856 Perhaps Scotswood ' s greatest service to Orange County is the Quality of discourse and thought it has engendered among citizens, planners and other officials. Regardless of the project's relative merits, or lack thereof, I believe I speak for the majority of the Orange County Plannino hoard when I state that consideration of Scotswood has led to a commitment to the following positions: -- Phasing of this and other large developments is essential to addressing concerns of health, safety and welfare. This is particularly true not only in regard to water availability, but in terms of ameliorating traffic impacts. Standard N.C. Department of Transportation procedure requires that our communities choke in traffic helor_e problems are addressed . We cannot accent this as our county's sole response, A PTACHMCNT: Continued and look to phasing or staggering impacts to lessen the hurden on our transportation infrastructure, especially while thoroughfare and road improvement planning is intensifying around Hillsborough and Orange County. Further, we ask the Orange County commissioners to join us in lobbying our legislators for a saner system by which counties can evaluate and address their own road priorities. The planned development procedure can work to the _ benefit of developers and Orange County, but only if more aggressive measures are taken to facilitate early negotiation of differences, if a more predictable system of requirements is established, and if a system of incentives and disincentives is formulated that will reward and ensure good faith bargaining. Orange County deserves better than a procedure whereby' a developer can net away with pious posturings proclaiming he will he "happy to fulfill" the wishes of citizens and officials even as he fails to voluntarily adopt any of the record 41 conditions recommended by the Planning Staff and Planning Board. Mrs. Cornelius Kaylor Route $OX 213 Chapel iI1, N C C � . 27514 t o 0 Q0 bb- w c a J Mayor l to UI lifiligh r intall Prank H. Sheffield, Jr. Town Clerk HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH. CAROLINA 27278 Agatha Water er Works Commissioners Supt. Water Works Myron L. Martini James Pendergraph Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd 4101111144, �,__ Remus J. Smith ? r;;- ,.� i L.D. Wagoner p f' ;f •I Chid of Police Rachel H. Stevens «r� � �'r5-5-8!0 Hold W. Hamlett Pig Fire Chief Nt- PrO,y John Forrest A May 5, 1986 Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Department 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Mr. Collins: Mayor Sheffield asked that I relay to you the following recom- mendations relative to improvements to State roads and streets within the Town of Hillsborough and its environs: Top Priority Widening of South Churton Street from the river bridge to 1--85. Immediate Needs Resurfacing of Nash Street from Highway 70 Bypass to Calvin Street. Signal light at intersection of Faucette Mill Road and Highway 70 Bypass. Curb and guttering of W. King Street to Nash Street. Upcoming Needs Widening of new Highway 86 from Highway 70A to southern area of Wildwood Subdivision. Widening of Highway 70 Business from S. Churton Street pass Meadowlands, Widening of old Highway 86 from 1-85 to the 1-40 Interchange. The Town Board would appreciate the incorporation of these needs into the transportation needs submitted by Orange County. If you have questions, regarding this request, please advise. Sincerely, jha J ohns own Clerk alum of 3iIilløburnugfl HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Mayor :111: • The Office of the Mayor [Tin May 5, 1986 Honorable Don Willhoit Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 E. Margaret Lane Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Chairman Willhoit: I have just been informed that Hillsborough's application for a Farmers Home Administration loan to construct an elevated water tank, and make other system improvements on the north side of Town may not be approved by the State. The State's action is apparently based on concern about the shortage of water supplies in northern Orange County. Although we are still awaiting written comments, approval of the new tank and other system improvements may be possible only if Hillsborough restricts the addition of new water customers in areas served by the new tank. The State may insist on such a limit to hold down new demands for water from our limited existing supplies. This development dramatically illustrates the need to proceed without delay to construct a new reservoir and make other improvements to increase water supplies available to northern Orange County. As you know, the Town Board appointed a special committee at its last meetin to water supply plans, in conjunction with the Count g prepare appropriate water needs. County, to meet our long-term In light of the action by the State, which could either block much needed improvements to alleviate existing water pressure problems in northern Hillsborough or result in a limited moratorium on growth in Hillsborough, I am requesting that the County Board of Commissioners postpone action on the rezoning of Scotswood until further information is available. It may well be that Scotswood could fall within the area affected by a limit on new customers, if such a limit should become necessary. For that reason, I feel that a postponement on the zoning decision for Scotswood is appropriate. Sincerely, jriuk, Frank Sheffield / C FS/jc Mayor cc: Town Board Members County Commissioners FORM LEC - 1-A December, 1985 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST CANDIDATES FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA Name of Candidate Home Address Legislative Seat Sought : Senate District House District Every candidate for the 1987 General Assembly of North Carolina, however selected, must file this statement with the County Boards of Election. E PART II BUSINESSES WITH WHICH ASSOCIATED For purposes of this Part, in determining whether or not an enterprise is doing business in North Carolina, you may rely upon the list and latest supplement of Taxable Percentages For N. C. Income and Intangibles Tax Purposes issued by the N. C. Department of Revenue, Intangibles Tax Division, Raleigh, N. C. enterprise is doing business in North Carolina if it maintains a place of business in2 the�state orl has rassigned representatives who regularly solicit business in the state. List below every business enterprise, incorporated or otherwise, doing business in North Carolina of which you, Your spouse, or dependent child A. is a director, officer, owner, partner or employee (do not list in Section A ownership of stock; stock ownership should be reported in Sections B and C of this Part) Individual [Candidate, Spouse or Name of Business Type of Association Dependent Child] [Director, Officer, etc. If more than one type of association exists, list all that apply] -3- PART III BUSINESS WITH THE STATE List below any of the enterprises listed in Part II which you know or have reason to believe does b with the State of North Carolina. For purposes of this Part, an enterprise does business with the State (l) It provides Late if: or seeks to provide, services or equipment, materials or supplies to the State or one of its departments, agencies or institutions on a regular, continuing or g ' g periodic basis; or (2) It is listed by the Office of Purchase and Contract, N. C. Department of Administration as a source of equipment, materials and supplies under "State Contract"; or (3) It produces, manufactures or distributes equipment, materials or supplies intended ultimately Government consumption, even though it makes no sales directly to the State. Incidental retail sales on a "walk basis to State agencies, institutions and departments, does not constitute loin businesste with the e State. g Name of Business Nature of Business Done With State -5- t PART V CREDITORS List below the type of each creditor to whom you, your spouse, or dependent child ! owes more then $5,000. Do not list indebtedness secured by lien on your personal residence only. Describe creditor by type, not by name. TiRe of Creditor (Commercial Bank, Individual, Individual Debtor Credit Union, etc.) (Candidate, Spouse, Dependent Child) PART VI VESTED TRUSTS List below the name of each vested trust, including profit-sharing trusts and retirement trusts of any type,YP , in which you, your spouse, or dependent child has a financial interest in excess of $5,000. k Name of Trust or Trustee Individual Having Interest (Candidate Souse De endent Child) -7- Part 2. Statement of Economic Interest. § 120-89. Statement of economic interest by legislative candidates; filing required. Every person who files as a candidate for nomination or election to a seat in either house of the General Assembly shall file a statement of economic inter- he seeks. (1975, C.564 Article. within 10 days of the filing deadline for the office § 120-90. Place and manner of filing. The statement of economic interest shall cover the preceding calendar year and shall be filed at the same place, and in the same manner,as the notice candidacy which a candidate seeking or member of the State House party ion for is the office of State under the provisions of G.S. 163-106. (1975, c. 564,Representatives is required to file § 120-91. Certification of statements of economic interest. economic The chairman of the county board of elections with which a statement of State Board eofsEle Elections andf the aoffices certified to which copies candidacy filed by a candidate copy of the statement to the Senator candidacy member didate seeking party nomination or the officnotice f State Sena or forwarded under em er of the State House of Representatives is required to be provisions of G.S. 163-108. (1975, c. 564, s. 1.) § 120-92. Filing by candidates not nominated elections, in primary A person who is nominated pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 163-114 after primary and before the general election, and a person who qualifies ur- suant to the provisions of G.S. independent er general election shall file with she6ounty board of elections of each count in epeionso candidate y in a • the senatorial or representative district a statement of economic interest A person nominated pursuant to G.S. 163-114 days following his nomination, or3 not lat rlthan the day ytemeet ng the general election, whichever occurs first. A independent candidate under G.S. 163-122 shall file the statement preceding the interest with the person seeking to qualify as an pursuant to G.S. 163-11 (vacancy in office) shall file atstatementrof economic interest within 10 days after taking the oath of office. (1975, c. 564, s. 1.) m1c § 120.93. County boards of elections to notify candidates of economic-interest-statement requirements. Each county board of elections shall economic-interest-statement requirements f provide f0- notification n12 - of the given to any candidate filing for nomination or electiont o the General As em- bly at the time of his or her filing in the particular county.(1975,c. 564,s. 1.) § 120-94. Statements of economic interest are public records. The statements of economic interest are public records and shall be made available for inspection and copying any hours at the office of the various county boards person ele election where a the statements normal business or copies thereof are filed. If a county board of elections of a county does not keep an office open during normal business hours each day, that board shall deliver a copy of all statements of economic interest filed with it to the clerk of superior court of the county, and the statements shall be available clerk's office. , c. 64,any 1 person during normal business hours at that i ORANG COUNTY BOARD OF COE MMISSIONERS AGENDA CONTINUATION MEETING FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1986 12:00 NOON ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS BOARD ROOM HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. D. MINUTES - NEED TO ITEMS UP FOR DECISION APPROVE BECAUSE THEY REFER TO SEVERAL F. ITEMS FOR DECISION 7. School Capital School `Expansion Requests for Orang and the Glenwood Estes Hills Multip ultipe High GORDON BAKER urpose Space - KEN THOMPSON AND NOTE: BARRY JACOBS INDICATED HE ALL OF THE PLANNING BOARD ITEMS. MAY MAKE COMMENTS ON SOME OR 13. Durell Dobbins SUSAN SMITH Subdivision Preliminary Plan 14. Lake Orange Subdivision-- Preliminary Plan - SUSAN 15. Wildwood Section III--Preliminary Plan SUSAN SMITH - 21. Advertisement Sddisn Re of Proposed Zoning Ordinance SMITH Regulation Text Amendments - and SUSAN 22. Governor's Statewide Volunteer Award MARSHALL WILL MAKE THE INITIAL, PRESENTATIONISSIONER G. APPOINTMENTS 1. CAPITAL HEALTH information onl SYSTEMS AGENCIES, INC. which g y - however this is a reappointment for i You mi ht want to go ahead and do. pP°�nt 2. RECREATION AND reap- pointments PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL 2 reap- appointments (ChpAT LARGE,Snipes Richard Ward) 3 Hill. I suggested moving Grove and Chapel presently an AT g Lawrence vanhook who is to the LARGE member living in Cedar Cedar Grove vacancy (Mary Anne Black has agreed) . This would leave 2 AT LARGE and 1 has Chapel Hill vacancies. Six resumes are submitted for consideration. 3. DOMICILIARY HOME COMMUNITY ADVISORY and one resume with a recommendation from vaaahcy Kthie a Kearns. 4. SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE both have - Addition of two members - bnthrhated beenerattending the meetings and serving on the task force. are 5. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF D with two resumes submitted for Tconsiderationvacancy 6. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING Board has COUNTY BOARD - one vacancy - the Boah h a s expressed a desire to fill this vacancy path Indian and You have a white female, a 1/8 that he wants to black male. (Ben has expressed talked with Susan Smith who heudoes not want I not want to be reappointed) . (Ted Latta called on Planning and wants to be considered g Board also - i attached his for the resume) . 7. OFFICIAL CHECKER OF ORANGE COUNTY THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FOR Orange Count - appointment is requested by the y Historical Museum. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS BOARD tion of the Board. (I have had approve the eaddOSie Economic Development Commission and the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board to the list. ) H. ADJOURNMENT /949ED .ire-4 0 BOARD EE OFEATCOMM I SS I ONERSY 'T/ 7//i 4 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MTING DE MAY 9, 1986 ACTION AGENDA ITEM I L CT: BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY PLAN ****************************************************************** TMENT; PLANNING **********************************B******************************* HMENTS: YES -� NO CONTACT: EDDIE KIRK PRIL 22, 1986 AGENDA PACKET TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 bane 227-201 ******************** ** *E: To consider approval of the Preliminary Plan for Burnsid e Park SubdivisionThis item was tabled at the April 22, 1986 meeting to allow Chair Willhoit to contact Mayor Sheffield on this matter. James Rae Freeland for 24.99 acres of landslocatedton Burnside Drrive offdCaieroStreet in the Town of Hillsborough . The stion is known as Lot 7, Block C of Tax Ma 37roforty it quoroigh Township . The p for Hillsborough construction of a threeo(3) lot subdivisost is to Permit The property is subject to the development standards of the Town of Hillsborough's Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the request would allow develo ment of a(3) lot subdivision with one building site. wold generate approximately 10 additional tri s This would p per day. NDATION: The Planning Staff recommended preliminary plan with six conditions approval of the 1 . The stream buffer requirement, as required in the recently adopted Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, must be calculated and indicated on the Final Plat. 2. Amend Note 15 to state the following: "Use of land within a floodway or a restricted tloodway fringe is by the Hillsborough Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.^ BURNSIDE PARK - :RELls:loNwAR;yPiA5INfoot:nril. z building setback r om the rear id f AR onditriting Jurisdiction. 4. The sewer line size shall be indicated on the Final Plat. 5. The existing water line located in the street right-of-way shall be shown on the Final Plat with the size indicated. 6. The existing archaeological dig on lot 13 should be shown on the Final Plat. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommended denial of the preliminary plan (See attached letter dated 2-10-86) . The Hillsborough Town Board recommended approval of the preliminary plan (See attached letter dated 4-15-86) . The Orange County Planning Board recommends the preliminary plan on the basis of dncirl of with the flooding of the Eno River and pwith cpossiblecdiscrepancies in the Federal Flood Insurance Maps in the identification of flood hazard areas. r 19 .� R4`' �- �' `%. ,..,;.. - ---- a. Cam? \OQj...- r r,, r r S� I' ./ rn �� --- fr 1i z 'r • -``C? se. EXEMPT �1 0,se." / [foeYr_c niy...+v V Q �c f1R AC. i BURNSIDE PARK , / APPLICANT : JAMES RAE FREELAND ://1-*. / Zone: A-R (Town of Hillsborough) V/ LUP Designation : 10 yr. Transition I • ' Scale: 1 " - 400' i 46 r' N /., 2 0 Eg 6- -- ` N _- tEXE PT 67 OF 9943.`5 , HILL56ORpU,H I 79 J 9A a 7693 ■7763 N 5.96!?G I 8 Gu. I �4� 58 I 32.77 AG F ► �j �"W ' 022 (66 U ' 71 12 £� 63 .'/ 78 .2012e 4130 A f/ 3697 H f/OM/7. , 11 65A $79a /�� ,� , 5 94 AG a1� r f 1 10 536.,` ��Tj� �mtT�P // 6380 /'a'ti . ,,�7}r f 0 /'k/-= f l.'.� 0 =J /cr.' 44 17 e5 AC 11.e, Ac, CAL 4 I \� ti 7733 r E I "N w- 1: a,�a 3yy , I` ,GI• .M1 N. rr d. '��e N. ,- " l 1, ' '' 6.97 AC.�L W r N ''' ., µt? { 144:a'.r,,. 42-. a k *t� A M r STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OP ORANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA THIS AGREEMENT, made effective the 1st day of April, 1986 by and between The North Carolina Memorial Hospital, hereinafter referred to as "The Hospital;" and Orange Count Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "Orange Count y' North Office of Emergency Medical Services. Yr" for its ILLAAL$. S. S TRH, WHEREAS, The Hospital desires to implement a hospital-based air ambulance program; and WHEREAS, The Hospital desires the services of Hospital-based Emergency Medical Services Communication coordinators ("EMS Communicators") ; and WHEREAS, Orange County desires to assist The Hospital in its air ambulance program by supplying the services of EMS communicators; and WHEREAS, The Hospital desires to reimburse Orange County for such EMS communicator services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the _implementing ollowing mutual promises, covenants and conditions, The Hospital nd Orange County agree as follows: 1. Orange County agrees to make available to The Hospital he services of five full-time EMS communicators to assist The ospital in implementing its air ambulance program. The EMS ommunicators shall be responsible for coordination of all ommunication relative to air ambulance flights, ommunications between The Hospital, the aircraft including n, acilities and agencies, ground EMS units n referring ontrol officer. One of these EMS communicatorsshalle a t inaa upervisory role, with duties and responsibilities as determined the Hospital and Orange County. 2. Both Orange County and The Hospital agree that for all rposes such EMS communicators shall be considered employees of ange County. Orange County agrees to consult with The Hospital ior to assigning such EMS communicators to The Hospital air bulance program. 3• Orange gees a the m • services are provided County pursuant a r to th t this Agreement EMS com shall unicators have whose at least two years of Emergency Medical Service Communication experience, or its equivalent. 4. Both Orange County and The Hospital understand and agree that The Hospital will have administrative and professional supervision of such EMS communicators while thay are rendering services to The Hospital under this Agreement. Professional activities and services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be in compliance with policies and protocols developed and agreed upon by designated representatives of The Hospital and Orange County. S. Both Orange County and The Hospital agree and understand that if at any time The Hospital determines that an EMS communicator's performance or professional interactions are inadequate or inappropriate, The Hospital may request removal of the EMS communicator. The Hospital shall provide sufficient documentation to Orange County detailing the reasons for the Hospital's request for replacement. Such documentation shall be in a form that is in compliance with the Orange County Personnel Ordinance regarding disciplinary action. 6. The Hospital agrees to provide a training experience for the five full-time EMS communicators relevant to duties specific to their functions with The Hospital's air ambulance program. 7. Both Orange County and The Hospital understand and agree that Orange County may designate an in-Hospital liason accountable to Orange County Office of Emergency Medical Services for EMS communicator personnel functions such as discipline, scheduling, holidays, sick leave. 8. In return for the services of EMS communicators, as identified herein, The Hospital agrees to reimburse Orange County for the cost of salaries and fringe benefits of five full-time EMS communicators, including time during the training period referenced in paragraph 6 above. "Fringe benefits," as used herein, shall include Orange County's contributions to the local government employee's retirement system, health insurance, life insurance/accidental death and dismemberment and workers' compensation for the EMS communicators covered by this Agreement. At its option, The Hospital shall either reimburse Orange County for the cost of or provide coverage for professional liability insurance for the EMS communicators whose services are provided pursuant to this Agreement. Pursuant to these agreements, The Hospital shall reimburse Orange County at the rate of $10,000 per month, subject to such modification of this monthly amount as is necessary following specific agreement between the parties of the actual cost of salaries and fringe benefits. 9n.o thionth Or ahe s CA nd t Ta Ho spe ta nusntdd ta ad a an e that exclusive arrangement between the parties. Orange County is free to provide services of any kind or nature to any other air or land ambulance service or program. 10. The Hospital agrees to notify Orange County air ambulance is responding within the geographic area covered by Orange County Office of Emergency Medical Services. 11. This Agreement shall run for a period of 3 years, the 1st day of April, 1986 to the 31st day of March 1989 from shall be renewable thereafter upon written notice executed by both parties. 12. This Agreement or its renewals may be terminated at any time without penalty by either party provided that written notice of such termination is furnished to the other party at least 180 days prior to termination. In the event of such termination any payment due shall be prorated to the date of termination. 13. In compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395x(V) (1) (I) and implementing regulations, Orange County agrees expiration of four years after the services are furnished)under this contract, to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General access to this contract and to the books, documents and records of Orange County necessary to verify the nature and extent of the costs of this contract, subject to and consistent with the policies and procedures contained in OMB Circular A-102, Attachment P. Orange County further agrees that if any of the duties of this contract are carried out by a subcontractor of Orange County shall contain a clause to the effect that, untilsthe expiration of four years after the services are furnished under such subcontract, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Comptroller General shall have access to such subcontract and to the books, documents and records of the subcontractor necessary to verify the nature and extent of the costs of such subcontract policies and , subject to and consistent with the procedures contained in OMB Circular A-102, Attachment P. 14. The Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and shall not be altered, amended or modified, except by an agreement in writing executed by the duly authorized officials of both parties. 15. The laws of North Carolina shall govern the validity and interpretation of the provisions, terms and conditions of the Agreement. AgreemIN ent WITNESS SS WHEREOF, the apaG ties hhave hereunto si below. a f the day and signed this year listed FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: THE NORTH AL ROLINA ME TRIAL HOSPITAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Eric B. Munsony= — Executive Director Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners DATE: DATE: � ��; 1886 Eg5 ED AUGUST MINUTES OF COMMISSION COUNTY BOARD R MEETING Sion °n ....,---->-- ORANGE REGU MAY 5, 1986 regular � couritY MA x ra .�eslone yon� +prig°°m, Orange Shirley aunty goaxax°f th Ana;y In°jt and Orange C 3p p.m• N°rth Carolina. a Don Wil County She 1996' l�sborOES NT: C��Yd• er, p,5el5teati°T' app MaY tho`�Se+ zONERS FR and Be Orman W eahill. R• ThompS ax+ of gec Dire° ex tvr Caux COMMI Moses Carey and fret Gledhill. l Kenneth 1� DireGt Blythe, and glann Marshall, NEYgNT Cou tY Manager t Kyattx Beverly ng ?am Jones tfATIValri T. Laws k to the ofo 'rcna5 ng Mary am tali ClDirectOr OURTROOM• on Managers NiaxMary�n Collins, OVER TO SUPERIOR C he public on requesting e roxi Y Susan ith EETING WAS M agenda a resolution ee°lu Sewer Authority followed TKE from the aerationWatex and c hearing NOTE D COVENS deleted for °en Orari e�iew the procedures properti not be n ia BOARD W j llf' and a Hillsborough ent r farm Will ably N. Chair Sad Highlands Town of Hills c gO Swage sludge O Wa151dered favor est Town a s Norman considered H°mt Com T submit o ned t e vot tLti he a td• ,x be p pec at tem tendth t Ton red sate e er clo xnmthe te ted y tited pab t oned as u aby made a on tht he Goln o b is p tat m:tat ed to mz ota he ' h t P° n e f but tubtlic eri s b ab�___Oo es d MAoke t are x°hang opoed n Rthe °thee 85 eopn no85 pe lms po and Y Ow wl a r a a l t onox p ebecaadY l af ec nd re dopos p P en aunt a ar s1OT1 Of gxange 17th t�.ntn equ s on et the on i q tivn the a eet w��hair Wi11ho 2 e County and Chapel Hill• ointly by Orang on a land the land use plan developed 7 Planning Area. In Marvin Collins nded�i�tto include the Jointls work�.nq use plan and have expanded the area north and east of 1-40 to have proposed limiting presented next an a public hearing. that plan they That plan will be rural residential. Bernard that additional public Chair Willhoit assured Mr• expressed concern for the hearings would Waters, resident of Sedgefield, Bete Walters, industry of water resources and treatment anothery would tax hi thhas .been ow will since problem on Whitfield Road, major changes another issue which has been delegated to the state. However, need traffic is already a Pr indicated that the to be made. Jacobs, Chair of the Planning Board, Barry to meet with Board and/or the Planning Staff would be willing Planning node. support by the group to discuss this activity Chair Willhoit pointed out that considerable supp for extending the needed facilities had been ced and wdevelopers part of the approval process for the project. sef has would be considered as p Commissioner Marshall indicated lven that when she held meetings with citizens 15ndesiredgby this group. questioned if such a meeting roue for their comments and Chair Willhoit position td the g to review and h indicated that the position of thehadaeverysopportunity e forward on the i public has Land Use Plan until the P respond. F. ITEMS ISC DISCLOSURE OF the Orange OFFICIALS 8. DISCLOgURE OF PROPERTY the request by BY COUNTY OFFICIA Chair Willhoit sump► applied to elected Democratic Party pertaining to ethical standards as app and appointed officials. Ken Gray, citizen of Orange County, spoke in support of full protect the public that full disclosure will p to and benefit interest n standards what the Coe and For the interest no elected officialsnand rthe f citizenseofpOrangeay both the el public interest has a citizens, full disclosure gain profitsunder eall acircumstances where it is precedence over private gain the same level as the applicable. For elected officials personal sal interestconsure is a deterrent o place p those actions that P spoke in public interest. Clint Burklin, Stonycreek Neighborhood Association, s P support of full disclosure. With the rapid growth and the increased business in the County, it will be more difficult to ien awarenof the conflict of interest. He suggested that (1) for ethics code, (2) a procedure for enforcement be outlined and (3) a penalty be included for violations. Lois Herring, resident of the Damascus Co nity spoke in of , poke ke Commissioners. support of an ethics code for the Orange County Board a conflict of interest policy makes it clear to citizens than an elected just choose to disqualify himself but is require tof� isq does not from voting on a matter where there is a conflict to disqualify suggested the ethics code follow that of conflict of interest. She sugg penalties and removal from office Guilford County because it provides for p if conflict of interest is proved. Carmen Prioli, Stonycreek Neighborhood Association, spoke in iation, P support of full disclosure and reiterated Mr. Burklin's remarks. NO OTHER COMMENTS WERE MADE 3 C. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Z-3-86 HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS Item was deleted from the agenda. 2. LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY--PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval an amendment to the approved planned unit development site plan which was approved on November 5, 1973. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the approved site plan for designation of one new lot in Section B and the provision of areas within the common lands within Sections A & B for the establishment of a cemetery, community center, playground, pool, tractor shed, animal shelter, garden shed and studios/workshops. They are also requesting a number of changes in the names of roads serving the development. The Planning Board recommended approval of the requested amendments to the approved planned unit development site plan and approval of the site plan as the preliminary plat for the proposed additional lot. NO COMMENTS WERE MADE BY THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC. 3. PD-5-85 SCOTSWOOD Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval a proposed planned development and rezoning request submitted by John W. Graham and A. H. Graham, Jr. Following the April 1, 1986 directive from the Board to the Planning Board to reconsider this project for approval, the Planning Staff again recommended approval of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit with revised conditions of approval. The Planning Board again recommends denial of the planned development rezoning request and issuance of a Class A Special use Permit. However, should the Board of Commissioners approve the planned development rezoning request, the Planning Board recommends the attachment of the 42 conditions submitted as part of the abstract. Chair Don Willhoit summarized a letter from Mayor Frank Sheffield in which he has requested that a decision be postponed until more definite information is available on water resources. The Town of Hillsborough applied for an FHA loan to construct an elevated water tank on the north side of town. NRCD has entered a negative finding on the review because of the inadequate supply of water for this area. In a meeting with Mayor Sheffield, agreement was reached that a task force be formed composed of two members of each elected Board, Managers and staff as appropriate to move forward with a definite plan and try to speed up the process of augmentation of the Hillsborough water supply. He made two suggestions for increasing water resources: (1) curtail the sale of water to OWASA, and (2) extend the line to Burlington. Sheffield asked that the Scotswood project be considered contingent upon a plan for providing water in accordance with the Water Resources Division. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AMENDMENT County Manager Ken Thompson presented for receipt of public comments a program amendment to transfer $133,461.59 which represents the remaining community development activities funds to the parks, playground and recreation facilities budget for park construction in the Northern Fairview Community Development Project Area. NRCD regulation requires a public hearing prior to submission of a program amendment. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 5. EUBANKS ROAD TOWNHOUSES - REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by 4 Commissioner Lloyd to continue the public hearing on PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses to allow time for further review of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. MINUTES Postponed. E. CONSENT AGENDA The County Manager recommended the following action by the Board: 1. COUNTY AUCTION, 1986 To declare as surplus those items as listed on pages 124-129 of the agenda and to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to conduct an auction on May 17, 1986 at the Public Works Department located on Highway 86, Hillsborough, of those items declared surplus or confiscated. The resolution is as follows: WHEREAS: Orange County desires to dispose of surplus, confiscated and abandoned property in a manner prescribed by North Carolina State Law, WHEREAS, Orange County has given its own departments and funded agencies the opportunity to acquire this property prior to its disposal, WHEREAS, Orange County has determined that public auction would be the most equitable way to dispose of surplus, confiscated and abandoned property and at the same time produce the most revenue for the County, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Orange County Board of Commissioners do authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to conduct a public auction of those surplus and confiscated items found on the attached list on May 17, 1986. The auction to be held at 9:00 a.m. at the Orange County Public Works Department and to be conducted on an as is, highest bidder basis FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Orange County Board of Commissioners do hereby authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to sign over the titles of those vehicles being sold at auction so that ownership may pass to the buyer and to direct the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners to send notice of such authorization to the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles and do hereby authorize the Director of Purchasing and Central Services to make the necessary adjustments in inventory for items listed and items that have been stolen, salvaged or destroyed or mistakenly placed in the inventory. 2. AWARD OF BID FOR ENGINE ANALYZER To award the bid for an engine analyzer to Sun Electric Corporation for $17,990. 3. SCHOOL HEALTH FUND To accept and increase the School Health fund by $500 in 100% State money. 4. AIR-AMBULANCE COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT To enter into and authorize the Chair to sign a contract with North Carolina Memorial Hospital for the purpose of providing County 5 employees for air-ambulance flight communications. All cost to Orange County would be reimbursed by North Carolina Memorial Hospital. 5. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AMENDMENT To approve the program amendment for transfer of the remaining community development activities funds (approximately $133,461.59) to the parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities budget for park construction and recreational facilities. 6. BUDGET AMENDMENTS To amend the 1985-86 Budget Ordinance by the following amendments: GENERAL FUND Appropriation - Social Services $ 10,000 Source - Contingency 10,000 (to budget for emergency General Assistance aid) Appropriation - Aging 5,171 Source - Lease Fees 3,171 Source - Ticket Sales 2,000 (to budget for CAT Transportation leasing fees and ticket sales) Appropriation - Aging 8,406 Source - Aging Transportation Grant 8,406 (to budget for transportation grant received by the Department on Aging) Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the forgoing action be taken by the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. F. ITEMS FOR DECISION 7. SCHOOL CAPITAL EXPANSION REQUESTS FOR ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE GLENWOOD/ESTES HILLS MULTIPURPOSE SPACE Ken Thompson presented for discussion several funding approaches for the Orange High School expansion requests and the Glenwood/Estes Hills Multipurpose Space. Director of Finance Gordon Baker explained two alternatives for funding both projects. These are listed on pages 145-146 of the agenda. He mentioned three items as possible sources for funding: (1) bond issue, (2) the additional one-half cent sales tax, and (3) the property tax dedicated to school capital. He indicated that in order to keep the present projects on schedule and do the additional projects, another source of revenue would need to be considered. He noted that the money designated for roofs for 86-87 and 87-88 in the amount of 376,000 had been removed and applied to the cost of these two projects. Commissioner Marshall emphasized the need to stay on schedule for all projects. She suggested that the original schedule be maintained; that the High School and Multipurpose projects be approved and that consideration be given, as a first priority for funding these projects, to the half cent sales tax. Commissioner Lloyd expressed reservation in approving any additional projects without a definite source of funding. Commissioner Carey expressed concern with postponing any of the projects scheduled for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System. He indicated his unwillingness to approve the entire project for the Orange County Schools without knowing the source of funding. He supported the approval of the base project and the paving of the parking lot which are both within the level of funding available. A decision needs to be made later in the summer on the additional alternatives for funding. 6 Further consideration of this item will be held at noon on Friday in the Orange County Board of Education meeting room. 9. NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to endorse the priorities as listed by the municipalities and to include the widening of Lystra Road as requested by Chatham County and the widening of US 70 Bypass from NC 86 to Lawrence Road. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. COMMENTS ON THE CONDITIONS FOR SCOTSWOOD Planner Susan Smith noted that the Planning Board recommended denial of the rezoning because the applicant did not fulfill the application requirement for addressing the manner in which the request would carry out the intent of the Land Use Plan and because of two (2) negative findings relating to method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. The Planning Board further found that General Standard #1 which relates to public health, safety and welfare was not satisfied. Forty-two conditions of approval were submitted for consideration by the Board if the project is approved. Commissioner Marshall referred to condition #5 and indicated it relates very closely to #30 and #32. The roads, parking area, walkways, street lines, utilities and recreational facilities sites are boiler plate, but landscaping and mulching around units that should be maintained as constructed is something that should not be required of individuals who buy land and build a house. People do their own landscaping and gardening and should not have to keep it mulched forever and forever. Susan Smith explained the intent of the condition. Shirley Marshall clarified that the landscaping and mulching should be separated out from the roads, parking area, etc. , and that requirements regarding what is to be done for the single family houses that the people will buy be addressed in #32. She requested that the condition be modified to read that the landscaping and mulching should only be maintained for the multi-family and the commercial areas. With reference to #30 and #31, Commissioner Marshall stated that grading on the site should be addressed in #30 and in lieu of planted landscaping that existing vegetation shall be maintained between units. She continued that clearing should only be conducted for purposes of installing improvements prior to individuals purchasing their homes. She offered the following wording: "Grading on the site should be kept to a minimum. Existing vegetation should be maintained between units. Clearing should only be conducted for purposes of installing roads, utilities and other improvements until the improvements have been installed and the developer conveys title to the property to the individual property owners purchasing three or fewer lots. Reasonable care should be taken to retain all existing vegetation. Appropriate temporary fencing should be erected at the dripline where there are designated stream and perimeter buffers." She indicated that the developer should abide by #30 until the property is conveyed to the individual owner. Susan Smith clarified that the purpose of the condition is to have the maximum amount of control over the disturbance of the property in the development process and not to continue that through the property owner's development of the lot they purchase. it is difficult to set a condition 7 and not get involved in the issue of when someone conveys property. Shirley Marshall asked that this condition be worked out. Commissioner Marshall questioned #31 and asked what final landscaping plans should be submitted expressing concern with controlling the landscaping for each individual's property. Susan Smith explained that the landscaping in #31 referred to the multifamily and commercial area and the buffer to be maintained, including the stream buffer. Shirley Marshall questioned #36 commenting that the way it reads is that we are only concerned about phasing to limit construction to a maximum of 25% with some conditions about the water. It does not speak to the release of the reserved water and the reserve in the wastewater treatment and water treatment plants should the project not be built on time. She referred to page 57 and the chart indicating her desire for information which would address this issue if the project was not built according to the phased plan where the water and wastewater treatment reserved would be freed up for other development. She also added that at the end of the ten year period the applicant should be required to come back and apply for all that was reserved, but not allocated. Under this idea, if the phasing could be done annually and if they did not build, they would lose that reservation until the tenth year. At that time they would have to come back for a new phasing of the units that were not built and a new reservation for water and wastewater treatment facilities. The condition which refers to mercury lights was discussed and it was decided that the lights should be approved by the Town of Hillsborough or meet Hillsborough standards and the conditions revised accordingly. Don Willhoit questioned the intent of #22. Smith explained the condition. With regard to #17 Don Willhoit asked that the elimination of the connector to the road at the top of the development be considered. Susan Smith explained why it was necessary. Don Willhoit asked that a condition be added that would insure that the design would be in conformance with the architectural design of Hillsborough if one exists. Barrett objected to condition #42 which was added by a close split vote of the Planning Board after some of the planning board members left. The Board by consensus agreed to replace #36 with wording that approval be contingent on the availability of water from the Town of Hillsborough as determined by NRCD. Susan Smith identified the conditions that satisfied the negative findings of fact. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd to approve positive findings of fact for the three identified negative findings. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the rezoning of the Graham property . from R-1 Residential to PD-H-R2 (290.03 acres) , PD-H-R-5 (29.50 acres) and PD-GC4 (10.43 acres) as specified in the application and to approve the issuance 8 of a Class A Special Use Permit for the proposed Scotswood project subject to the 45 conditions recommended by the Planning Board. Each phase of the project must be submitted for Preliminary Subdivision approval in order to determine, among other things, the availability of water and sewer service for the project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 11. HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS REZONING REQUEST Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval a request from Piedmont Atlantic Inc. for a general rezoning of property located north of Homestead Road (SR 1777) and 400 feet west of the intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road (SR 1729) in Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 49.17 acres and is located within designated Ten Year and Twenty Year Transition Areas. Rezoning of the property would allow the development of the property in half-acre single family residential lots. The Planning Board recommends approval of the general rezoning requests. Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 12 . LOCKRIDGE COMMUNITY-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the requested amendments to the approved planned unit development site plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 16. BEECHWOOD KNOLL - PRELIMINARY PLAN Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval a preliminary plan for property located off of SR 1554 in Hillsborough Township. The tract is designated as Agricultural Residential on the Land Use Plan. Three lots are proposed out of 45.7 acres. Mary Anne Black, Director of Recreation and Parks, asked that the plan designate and dedicate a 60 foot easement along either side of Nancy Hill Creek to be used as a pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement. Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the preliminary plan subject to the three conditions as recommended by the Planning Staff and the added condition as recommended by the Planning Board. Additional comments were made by Mary Anne Black about the pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement. Reginal Carter and Mr. Green asked that the condition requiring a 60 foot pedestrian easement not be required. VOTE: AYES, 2; NOES, 2 (COMMISSIONERS WILLHOIT AND LLOYD) Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Chair Wilihoit to approve the Planning Board recommendation with the following conditions: (1) Survey and designate the location of the floodplain and buffer for Nancy Hill Creek on the Final Plat. (2) Provide a notation on the plat stating that development is restricted within the floodway, floodplain and buffer areas. (3) Provide a septic easement which assures that Lots #1, 2 and 3 will have access to the remaining acreage for septic tank repair areas and provide a notation on the plat and documentation for recordation in the Register of Deeds stating the same. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 9 17. PEELER CREEK - PRELIMINARY PLAT Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plat for Peeler Subdivision. The final plat was approved by the Planning Board on April 15, 1986. However, the applicant failed to record the Final Plat within the six month period specified in the Subdivision Regulations and noted on the mylar copy of the plat for recordation. Since there has been no change in the development ordinances or in the conditions around the site which would affect the reapproval of this subdivision, the Planning Board recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 18. WOODS EDGE MOBILE HOME PARK Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval a waiver of the public hearing requirement for a modification to the Woods Edge Mobile Home Park planned development special use permit. The applicant is requesting to make permanent an office mobile home which was installed on a temporary basis to assist placement of tenants in the park and to use an existing foundation to erect a storage facility. The applicant, Roger Dale Stephens, spoke in support of his request. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, explained that in accordance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, any increase in floor area is considered a modification and subject to a public hearing. It was the consensus of the Board to add the Public Hearing for this item to the agenda for the May 20, 1986 regular meeting. 19. MEADOW LANE - PPP PETITION 20. ROLLINGWOOD AND STALLINGS ROADS - PPP PETITION Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the two petitions as received for Meadow Lane and Rollingwood and Stallings Roads. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADDED ITEM - RESOLUTION FOR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FARM PROPERTIES Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the resolution as printed below and to request the County Manager to convene the committee as soon as possible. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY (OWASA) VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FARM PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough and OWASA currently conduct municipal sewage sludge application operations at agronomic rates on privately owned farm properties, and WHEREAS, OWASA plans to apply municipal sewage sludge at agronomic rates to property owned by OWASA and intended to be used for the raising of an agricultural product, and WHEREAS, members of a community within which a number of the privately- owned and OWASA-owned properties are located have expressed concerns with 4. 10 the conduct of these sludge application activities and with potential im- pacts on the physical, environmental and social conditions of the community, and WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is the permitting and inspections agency for the conduct of these operations, and WHEREAS, the General Statutes of North Carolina and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance exempt agricultural land uses from local government land use regulation, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes that there is a need to exercise local review and approval procedures for the application of municipal sewage sludge by public agencies to both private and public properties, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, requests that the Town of Hillsborough and OWASA volun- tarily submit to a local review of their respective municipal sludge application operations to both private properties owned by either agency. Adopted this the fifth day of May, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. The meeting was continued to Friday, May 9, 1986, 12:00 noon in the Orange County Board of Education meeting room. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk APPROVED AUGUST 4, 1986 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MAY 9, 1986 (CONTINUED MEETING FROM 5/5/86) The Orange County Board of Commissioners reconvened on May 9, 1986 at 12:00 noon in the Orange County Board of Education meeting room, Hills- borough, North Carolina from adjourned session of May 5, 1986 regular meeting. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey and Ben Lloyd. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Norman Walker. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Finance Director Gordon Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins and Commission for Women Coordinator Andi Reynolds. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ENSUED ON SCHOOL CAPITAL EXPANSION REQUESTS FOR ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE GLENWOOD/ESTES HILLS MULTIPURPOSE SPACE County Manager Ken Thompson presented an update for funding all projects. This could be accomplished by the redesignation of the projects outlined by the two school systems. There is also the net debt reduction option for borrowing additional funds. Dr. Lunsford explained that alternates could be added at a later date if the same low bidder was involved. Another alternative for a source of funds would be the State Literary Loan Fund. There is about a million dollars left in this fund. The formula for allocation is based upon the net debt reduction. Application for these funds would require approval by the Board of Education and Board of Commissioners. Discussion ensued on the possibilities of borrowing using the net debt reduction The cost figures and time schedule for the proposed capital improvement projects were reviewed. Richard Drake, Maintenance Supervisor for Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools, explained that the engineering design work for the three projects listed for completion in 1986-87 would need to be done in the summer of 1986-87 with the work actually beginning in late spring or early summer of 1987- 88. Ken Thompson noted that an additional amount of $207,000 could be realized through reallocation of undesignated funds and used for the Orange County High School project. It would cost $324,000 in additional funds for the base project and alternate B. All except $50,000 - $60,000 would be used in 1986-87. Discussion ensued on the appropriated and unappropriated fund balance and the possibility of appropriating $160,000 from fund balance. Thompson explained that three (3) elements go into the fund equity column - the restricted amount which is unappropriated, the appropriated fund balance which will be used to balance the upcoming budget and the undesignated which must remain at least 8% of the general fund budget. After a five (5) minute break, Chair Willhoit asked that Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools return to the Board when bids are received for the projects slated for completion in 1987-88 and that the approval for these projects be contingent upon available funds at that time. The funds for the engineering work will be included in the 1986-87 budget. _ A 2 Chair Willhoit suggested that $250,000 be put in the budget for 88-89 for the media center at Orange High School to be contingent upon available revenues, and the money for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro projects to be included in the 87-88 budget with $75,000 in the 1986-87 for the engineering and design work on the four projects. The County's commitment for 1986-87 includes $274,000 for the Orange High School expansion, $70,000 for engineering and design work for the four projects at Chapel Hill-Carrboro, and $574,000 for the multipurpose projects. For 1987-88 $498,300 will be slated for Phillips' Air Conditioning, $275,880 for Frank Porter Graham project and $50,000 for Orange High School. For 1988-89 $250,000 for Orange High School expansion. All projects for 1988-89 will be contingent upon available funds. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the acceptance of the bid for the Orange High School project alternate two, and place in the 1986-87 budget enough funds for the engineering work for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School projects. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. ADDED ITEM - BURNSIDE PARK - PRELIMINARY PLAN Planner Susan Smith presented for consideration of approval the Preliminary Plan for Burnside Park. She noted that the official maps do not show the area inundated in a recent storm as floodplain. She added that the Town Planner had requested reinvestigation of the area by the Federal Flood Insurance Agency. She continued that actual development of the subdivided lots, if approved, would be subject to compliance with the Town of Hillsborough's Zoning Ordinance and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, either of which are enforced by the County. Upon the recommendation of the Hillsborough Town Council, motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the preliminary with six conditions: 1. The stream buffer requirement, as required in the recently adopted Hillsborough Zoning Ordinance, must be calculated and indicated on the Final Plat. 2. Amend Note #5 to state the following: "Use of land within a floodway or a floodway fringe is restricted by the Hillsborough Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. " 3. Show a 25 foot building setback from the rear property line as required for AR zoning districts in the Town's planning jurisdiction. 4. The sewer line size shall be indicated on the Final Plat. 5. The existing water line located in the street right-of-way shall be shown on the Final Plat with the size indicated. 6. The existing archaeological dig on lot #3 should be shown on the Final Plat. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. NOTE: The remainder of the items listed on the May 5, 1986 and May 9, 1986 continued meeting will be continued to the May 20, 1986 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on May 20, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old Post Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk