The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 08-24-1987 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1987 7 :30 P. M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. aQASQ_cQMMENIa B. AULIENCE_DQMMENIa 1 . Matters on the Printed Agenda (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time _ so that you are not overlooked. ) 2. Matters not on the Printed Agenda EUEL1C_QUAKE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves In a respectful , courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control . Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Page C. EUBL1C_ElEA@lNCl No, 005 1 . Aaaianmant_ailiouaa_aad_E uildina_Numtara_=_@utal_6QUta_Z. 2. Land_at_Elan_Amandm€nta 011 a. LUP-1 -87 Chandler Concrete Company 3. ZQnina_Atla _Amandmanta 029 a. Z-3-87 The Meadowlands 031. b . Z-4-87 Autowerks c. Z-5-87 Chandler Concrete Company 1E1 d. PD-3-87 Occonee Ghee Point 195 e. Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits 4. Zgning_Iaxt_Bmantmantn 7 a. Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table ( Crematoria as a Permitted Use ) Article 10. 4 - Off-Street Parking 7 ( Off-Street Parking - Crematoria) b. Article 6. 16. 6 - Home Occupations (Rural Buffer) Article 6.23. 4 .- Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) Article 7.2. 1 - PD Districts (Rural Buffer) Article 9. 11 - Permitted Signs (Rural Buffer) Article 12. 10 - Landscaping/Screening (RB) 5. BuLdlyialQn-gaauiatiaas._I€xt_6maadmsaata 3 a. Section IV-B-8-c Landscaping (Effective Date ) 7 b. Section V - Improvements (Delete Cash as Guarantee ) c. Section IV-B-3-c-8 - Marginal Access Streets ( Amend/Add New Section IV--B-3-c-10 Driveways ) D. lIEMa_EQB_QEQlllQN_=_BEQULAB_6KNDA 1 . Amberly Development E . 6Q1QUBUME iI NOTE: Please be aware that the dates for the two regularly scheduled September Commissioners meetings are different because of the Labor Day holiday which will be observed by County employees not on emergency or priority status. The first meeting of the month, held in Hillsborough, will be Tuesday, September 8. The second meeting, held in Chapel Hill , will be Tuesday, September 22. 41- -- ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 1 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 to `uIIE rr .r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N. C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Section 323 and 343, Article 20 - Sections 20. 5 and 20. 6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regula- tions, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Court- house ( New) , 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 24, 1987 , at 7 :30 p.m. for to purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity speak for or against the adoption of proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan, Zoning Atlas, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. 9RANGE DQUNTY j AND 1. PLAN The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan is as follows: LUP-1 -87 CHANDLER CONCR TE COMPANY The property in question is located on the south side of Old N. C. 10 ( SR 1710) approximately one-half mile from the intersection with N. C. 86. It is known as Lot 32 on Orange County Tax Map 45 for Hillsborough Township. It contains 253, 083.6 square feet or 5 . 81 acres. The portion of the property under consideration. is currently zoned Residential -1 (R-1 ) . The applicant is requesting that 0. 59 acres of the property be redesignated in the Land Use Plan from Rural Residential to Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node. • ORANGE ,COUNTY ZOv 1 NAG. ATLAS. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas under considera- tion are as follows: 1 . Z-3-87 The Meadowlands The property in question is located along the south side of U . S. 70 Business east of N. C. 86 in Hillsborough .4i O 7 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 2 Township. It is known as Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 11 and 14 . The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office institutional (0- I ) . Industrial -1 ( I -1 ) , and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones. The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones: Existing Proposed Zoning Zoning Difference (0- I ) zone 25 . 4 acres 15. 81 acres -9 .59 acres ( 1 -1 ) zone 62.3 acres 72. 57 acres +10.27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 . 4 acres 21 .73 acres -. 67 acres 2. Z-4-87 Autowerks The property in question is located on the east side of N. C. 86 north of New Hope Church Road ( SR 1723 ) and south of Old N. C. 10. The applicant is requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 on Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 2. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 , 480 square feet or 0 . 95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R-1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The property is the present site of the Autowerks auto repair garage. 3. Z-5-1987 Chandler Concrete The property in question is located on the south side of US 70 in Cheeks Township. It is approximately 850 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road ( SR 1310) . it is known as Lot 211 on Tax Map 28. The property that would be rezoned contains 3 . 43 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Rural Residen- tial (R-1 ) and Protected Watershed 11 (PW- II ) to Com- munity Commercial 111 (CC-3 ) and Protected Watershed II (PW- II ) . 4. PD-3-87 Occoneechee Point A Planned Development-Commercial (PC-C-GC4) has been proposed on property located In the southwest corner of the interchange between 1 -85 and N. C. 86. The property that would be rezoned Is 11 . 8 acres of Lot 4 on Hillsborough . Township Tax Iiap 45 . The proposed develop- ment of the property will include a convenience store, restaurant, and motel . The proposed PD-C-GC4 would be developed In accordance with the GC4 General Commercial zoning district, MTC Major Transportation Corridor zoning district, the requirements of the PD-C district, and the "Class A" Special Use Permit that would be required for the project. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE 3 0 : 5. Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction Iimlts to follow property lines. As a result of the change, all or a portion of the follow- ing Cheeks Township parcels within Orange County ' s zoning jurisdiction would come under Mebane zoning jurisdiction provided the Board of Commissioners releases the parcels to Mebane' s Jurisdiction: Lot 35 on Tax Map 6 ; Lots 4, 18D, 24 on Tax Map 11 ; and Lot 14 in Block C on Tax Map 23. All or a pardon of the following Cheeks Township parcels within Mebane' s jurisdiction would come under Orange County ' s zoning jurisdiction : Lots 21 , 37, 38, 39 on Tax Map 1 ; Lots 8, 10, 11 , 25, 29 , 33, 34 on Tax Map 6 ; Lots 4, 6 , 18 on Tax Map 11 ; Lots 18, 25 in Block A on Tax Map 21 ; and Lot 5 on Tax Map 42 . The following Cheeks Township parcels would be zoned Rural Residential (R-1 ) by Orange County: Lots 25 and 29 on Tax Map 6, and Lots 4, 6, 18 on Tax Map 11 . The following Cheeks Township parcels would be zoned Agricultural Residential ( AR) by Orange County : Lots 21 , 37 , 38, 39 on Tax Map 1 ; Lots 8, 10, 11 , 33, 34 on Tax Map 6 ; Lots 24 and 25 in Block A on Tax Map 21 ; and Lot 5 on Tax Map 42. ORANGE DOjINTY LuiEra ORD I NANO= The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under con- sideration are as follows : 1 . Amend Article 4 .3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE and Article 10. 4 - OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS to allow crematoria as a permitted use in I -1 , 1 -2, and 1 -3 Industrial zoning districts and to establish parking requirements for the use. At present, crematoria are not permitted uses. 2. Amend Article 6. 16. 6 - REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS AN ACCESSORY USE, Article 6.23.4 - TABLE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS, Article 7 .2 . 1 - ESTABLiSH- MENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, Article 9. 11 - PERMITTED SIGNS : SIZE, NUMBER, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF, and Article 12. 10 - TABLE OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS by adding the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district to the list of zoning districts covered by each of the articles. The Rural Buffer zoning district was created in January, 1987 as a new zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment will add the Rural Buffer zoning district to articles of the Ordinance that regulate uses within low-density residential districts. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PAGE (+ 0 4 The amendment will make no chance to requirements placed on zoning districts by these Articles. ORANGE =UNTY SUED) V S l OH REGULATIONS The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations under consideration are as follows: 1 . Amend Section IV-8-8-c LANDSCAPING STANDARDS by adding the following language: Amended Effective (March 24 , 1987 ) . This is being added to clarify when an ordinance amendment adopted on that date became effective. 2. Amend Section V IMPROVEMENTS by deleting cash as an acceptable form of security for improvements required In subdivisions and adding escrow accounts as a new form of security. 3 . Amend Section 1V-8-3-c-8 MARGINAL ACCESS STREETS and create a new Section IV-B-3-c-10 DRIVEWAYS. Section IV- B-3-c-8 would be amended by specifying forms of common or restricted access to Tots in new subdivisions being created along major streets. Section 1V-8-3-c-10 places restrictions on the number and location of driveways that will be allowed in new subdivisions. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received during the public hearing. Those wishing to oppose the proposals must provide competent material and substantial evidence as to the specific manner in which they are opposed to the amendments. Following the close of the public hearing , only evidence presented at public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning, Department is located in the Orange County Agricultural /Environmental Center , 305F Revere Road, Hillsborough, N. C. Office hours are from 5: 00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: August 12, 1987 August 19 , 1987 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Buguat_24,_1251_ Action Agenda Item LA SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS - RURAL ROUTE 2 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X__Yes __ No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell G. S. 153A-240 Location Map Notification Letter Legal Notice TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive public comment on the proposed assignment of house and building numbers on Rural Route 2 in Orange County. BACKGROUND: Per an agreement reached in January, 1986 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the U . S. Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Two rural routes (5 and 8 ) have been converted to house numbers, and, since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners on April 21 , 1987, Presidents have been utilizing assigned numbers as their addresses. Rural Route 2 has now been prepared for the next conversion to house numbers. The route encompasses an area north of Chapel Hill including Blackwood Station, a portion of N. C. Highway 86, Hideaway Estates Subdivision and portions of the following State roads : Mt. Sinai , University Station, Old N. C. 10, New Hope Church and Old N. C. 86. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two public places in Chapel Hill Township (Estes Drive and Franklin Street Post Offices and Sunrise Farmers Market on N. C. Highway 86 ) . A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of 0 6 the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION : Approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Chapel Hill Postmaster, the N. C. Department of Transportation, and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as required by G. S. 153A-240 . f .i. • i U ti153A-236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-240 i t 153 cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated `""""1i Y Pe PPo grated as a fire prevention 1 _ ti•, inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspections r t.r,'r,ng unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A-351. (1965,c.626; 1969,c.1064. , t..in pu s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) inure p{ "nd ben §§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. 15: ARTICLE 12. Act ci count Roads and Bridges. ,, under (ward § 153A-239. Public road defined. i chose t In this Article "public The b public road or "road" means any road, street, highway, i rucce- ` i thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated in regist• the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without of pro regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) ' rryue. public Local Modification. -- Brunswick: 1979, or eas 2nd Seas„ c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, 11 appea amending 1979,2nd Sess.,c. 1319. intere comet § 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in . contra ownin unincorporated areas. x locates t A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the to his ' county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for use .C-• on-such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not - 01 the -(1) Change the name,if any,given to the road by the Board ofTransporta- Any tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; appea (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transporta• Genet tion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number; or 1 (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any and d court t 0 other public road in the vicinity. trier • A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street • No • ` numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the matter. At least ' .- clusin, � . 10 days before the day of the hearing,the board of commissioners shall cau # pruce notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing,to be prominently i Upo posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the township right, or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a notice of such i lots o • hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the adjoin •— county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning line o street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to 1 - . in an • given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of i unlit Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. duly- .' � This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of utility 1953,which pertains to naming streets in Iiannapolis. (1957, c. 1068; 1973,c. 4154 y• • 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) . c. 507 Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, been rutbstituted for"State Highway Commit Luca 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c 568, sion" and for"Commission" in this section� -a"• 1 � -Lega to amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973,c. 822. • a s 1981,c.558;Guilford: 1979.c.283. 5 Effect of Amendments. .— The first 19:: Editor's Note.--Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted"at the County Cour.• p 1973,c.507.s.5."Board ofTranaportation"has house, in at least two public places in O. U , 78 t. to e' :lie ' i '413‘.. ; 're. I • . i114, :. „ 4 '14 ;•• • / w las\ - �.r _Ir ' —)erlik- I If ilk ' '774\ .. ...-1114 ::0 L.. . \:, aa . -,ii,P: ,r ..:x_. ,,..., .7 71\MA":.4.4.: ...40-.-• 2 \ , \ MIL 5 .1* ) i , illikreirar • so m.o.\ i . sr 1 M fir � J t• =I au► it ]iu J lt• y ]all $14';. - 4. • . . •L, �` /Y • I ' 41r,4' -a --iivlint , . 1 1! - v.- 411.'•illif-''‘' Z - ._tTaTII-V..• ...:tf-• - — b---4,z--_, yr , -4- - tr, 11011911111W"IF piiillp —VA ; i ft , I. .„„_„, .•_..1 . 4 _ , - ..41r491ir- , \ . ,... : •_----7‘--lip'- .'afil-- ii ,_... -.7.2' _ il(14-114*1911 .2,..er „._ a_., —.NAIR...:.. "- INIrrif ..-.-.. .tilW, 11 . 1 \ : p _ , �. • fT 7 - .. \\;,:::.----....6_____mr . 7..., , , - ,/ 1 '] 7 :_iiiii;#. . .a— u e rrr—. .. IL 1 -.i. ,..„ ■ 6. 4r4t. - . it, r `, .�a:k;trr� +frs+ 1 1131. ;; , _ ,,' :14+�*'I`r*��iff*'� \ . "` 1 . � •4 :�:4: l ••••o• �a `, ,; ` _ g LA nth tea.. n. d rr` r 1 NC �i 1Z. '.f li' !yY Ail� \ +_ ` , gj Tr st- t ' y i ; V i , --4,... E Viem / 1 z ...._. ...%so' ior e ..,,,,,_ ,,\L_:, - =,. ... . ,iii - r . tik,i:- ,.- . 2 -7-4 : . , 'IT,*.r...,,,,.. 4-___ '''1-4• ..." ,.._.. .. 5.;j • 3.j 4„,„._,_..1.P r.".. 1- E1 E-ivy 1t ...%\'' I ' :.m ff•f: • . r f f 1 i ..•.•:, ....Y ` � • . 4.0.4:+;#.4E0 rp ti- 2, :17- 1t-met ,.,•u.. I M , i N w M C O U1 4 T Y 0 9 Orange County is continuing the County-wide process of converting rural routes and box numbers to house number addresses. This process is being implemented in phases , with the greatest emphasis being given the rural routes which are subject to change due to postal administrative requirements. On April 21 , 1987 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the House Numbering Ordinance as required by State General Statute 153A-240. At the same time rural routes 5 and 8 were •converted to house number addresses. Route 12 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On August 24, 1987 a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on rural route 2. The hearing will be held at 7 :30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Court- house in Hillsborough, N. C. If approved, house numbers will replace the old system of rural route and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least 1 inch high. The proposed change affecting your address is as follows : OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal , please attend the Public Hearing. We welcome your comments. If there are questions, please contact: Don Powell or Miriam Coleman Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 732-8181 , Ext. 345 or 575 ( Chapel Hill 967-9251 ) or: Carole Herndon U.S. Post Office 125 South Estes Drive Chapel Hill , NC 27514-9998 Phone: 942-4179 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Orange County Planning Director c J J 1 • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 01 01 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 4rR m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL ROUTE 2 IN ORANGE COUNTY, N . C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of N. C. , Chapter 153A, Section 240 , notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse in Hillsborough , N. C. on Monday, August 24, 1987 at 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the assignment of house numbers on rural route 2 , in the north Chapel Hill area. A55 I GNMFNT D.E. 1:m111.E NUMBERS Rural route 2 is proposed for a change from existing rural- box numbers numbers to a system of permanently assi-geed house : _ _ numbers. This route encompasses an area generall-y . north _of. - _ Chapel Hill from Blackwood Station counterclockwise and- - including residences along sections of the following roads : , Mt. Sinai east, University Station north , Old N. C. 1D west, ° New Hope Church southwest, and Old N. C. 86 south to Eubanks Road. Portions of N. C. 86 and Hideaway Estates also are included. } All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment must be received - during the - - _ Public Hearing. .. e Changes may be made in the advertised proposal which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing . Questions regarding the proposal should be directed to Don Powell in the Orange County Planning Department. The Planning Department is located at 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. Office hours are from 8 :00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Planning Department telephone numbers are: 732-8181 in Hillsborough ; and 967-9251 in +, Chapel Hill ( Extension 345 ) . -t Marvin E . Collins Planning Director PUBLISH : August 12 , 1987 August 19 , 1987 ( 011 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Aug>lat_ZiL_12 Z_ Action Agenda Item i a. SUBJECT: LUP-1 -87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY - LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _ .___Yes ___ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Bell Application Materials Copy of "Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan" _ Locational Criteria Memo to-Marvin Collins Town of Hillsborough 8/10/87 Comments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a request by Chandler Concrete Company for a secondary Land Use Plan amendment. BACKGROUND: On October 10, 1985, Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for 1 .41 acres of land on N. C. Highway 10. The request was prompted by State mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. An adjoining property owner subsequently challenged Orange County ' s approval in court. On December 12, 1986, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two-acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented to indicate the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area. The affect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Copies of County Commis- sioners and . Planning Board minutes dealing with previous deliberations on this property are contained as a separate enclosure. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial -- Industrial Activity Node be expanded by an additional 0. 59 acres. Combined with the 1 .41 acres currently in the same designation , the two-acre lot size requirement could be met. 012 If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is approved, Chandler Concrete Company would submit a Planned Development application for the entire two acres. Current policy does not permit Land Use Plan amendment and Planned Development (or rezoning ) applications to be handled concurrently. The Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan state three reasons for which the Plan may be amended : ( 1 ) Because of changed or changing conditions in a parti - cular area or areas of the County; (2 ) To correct an error or omission in the plan ; or (3 ) In response to a change in land use policy. The plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons. Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the locational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in section 3 . 4 of the -Lance-Use -RFa — The criteria include land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features. Evaluation of the criteria indicates partial conformity with public services/utilities and non- conformance with existing land use and population density. RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request based upon : ( 1 ) The reasons for amendments in the Procedures for Amending the Land Use Plan are not addressed; and (2 ) Conformity with all applicable locational criteria in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan Is not demonstrated. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed Land Use Plan amendment at its. September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987 . • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNDTG DEPARTMENT HELL8BOROUGH �� NOR= C.A.ROLII`d 27278 le - •• LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following application as completely as possible: • OFFICE USE ONLY REQUEST #LUP- I - T-7 I DATE RECEIVED: TW�Y /D , oq P, STAFFPERSON(S)-RESPONSI BLE: . Garver r3E1.-1— GENERAL DATA: Property OLrner(s) Name: Chandler Concrete Co. , Inc. Mailing Address: ' P. 0. Drawer 1239. Burlington, N. C. 27216 Phone: (Home) (Work) 226-1181 Agent(s) Name: Thomas E. Chandler, Pres. Mailing Address: P. 0. Drawer 1239, Burlinoton, N. C. 27216, Phone: 919 226-1181 SPECIFIC DATA: • Tax Reference: Township Hillsborough Tax Map 45 Block Lot 32 Public/Private Road Name: State Road 1710 Lot Size: Acreage 4.43 Square Footage —_ Lot Frontage Lot Depth SPECIFIC DATA (continued) : 014 Current Plan Category Designation(s) : General _ Rural Residential Activity Node _ Watershed Joint Planning Area Describe Land Uses In the General Area: Garaoe Convenience Store Mini Warehouses, Mobile Home Park, Pond, Railroad, Concrete Plants On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Ready Mixed Concrete Plant Hwy 1710, Railroad and a Manufactured Home REQUEST: Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Planned Development III Type of Amendment: Primary ��. Secondary X * * * * * * * * * * * This application should be submitted with the following materials: Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel , orportion thereof, in question. Legal description of the parcel , or portion therof. Letter of request to include: o the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel o tbercurrent and requested land use plan category designation(s) o a. nar.rative stating the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry-out-the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof o a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment o statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. 1 (We) , the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application -are true to the best of -my (our) knowledge and that the application as submitted ' is complete. Co. -Inc. 7;/0/4F7 �A7 .T./ . Chandler Concrete _.�... � NAME OF APPLICANT(S) SIGNATURE. APPLICAWT(S) DATE M v., '£G _ 8 EC m ti f, I 01 A lJ Z/ • N LUP - 1 -87 APPLICANT: Chandler Concrete Co. REQUEST: Secondary Land Use Plan Amendment 000 CURRENT, DESIGNATION: Rural Residential REQUESTED DESIGNATION: Ten Year Transition/ Commercial - Industrial \ Scale: 1" 400' Transition Node Div . ,L-6658 f Ry A - 1ST TE a - a / \B5 .."----- _ z z 8159 �� H I I- / I N / . I \ 11:: • ,' I I 5E MAP \ r� I I 19 21- 74A ENO 2.9 AC. !6516 I I P/0 40 9.3 AC \ �75 / 13.82 AC. I I 10'09 AC- �� 92_ \ 10 �� - 2 39 / 1 I° rae�cr* �xtgTtr�6 pt�LdT -AC. r I I° 9052/401, s►-t� IAG C°Ios, to6 A. e.�"-.\ ` • IOC \ — ,,� / — I N 838.000 1.37 AC. 309c -, �I ,.' -= - .62 . /LQf n tIii 2 1.97 AC. `�, �-- / • RA;LriCgD -- r /6958 / • 153 /�/ / �. 11 , 2.51:AC.CAL. �N., / �� •4 O 6.56 1o7g1 +u'eTtK6 4.4t ! / '>D O k AC I . 20 - - N 5_EENO21 'Z'm ' I `— / i^ Bp D PP, ,rp ' \ 74 / `o Pr- --' / I l-_ o.5cl A iE \ — / I I _ E ...e5.N 7.07 0 I 1 I` i 1 I I \ \ \ AC / D. I I I I 11 \ 4.04AC. SEE I I MAPS 5A I I I I \ `\ (JOP I 1PR4 OS, SFC//JOPPSI �i I I a \ SE'! \� A` • • ' 0 l f; —3r F l;.:::::.:::.1::::::?::::::::•,•-•-1‘'..4:?:::H.::!•,';:..;:::::::::'..471•1;::' :1-=------..-7:±::::::3:----:::::------tEELE-.7E--_=-4.-f:.-..- ---.•:•*-::::::::::::::::::1:-:.:::::::::1::::.:1:::.:::1:11::::::::::1:;::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::":::1:::;1:1;:i::::::::::::$1:11:1:1:::::::::::::::::1:1:::::::::1:::::::1:::::::::$11 - S _ - -- {: • 01-7 ,. ..0.aTo G rant ee - --- —_•-- ---. ? r"ry /• I+AICANT♦ KEEL-.e.«.aY�he: ---~ �-- Yf .=e..naen .na in, la., b. •d.n.w•• Cc .1 w. • .STATE OF°NORTr CAACIINA• •}LANCE _County. T411S DEED. ',ash,who�if 1...ale:./.4'•e ,la d4- ..•.d n.,.1...,JACK 1. FREEL,AND (sing:. JAMES LA.NDON FF.EE'_AtiD (s:ngle) ___`aI Orsnpe ant r•...,t•n.,n Ca.nhn• here-nutlet.•4.a e....., and CHANDLER CONCRETE_COMPANY. INC. - _ — - -.—_�.-Corn..and steer d s..,.Cr4m• .....d Gun... .h..teLrr.......n,....r.n..n..ea... _P. 0, Drdwer 1239...burlington-:lorth__Garolint, '22'5 -_ •ITNESSETH Thal n•e•.:t.n.or i ,and to can..dr.•.roh al,hr coin..l-__ _ _-._-TEN= an..sine,t•••ana.nab:.tu.HOe,...on..0 M..al nano peed b.-Me Gcarve,the...eel!.rl.c/rel a henbe.c•n....eneed-NA ratan,p..aed.toe{ ant ranwrea •n.,bla.hr.p.a.en..0,..,..e Clan. he. ..n tell time., and.....I..."...In rbe Gpn.ee.hr neat•nd,..,•r..t•ron•ne matins. ENO T......h.r... DRAW E tenon,.N•n.n Ca..d,na.4.n.4e a 41..": • Consisting of 4.34 acres as shown on the plat entitled `Property Surveyed for Chandler Concrete Company", dated September 19, 198.., by Steve 1. Yuhast, Registered Land Surveyor, (.a portion of which survey is attached as Exhibit A) lying on the Southwest side of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710 (known as old N. C. 10) and described particularly as follows: BEGINNING at a control iron set in the Northwestern property line of Lot B of BEECHW00D BEND it the Southwestern. right-of-way line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710 and running thence South 54 *agrees 41 minutes 03 • seconds West :22.13 feet to a point in the center line of the right-of-may of Southern Railroad; thence North 28 degrees 09 minutes 55 seconds West 276.02 feet to • point; thence in a Northve•twardly direction 483.27 feet along the arc of • circle with a radius of 1,845 feet (the chord of the said circle running North 35 degrees-40 minutes 09 seconds West 481.89 feet) to a point in • the Eastern line of property now belonging to Chandler Concrete Company, loc., and running thence North 09 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds East 311.34 feet to an iron EA the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; running thence with the center line of North Caroline Secondary Road No. 1710 South 35 degrees 18 minutes 57 seconds East 1,221.41 feet to an iron set in the center line of North Carolina Secondary Road No. 1710; thence South 54 degrees 41 minutes 03 seconds West 30 feet to • control iron, the point and place of the BEGINNING. This property is to beeeee • part of the property 1 d en the Westernmost line which presently belongs to Chandler Concrete Compeey, Inc. There is no subdivision intended by the conveyance of this lot. , . i /` 04) The.s.-.land...601200.ed bb tita.ta,br ._". .3..Mee Na.. ,. TOO PIA VE ANA TO NOLO The.ba.e aeetea..peer.•.. .r..all it,a;g.uae...aar•.hea..A,.41214$14..a.to 40 04.4100,1040 4.004 th. am"a.rlo:w.aeron Ina abatis iwe.el. • And eM Leavens eaten..,s t4.he.,10000 01 wee rye..nr,...I,, ..d I..t Hie tilt t.0441.e0 10.1 n. ..M 14 nape;bh.1 eN pnsaan ace I ennme..eet 1..h the e•a t..oes aer.,nosed..?shy):end Ow Sr.dl w.i.•..aid de4.d bt..•b sun se•h.rant./*sear law 1.•.f.d alas..e, •. r.as.r.w.. WMn nien•e.e...We 50 the f.n•nem M tanner,the as.rala.h.aII*ulnae she Aland and.4...•crhne Mall Mel.ae thb kaa.a.s t4e.aR ver. 5 WHEL, 0f,Twj,.�1.e. •heeew,en bet hr hand and teal.t4 .ant♦earjrs.errs•..Meet .-s-s, // • ' � • V r+�aa � .. .�EALI � _ .yam 1..� . .. .. -._._-_... ISEALI -. n -1:..; 7a-neat, s _ STATE Qr MATH CAROLINA• (-•rC.1%c, ..�� -,- -�COUNTY. I a��t JO I. `` -e d a.', . r r,... _ _ . .... a N•••■••robin.1 Mad Corm,.do hymn? _JACt'.:.-.FSErrP..Vn .(s.aglxr2.r._ • Ir•.a..,,pe.raw.l..arrr o.rd Mires-r.!..,.la and a..../...4 e4 not rag•.., .w s4 Iwe s.nq �y a- •wnt.•.sr hand sow.*coca;.. elan a... Z-4 d••of w... ..I 'I �+.rt0...r�rr ., _ , Fir.•=�as,�. .��+rr.-�b6'^t =vsas es_s: !rr...•.__. .,,ter w, . STATE Or NORTH a.,r ...... -.__4-.1000TV. - -I 4-' I_•_1.111 I Is +a..w+l•I.hr•L.a•..:rt`•,j,,;y- .�_ -.•Nods.,raele 4 raw Crrr.q,M a.wA. • JAMESLAN1N FFFLARD (min.'s) At-7.1747126; ., . ` •••4p,thersasM•.pemmeel brfw...e asm 0.&Mg/MIA.n.aeana 14 1.01.44.M 4414•.00/100 rat 'r ...•.0040...1240 40 ry.tw..•1.Um.she —a4.. . d•7 Of _ - - L•'I" At,c..•,.w.u.Eer.n• --L Lau el Z.' " . ., n• t�! 1:-"tea .�.�.+n +weE - - !STATE Or wneTH CwA[>h.iNw,__.. -..�_ Cr1YMTY. �I 4 «'"'.4�,. _��'� T e Manna smd0.wu,e! n'• I!r ` t r.ate,rnul4a so be genteel. Th.rwrre...•.(*termed S.rer.•niM.M..., 3 .4.4 •� t a J _ .......6" A M..I. w-and dell'n.rr,.rd r.t4.f1.e.of tM keys.es Ai Deed.eft ��''" .. layt.hhyy tine..ra•.HMa h.ea 4-74,..../--, • �Y- Tn•..M _Law,of _C... ..._. .. .A 17..:S a, ..r ' i .1: ------ -- •Irm.•..d Gr.e. -�.-- - wwerw Dmr..Rwrr..a/01.04 74004a61.0.a.i„LD�_8DL'.ie2 aa17 t, S_RICK1,A . 110 W.. Alarearet t 1 and_ H.; *borough_ CHANDLER CONCRETE CO., INC. 018 AEAD� M'FED CON:: PETE Pbst OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226.1161 July 10, 1987 Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, North Carolina Re: Hillsborough Township Map #45, Lot 32 Dear Sir: , Our Company is the owner of 4.43 acres in Hillsborough Township. It is located on state road 1710 and bounded by our plant on the west, state road 1710 on the north, Southern railway to the south and a manufactured home to the east. The current use of the land is rural residential and we request that 2.00 acres be changed to commercial/industrial transition mode and the balance of 2.43 acres remain rural residential. We have owned the adjoining property since 1972 and we were able to purchase this property in 1984 after the estate of J.B. Rhine was settled. In 1985 this property was the subject of an amendment to the Land Use Plan and Rezoning. It is my understanding that 1.41 acres of the land was changed in the Land Use Plan. Also, this same amount of property was rezoned PDI-III. This rezoning has reverted back to the original zoning by court action. Our company has met all of the requirements of the original zoning. These include constructing ponds to catch the water, stockade fencing on the north and east sides of the property and chain link fencing around the south and west sides. We have done all of the landscaping that was required. We also have a new driveway which gives us better visibility and safety. We don't need to make any changes in the above mentioned area. We do need. an additional .59 acres rezoned to meet the minimum required for PDI-III .zoning. We are proposing to reforest the entire remaining land from the fence on the east boundry to the end of our property with Loblolly pine trees. We feel that this new growth in years to come will protect and shield our plant from those families that live nearest to our property. Site Plan "B" prepared by Phillip Post & Associates is attached and details what our company plans to do with your permission. 019 Page Two Our request is based on the procedure for amending the Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, 11/1/82 under the category of secondary amendments item "B" which reads, "extention of any plan area where the additional area is contiguous with the existing area and does not increase the existing area by more than 100 acres The land adjoining our property has been designated commercial/industrial and is currently being used for this purpose. Our company therefore requests approval of our plan. Very truly yours, CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. _- _ T.E. Chandler President TEC/gn ORA-NGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT H `� EILLSBOROIIGH NOR= VOLTA. PLANNING BOARD SIIBG`?*"= 2..7275 - PEOPCSAL 9/30/82 d.. Review and Reccurr wdati on by .,72% by Planning Board 10/18 /82 s' meted by the BC~C 11/1/82. • • • f , PRO.POSID PAS FOR Atv'NDT7G TrE .LAND tSE PLAN JRPoSE • The Opp. Styr Land Use Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Board of Comssioners i September 2, 198L 'The act of adopt m ford'izti the Plao. tee and map as Cauity )licy in land use imati. s. The Plan will need to be am ided iota_ me to tme to .act changing condi�.cns in the County. This Occupant proposes .ica the Play will be amended. =I SOtiM Ira RAM:MENTZ The Plan.ray be amended for the foliamg reasons: "because of caged or changing cmditicns in a. pari-..cular. area or areas of the County;, b) t2.► correct Qa error or omission. in the Plan; • c) is response to a gage in land use policy. • 311,-.a. OF Proposed am~adm nt:.s to the Plan may oe-ginata, from: a) the Board of Caram.ssione:. s; b) the Planning Board.; c) an =mama= applicati_aa made by a person or agency. GDR OF • -its are classi .ed as pxindinal or seca:i - amendments. Pxiacipal • sir a) ate•to or di.fioaadi.s of goals id policies; • b) of new•acivi.'y nodes or adds-l7_ to e o sd.ng node z as cj p for freestanding plan areas. cc•addia.cares to existing : P� g areas that exceed 100 acres. • Page Z 02 1 a) revislon of a_node area .where the ac?...i...ticrnal area is contLgirJus - by wore thaa. 10 a=s; b) excwsison of my-plan area where the additIcnal area is corrff.gmus the ezdstdng area and does not in=ease the ex:i-sting area by more than 100 arrces;- c) oorzecdon. of say =or. or orrLssion. in the Plan; d) revisions no any factual. or des=iptive material in the Plan. • Prine.pal ammdments to the Plan shPrt be :consick__--red once a year at the ---.---quairaezay- jab= pt.blic_hez;ing in. February. Sethndary amenclients to the Plan. may be considered. fol.= ye.ar at the quarterly joint ptbac hearinp in Peorum-y, Nay, August and Ncrveccber. However, no principal amendment is to be c=si&red conjm=ima with a rezoning requp_st for the same property. Such (Nom: after September 2, 1983, no Land Use Plan arcmciments =e to be mnsiciaresi =SEAL of AtENTIENIS: • -7.4.:C0.1: C Amandmaats- proposed by the Board of Commission= or the Plaznang Board..:'1* an amandamt applicatton made by a persm agency shall be referred to the change, or the error or omission in the Plan Voich the amandment- s _Ics to cor.re. or the changed. land me policy which necessi=roes an emu:heats. in. the. pP,a7=:calz:.• area of the proposed change and the Cairity as a T. o 1 a. Based an 'meeting.. The Planning Board may refer the proposed Plan amendmmt its lawnship • • Rage 3 ( 01,:2 2 ,±a=y Going (s) is the area of the County to be affected by the r aige- a) on its. awn~ antes; b) on a regtmst froi . the rhairpersan (s) of the Township Advisory Council. (s) is the areas to be affected; c) in response to a request mmi Planning-, Staff_ JO=PamC =or all amendments to the Plan, the Board of Cc iss ioner-s shall hold a joint • re lic haz_g with the Plmr.:n¢ Baz~-d. when. a.Dublin hear-g is held, horse - - s~ialr be given by pubLLshiag the r place &.d suhsta ce of he proposed aP).d t at least unite an a newspaper of general circalad.on in the Cor=y. This nvtz= shP17 appear in the newspaper for two successive weeks it the ft=rd.= — appearing not less that fz;fteen_ days nor more than -nags bum=s the-- date set for the public hearing. . RECIONSIZERAIVii by the MANN= BOARD . Following a joint public hear ng on a Pl d r 't, the proposed amend it sba11 be. referred back. to the Planting Board for its review and rd IOARD':OP* ACCT. ion The Board of O ssi '2ers shall. decide by formal vote, an the requ°st for a Plan aaendm at following the final. Planning Board recammendson. LAND USE. PLAN MEX. REPOT The Planning Board at its regular meeting each Nover shall he a report prepared.by toa p1 a"'r'"''g S'. .7 on they status of the Lacd:Use Plea. including:.:- • .• a) a story of:propose•aiendme is-to el e;Plan.over the past year _ " and t heir di posit ;�_ :�. .. : - ; b) an analysis of wit mad patentd-1 land ttse sirs in..te County . mad bow well hie.Pta�:.apses these:is-sLS; - - - , • c) staff recidal"1 for-possible charges to the Place. - • , :. Based on Planning Stn. s report, the Plancnirg Board may direct Staff. to • prepare spatc am adwaits to the Plan or, if in the Board's.opinion the caao.ges nee&d in the Plan are extensive in scope and nutter, the Board may re al:.t the Board of Co ssioners a wholesale revision of tile Land Use Plat. . _• . . . • • PLAN C:.TZnCRY: 17.N _"' f "_'°ANSI--CN Land Slone. No significant Transportation G^stem. Located slope or topography problem in areas tnat nave very good ( 0 2 that would unreasonably in- road access, as well as service V�`" crease the cost of extending by rail lines. These areas water and sewer lines. should have the most complete transfortation network in the wvdrolo?r. Located outside County's planning jurisdiction. of 1C1-year flood prone areas as identified by the Corps of Engineers. Ener¢v Use. Located within less .nan a 5 minute commuting Flora and Fauna. Located time from small-scale commercial away from sites that would, uses and a 5-10 minute commuting if developed, create a time from major commercial uses threat to unique or en- or an Urban area. dangered species as identi- fied by the state or Existinr Land Use. Located in federal _government. areas which are in transition from rural or low-density uses Soil Conditions. Located to urban or higher density uses. in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for Agriculture and Forestry. urban uses because of good Located away from areas where drainage characteristics development would have a detri- and load bearing capacity for mental impact on productive site development. agricultural uses and managed forest land. Public Services/TJti_lities. Located in areas wnich are Ponulatior. Density. Located or could be reasonably and in areas with moderate to effeciently served by cep- high population densities. tralised public services and utilities. Historic and Cultural. Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on state or federally acknowledged historic-cultural sites or County identified Public Interest Areas. PLAN CATEGORY: COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE Land Slope. Located on Transportation System. Focused land with slopes of less on the intersection of arterial than 15% grade. and/or collector highways and extending .5 miles beyond such F:gdrolocy. Located out- intersections or within one side of 100-year flood mile of an interstate Inter- prone areas as identified change and within 1000 feet of by the Corps of ngineers. rail lines. Flora and Fauna. Located EnerrY Use. Located within away from sites that would, less than a 10 minute corn- if developed, create a muting time from an Urban . threat to unique or endan- area. a gered species as identified by the state or federal _xistinc Land Use. Located government. within identified Ten or Twenty-Year Transition areas. Soil Conditions. Located in areas waeee general soil Amricul_ure and Forestry. Lo- conditions are suitable for caret away from areas where urban uses because of good development would have a detri- drainage characteristics mental impact on productive and load bearing capacity agricultural uses and managed for site development. forest land. Public Services/Utilities. Population Density. Located Locatec in areas wnich are in areas witn moderate to high or could be reasonably and population densities. effectively served by cen- tralized public services and utilities. Historic and Cultural. Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact on state or federally acknowledged historic-cultural sites or County identified Public Interest Areas. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ') mLLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 m•ottl 1.11•r e b a ' °JIsz O R A N G E rij 1 1 Er C O U N T Y INTEROFFICE . MEMORANDUM 8708-1103 TO: Marvin Collins, Planning Director FROM: Gene Bell , Planner III SUBJECT: Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment Application (LUP-1 -87 ) DATE : August 19, 1987 I have reviewed the Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan amendment application in accordance with "PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN" adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 1 , B with aPfdans portions of the Qcafsa QQlatxLaa� �� e1St , My applicable are : AEELlQAIl411 (Complete, but some deficiencies) ( 1 ) On page 2 of the application form under REQUEST, the requested zoning classification has been entered instead of the requested land use designa- tion . However, the requested land use designation is stated correctly in the letter of request. (2) In the letter intentuand � purposehe amendment ofthemcomprehen- caa carry out e the comprehen- sive plan is not addressed. (3 ) Also in the letter of request, The " . . . changed or changing conditions. . ." which make the amendment necessary are not addressed . SEANNI_EQS_LNIENQ lENI "PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE LAND USE PLAN" list three reasons for which thePiaeconditions in These a are : particular because of changed or changing INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8708-1103 023 Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment Application (LUP-1 -87 ) August 20, 1987 Page 2 area or areas of the County; (2 ) to correct an error or omission in the plan; and (3 ) in response to a change in land use policy. The applicant does not address any of these as the reason for the requested amendment. In their 1985 request for an amendment to the Plan, Chandler Concrete cited ". . .changed or changing conditions. . . " as the reason for the amendment. It is my opinion that such conditions were addressed adequately by the CeantLaj QLanae Ama @tudx in November, 1983 and that the 0.59 acre area currently being requested is correctly classified as Rural Residential . QQMEA@lan_QE_LQQAI1QN_IIANQABQa Analysis of a Land Use Plan amendment requires that the requested designation be compatible with the applicable Locational Criteria in Section 3. 4 of the Land. !Jae_ Elan . In the table below, YES means that the area being evaluated is compatible with the locational criterion and NO, of course, means that it is not. Additional explanation is provided where the response is not a clearcut YES or NO. LQQAIlQMAL_Q@lIE@lA 1Q��Q_YEA @ISAIY51I1Q11 QQMME@QJ L=1b1QU I@lAL Land Slope Water lines already YES exist in area. Slope is away from Hills- borough sewage treat- ment plant. If sewer extended would probably require pump stations. Hydrology YES YES Flora & Fauna YES YES Soil Conditions YES YES Public Services/ Utilities Already served with Already served with water. I f sewer water. I f sewer extended would extended would probably require probably require pump stations. pump stations. Transportation System YES YES Energy Use YES YES � INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8708-1103 U f�`) Analysis of Chandler Concrete Land Use Plan Amendment Application (LUP-1 -87 ) August 20, 1987 Page 3 Existing Land Use No, adjacent to an area NO (would be compati - in transition, but ble if land use de- not in it. signation changed ) Agriculture & Forestry YES YES Population Density NO, adjacent to an NO, adjacent to an area with higher area with higher population densities, population densities, but not in it. but not in it. Historic & Cultural YES YES BELQMME1.QAI1Q!I Based on the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the request for redesignation of the 0.59 acre tract from RURAL RESIDENTIAL to TEN YEAR TRANSITION/COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE be denied . cc: Greg Szymik, Current Planner /�� rt 027 Mayor V �� of �i��,�� rLrn Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. Water Works Commissioners James Pendergraph Myron L. Martin Horace H. Johnson Street Supt. Allen A. Lloyd �•� L.D. Wagoner Remus J. Smith Chief of Police Rachel H. Stevens Arnold W. Hamlett Fire Chief John Forrest August 10, 1987 Gene Bell, Planner 306F Rever St. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Gene: On August 6, 1987 , the Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed the Chandler Concrete Company Land Use Plan Amendment as a courtesy review. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommends disapproval as rezoning would promote future encroachment toward the neighboring residential properties to the east. The reasons stated for the changes , that is , rezoning the property and planting trees, appear to be inconsistent as trees can be planted in the current zoning and it would appear that plant operations could continue to with the existing zoning. If more information is available on this project and you would like the Board to reconsider its decision, please forward the material. If you have any questions, please call me between 8 : 30 A.M. and 12 : 30 P.M. at 732-2104. Sincerely yours , . Janet V. Rigsbee Planning Director 02s 029 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Algulf_241_ 1987 Action Agenda Item f 3a.. SUBJECT: Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___Yes No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Application Project Summary Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mailing Findings of Fact TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed request by Meadow- lands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located along the south side of U . S. Highway 70 Business east of N. C. 86 in Hillsborough Township. It is known as Tax Map 40, Block A, Lots 11 and 14. The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0- I ) , Industrial -1 ( I -1 ) , and Rural Residential (R-1 ) zones, previously established by the Board of Commissioners on July 1 , 19872 The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations. The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones: Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference (0- 1 ) zone 25 . 4 acres 15. 81 acres -9. 59 acres ( I -1 ) zone 62.3 acres 72. 57 acres +10.27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22. 4 acres 21 . 73 acres -. 67 acres The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial . Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed ■ changes in the z o n i n g a t l a s for the f o l l o w i n g reasons :';° _- 1 . The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations. 2. The property is located in a designated Commercial - Industrial transition activity node and therefore consistent with the Land Use Plan . 3. The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes. 4. The Town Board, in their August 10, 1987 meeting, approved tap on to the existing 12 inch water line and the installation of dry sewer lines to be used at a future date . 5. General Office uses generate twice as much traffic as Light Industrial uses. Therefore, traffic generation on the site would be considerably reduced . The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed zoning at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5 , 1987. ORANGE 2:JN7Y , NCF.-7-!.4 ::„R:L: NA APPL.CAT. ON FOR CHANGE OF CDN:NG C:E R:CT 1L U r 031 Date : Jully 9 , _ 9E7 TO THE BOAR!) OF COUNTY CDMMISS:ONERS ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County es hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the south side of S .R . US-70 ( _ - Street/Road ) between S .R . # N. 0_ BE and Lawrence Rd . . It is known as Lot ( s) 11 . Block r✓ � , of Orange County Tex Mep 40 .-p; 17nrririv�Township , it has a frontage of 1 . 000 feet and a Depth of 1600_ feet , end contains square feet or 110 _ acres . 2. it is desired end requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from boundary_alicnment with recommended master development plan (portions R-1, 0—I , 1-1 ) - M .. The -following information has been attached .in . support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (' — required on all applications) . •a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of hoz Lees then ohs I7) inch aqusla one—hundred I7o0) feat nor more then one 173 inch vacuole tranty 1207 fee% shoving -the lend which to pr d to be rezoned. •b. A legal Description of the Land p d to be rezoned. vac. 1, Statement Of juezifleetien *A0000sin; one or more of the following: Ii) The alleged error in the Zoning ordinance, if shy. which would be corrected by the proposed ensnonens wish a entailed ■zolsnetibn of such it the Zoning Atlas end oeteiled resebne hoe the prePesee emenoaent will correct the error. i2) The changed or changing tOnCitiOnc, if cry, in the eree er in the :Dunty generally, union Peke the aropoe.0 emehbment reasonably necessary tD the prerotlon of the pub lit health, safety end general welfare. •I3) The a in onion the prepbeee emenowent will Barry out the intent gong purpose of the scooted inns Use Plan or part thereof. • 014) All other clrcuaetenses, fectors end ransom which the e ppllcen: offers in eueDar: of the preposed emenewent inclmding, but not lisiteC to, dbeurahtetion frbe service e penties 144. fire, police, rescue she utilities agencies) assuring services provision cepebility to the Development. C. A list of ell indivieuels, firms or rC rations owning property adjoining or within five huncree 1500) feet of the property smegna fi:r pyzgn;ing is attaches. The Lie% is currant ss of ILete)' I certify thet ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . , Applicent ( s) : Meadowlanc s Associates loko.�`-*�' Address Phone :, 732-5CY, cr 9F7.—np57 � REZONING REQU&ST CHECKLIST Marsmeariow Inc. and } OWNGI�IS NAN1. Mgr ag tom' As4_, nr._i atWs - Ai}DitESS Rt �, Box 137b, llillsborough N — � . Current Zoning�R�] . - ❑-I t=i Total number of acres_ 1I0.1 Current land use - pasture Conformity Witt) recomme Type of rezoning requested ,�,pr r�1 1 r��mpnr plan bob ed lend use Research. OEf ice In Tax map 4 0 mock 0 0 rNumber of lots ! - proposed Water Supplyt Public x Community Individual. _Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public x I Comma:pity Individual septic tank x Access ofito state road Q US 70-A Average daily traffic- count on the state road 1200 Tf U Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone "ream Poorly drained areas Streams Other,-sensitive areas Describe land uses irzt General Area Industrial commercial, mobile home pazk, residue^ s! -ea 5 d ysa.s I & I1. Ar/RI Adjacent parcels of land West 1-2. Nort�i Maki ie 19nroP 13ark� u t , East - SnLt h-MTC' c T I • N ��l/ ,ba Hrp NIN - / - 8 1-• < e s, 1 o we - 9 N ', 'r" CO N1 / '• . / 0 ca p . � C Q`er los CD CO'. "' �'� u'-t, / 7' Tr(a) GPI.WW2; �'1 T"i a / r, /c. 0 n / !_Z� \ / a / /D82 Qry / / ,-- 2r \ \ N O Q_ipv- F Z1-I / o ELI:: / -- -_SF7 / QV -— -I'1 • °r2 / / 2 147 �-/ / a � � / 0 Li / e c. -1 I ti 0/ - / /4 / N.1/ N ' _ ( /� / 'I, 0 < i 0_ 1 Ty / /'"� a I f c / / / / ■ . --i `ir / / / ( .,, 1r- - per, co // /. �l ` 7/ / .0 -... ....:107,4 / �--� .•CD0 a hJ WG / , I 'l l� / V. re) ��' � I U � G I/ I I / utZ t /j co .-- c:.®,°, tti) - Zn m /,..._ \ ‘ \ I 1 \ .,' \ / \ u CHECKLIST: ATTACHMENT I LI JV\ adów1and5 '3 • Bite Ana1yi Prepared By: Orange County Planning Dept. Attachment I Spring 1985 SECTION I ()3`) SITE ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The property being considered for an industrial park is the Beard tract located northeast of the X-85/N.C. 86 interchange. The property has a frontage of approximately 3 ,000 feet on I-85 and a frontage of approximately 2,910 feet on U.S . 70-A. The current zoning of the property is R-1 Residential, but it is located in a Commercial-Industrial Transition Node as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. To the north of the site are scattered single-family and mobile homes. To the south is 1-85 , across which is located Chris' s . Truck Stop and the Orange Mobile Home Park. To the west are several single-family homes, the Esquire Health Club, an antique store and Hines Lumber Yard. East of the tract is the Colonial Hills Subdivision consisting of single-family and mobile homes. o e mentioned uses as well as the Beard tract are identified on-Exh-Iii-iTA, an existing land use map taken from the Central Orange Area Study. That study, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on November 7 , 1983 , contains an amendment to the Land Use Plan which involves a much larger area. However, because of the location of the Beard site in this area , maps from that study have been used where possible to identify site characteristics and surrounding property features. This section presents an analysis of factors which will influence development of the site, then concludes with — -- -recommendations- --r-egarting the--mast--appropriate method of site utlization. SITE FACTOR - COMMENT Topography Elevations on the site range .from 660-670 (See Exhibit B and feet above mean sea level (M:S.L.) along Site Analysis Map) the eastern property line to 580-590 feet along the western property line. This represents an elevation drop of 80 feet from east to west. Y Y Characterizing the site is a pond located centrally on the tract. Extending from the west, north and south are drainage swales which carry surface runoff to the pond. Slopes along these swales as well along the westen property line (where a stream exists) present limitations for development in that they generally exceed 10% . Slopes of 5% or less are most desirable for industrial development, but 10% has been used as a maximum cutoff in this report to allow more site utilization. O36 Vegetation Existing vegetation is somehat limited (See Exhibit C and in that the tract was used for many Site Analysis) years for farming . Vegetation is concentrated along the western property line, along a drainage swale extending from the eastern property line, and in a large grouping located in the south-central portion of the site. The limited tree cover is an advantage in terms of site grading and develop- ment, however , additional plantings will be needed to supplement that vegetation already existing. Drainage Drainage patterns within the area are also shown on Exhibit C and on the Site Analysis. As indicated previously, the major drainage feature is a swale extending. from east to west through the site , interrupted only by an existing pond. To the-- -st-- f the pond a stream flows to the western property line, then turns northward to drain eventually into the Eno River . Approximately 60% of the site drains to the pond, and that feature acts like, a retention pond, collecting stozmwater runoff and releasing it gradually downstream. This characteris.tIe--mss--well -as-thevzsu _ _ - _.__._ _- aspects of the pond is worthy of retaining as site development occurs. Soils The soils on the site are (See Exhibit D) characterized by Georgeville, Herndon and Tatum associations. These soils are primarily silt loams and have slight to moderate limitations for development . Shown on Exhibit D are soils grouped according to suitability for urban purposes. . ____ V Only one area stands out as having limitations for development and this is due to excessive slopes . Table A presents a summary of the various limitations by suitability grouping. The one area of development limitation is a presents problems for small commercial buildings. Transportation As indicated before , the site (See Exhibit E) fronts on both 1-85 and U.S.70A. It is also near the I-85/N.C. 86 PAGE 3 interchange , thus having good access 0` 7 to the Interstate . Adjacent to the Interstate, the land drops dramatically in places , so access via a marginal access road within the 1-85 right-of-way seems impractical. Slopes along the U.S.70A frontage are gentle , and access to the site could be provided easily at two or more locations. The distance to the 1-85 interchange via U.S.70A and N.C.86 is approximately three-fourths of a mile. Access will also be available to I-40 as soon as that facility is built. Access will be available via an inter- change with I-85 approximately 2.5 miles to the west or via N.C. 86 To another interchange near Chapel Hill. The relationship of the Beard tract to major transportation routes is shown on Exhibit E. Utilities Public water lines belonging to (See Exhibit F) the Town of Hillsborough are available to serve the site. A 12-inch water line extends down U.S.70A across the full frontage of the property. Sewer service would also be provided by the Town of Hillsborough. However, service to the site is not presently available. Several options are present in terms of service. First, a gravity flow line could be installed which would follow the stream leaving the site. The line would continue northward toward the Eno River and the Town of Hillsborough sewage treatment plant. The line would, at some point near that facility, have to tie into an existing pump station or a new station be installed to pump the effluent to the plant. The second alternate would be to collect the effluent at the western property via a gravity line, then pump it down U.S.70-A and Brady Road to the sewage treatment plant . A consulting engineer has been asked to look at the entire area in terms of sewer service, since several PAGE 4 • 03S development applications have been •• submitted for approval , others approved, and the Beard site selected as a possible industrial park . Completion of the report will not only resolve questions about service to the Beard tract but a larger growth area. 2 Aesthetic Factors Features on-site and surrounding (See Site Analysis) the tract which can visually contribute to or detract from the end product have been touched on previously. These include topography, vegetation, etc. A central feature on the site is the pond and if the industrial park is to have a park- like setting, orientation of the buildings around this feature is desirable. The slope of the land is such that vistas or views toward the pond are present from nearly every portion of the site. Several structures exist on the site including the old farm home and various outbuildings. The outbuildings can be removed to make way for development of the site. However , the home place could be retained as it sits on a knoll overlooking the remainder of the tract. It could have use as a park office or serve as the corporate headquarters for an industrial firm whose plant is situated in the park. Another factor which must not be overlooked is the MTC or Major Transportation Corridor requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Basically, the district requires . a 100-foot buffer adjacent to the Interstate with 50-foot setbacks around the remainder of the site. The use of existing vegetation to provide buffers and meet setback requirements can be easily accomplished while retaining a park-like atmosphere. As the tract was farmed previously, additional landscaping is recommended to supplement that existing. This will also screen the park from adjacent residential properties. PAGE 5 039 RECOMMENDATIONS - SITE UTILIZATION The 105.0 acre site presents definite limitations and possibilities insofar as site development is concerned. These features are summarized below and presented on the Site Analysis map. 1. Areas with slopes of greater than 10% should be avoided for building construction. These areas will create additional expense in terms of site preparation and grading. Slopes of 5% or less are used as in general rule of thumb in the identification of suitable industrial sites . 2. Areas which serve as natural drainageways or swages should be kept free of development to allow water to follow it ' s existing path. These areas also happen to be characterized by steeper slopes and should be avoided for reasons given in #1 . 3. Existing farm outbuildings should be removed to make way for development of the site. The existing homestead should be given consideration for retention as an office facility and to retain some of the character of the original farm use. 4. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible and supplemented with additional landscaping to meet MTC requirements, screen the park from adjacent residential uses and provide for a park-like atmosphere. 5. The pond should be utilized as a focal point for the development with buildings oriented around it. Any construction near the pond should be undertaken in such a manner to protect it. The pond also serves a useful stormwater detention purpose by collecting and releasing runoff at lower rates. 6. Access to the site should be limited to U.S.70-A since slopes to I-85 limit access to any future marginal access road. Construction costs would also be limited. Traffic generated by the facility may require the installation of a traffic light at the U.S.70-A/N.C.$6 intersection. 7. The most usable portions of the site should be developed first. These include the area surrounding the farm home and extending in a north-south direction toward 1-85, and the area located in the southeast portion of the tract. Another small area adjacent to homes fronting on U.S.70-A can also be developed, but given the presence of the home, it should be used for a lower-intensity use such as DACE F offices. This site should also be developed last and only if the market demands its use . Care should be taken I to provide adequate screening/buffers between the homes and any office or industrial use in that location . 8. If development of the site appears evident, a detailed sewer report should be prepared identifying various alternative methods to serve the site and the residential development beyond (Colonial Hills Subdivision) . D}fr;F 7 IIIIMMMINmEg Oft m. CHECKLIST: ATTACHMENT II 041 JVIadcw1and5 INDUSTRIAL/RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK Master Development plan C),42 The Meadowlands Master Development Plan Report Prepared by — RS&H of North Carolina, Inc. Architects/Engineers/Planners Greensboro, North Carolina - THE MEADOWLANDS is a development of C RIP CONSOLIDATED VENTURES CORPORATION 600 Franklin Square Chapel Hill, NC 27514 919/967-0857 043 List of 111utraticns Master Development Plan 7 Site Inventory 11 Zoning and Land Use 13 Soils Analysis 15 Slope Analysis 17 Topography& Storm Runoff 19 Traffic Impact Analysis 21 Site Analysis Summary 23 1 0. 4 site Location The Meadowlands site in Orange County, North Carolina, near ith access approximately one mile 110 acre tract of land located between US 70A away via NC 86.The site is less than 15 mil downtown o Research Durham angle Park via)then new Chapel Hill (to the south) with excellent accessibility 1-40 extension that is nearing completion. Raleigh and Greensboro, the second and third largest cities in the state, are within a 45 minute drive landscape— rolling countryside with a The site's terrain is typical of North Carolina Piedmont trally lake, good mixture of vegetation and grassland. Because andspsit Yis s annexe Ilentao at on for the site has a distinctly picturesque quality.The Meadow the campus-like facility planned. J& adow1and has HILLSBOROUGH TO -44 6� , GREENSBORO IN w DURHAM r A � a• z G lil �� s4> RALEIGH 1 AIRPORT ou - A 4.CHAPEL HILL ` 440 Greensboro 41 Mlles nessARCMI �c TRIANGLE PARK Qhapel Hill 10 Miles Durham 8 Miles RALEIGH 0 Raleigh 35 Miles Research Triangle Park 19 Miles JVadow1and5 2 045 j\ adcwldk 8itc Conceptualization 0 4 f� Dcve1omnt Concpt8 The following fundamental design goals were defined by The Meadowlands prior to planning and have been incorporated into The Meadowlands' Master Development Plan. 1.The Meadowlands is envisioned to be a quality industrial/research/office park. 2.The plan should, at a minimum, incorporate the following: • Industrial Tracts • Office Tracts • Recreational Amenities • Efficient Traffic Circulation System •Water and Sanitary Sewer Service to All Lots 3. It is strongly felt that the existing house and barn could be restored and incorporated into the overall concept. 4.The existing lake should be preserved and protected and become a focal point for the development. 5.The Meadowlands master plan should be conceived with flexibility in mind in order to respond to the market demand. 6.While striving for quality, development costs need to be considered to allow the project to be competitive. 7. Image from 1-85 is very important and should be a top priority in conceptual planning. 8.The natural beauty of the site should be preserved as much as possible by leaving the existing tree-lined drainageways undisturbed. 9.Access onto US 70A should be kept to a minimum with sight distance being of prime importance in considering entry/exit locations. 10.The ultimate site design goal is to produce a product that we all can be proud of while at the same,time have that product be very successful and a source of pride for the community, county and state. t7 n. ,Meadowland8 5 047 MaLer De\T1opment P l a n The Master Development Plan was prepared in accordance with the decisions of the management panel at The Meadowlands' two-day "charette," a final master planning wrap-up session. The site has been divided into sixteen unique parcels encircling the lake; the parcels range in size from two to twenty-six acres, thus allowing significant size flexibility. A loop road or • lakeside drive intersects US 70A in two places and provides the major access through the site. A minor loop road encircles the existing manor house and adjoining landscape. Recreational amenities will be located along the southern perimeter of the lake, providing both a pleasing focal point to the campus, as well as a practical central location for recreation. The most important advantage of a plan that revolves around the lake is the ability to develop the entire site with minimum alterations. An efficient use of the existing vegetation, natural drainage and the rolling terrain has maximized the corporate park image of the site while minimizing construction costs. J\ adow1and8 6 • �! ��-�. ... ,�V�e��-��ids SITE STATISTICS DEVELOPABLE AREA IMACT AC..Aai L so A B 31 C 59 D 4.3 E 3-1 D r! H 80' IF ' l 49 -- J 66 _ K - 25.8 L 4.4 b M 20 N 2.0 52 .�° •` p 84 Total Acres 9t.8 911.6 Road Right-aFWay t.2 0 Racnallon Ana Mi ..� Total Aces t f 0.1 Y. t TN-S r a� M wttc r Develo nic ii Plan O4J & Le LLll1 �.le The site is located in the MTC or Major Transportation Corridor. According to the zoning ordinance, the district requires a 100 foot buffer adjacent to the Interstate with fifty foot setbacks around the remainder of the site. The use of existing vegetation to provide buffers and meet setback requirements can be easily accomplished while retaining a park-like atmosphere. The property is served by a 12" waterline provided by the Town of Hillsborough along US 70A. The sewage treatment plant is located to the northwest of the site, so a gravity line is planned to run out of the west part of the site to an existing or new pump station and then be pumped north to the plant. Electricity and gas can be easily obtained and storm drainage will be handled through the existing lake and its drainageways. .V adwland5 9 050 dice inventory The Meadowlands site is unique because it affords selected views into the property as well as outward to surrounding areas. There is approximately ninety feet of fall from the eastern to the western end of the property. From US 70A, a commanding view of the site's central lake is backdropped by the higher elevations and existing vegetation of the site. The entrance to the existing house and outbuildings is located upgrade to the west of this view of the lake. Three residential properties separate the site's frontage from US 70A at the northeast section. The west part of the site is bordered with trees, and a creek that stems from the central lake divides the site from NC 86. Views from the site out to 1-85 are,best.at the southwest corner of the property. From the southeast, views into the site are restricted because the Interstate is approximately 20 feet lower than the existing trees. The eastern part of the site is lower and tree-lined. Adjoining development is within view at limes. Views of the lake are directed by an existing swale and filtered by more existing trees. This lower elevation area has a sense of privacy, as does the northeastern part of the site which is surrounded by wooded buffers. The site is partially open and partially wooded, which is typical of previously farmed property in the area. Heavy tree vegetation is commonly found along prominent swales and creeks, while the higher, flatter areas are clear because of earlier farming.The site is currently used as pasture. The majority of vegetation found in the swale and floodplain are hardwoods such as oak and elm. Intermixed in these wooded areas are a great deal of dogwood, redbud and other smaller ornamental trees and shrubs. As natural drainage and a certain amount of screening are desirable, this vegetation should be retained wherever possible. The site's central five acre lake is surrounded by a variety of evergreen trees and hardwoods. The lake-front areas have a slightly different atmosphere from the rest of the property. Selective clearing and thinning of this area will create a quite pleasant area for development. The Meadowlands property, because of its good mixture of open grassland, wooded areas, and the existing lake as a central focal point, is an ideal site for the development of a campus-style industrial/office park. jV adowlands 10 1 . eridowland(5 % t J C- LAKEtf: 3. GM FEW r I Sig. CM FELL SITE: 108.5 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN STATE(MTC) "''•+ f{ _, MAJOR TRAFFIC CORRIDOR "a"POKE e� CSILo Invc1 dory - – — UI ZoningLandtoo On the following page is a map of The Meadowlands' "Zoning and Land Use," as of January 1987. Detailed analyses of the factors that determine the project's development potential - including the site's soils, topography, drainage and transportation requirements - follow the Zoning and Land Use Map. • jVieadowland5 12 ••� �; � ,�.. � \, .,.W 1111: •`• GR Il Q adowlmdos N d Acc I ZONING •. P O-1: office/ ! f •� ti residential R-1: residential r I-t: industrial •-.. `'�` Z011111 0 Land U'Se c January 11987 [• 0)' :- , , _ , , 6ai18 Ana1y-516 The various soils that make up the first six feet of material found on The Meadowlands site have been grouped according to their limitations for the construction of buildings, roadways, parking lots and utilities.The limitations have been categorized as slight, slight-moderate and moderate. A slight limitation category indicates that soil properties are favorable for development and any limiting factors are easily overcome. A slight-moderate category limitation indicates that soil properties are favorable for development and the limiting factors can be overcome with minor considerations. A moderate category limitation indicates that soil properties and site features are not favorable for development but the limiting factors can be overcome or minimized by special planning and design. The soils on the site have been identified as Georgeville, Herndon and Tatum series. Georgeville soils are found over approximately seventy-five percent of the site and typically consist of a well-drained soil on broad ridges and upland areas.The Herndon soils are found in two areas of the site, roughly north and south of the existing lake.The Tatum soils are found primarily within the drainage depression east of the lake. Both the Georgeville and Herndon series typically exhibit a depth to bedrock greater than sixty inches and a depth to groundwater deeper than seventy-two inches.Tatum soils exhibit a depth to rock of approximately forty to sixty inches and a depth to the water table of between forty-eight and seventy-two inches. Shallow rock may be encountered in several areas of the site, thus, the depth of excavations within these areas should be minimized to reduce the potential for rock excavation.Trench excavation into partially-weathered rock or competent rock typically`requires blasting to expedite construction. ivleadawland5 14 cadow1crmd(5 LAKE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS SLIGHT MODERATE TaD c5olk Analyv(B s 0 51; 1ope Analy8i8 The Meadowlands' topography is rolling with slopes averaging zero to ten percent over approximately eighty percent of the site. The remaining twenty percent of the site is comprised of steeper areas around the existing drainageways and at the corners of the site cut for the highway. Very little area has slopes over fifteen percent; therefore, the entire site can be developed utilizing good construction practices. A slope of zero to five percent is considered flat and is very good for developing large structures and parking lots. Approximately thirty percent of the site is comprised of these flatter slopes. A slope of•five to ten percent is considered a gentle slope. These areas are good for parking lots, roadways and walkways. Approximately fifty percent of the site contains these gentle slopes. A slope of ten to twenty-five percent is considered a moderate slope. These areas can best be used as open space or transition areas between development. Because they contain much of the site's existing vegetation, these areas should be retained wherever possible. As o e dvoe slight limitations. • Slopes lope of of ten zero to t twenty-five ten prcent percent is are considered considered ideal for satisfactoryeelpm for nt development with only with moderate alterations or special planning necessary for development. Slopes of twenty-five percent and greater are considered poor development potential areas. Only with special engineering requirements or a great deal of alterations to the existing terrain can these steep slope areas be developed. These areas should be avoided if possible and are considered to have severe development limitations. Aeadowlandy) 16 I 1 11 w A C eidowl(rind(r) LARR ► r t PERCENT OF SLOPE 0 0%_5% ® 5%_ 10% ® 10%• IS% 15% HIGH POINT � , 1 v � � c5lopc A na 1psi8 - -� 058 r , torn Quriof The Meadowlands 670 n property Elevations line on to 580 feet along the western site range property from line.feet This above is an sea elevation level alodrop g the of ninety feet from east to west. The major drainage feature is a swale extending from east to west through the site, interrupted only by the existing lake. A stream flows from the lake to the western property line, then turns northward to drain eventually into the Eno River. Approximately sixty percent of the site drains into the lake; this acts as a retention area, collecting stormwater runoff and releasing it gradually downstream. %J eadowlan 5 18 1 111F ` �•. ecadowlmd(5 ` f 't ELEVATION 570-600 4 600-630 630-660 .�• 660 � s .�. Direction of Flow I oPo8r(9 phy 0(SLor III Q u norr c.I ' 060 Tran '3ortatiOfl / Tri1ic 1m?ac Ana1y8i8 •The Meadowlands site is served by the 1-85/NC 86 interchange and the US 70A/NC 86 intersection. The site fronts on US 70A and 1-85. Access to the property is direct to US 70A • • and a connector to NC 86 is under consideration.Trip generation, distribution, and assignment analyses were completed using the proposed land uses and the illustrative site plan. The Meadowlands will have 2,095 trips to and away from the site on a typical day.The afternoon peak hour (4:45 PM to 5:45 PM) will have 115 trips to the site and 435 trips away from the site on an average day. 1984 Average Daily Traffic counts were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 1985 PM peak hour turning movement counts were undertaken at the intersection of US 70A and NC 86. In addition, the year 2002 Average Daily Traffic estimates were obtained from the NCDOT. PM peak hour traffic and average daily traffic to and from the project were assigned to the highway network. A capacity analysis of the intersection of US 70A and NC 86 was undertaken for both existing and future conditions. Under existing conditions, all legs of this intersection operate at a high level of service in the afternoon peak hour except the south approach, which •operates at a moderate level of traffic flow. With full development of the project, this intersection will operate at level of service A under signalized conditions. Given full development without signalization, the south approach will operate.at a level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. Future traffic growth (as indicated by the year 2002 NCDOT traffic projections), combined with the traffic from The Meadowlands,will require stabilization of this intersection. The added Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to each link of the highway network serving this project is shown.The link of NC 86 between US 70A and 1-85 will require widening to accommodate lett turn movements along this segment of roadway when The Meadowlands is • fully developed and the future projected ADT volumes occur. When the project is fifty.percent developed, signalization will be required at the US 70A/NC 86 intersection to ensure a high level of traffic service. The signalization of this intersection might be delayed if the proposed additional connection between The Meadowlands and •NC 86 is provided. It a connection from the site to NC 86 is provided, it should be a three-lane facility allowing for a lett turn lane at its intersection with NC 86. A lett turn lane should also be provided•off of NC 86. ,..Aileado`wiand5 20 % (87 ADT) 3800 ACT FUTURE � ,�TRAFFIC SIGNAL , I fic"'adowlwid8 1 (4938 AQT) 1200 ACT ' j �rfAl►. bx. C•� (4067 ADT) I I 4 4200 ACT .I MEADOWLANDS TRAFFIC f �, 2905 INS (!n Paranihogia) 2905 OUTS , ' (5810 TOTAL) \~'r.�j`r� + � •�• ••J f (871 ADT) 1 0 162 ADT) 30,000 ACT r+ �'— •�•.� OUTSIDE LINE SHOWS EX.TRAFFIC yam. PLUS MEADOWLANDS TRAFFIC ''•. Jr (1743 ADT) "��• 29.700 ADT 1162 ADT) 7000 ACT 1994 ADT IAVERA[iE DAILY TRAFFIC)COUNTS BY N.C.DOT �f ra Fic I m pac L A n a lysl Qs c; 0 6 a Development Potential The development potential of The Meadowlands site is illustrated on the Site Analysis Summary map. It is a synthesis of all the separate analyses. The map is divided into four categories based on the limitations of the various existing and man-made features of the site. Eighty percent of The Meadowlands site has high to moderately-high development potential, thus it is highly suitable for development as a campus-style industrial/office park. The Zone 1 areas have the best potential for development and total approximately sixty percent of the site. These areas have flat to gentle slopes, good soils, good views and accessibility. They can be developed with least disturbance to the site. The Zone 2 areas are of moderately high potential for development and make up approximately twenty percent of the site. These areas are made up of gentle to moderate slopes with slight-moderate limitations. They are most often located adjacent to the high development potential areas and can be readily incorporated into their development. Much of this area is tree-covered and can serve as transition areas between more intense development. - The Zone 3 areas have moderate potential. They contain steeper slopes associated with drainage swales. Zone 4 areas have low potential. They primarily border on the existing drainageways that enter or exit the lake. Besides having developmental constraints;these areas should be - •-1 preserved as functional amenities of the site. . . _ Jadow1and5 22 e�dov�l�n DEVELOPMENT •� � POI ENTIA! r, 2 Moderately t-tlgh 3 Moderate �, { 4 Low •y�� \�`' •---, Analysis 6u m ma ry w .... ATTACHMENT 3-A :fit i .i��hment. 3-:; 064 A fully dimensioned m..ip at n scale of not 1exs than one ( 1 ) inch equals one-hundred ( 100 ) feet nor more than one ( 1 ) inch equals twenty ( 20 ) feet showing the land which is proposed to be rezoned. rk ATTACHMENT 3-B At tdehment 3-B O6 A l Pya 1 description of the land proposed to be rezoned . 1 ) Li )t) AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 1 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 1) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being the northeast corner of B. J. Johnson as recorded in Deed Book 224 at pages 757 and 844 and on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A, thence S 66° 12' 36"E along said southerly right-of-way line a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway said point being the true point of beginning; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line, along the centerline of said proposed roadway S 23° 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to a point of curve; thence departing said centerline S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 103.00 feet, thence S 01° 17' 24"W a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on a curve whence the center of said curve bears S 50° 29' 06"W; thence along said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 45' 02" and a radius of 150.00 feet a distance of 132.87 feet (chord bearing S 14° 08' 23"E a distance of 128.56 feet) to a point of reverse curve; thence along the arc of said, reverse curve. to the left having a central angle of 83° 10' 08" and a radius of 110.00 feet (chord bearing S 30° 20' 55"E a distance of 146.02 feet) a distance of 159.67 feet; thence N 57° 08' 05"E a distance of 479.00 feet to a point that is the southwest corner of the Carter property, thence N 04° 33' 05"E along the westerly line of said Carter property a distance of 296.84 feet to the point of intersection with said southerly right-of-way line of U.S. 70A; thence along said right-of-way line N 67° 17' 15"W a distance of 224.35 feet; thence continuing along said southerly right-of-way line N 66° 12'^ 36"W a distance of 291.29 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 6.70 acres more or less. 007 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 1 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 2) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Calleymn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being the northwest corner of Glen Auman and on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence along the easterly boundary line of said The Meadowlands S 04° 34' 46"W a distance of 286.18 feet; thence continuing along said easterly boundary line S 04° 48' 03"W a distance of 581.08 feet to the northwest corner of Colonial Hills as recorded in Plat Book 15 at page 120 of the Orange County Register of Deeds, thence departing said northwest corner N 67° 15' 43"W a distance of 721.54 feet to a point on a curve of the centerline of a proposed roadway whence the center of said curve bears N 31° 27' 55"W; thence along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 42° 08' 51" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing N 37° 27' 39"E and a distance of 485.42 feet) a distance of 496.54 feet; thence N 16° 23' 14"E a distance of 316.60 feet to the point of intersection with southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence S 73° 36' 46"E a distance of 367.30 feet to the point of beginning containing 9.11 acres more or less. 068 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 2 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 3) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being on the southerly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 70A and the northeast corner of B. J. Johnson as recorded in Deed Book 224 at pages 757 and 844 of th Orange County Clerk and Recorders Office; thence S 66° 12' 36"E along said southerly right-of-way line a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line, along the centerline of said proposed roadway the following nine (9) courses: 1) S 23 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to a point of curve; 2) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 15' 00" and a radius of 375.00 feet (chord bearing S 48° 54' 54"W and a distance of 318.45 feet) a distance of 328.89 feet to a point of reverse curve; 3) Along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 66° 00'00" and a radius of 223.49 feet (chord bearing S 41° 02' 24"W and a distance of 243.45 feet) a distance of 257.44 feet to a point of tangent; 4) S 08° 02' 24"W a distance of 108.76 feet to a point of curve; 5) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 37° 45'00" and a radius of 175.00 feet (chord bearing S 10° 50' 06"E and a distance of 113.23 feet) a distance of 115.30 feet to a point of tangent; 6) S 29° 42' 36"E a distance of 14.10 feet to a point of curve; 7) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 59° 30' 00" and a radius of 455.00 feet (chord bearing 5 59° 27' 36"E and a distance of 451.56 feet) a distance of 472.50 feet to a point of tangent; 8) S 89° 12' 36"E a distance of 577.57 feet to a point of curve; 9) Along the arc of said curve to the left having a central angle of 32° 15' 19" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing N 74° 39' 44"E and a distance of 375.00 feet) a distance of 380.00 feet; Thence departing said proposed centerline S 67° 15' 43"E a distance of 721.54 feet to the northwest corner of Colonial Hills recorded in Plat Book 15 at page 120 of the Orange County Clerk and Recorders Office; thence along said Colonial Hills S 05° 10' 50"W a distance of 982.00 feet; thence continuing along said Colonial Hills N 87° 54' 10"W a distance of 78.00 feet; thence south continuing along said Colonial Hills 00° 55' 06"W a distance of 49.78 feet to the point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line O 6.3 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 2 Of 2 of Interstate 85; thence N 66° 31' 56"W a distance of 1042.98 feet; thence S 25° 57' 22"W a distance of 19.71 feet; thence continuing along said northerly right-of-way of Interstate 85 N 66° 30' 41"W a distance of 897.16 feet; thence N 59° 05' 45"W a distance of 350.61 feet; thence continuing along said northerly right-of-way line of Interstate 85 N 51° 37' 26"W a distance of 523.00 feet; thence departing said right-of-way line of Interstate 85 N 00° 53' 49"W a distance of 414.64 feet; thence N 00° 33' 17"W a distance of 654.79 feet; thence N 00° 00' 50"W a distance of 613.03 feet to the point of beginning containing 72.57 acres more or less. 071) AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 1 of 2 THE MEADOWLANDS (TRACT 4) A tract of land being a part of that certain parcel of land surveyed by Callemyn Surveying Company also known as The Meadowlands located in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, near Hillsborough, North Carolina, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said property known as The Meadowlands, said corner also being on the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 70A; thence S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 1335.00 feet to the point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence departing said southerly right-of-way line along the centerline of said proposed roadway S 23° 47' 24"W a distance of 369.14 feet to the true point of beginning; thence departing said proposed centerline S 66° 12' 36"E a distance of 103.00 feet; thence S 01° 17' 24"W a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on a curve whence the center of said curve bears S 50° 29' 06"W, thence along said curve to the right having a central angle of 50° 45' 02" and a radius of 150.00 feet (chord bearing S 14° 08' 23"E a distance of 128.56 feet) a distance of 132.87 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 83° 10' 08" and a radius of 110.00 feet (chord bearing S 30° 20' 55"E a distance of 146.02 feet) a distance of 159.67 feet; thence N 57° 08' 05"E a distance of 479.00 feet to a point that is the southwest corner of the Carter property; thence S 74° 01' 45"E a distance of 551.12 feet to the southeast corner of the Butts property as recorded in Deed Book 315 at page 626 of the Orange County Clerk and Recorder Office; thence along the common line of said Butts property and said Meadowlands property N 04° 04' 49"E a distance of 293.26 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line of U. S. Highway 70A S 73° 36' 46"E a distance of 183.74 feet to a point of intersection with the centerline of a proposed roadway; thence along said proposed centerline the following nine (9) courses: 1) S 16° 23' 14"W a distance of 316.60 feet to a point of curve; 2) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 74° 24' 10" and a radius of 675.00 feet (chord bearing S 53° 35' 19"W and a distance of 816.23 feet) a distance of 876.54 feet to «a point of tangent; 3) N 89° 12' 36"W a distance of 577.57 feet to a point of curve; 4) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 59° 30' 00" and a radius of 455.00 feet (chord bearing N 59° 27' 36"W and a distance of 451.56 feet) a distance of 472.50 feet to a point of tangent;, 5) N 29° 42' 36"W a distance of 14.10 feet to a point of curve; 6) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 37° 45' 00" and a radius of 175.00 feet (chord bearing N 10° 50' 06"W and a distance of 113.23 feet) a distance of 115.30 feet to a point of tangent; 7) N 08° 02' . 24"E a distance of 108.76 feet to a point of curve; 8) Along the arc of said curve to the right having a central angle of 66° 00' 00" and a radius of 223.49 feet (chord bearing N 41° 02', 24"E and a distance of 243.45 feet) a distance of 257.44 feet to a point of reverse curve; 07.1 AEP NO. 86-511-000 July 9, 1987 Sheet 2 Of 2 9) Along the arc of said reverse curve to the left having a central angle of 50° 15' 00" and a radius of 375.00 feet (chord bearing N 48° 54' 54"E and a distance of 318.45 feet) a distance of 328.89 feet to the true point of beginning containing 21.733 acres more or less. -• ATTACHMENT 3-C 072 _. At,t..AC iJ nt. 3-C A statement of justification ,addressing one or more of the following : 1 . The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance , if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. 2 . The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare . 3 . The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof . 4 . All other circumstances , factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including , but not limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g .fire, police , rescue and utilities agencies ) assuring services provision capability to the development. 073 Attachment 3-C C-1 . The existing zoning atlas reflects 103 acres ,- the 1 existing tax map reflects 108 . 4 acres , the property apparently is 110 . 1 acres according to survey prepared for Meadowlands Associates Master Planning Review. The amendment corrects the zoning deficiency by recognizing the correct number of acres in the Meadowlands Industrial/Research project. C-2. The Meadowlands property is within the industrial corridor designated by the Orange County Planning Department in its growth studies completed in 1983 . The planning documents and the completion of I-40 are general and specific influences which support the zoning request. Furthermore , The Meadowlands Associates in February 1986 employed the services of RS&H of North Carolina to conduct a land use evaluation for the specific site. In May ,1986 a charette on the Meadowlands property was conducted for two days involving soil specialist , engineers , county and regional planners, NCDOT engineers, NCDOC industrial/economic developers , utility providers , fire department representataives and elected officials to develope a master land use plan for the site. This change of zoning request reflects the conclusions of the 1986 studies and charette. C-3 . The adopted land use plan and the zoning alignment are in complete accord. The plan list the Meadowlands property as transitional to commercial /industrial . C-4 . Essentially the elements supporting the change have not changed since the initial re-zoning request of July 1985 . The applicant requested that the documentation supporting the 1985 decision be continued as support documents for this re-alignment of the zoning and potential road boundaries . The re-alignment is necessary due to recommendations concluded via the slope and soil analysis and a decision to concur with the Orange County Planning Department Spring 1985 study for the present farm pond to serve as the focal point for the site. New documentation between the Orange County , Town of Hillsborough, and RS&H of North Carolina are attached which specify the quality of the internal utility system and soil and erosion plan for the site . um mm ATTACHMENT 3-C IV 074 =' of North Carolina, Inc. Oak Branch Drive,Sude Two A(27407) P.O.Box 77354 Greensboro.NC 27417-7354 Phone(919)852-6152 June 23, 1987 Mr. Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Erosion Control Plan The Meadowlands Development Orange County AEP NO: 86-511-000 Dear Mr. Faircloth: We are herein responding to your letter of comments dated June 15, 1987 on the subject project. Also enclosed are three (3) sets of revised drawings. We trust these revisions are acceptable for your approval and issuance of a grading permit to the project owner, Consolidated Ventures Corporation, and their contractor, Nello Teer of Durham. The following responses to your comments are listed respectively: 1. Construction notes listing construction activities, and temporary and permanent erosion control measures added to sheet C-1. 2. Construction sequence outlining steps in construction process added to sheet C-1. - - 3. Yes, this plan covers only the street and utility construction. Prior to any additional construction or subdivision, appropriate erosion control plans will be submitted at that appropriate time. 4. The rip rap pads at the storm drain outlets are sized in accordance with Appendix C of "Guide for Sediment Control on Construction Sites" , by U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. Rip rap pad detail added to sheet C-8. 5. None Architects/Engineers/Planners 07 1 Warren iaircloth ;Late 23, L957 :'age Two Requirements for temporary stabilization (silt £eucing, sediment pits) are ''• and permanent stabilization indicated to (rip drawings;pad; aeceaing)rare also noted on drawings and fully requirements (rip rap pads. specified in the project Manual Technical Specifications - copies enclosed of Erosion Control and Seeding and Mulching. 7. within of construction and drainage easements within road rights-of-way, as stated in the construction notes added to sheet C-1. 8. Synthetic filter fabric only, not burlap, is required for silt fencing as designated on the silt fence detail on sheet C-8. Please promptly advise if you have any further comments. Sincerely . (1/11121: C. D. Heiser, PE CDH:sh Enclosures cc: Mr. Lee Capps 1 Project No. 86-511-000 bInrIE p ATTACHMENT 3-C IV 7 V 6 3511 Gr�f o 1111511E 1 reynolds, smith and hills 2:00 pm Local. X L.D. Placed Recd X Date 7/10/87 C. D. Heiser Conversed with , David Cain Of Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout Regarding ,Water & Sewer Approvals/The Meadowlands Mr. Cain called to state that our response to their water and sewer review comments are complete. Cain is recommending that the Town of Hillsborough execute the water and sewer permit applications immediately so that they can be forwarded on to the appropriate State agencies (N.C.D.H.S. and N.C.D.O.T.) in order that permits may issued. C. D. Heiser, P.E. 1 1 s Distribution: RS&H FORM 102 11/72 e m. ATTACHMENT 3-C IV (.)77 of North Cnrohna, Inc. Oak Branch Drove,Suite Two A 427407) P.O. Box 77354 Greensboro,NC 27417-7354 Pnone 491 91852-6152 June 23, 1987 Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. , Administrator Town of Hillsborough 101 East Orange Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: Water and Sewer Approvals The Meadowlands Development Orange County AEP NO: 86-511-000 Dear Mr. Hughes: We are herein responding to the Town Engineer' s letter of comments dated June 12, 1987 on the subject project. Also enclosed are eleven (11) sets (three (3) for •NCDHS, Three (3) for NCDEM and five (5) for NCDOT) of revised drawings, NCDHS Application for Approval of Plans and Specifications for Water Supply Systems, NCDEM Non-Discharge Permit Application with $25.00 Application Fee and Gravity Sewer Design Checklist, and NCDOT Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement for the water line extension under US 70-A. We trust these revisions are acceptable for your approval, execution and submittal to the appropriate state agencies. The following responses to Finkbeiner,-Pettis and Strout, Ltd. comments are listed respectively: 1. The tenants and their building sites and water demands at ,:this development are presently unknown. Once a tenant is secured, they will submit plans and request domestic and fire protection water demands at that time. The proposed 8-inch water line loop is based on the Master Development Plan showing maximum building-up: A. 756,000 SF total Off./Inst. bldgs. @ 250 SF/Person - 3028 People 389,600 SF total Ind. bldgs. @ 1000 SF/Person - 390 People 3418 3418 People x 25 GPD/Person/Shift x 1.5 shifts/Day /12 hr/day/60 min./hr. - 178 GPM x 2.5 peaking factor - 445 GPM peak domestic water use. Architects/Engineer./Mormon' Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. 07 8 June 23, 1987 Page Two B. Min. 1500 GPM @ 20 psi residual fire fighting demand. 2. All water lines shall be DIP class 50. 3. All sewer lines shall be extra strength vitrified clay pipe, or DIP where conditions require such. DIP shall be cement mortar lined. 4. See Item 1 concerning water and sewer demands, all based on the Master Development Plan. The gravity sewers will be capable of handling these anticipated flows. 5. All utility easements shall be min. 20-foot in order to conform Town standards, as revised on drawings. 6. Conditions prevent an 18-inch vertical separation between the 6-inch DIP water line stub at STA 27+60 over the 8-inch DIP gravity sanitary sewer, while maintaining a 36-inch cover over the water line. Such an ; installation is acceptable in accordance with. the Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, NC Administrative Code, Subchapter 10D-Water Supplies, NCDHS, Section .2106(6), copy attached. 7. All individual sewer service lines shall enter the main line atwyes as revised on the drawings. 8. The correct slope between manholes C and D is corrected to be 0.50%, and is redrawn correctly. 9. The profile between manholes G and H is correctly redrawn to shw the 1.0% slope. d 10. The drawings have been revised to show the location of Manhole A only, to be installed later by others. The lines leading to this manhole will be installed as indicated and marked to identify the correct locations and elevations. 11. The sewer line between manholes C and C--3 is designed at the .de,3ignated depth (C-3 invert el. 648.31) in order to provide positive gravity atser ce to Lot P with a minimum floor elevation of approximately el. 6 feet away. { Mr. L. Harding Hughes, Jr. June 23, 1987 Page Three present elevations are based on the surveyor' s datum. All elevations 12. The P s prior to will be corrected to US�S the nwaterkand tsewer facilities.drawing P final Iowa acceptance o Please promptly adivse if you have any further comments. r Sincerely, C. D. Heiser, PE CDH:sh Enclosures cc: Mr. David Cain, FPS Mr. Lee Capps ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 y ? :w6F RE\'E:RE: ROM) H111,43014)1 (:H. NORTH ( .kROI.i%k -r=7R 080 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER D : JULY 29 , 1967 SUBJECTATE : Z JU3-67 THE MEADOWLANDS GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Meadowlands Associates Route 5 , Box 1376 Hillsborough, NC 27276 LOCATION: Highway 70 Business REQUESTED ACTION : The applicant is requesting a realign- ment of the existing Office Institutional ( O- 1 ) , Industrial -1 ( 1 -1 ) , and Rural Residential ( R-1 ) zones. This proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones : Existing Proposed Zoning Realigned Zone Difference ( 0- 1 ) zone 25 . 4 acres 15 . 81 acres -9 . 59 acres ( 1 -1 ) zone 62 .3 acres 72. 57 acres +10 .27 acres (R-1 ) zone 22 . a acres 21 .73 acres -. 67 acres PURPOSE: To allow less Office- Institutional use ( 15 . 61 acres total ) and more Light Industrial -1 use (72 . 57 acres total ) . IT would also reduce the amount of the Residential -1 (R-1 ) zone by .67 acres. LOT SIZE : 103 total acres with 65. 51 requested to be rezoned. EXISTING LAND USE: Farm tract with two houses , various buildings and a pond . Z-3-87 THE MEADOWLANDS PAGE 2 081 SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING: The property in question is located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) . Zoning designations are identified below for surrounding property. NORTH - R-1 zone across U . S. 70 Business with one small EC- 5 zone SOUTH - Interstate 85 EAST - R-1 zone and Colonial Hills subdivision zoned R-2 WEST - R-1 zone , Hines Liner Company zoned 1 -2 and Merritt Marine zoned GC-4 LAND USE PLAN: Designated 10-year Transition and Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node . The permitted uses allowed in each district will remain as permitted under the existing R-1 , I -1 and 0- I zoning districts. F11191NGS OF 741E ORANGE CoU111Y PLAM i1G RnARD PERTAINING 10 ArPLICATiON: Z-3-81 TiLE MEAbOWLAIMS NG FF BASSO ON 111F APPLICATION MATERIALS SUSDO111 1E FOLLt}1lI iIG FIADI 11G5 : RECOPIPiENDS MAT TIIE RE IS EVI UE110E TO UPPOR ARTICLE 20 - SrECIFIC STAIIDARDS FOR EVALUAIIOIIIREZON1NG A11,11 CLE 20 - SPECIFIC S FANUARDS FOR EVALUAI ION/REZOIIi i1G ("Yes" itrdi tales com 1 i ante • "110" indicates lloncomP i T+t e PLA1111I 11G PLAi1N1 NG S'VArF BOARD F 11101 NGS BASED Olt SUU41k TIED i0 SUPPORT F}IlD1 Nt;S f 1 NUtIiJt,Sltf U SUUI44 T JED AN'LI CAT101! EVI DENCE 0rdirrancc. Rt(III i rcmcnts llrr application "lust co"i'lly ,vi tlr .111 r"rtlrti rerrrnt5 speci- fied in Article 20 - Amend- nx�rrl5. Tf»sc requirements i+►c:i ude X Yes No Site Plan Yes provided at scale of __. -- 110 20. 32 a) 110 5110"6+19 affected 1"=100' property at scale of not less tlrat, I r_ 100" nor nrvre than I 'm Z01 Yes �� 20, 3.2 b) legal description of X Yes Ito Description provided with application -__ il Property v Yes 11u 20. 3.2 c) ExPlana0011 of alleged }( Yes 110 IJo error alleged error, i f ally, to be corrected by proposed an>endmcrlt I1v The 1-1 property is located next to t Yc rT1 -2 s II� 2 . 3.2 d) Chatlged Bondi t ions , i f X Yes he -- ;�„y „I►i ch make a"x�ndmer►t reosona- Interstate and other property zoned and re-�1 rronnle public The Ol property would be buffered from the present bly necessary to } I-2 zone by the 1-I and located along US ]0 Business- health , Safely and general welfare. Yes llr Mar►ner i r1 1►hl c11 proposed X Yes 110 The property is located in a Ten-Year -- 20. 3.2 c) - Transition Area and Commercial industrial F-+ d1}1er1 t wi i { carry Out purpose Transition Activity 'lode. and intcnt of adopted Con+}rrclicnslve vt r t ARTICLE 1t - DISrRICt STATEMENiS Or 111fEREST AND ArrLICATiON CR1lERIA rl_ANNiFiC, STAFF rt AWIlNf, ROARR F i tth ins BASFO ON RE CMIM ttttf U Ordinance Rerluircments SUDll11fED Al'rLICATION EVIDENCE SuDlli1TED 10 surroRl F1NDiPIGS ftNDiWIGS Article It.? (dent i f ies tier criteria which will normally Ile used to determine the .111,,1 Icat inn of a znning rlistrlct r!1►sl�lnaticln, Tl+r. :+11111 lcarlt 11,15 .111pi led for a t -1 de s i g+rat 1011. : Tile_ Criteria for Mat dkirict are Set for tie in A+ t icle. 1r.2 .21 and are as follows; a) live. -,Ile is located oiltside, of X Yes No Applicant has indicated the prorrrty is Yr 11„ the Ci+a11ri Ili ! i ,foil'( rlannhiq A+r_a In a len-Year Transition area and and w; (111+1 an 11ulustr#al Trans it;nn Conniercial /Industrial Transition Activity flode, or a Rural Industrial Activity Node. Activity No(ie. h) Lot size for indivirhial usr.s X Yes Ito Applicant his suhmitter# Information Yrs FJ„ %11.11 Ile 11.111npr- Inte to the. method concerning water & sewer extension from of water suvely and sewage, (115posa l , tiie Town of Hi 11 sbo rough and has Ind icatr rl that public services wiil be utilized. IIle proposed lot size exceeds requirements for on-site septic systems. c) Access woulri consist or dIree:t X Yr.s !lo Site has direct access to a street Yes N., vehicrrlar access to streets classified as an arterial. Oral comments elti+cr arterial or collector by the prev;ousiy received from NCDol indicate Land use flan. Access to ralI service that site access and road improvements for Is desireable but not rericiired. US ]O be carefully considered during driveway permit process. C 11Ii1ICLE tt - DISTRICT STATENLNTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA rtntifiiNr, 110ARD PLANNING STMT Rf eprlltirNOto FINDINGS BASFD 011- OrJ+Hance ftrcyul reir+cnts SUB11111111) APPLICATION EVID1110E SUBlill1111) TO SUPPORT rINDINGS f 1NIlI14Gs Article 11.7 111flent1fle5 tf+e _ criteria which will normally be +eyed to detecer+ine the ai,pl ication of a zoning dl-strict des 1 (Mat yon. The -'111111 i iat1L hV+s "Ippl eed for a 141__— --- 4C s i qn.,t i f►}1. 111e c+ i ter±a inr Utat district are .et fordt in Article 4.2 .j Yrs ,1114 ale as follows : IJ� Al,pl is.1nt has indicated the property --_ .1) Dcsi gnalyd 1,y the .1dopted Land X Yes is in a Ten Year Trans i t ion area and Use 1'!.111 a lransl t'+an Area, Commercial/Industrial transition Activity Node . wl+i cl► can reasonably be expected to he..nnexe.d I.y a enunf Civil ; ty i"► li+e ensteincl 10-20,yea+'s. Yc5 Nc, x Yes Ito App) Ic.1+1t has submi lied inrc,rm.1t ion con- sewet' lines 51101e1d crrrlf}1g w.1trr ► sewer extension from exis E at 5 i to or be asstrred of ti,e lows of Iii l lsborough. installation as part of the develol,ur_nt I,rocess. Yrs rIU C) Vc11 i ctel ar access nu+s t co+1s l5 t X Yes Ito Applicant does 111ve direct access to a --- street classified as an arterial . of direct access to a sheet classified as either arterial ` or• collector as designated r by the adoi+led Land Use f 0.111. Yrs No (1} Site. would provide a hurrer or —Yes I!o 0lvt applicable. sir-.1v (10%411 in lntc"+si ty of land use in a Nc i g1,I►0+hood or Conknu a l l y Ac t i V i t y Not1r_. Yrs Ile. C) Tln}malty li►e maxlmlrm .1nmunt of X Yes Ito Applicant is requestinq to reduce the -- . amount of existing 01 zo",e at this C' 1.110 zc,nrd to this 0/1 classification node by 9.59 acres. acr sh.11 I not exceed live -cs. �T — ATT ~.�.Z ;' C :v 085 1 dS .= HILLSBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMEtifT July 7 , 1967 Mr . Lee Capps Consolidated Ventures Corporation 600 Franklin Square Chzpe1 Hill , R . C . 27514 Dear Mr . Capps , I have reviewed the proposed changes that you are submitting for the Meadowlands development on U . S . 70-A in Hillsborough . The insignificant changes that you have requested will not affect the ability of the Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department to protect anticipated types of occupancy of this development . Best wishes for your project . If we can be of any further service to you , do not hesitate to call on us . Sincerely , :X---Z/Yi /:,771.,,,,/(,:„.„._,_.= Mark Gordon , Chief 0S6 ley UNDY PENDERGRA55 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 ()TIRE. Phone Hillsborough 732-2431 Chanel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 Tc: Eddie Kirk, Orange County Pl= 111 7/0P From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergras.." Re: Meadow Lands Development Date: July 31, 1987 Mr. Kirk, I have reviewed the proposed changes for the Meadow Land Development realigning of the property lines for the new road. These changes will ndt affect our services to this property, nor increase our work load. ORANGE r T r, / w Ni'1-TH EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE E-..ruhhsh■d MEMORANDUM . TO: Mr. Lee Capps FROM: Bobby Eaker ; RE: EMS Coverage, Meadowlands DATE: August 5, 1987 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services for your proposed Meadowlands Development. • US Town of 1 111E huruu Mayor Town Clerk Frank H. Sheffield, Jr. Agatha Johnson HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Supt. Water Works Commissioners James Pendergraph Myron L. Martin Street Supt. Horace H. Johnson weir* L.D. Wagoner Allen A. Lloyd Chief of Police Remus J. Smith Arnold W. Hamlett Rachel H. Stevens ... • • Fire Chief John Forrest r , August 10, 1987 Eddie Kirk, Planner 306x Revere Rd. Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Eddie: On August 6, 1987 , the Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed the Meadowlands Rezoning Request as a courtesy review. The Hillsborough Planning Board recommends approval of the rezoning request. If you have any questions , please call me between 8: 30 A.M. and 12: 30 P.M. at 732-2104. Sincerely yours , 9‘7"7/4,-e Janet V. Rigsbee Planning Director ()RANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0S 3 IiuLLS1-3OkOI (;H NORTH CAROLINA S 2 27 w� �,��_ ' s, ?L°';' CERTIFICATE OF MAILING REZONING REQUEST ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , EddJ __Edda , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the @azoaing__zegy,eat__14_Iht_MeadaxlandaL_Hillz= hot au.g.h_Isatnahilz,__IaK__Map__4pJ___Eioct__fl__Latl_11__and_14 to each property owner as required by Article 8 Section 8. 4. 4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the Rezoning request. WITNESS my hand, this the loth day of 6uauata__19 &lc; /241. Eddie Kirk ZONING OFFICER 09() O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _AUgUst_14z 1987 Action Agenda Item 1 �? SUBJECT: Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _KC___Yes No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Application Project Summary Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mai l ing Findings of Fact TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located on the east side of N. C. Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road ( SR 1723) and south of Old N.C. 10 . The applicants, Charles Miller and Merle Dancy, are requesting a rezoning on a portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill Township. The property that would be rezoned contains 41 , 480 square feet or 0 .95 acres. The current zoning on the property is Rural Residential (R 1 ) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . The property is the present site of the Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan . The applicants maintain that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time. The property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5 ) . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed re- zoning for the following reasons : 1 . The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. 2. The lot is not located in or near a commercial transi - U9'ti' tion node on the Land Use Plan . The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is 4, 400 feet or eight tenths of a mile north of the property. 3. The existing use can continue to . operate at its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed zoning at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. LAw orricr5 U 9 a FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH TO: Orange County Planning Department L ' PRO PA: Robert E. Hagemann DATE: July 10, 1987 SUBJECT: Application for Change of Zoning District - Autowerks Property Enclosed please find the following which comprise Charles Miller' s and Merle Dancy' s application for rezoning. 1. Application for Change of Zoning District 2. Rezoning request checklist. 3. Map showing the land proposed to be rezoned. 4. Legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. 5. Statement of Justification. 6. Letters from the Hillsborough Fire Department and Orange County Emergency Services assuring services provision capability (Orange County Sheriff' s Department is sending a letter directly to the Planning Department-). 7. Rezoning mailing address request list (all individuals, firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within 500 feet of the property sought for rezoning). 8. Letter of acknowledgement from the property owner, Beth Braxton. 9. Photographs of the site. 10. Documents evidencing Autowerks' existence and operation in 1981. 11. Application fee of $125. " /dwc Enclosures :;ANGE C:JNTY , N:F.'. H ZARC�INA APR L::A :O N FOR :HANuc OF Zn NINE 20 5 094 1 ,-- Date : _l i„ ,n, ,ap7 (amenced uuly 20, :957) TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the np-' side of SS R . # pF 1 Street/Road p.between S .R . # 1723 $ .R . # '?la NC 1C) It is known as ip��( s ) � Block and Orange County Tax Hap 2 —, uillsbDrnuoh Township . It has a�frontage of 17n - feet and a depth of , 741 feet , and contains ^' -"p^ - square feet or n oc acres . 2. It is desired end requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from R-1 to EC-5 • • 2 .. The .:following information has been attached ...in_ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas Ie — required on ell applications ) . • .'a. A fully dleene4ened ego at • *eels of not less then ens (1) inch-----'� F Douala ene-hunorep 11OC) fees nor sere then ens 111 inch •ousla tw•nt7` t2:) feat - shoeing• "the lend rhien is proposed to be rezoned. 't. A level bescrlptlon of the lend proposed to be r2201744. •c. A stetasent of lustiflestlen sdcreasinp ens or mere of the Tel l Levi np:. 11) The ■llep•d error in the Zoning Ordi , if any, which w ould be corrected by the proposed ith a betsilsd e xplanation of sucn •rrer in the Zoning Atlas end patellae hey the prepared ewenorent will correct the error. t2) The changed Cr changing conditions, If any, in the ere• or in the teensy generally, *Pleb rake the proposed srenbwen% • re..enebly neceessry to she promotion of the public heslth, safety end general velfare. '12) The in which the prepared ensnarer.: will carry out the intent end purpose of the scooted Land Use Plan or per: thereof. 'tA) All other circumstances, fac:prg and • 'high she • applicant offers in support of she proposed •m•nbwent including, but net liwltee te. epeu.an:st,en frog service •vendss Is.t. firs, police, rescue and utilities scenting) ing services prevision cnpsbillty !o the buveLoowent. C. A list of sl1 individuals, firms or corverstlons owning property edjclnint Cr within five honored taCs) feet of the property souvnt for rezoning 4s •ttaenee. The list 4e current se of • Mats) r _I__certify that ell information furnished in his application is accurate the best of my knowledge . • • D S !Iii r('4 1 ""aria Dancv /4f5i, ?-- .,keel dress : ar„•rc L qnv 7nt''' +� t .1nc f LJ;?le�nrri,7ni qtr 91^-!.4 w., :one : critical arensi flood prone arena tt /a Poorly drained areas nJa Streams rt�a other, - sensitive areas riJa . Describe land uses in= Genernl Area Piostly sirtgl -tamely hump-, nn rather larne Inlc Oil Adjncent parcels of iPnd rower Lilies,, Pi(l rarrn, Sin9lelanilly Iloale, Highway 86 [unL ,USIL 111(ill gay Rfi arp i „ „ry,rl' ii„„r, anti a s lityle- Kilns ly home) • T i Ituo"111a ltrQULST•'G1MGKLIST ownut's 14A11H Re th Brax toll AnDRESS : Aou [e 5, Box 204, ii i f i sbor•ouUh 1Vnr lii Cai i.i 171 Current zoning R-1 �-- Total number of acres fl-44 Current n na U lend use Auto Repair Shop Type of rezoning requested Er-5 Proposed land use -- Auto Repair Sitvp fix map 2 Black 11 _ •.. 1lumber of lots l -Proposed Water Supplys Fublic Community Individual X proposed Sewage Treatments Public Community Individual septic tank y Access onto state road A QG Avernge daily trnffic•Count on the state toad 7,400 bescribe existing critical arensi flood prone arena tt /a Poorly drained areas nJa Streams rt�a other, - sensitive areas riJa . Describe land uses in= Genernl Area Piostly sirtgl -tamely hump-, nn rather larne Inlc Oil Adjncent parcels of iPnd rower Lilies,, Pi(l rarrn, Sin9lelanilly Iloale, Highway 86 [unL ,USIL 111(ill gay Rfi arp i „ „ry,rl' ii„„r, anti a s lityle- Kilns ly home) • T 09 F; Lying and being in Hillsborough Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the existing northwestern corner of the Property of Beth Braxton Underwood according to plat of survey entitled "Physical Survey for Beth Braxton Underwood" dated 30 July 1984 by Alois Callemyn, RLS, said point also being located, along the eastern right-of-way of N.C. Highway 86, and running thence (1) South 85-18-00 East 244.0 feet to a point along the northern property line of Beth Braxton Underwood; running thence (2) along a line parallel to N.C. Highway 86, South 04-30-52 East 170.0 feet to a point; running thence (3) along a line parallel to the northern property line of Beth Braxton Underwood, North 85-18-00 West 244.0 feet to a point located along the eastern right-of-way line of N.C. Highway 86; and running thence (4) North 04-30-52 West 170.0 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING, and being a rectangular tract of land located on the east side of N.C. Highway 86, containing 41,480 square feet. • • • • .... ' 1 • . , . _ . . _ _ _ . , -_,9.-_,,r - i . . . _ 1 . ' ,z4 t ..., .:. ., . , . . .,. 0 _ . . _ p N- - .:. . • . , , „ _ ... . _ . ... _ . . .__ ,. ■ _ "N!■,-74..7'•.^,--e-'.4.7.-.2'. ....-.....-_;...i- t.•e,..-.,--, „,- .:.-.,• -....:„...-,.. .,... -•r•••• 1 : 7 ' - - : _ 6 ''''''-';;;5:;••e 1.-••:•. •-.: -• 1 r-,-.r.:•- ,••!..--,m,:4-.7- f4--.- -.. .,.. ....-: ,..:, •,:•:. "-', - -‘-■.' -'•";`...;:r k4.... .. "-.7....p;',: •;,.....,-.•' . -::': •;,..-,.--1.-''''-1--•,7,4-44.-7 T.,:lt•:,t-.- 14it,t4;-..:-,..-.7- :•,:. :.7-4.e.',6" 7.„."?.,:.:.:_,,- f -•.--. '.'.'. .-I. .. ' .6.. ,..... "'" .7.2r.. 6 " •,„, tri .17,-.•.% ;...:-1".--41' „7" - -L4a--.•;•-.A.0 ---'..'--.'"dt----7::•"--.•..,,7' :74r.,t-.7,2'''''• • ----•- '• -' - -- • " '''" -4-7",Z-'.!- ,.z ' ft, 7".--7 s' •---.--1/..4...!-7,4".','ft'. -:.. ..... --.5tit." .5. -••••••■•''''. .--t ..•,I.' ' . . ,4:-.-5.4,..z - ,„•: ,..., ... _-,.::, ,.,,....„... . _-,.. 4,...-, -.-z4t..,-....4.. .-:... ..., •• -__- •-_ t-,_ - -■••.•,-- .".. -.Terz."7. • 3,g•••■ _..-"-.3-I..... .7... ;- .1,.,.■ifr,.. ,., .17.,.. iN. v.. -4i aw......57m.--...7...:.;.,. -..„.,„-- ,...-,: -.., •1._- . .71.;.,..4,„-.7.-„,_-___5_ _-....--,e• ., fi,„..„ t:...;,-,-:,,, -., ...•,,• _ ' 44-....--.t.-‘"...-•1-_,- .--, '.•7•,-• .-•.-*--_:?•••••-r".„..4,••,a, i„,,At•.--“.7-_......1;.-:-%_,. ',;-,,, , • '-. ._;;;„..-2•,;:-.._ - .----'•-•-:-!,'•!: -_,,,..---,--1-,,,-7':, i.,.. . 1--"1-•---..;'•• 17,- -'••--••-•.;-'-.)•,-; :.-•_:..-4K.,. ..‘efropt..-'•...-.,-T,L•r,,s,•:•1,-4,4,..flat,h,,-,aer. • ,,-,,,-,.-,,i, -,..;#-.i..7::::- :.,,,,;;:s..i•-_-_ -.7------ ao■-•-.:-'--:iv----,.:7.-U-- ",'•-:-',.- ....---•■•:-..,.:-.-.6.2.., •-:- ----- - i-:-.":-.-.7-."::4' • -*-' ...._a - ,..,.., ....:, ...-f ., ..„,-, :.,.,-_11•77..2i. -%"ig 3''r•-'.317er'.",•44,;5•',f-'n'!"---.4;07$12.=.7_:-, ......74--;: . • C.1.0,- 3.' 7,...„. ....,,,,,,,,7T,{ ...."s :L.'' ' ' ' ••■.7‘..4.... 'O'lkti.V.4 • ..S.7-•-• .-......"•=c.-!-......- •• .-..:-.,!••■•--..--.:,..,,-•.7 i1..t.L.,4 IIIX .. •,:•-'1;,_:„.:,, ...63^,...4.-..••••F7---,..147,:4-1-,_,2.....H,,,„0-_.:.1:2:11--1_,•17 "=,!••••--z'th,'",-itc,,:044c%/A;11.-L--t ••• -•‘e.•"-••••#,7::.■Av'• ^^''.4-7+-4",--!7 -,;*-••-••••:-'; '-'•.' - -..1,....'...;r:.•,--;::, :•:':•',.:-;.-.",-.'--' I. :4- .-•'- -...; -- -• , ,..."4--,..r...•!. ' .'l•‘‘),-0' "L.• .7 ....i:4.--.4...•••••• - • - 3.'"?''• L"''' •'' .. .' ••.E.t:::-.74:''..";-,':,'.,--r.,.;.,`•--1',..,f.:;,-..',..::,,V7:.,r4- :-'- ]:;'4.4. Et -_,.-4 j ..., •;- 7"-.41..--=__-._,__.---Aik•-7 r`"ak, --'7;* -'*-*L-L-',-7--''',-..---ff•••-----'I'"? =*-- .- - _-_ - „..-.4-72„:.... . -. -17 ,,,....._,-..- g.::'.1. '_--. •4,";‘,.)".4-'17.7'.•'-'%••1-2.'• t-.7''."'''';' ''% -' ... 7.!•-•,_,..•.."!:'........,4:::..i,',70-,:.7.... . Cti , ' : I-•:--'4-• ...._t. P'-%;K-. .r.' '''' ..f. ',:". r `7. -"'•,'•:-...2.:-7-";.-'-- ;''''.-14.77:7 ..v:,-,,; .1-•,-,..7-77'..,r-'.- ,-.''.-.,:7-7S-7:---7.--•(,:r.--0-#4-1•\) : .,,.,...,,r,j..-- -,......-,..7,..-• '741-:-.-..4 ..,--k:L.,- '14-i; - Z.A.- ' :"‘1:;.;:lkirre-L%--mi.,,r1,:a;.,..•,,z04.- '#*. ._:,-,-..-i.:-..!•. -:_ ,•••:.:..:4..---*:-.,„-,-T-'...-;i,-1,-i'-- : ti--,C;K-7,-.:•-.,...w.t.---47-t ...: . -4r,.- tz-.:',' ._ . ...:,:l....::.7,.,•v..••=i:I,:.,-,.-,:z,.. - ,t--,....- .......„..- ••,.... ...-. . _ ,,,,,•,30r. 4;1n,'-' -;7...Tr.,--','-.-2,,'"-''',,-.7t.z.:..-.:4``': V.:•i•-•".,4:: ,-1▪ .•'••-•• •fC-','.'''-'7,.,:.e.i.i-■•1:. ■.;••3417',_'A li&-NID , -.eft". ..t...r,..g.t...---T•r;-47,./ ./•:, ... ".tga•I;L.67.44.,,.-- . --- :ffirjr.,71."7.i-L4,,,-..- .,'''''Z. 14.j.e...a.;'',...5. ,...---_,i-,4:0V4.trx."..'71;,./...• 1.7„."---E. : -- • -7*...A.-.74-'"Ar 0 - .4.4- -•%.s-1,,f• :i."r4-,:-.;:‘..., _._.... -=7.47,.44. 1.:17••..,-t• r;i1-:,-:--2-`"'-4•-,..!• . r- : '7:-..-e.....-- ,''..,:).1".:,-, 'stiN rift!, :_..--•;, 7:-;'.. .::.i7-ti---;L4!,-)1-.-a# ..,-r ; : ...;'-.1.-:-..":i.::-*.:"._•4--,-;..,,,. ': 7 ,- ,; :,..4.:•-:7..::? . -•.,tii a -- .2e.._ . . ..... ZB ;,,E,. - •R•••I'.44•'.. ' '• 'r,..- - - -,• ....!..r..-.‘1. --.! , ...1.-24:-.1,.4 '4• 4821-'. 1) .-1-i--.„,.•-" ,,,_,,•;" e- -•-c,..,2;±■::',;..- • .-:7: ''•-' -..."4 7...F•,fr'....- -!........7-771 641 4.63.:;-. . ., '''' ••••-•,‘'..11 "'-1-5-.1.7..,P:•4!-=--,-7,-.Sn"" -.....------'0.,r-.--. -- •&_.......-.-•,-. .1,.•;r,.•.---•:'.-.--•••,. ,'- ,.,,-,...s.;: 4`...Fer-Z:Vr/4_ .:94.4:6:-'1.;i:-..-21,.•Lf'. -..1.-L.;;;•k.i,,..-7.-:"I- -,r;S". r.'--2---",----W!7!`,,m04'.4`. 2k2,- 7,..-,..;-■?",.. ••■•..."..,7:441-••"-_-.;,f.,:,:i--.0,...a.-1,**7- .41.-.. --r.le, ....L.c...:..,.,...e 4.,eji•- ..-!---,-.,...-....rogg....:----......-- --...--7'' • -•:-.:.r.,..-114.-'lr'!''-1-"".4.-.5•' .....:;' .,.:!:r ,......„ ;..:75,.;:' 6..41.44/66141;: ".6..:'tr'.....,......,...;., 1 4,4., .,-5_,,v..442"• :iir V.,4:4047:•_" '••• •,,,i 71 •,,;.- ' -,•Z,J,..."! ..' ..-4:'..g.'1U4r_ I, 177 .st•-.„ i ., . ,.•.....- ,.- -: -• '.: --• ..-'. -t" 7":••:', ■ --...1...,,,----- 7:„T-.--. -.•: .... ....-• .-..,-- -,:-.- -, .: .;...,• „.- -rif_s, ..-:•:-.7-- v t• •;.i,..-......--. :.'•:-:-. ..,. . . ..- s ' ••,- ,:, .--..:•,;•,:-.- : ce_.•- -.:,.,-•...--- ---.,--,-.- -: -.-' - ..- .'•• - ' ••• " .""■•..•.. ,.4- . r,„...e..."14."-di--•---,-.-. --: 7."2-": • ,•," .......P1,-,•■.. so: -.-..f.--.'": •.'- • ". .- • • • 0 ''..*''' . . '.....'•-''. ' 1,7..." T ...-...-,3•r*.. ......7--- ' - . •'• '. , "'..,,,. .• 43-7.:d'•.,-•T--p...7_74 -.... -7•- --'4-...-..- -•%--.• -•':.:,-..:••-:...:-.. -. --.4,;.1-•;...--.-.... .••:,,u-ii•- -.-gr•-•.'w.a;,....• :-...4:4-ve,,:.:.,,-..:•-•- - . '-'. -•"- ••"j* ...3.•= l'1'74.45 i'!-7`..-\,•-%'...' ..".'L...7".-"47-':.•,-i, r',.?'....,:,„..1.:*,-P.- i:7,- -,-;1-•'-- %A'''. '',.•?.:'''''''"`--- ....-41r---- -.= •- •• , -.-..r ---1-,•;•.,- --- T-7--.---.4'''''''-." t`'.."-r• '!1...'";''-'1.-,a,4 ,,,-7•2_7•,,•,•-;•...-`,*--- ,..-•'-'=- •• •= -40-_, '-"•,:,-, '1..:-.•••:.- •• '"•••,-...7. •----;-'• .T.- -- ,..r..-4,-. ,,-_,-„e.r.,;-•,-;,c _, la...t-., ,"•;:_...--- ".'"-;'',t; --.‘• ,-f''1:- -''''":•'''''.....'-4,''!':';'-',--,114-'..!,-:,'.-•`...'--: ".:77k..c:',..A-''' ,;-4.C. ''' '' -'-'7'''' - --'- '71. _.-.• :;-,1-0-..., ;.•' '`,- r •••,--_ ': .r.. 1-..;"-T.:,,.i„,.....;. -4,77.-.x L.*•:.;:,;: ,-.---„:-.;•-,,L,• -_..*• -r‘ ..„...14, p„, 310•0,.!":.,..:`••••••. ; ,g, , --,..---.'"--;:'--,.....- ''.--....' ttt .- '.-- r7. ''..-- '',..,4'-fP -:.. '-',.• -7- "----■0■7.:1,-,. . ......1.ri„,::: ., •:Sig' ..*---&■--:-•• 74' . , 415:ai.::::,;••:.:''-'"V• :"- X"•114---%....---Y: '-.7.?!.. -7.:7 ..-"'''''...':;•-•'-:=-'--4:i ..,..”!2.-: ;e:"=-1-7:1't"4."'--t 61''' .:X2t:•4„.••• -,. .-:7 .7.... ■ - 1(Z'. ..:"'`41-.'-'- - '"' .--•-•-'''`-ik--.*J''• • 14.1-;-'------.1,--.-.. - •; ,--- • r.-.--'4--- -•.-,--..•-•'.-...;'-'-':---..=,'--.4•67:-:■;' -• „---.4,1,,,--•--7-••-.. -t•_-.-• •-•,...,..': ''.1- * ' _-',..*.. .-„,, i-•:' -.4.-'•-__'....`7' ,•.*,-,F.; •,.4.:,,,.',.. ...c,..,...,!!•••+..4:.:-: .:,....-„...-,,, „=-:.74- ,..1..., i7.;... ., •L. : ..4.14,Th" ••4 - -4-,.,;,A•-■;..-...1.-.-.1.-•-s ....te• ■-t-•mr-i-:"X.,•-•46.X.,-- '-fa.' .- - ' _7-- .. -.;..;":"L:?}*Z-:t*.,j..• ....-■-: -a. -..;:•'-..:-, ....gt-,•-•-2.- '-‘:''" , -- ..-: ... .-r•'', ...-.'...-%- - ' '-'•7- tot,,:...'iz.•.„-_;• - '-.-• -- ._ ,_%.-•■-•••••.1:.4-7'i:;. -..'7,"" -4..:i•i'izt-:•=••-••-•:,:ii.'•-.:?.• •---- -...,g„ ' r :,',..• :-. -',.....-7‘ _-.4.-......--`, - '.--'2,. :,-. --. ' ...'• ' ••-■ '- ^'ii■ .-1- ' -4-IA- ----':7' .:4:-.-'"-. - -1.'"'....t. l.- .-- r.-. - . , :--- :.. :::,--_, t•-■..,7,*.••,'-:,... ---''":--.- - -'1' •••- •-- ,''•'t 14'- • -- -..-•-'--=" '-.....4'.4-. ....'"'"'.'" - .•-tr.i,4.-i''''- -..-.t :a :• -'.'. ..-A::71.1;-.----,..":-..,..-- ..va.....- . .''. ' • .. .6. :"."". ' :.:.667 4. !ZS,:'''■4■661":4.46'7.: ';'...' ...16..:6t7'.''' 6'"%It"'667"...;%"1"';''"'; ''''.'."" '" ."'".".''..;. '' M 6 ,. 6 . ... ...‘‘I' • 4 4 i , . .6 .6. 4-- . . , . ,.-. - - . . . . • -•- --t 0 . -_-,,.-7,.... - -- . - • -- -, 6,-•-• •, -.-"- . . , . .. ,-• :.•-., - .•.- ...-:L-.' 2,' ..',--;- ,,,..._ • - . . ... gr-1-.3, • ..." .,•! ' •-.... .4..5" .:00.11....k.::'.!,-is.....".:, M.1,3-•••3 ' .3'3.-•'"''.i...".:i.. ;.:",X - -....!.....:: '' .....)::.-- - • 4'■,,..‘t+ ' .'•-•- - :•.- .- .:-,_ .,.,., .1/4...5.7-....- • - .... .,,,,,, . .,_.•-,i,...',...-L., s• _ •., ,...... :7 - „-4.." . I r.,:-.7•7',...--rz..;1 .-"'--!•••, '"'' f-.;...:`.! '"- ': 7;TiY'' I _ _ • -•..___,.:•_• _. _ --,...,•, -- ••''' • ...-. . . w . ... • -.__ . --.18.-4,"■.k... • .., •ftn p -rm.. •■/••■•••4410--•:,...• ••-•.- . •-■•••,.--..- - - -'' ••• - • .11 • •.+'' :..ori:,... .. .e. ;._?.. ..": - ..2,•:', *-4. .. ,_ ' ••• ..-• -- ,- in 4.•• - ..•'•?-r'.:..--i.:.. ,..z..-'.•".......‘• - .:,.7..„ii.i.- .-. -...,;-'1., ,.:.,-r.....• • . .';'''''''''•-■•• "•.• - -'7 • ••••.t..- -3'.■.., ..,, 5. .... :' - •-• '' ..514 ''," .-' '3- 3 ,. . ,,,•••:-,--•; .:- -'- --0- -7., -.-:' - •• ....:•:_",..r....,. . ..- _ -,• -, .r.' . ', 'a - -..,•6.•, • --....4 •• , --;-. ., ,....t. --4.-;i------;',,,_-:. 7.......-, -• :.: . .. •".', • :7 --.. , • . .■ -4> .--1 .'"4:-••. * .r.'•' ..." ;k -'' ' .....''. .: "..-''-‘ •••''. • . ' ....; ': , „. . ,,,, • _-•••• , :,....,. .,- • • . -. . +..-..... , . J : . . . • . .. d. ', •■ 2,3"gil* l 0 1 2 '''' _ft.,- z• -- • --'- . •.. il ••• •. ..t. '4•12 ,. 7.\ '. 4 ■•,. •. - . •' . - . ., ...- N4, ye - • , - - . -. ,,.., .. .. ■ .-7'.-::.. ...... •4 - -- . . . . . . , • - / . - . . ..........s.N""•-•. e. .... ...• ----. 4 • --- • - . e "•-.. .A., -I. ''',<,.,•,,,..,, , • . / _ ---- - __ 2 1 : 1 1 098 z2 Lsz 22.1842. 1 1 4992 1 r- ...A:173 tit \1 . 1 1 4 11 �1,9I %"*........_. _ 5059 01 •,© 1.1 AC. ' _ 11 t •E.35 A . 11 11 3.25 , 0999 �-z!a4�_a 3.5024:- 1 ..� SEE Z3.., I - �. ,► P/0 53•.516,4, i 1 • 16.8 AC. • ,-- � • - w - . ,' / / 07214E N1 1!sric r,-. 'TOwNSNr' - f ®415t wr 1 `,. 7 4YAiiL . TOWNSHIP . . J 0. R/ \ 1 AC. 1 150•13.E AC. ` SE�T,O�, -� - _",.......t-7-7- 101•1 4 44 _ 4 4 '--:\1�0 14 84'72 a l . • b 11 6 AC. 6st1 e . . • X14. . i2.fi6 AC. 4396 - • (E)11241 1 t Oh . . .. ...... 10 1 2 : w ,T1 r•IC\\*." . ... '1 r \ 23:15L i I , ..,..r.--:-.../..:,..—1 ' ' 17---/7 099 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION BACKGROUND In the fall of 1981, the Orange County Board of Commissioners took several significant steps toward improved planning in Orange County. Among these were the adoption of a new comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas. One result of these actions was the application of zoning to Hillsborough Township for the first time. The Land Use Plan provided that commercial activities were appropriate in certain identified activity nodes and generally inappropriate outside these nodes. However, the Planning Staff and the Board of Commissioners apparently believed that provisions should be made for then-existing commercial uses which were not within an activity node. The vehicle to provide for these uses was the EC-5 (existing commercial ) classification, which was intended to be applied to existing commercial uses in previously unzoned townships. Part of the Planning Staff' s preliminary work on the Zoning Atlas included the preparation of maps purporting to identify the then-existing commercial uses. These maps are currently in the .possession of the Planning Department. The majority of the commercial uses"depicted on these maps were assigned a number corresponding to numbers on charts prepared by the Planning Staff (Orange County Commissioners' Minutes Book 14, Pages 507-512 (attached)). These charts assigned commercial zoning classifications to each of the numbered uses on the maps. However, several uses identified on the maps as commercial were not assigned numbers. It has been suggested that these uses were intended to be nonconforming, and this interpretation garners support from Planning Board Memoranda 100 2 (Commissioners' Book 14, Pages 513-514 (attached)) which refer to certain nonconforming uses represented on the maps as unnumbered commercial uses. In the fall of 1981 Charles Miller and Merle Dancy owned and operated Autowerks, a business specializing in the repair of foreign automobiles. Autowerks is located on the east side of Highway 86 on the northwest portion of a seven acre parcel owned by Beth Braxton (thus Ms. Braxton, and not Mr. Miller or Mr. Dancy would have been notified in 1981 of the proposed zoning) . This business had been in continuous operation on that site since May, 1980. This seven acre tract is split by the Chapel Hill Township_Hillsborough Township line. The entire portion of the property which is in Chapel Hill Township is a power easement owned by Duke Power Co. The Autowerks operation is located wholly in Hillsborough Township and has continued at this location to the present. The seven acre tract on which Autowerks is located was identified as a commercial use on the 1981 Chapel Hill Township map of existing commercial uses (documentation evidencing the existence and operation of Autowerks at this location in September, 1981 is included in this application), even though, as indicated above, the entire Autowerks operation is located in Hillsborough Township. However, a number does not appearnon the map at the Autowerks location nor do the charts which assigned commercial zoning classifications to existing commercial uses include Autowerks. Finally, Planning Staff Memoranda do not list Autowerks as a commercial use intended to be nonconforming. JUSTIFICATION A careful reading of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance reveals that the Ordinance required EC-5 zoning to be applied to the property in 1013 question when Hillsborough Township was initially zoned in 1981. Section 4.2.12 of the Ordinance states that the EC-5 "district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan (emphasis addded). " For virtually every other zoning district, the Ordinance provides that "this district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist. . . Thus it is clear that unlike these other districts, the applicaton of EC-5 was intended to be nondiscretionary. The ordinance mandates the application of EC-5 to all commercial uses not within an activity node which existed on September 2, 1981, and the failure to zone the property on which Autowerks is located EC-5 was a clear violation of the Ordinance. Of course the applicant does not contend that the County' s failure to zone the Autowerks property EC-5 was an intentional violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, it is likely that an oversight or unintentional mistake occurred. Several facts support this theory. As indicated above, the seven acre tract was identified entirely on the Chapel Hill Township map, even though the only commercial activity taking place on the tract was in Hillsborough Township. Since Chapel Hill Township was already zoned, and since that portion of the seven acre tract in Chapel Hill Township consisted of a utility easement, it is easy to understand that residential zoning of the portion of the tract in Chapel Hill Township continued under the new ordinance. Then, since the tract was not depicted on the Hillsborough Township map of existing commercial uses, when previously unzoned Hillsborough Township was analyzed for zoning classification, no thought would have been given to assigning a commercial zoning 102 a classification to the land occupied by Autowerks. This scenario is further supported by the fact that, as indicated above, Autowerks is not listed on either the charts assigning commercial zoning classifications to existing commercial uses or the Planning Staff Memoranda of nonconforming uses. Even assuming that the Autowerks property could have legitimately been made a nonconforming use, there would have been no reasonable basis for doing so. An examination of the charts assigning commercial uses and the Planning Staff Memoranda of nonconforming uses contained in the Commissioners' Minutes, in conjunction with the 1981 township maps, reveals that every existing commercial use on Highway 86 other than Autowerks was assigned a commercial classification. In fact, the only existing commercial uses purportedly made nonconforming were located on smaller secondary roads. Intentionally singling out Autowerks in light of these facts would clearly have been unreasonable. Finally, an examination of the Autowerks site reveals its inappropriateness for residential use. Autowerks is bounded on the south by a 150 foot power easement on which is located large power transmission line structures and on the north by property which has been used as a pig farm. Clearly this property is not the most desirable of residential sites. CONCLUSION The granting of this rezoning request would correct an error made in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was originally zoned. Furthermore, such an amendment would be in full compliance with the Land Use Plan which, although generally limiting commercial uses to activity nodes, contemplated EC-5 zoning for commercial uses in existence in 1981. 4S9 r 10 3 KTNL S • • 53T.D 'c 2, 1981 •be Orange C aunty Board of Commissicne_"s net in special sessicn • an yyy, September 2, 1921,y at 7:3D P.M.., in the Crimais s ione^s' • Room, .range County Courthouse, Billshroi,, Nor.h Carolina. ••-^,RSSS e.tsrresenn • Commissioner nnel e,, Chaa, and Com- . m- • nrt CCr s Norman C ustaveson, Nooman Walker, Pia-bard 'tutted and Don • Wi lhoit. Ctneeiszi oes= .Ba es presided and grated the purpose cf the meeting • which is to review and possibly act on the Zoning CTrd nan.:e, Lend Use Plan and Zoning Atlas presently before the County and to review: the • Water Best and A eulcural ask Forces lepo ts. The Board fist discussed the pmcpcsed Zoning Ordinance, utt Planning Director Palmy and Planning Staff Mt. Rick Cannity explaining the errata sheet (see page of this book). ConoissionesA llhoit mimed, seconded by c=oissinner Whittled, that Section 2.2.3 be warded to reflect that every member of the Crange City Planning Board be a =Eden= of Grange County and that each townkhip in the Ccunty shall . be represent by a: least one resident of that township on the Orange s County Planning %be Board 24 S need% this issue at lens. with tr. '�,,_:_.^� Gordon, Planning Board member, _l=i yine the Planning Board's position on this issue. Mr. James Ray spice against those tsow ss-,ips not 'swear scared at peasant having rem,--ems.-.dual on the Cnzr y Planning Board. • • Conhissione- 'Walker ncved to adder an amended motion regarding Seri , 2.2.3, that is, all nemhers of the Orange Crusty Mannino Boers s:1- be residents of tae cownty's planninT j:=1.58ir-.ice and each ZitownaLip ut=tiM - the County shall he reoresented by at least one resits:r but. not ncee than three residarris of that township on the Ca County Planning Board: Cow niss nne: Ws—staves= sew ice^ the =rcica. Discussion tom-seated w=th some betters of the Board ftcpressing the opinion a pensive plan for Orange County and joint.p].arniee uith ra*,Zr;til .es is the goal cf planning and that the in ensiey of develo:pment outside the limits cf the �--7• s a great impart on use ataii.cipalj-'t es: and that those vrio 'five w=thin 2itipaities are also bona fide residents cf the County. 4c 104 • • Other ne errs of the Board agreed with Dr. Gordon's explanation of • the Planning Board's reasoning, that is, those uno live in the County can't • zone the municipalities therefore the municipalities sEEould not be allow • ed input into zoning in the County. • Vote on Commissioner Walker's s s itut+e uc icn: Ayes, 2 (C n • missicners Walker and G;ustaveson); noes, 3 (Comm sinners Barnes, Ft.itted _ • and Wil3hoit). • . Vote on Commissioner Willhoit's motion: Ayes, 3 (CCmaissiorse.s Barnes, • Uhitted and Wi lhoit); noes, 2 (Commissioners Gustavesan and Walker). • Messrs. Casnity and Polatty .inued through the errata sheet. • ____.ssioner Barnes =wed so change the definition of a bona fide farm • in Let.iop 22.4 to that recommended by the Aericulss^l Task Force Report.; • that is,"10 or =re acmes or cne or more trae s, awned cr leased by a • bona fide farm unit 'with average annual sales of 51.000 over the Preceeting three years cr a minim= of 20 acmes in forest land for unieh a =raceme= • plan has beep -Prepared7" Cinoissicner Witted seconded the motion. Vote: ' . Aves, 5; noes, 0. lEhe Planning Staff was reminded that the Board had • requested this Change earlier. -- ' Crzatissicater 24 s introaoced a list of sugge sicos/re mendaticn'Ls • requested* Mr. Dchn Kincaid, District Manage; ter Duke. Power Ceepapy. _._.. ' Cceci3"sione= W . ho^: vowed to delay consideralion of those suggestions until the Board goes to public hearing; the Board felt no =tier: ems • necessary.= this n :. Commissioner +it withdrew his =ion. • :se Boar-.: :referred these suwestti s tc the Planning Staff and Boast for review. Ms=s. aa'rs7n and Warn also of Dike Pont roan; were ;resent. Commirsi cner W-' it move surfed by CceoLnsito•* ar is»tree, to strike the firs: sentence it Section 2.4.2.2 resadinc the rules and - • •ulaties:s necessary for the Board cf Ad' amts A:vi s -y Co it's. Cam' missioneal7hoit wither ,7 his =tics. r s*• ^e+p- W 2 halt mowed that Direct= _f Drs= . is to cc= e. d . - - Cisoe ter the p*`pose'of.r wing comments and admture and torther that Minutes of those r.xee ines are to be leap: and maintained as a separate decume.^.t in nature of }7L'hli documents in the iss::.ng Cffies." r"'.t- eissicner W-.ittad sennrinal the orrice:. Vote: Ayes, 5; noes, C. • , • . . 49t 105 • Commissioner Willnoit questionedSection 2.2.6 regarding the rules • of procedure for the Planning Board-and the Board of Commissioners asked • the CountyAamorney to clarify what cmastitutes rules of procedure for • the conduct of a nesting. • Commissioner Willhoit =led that Section 7.1, para -aoh 3, line four down, be changed to specify "that pertion of the Upper Eno eaterehed as • designated it the 2tef Lond Dse Plan." Motion died tar lack of a second however, the Board expressed a cons=sus that the Planning Staff • instipite that change. Cummissioner Witted moved that language indicating that the Board • of Ccamissioners °encoages' or "strongly encoureges" the planned develop- • nent concept as the preferred method of development be struck; Cuneission=- • . Emotes seconded the notion. Vote: Ayes, 4 (Cemmissioners bies, Welke:, • Witted and tellboit.); noes, 1 (Coomissiorar Gustaveson). • CramissionerStalloit referred to page 22.29 regarding service sea:ions and =Ned to require service staticns X0Vide water for radiatoos, air for tires and bathroom facilities. ?lotion died for lack of a sec:mi. tr. Polatty told Commissioner Willhoit that would result in 'caking existing tat nco-zonforming; however, it could be required that new stations _ — . provide those servizes. Oh page 22.25 zetarring to the defimition of variance, the Boerd "litexa2." be inmated in "—relaxation of the 'literal' terms...." ultmaissionm• Urlhnit Zpot , seconded by Commissioner Wited, to approve the Zoning Cre-imance 7ext as amended tenight and it the past. Upon the advice of the County )=They, rtmm4 .5,-*-ts WilInoit and Witted accepted an amar=ant. to their MetiOt an second, that is Sectien 2.2.E.1 c, paragraph 2,reads the same as Seztion E.2 c, to delete Section 2.2.c. . Tne Ceunty Attorney dumber advised the Board to delete Bea .cm 2.2.2. saying the =cep: needed clarifying; be is not trui -sta.-Z it as it is werded. ion= Barnes -'4•-e.° E for .' er W12Oie'5 =icire.2 notion to...adept; that is, to delete this Section 2.2.3 and to xeserve it for rac-.t ng at a later date; Commj-e.siCamr linitted seed the eocioh to am:4. Vote en Onemissizer_t Barnes' friendly amendment: Ayes, IC=rmissicrers Baznes, Guroavason, Witted and Willhoit); noes. 1 (Com- lob. • eissia^er We ker). Vote of Commissioner h'il]hoit'a moon to adopt the Zoning Ordinance Text as axended tonight and in the past: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. , 'fne Board-of Commissioners adjourned for a ten minute break and • resumed deliberations in the same roam on the Zoning Atlas. Mr. Cannity reviewed the Zoning Atlas with the Board. Mr. Hague, ▪ an atttenet', And Mr. Hereford spoke = r�_ng the designation of some • property at Highway 86 and Highway 10 as resi tial rather than comercial • co industrial. Mr. Polatty noted that the resi.denc s pre-dated the commercial • ' in6us�i.a L utilisation of the properties with the exception of the concrete • plant. Be said the indurc ial/o:s' ereial aspect of that area had increased since the NOvember 24, 1980, Public Beans. The Bois: discussed with ▪ Planning'Staff the implications of various designations for that area. . ComoisSicrer Nil3Ao5t moved, seconded by Commissioner Barnes, to ▪ designcte Asp and the Mi.r4Ma: EC-5 and the Welding shop E-I fw. h the • designation of,the ==reze plant remaining clanged trot that recommended • by Planning Staff). voce::. Awes, 5; noes, 0. The Boa--d asked the Planning ▪ Sa f to brzing these garages to public hearing. . The Board considered a :sweet from Hello Tea; ComplaLry to nuance the Zoning Atlas designation of its property H-1 to E-:. Mr. Polatty — p~ told the Board that was not a valid desipatict for an.asphalt plant; the Board if tact change the designation of that affected property. The Planning Board recommended to the Board cf C rntiss ers that American S.xrae.Cospa:ay be granted a special use permit for its plan_ en Eighwey 54 west. The Board expressed rrvet..cns at a&p.. ng a special use permit within the context of the Zoning Atlas itself; saying, that the Boast had just ac re; tee Zoniri Ordinance Text which rpe-'t^a steps wr ip are to be follcwed followed io granting a snecsal use w—nli t. r m csi rifer Vt:1i oi: saved too table this recceneradatich from the P• ring fir`. ��.. :�v: or «f t:: C: a Fcr...._. _ C.nomr"SS-C9£: �9"'..�3Cit SSoVa^ -r" adopt as$."'" .7 A r. as amended tcnigat utehou: the special use request !rem Am"icen Stone Company with that properer► affected to be'rated MR: C Cze isSz' : Barnes seconder the motion. Discussion followed. 49 10 7 • • Conaisziorie: Willroit amended his firs: melon as follows: tD adopt • the Zoning Atlas as amended might m include the 118 acres affected by • the special use permit requested by American Stone Goren; to be zoned 3/R • and excluding consideration of the special use pull request and to car.- • tine this meeting until 5:30 A.M. Tuesday, September 8, 1981. Commissioner • Gustavus= seconded the amended action,. Vote: Ayes, 5; nces, 0. • >A=sng discussion the board noted the effective date-: of tie adoption cf • the Zoning Atlas is immediately with the amen :s earlier stated and •. the specie/ use permit excluded. The Board continued with the discussion of the Land Use Plat,. Cop- eissianer Mbitred mooed adoption cf the land Use Plan; tormissicae= Wi:lhoit seconded the actin. • During the discussion whion folla.:ed, Ca;missiami- Wil hoit said the land Ase Plan read only awls-.ing and potential and he thought it should read 'existing and potential xae_-vc sires and watersheds.' C=missioler Byrnes referred to page 101, coal 12.E, and cb5etzed to '... betre another general aviation dotty is built;' she felt that the pro- posed ai-r'_ now p:"SL Ong might be she ..oircuited and not be properly re- viewed awaiting the feasibility study in goal 12.6. --. - ..._— __ rtecad .site= Witted moved rD delete Goa 12.6. t*ion died ]a a of a secs i. Commissioner Ba_•7= moved to amp this Goal 12.6, to read "...under- take a feas=til ty shy to date-mime the level af need for a geneval aviation dao.y and to eiine locational alte_-ia Ives given the de- of these needs;• seconded by C-4.n.rsxicher Gustaveso:. Vote: Ayes, 4 ( is s -s des, Wssteveso, _- and W l ixit); noes, 1 (C=mi ssi^^er iCn led). Conic ssioner Gustave ne mom, se nor =1111Lisssi=2= i1t.�t`.eL, to adopt the language recommended by the Planning Board for page 152, paregtmpt 6, he-ginning 'Ina, tra 7z1=: • Ayes, 3 r--''ec e s aEtaveicn, let t`ed and W;1.__ it); odes, 2 t:rs:- missi.onere Fa_-yes and walker). Vase c n G ear i .i 's --_i m adopt.the :add Use Plan as amended this ev-.i.-i:• Ayes, 5; noes, 0. 45; 108 Commissioner. Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner %bitted, to adjourn this meeting until 9:30 AY—, tuesday Sew,: 8, 1981, in this roan. Vale: Ayes, 5; noes, 0. Anne Barnes, Chair r Paulette ftiagesr+ond, Cleric • • • • • • • - 5U� 109 MANC:. Ca.V:: .7 Z 29, 1581 A;A : Article 2 • 2.2.3 Qualifications . . .- rembe_rsb p of the E.card by at ].east one resident -o: that 2.2.3• • . . dace. Adjacent t p pe.^y owners are se whose prtbertv lies vi-h4- 500 tee: of :'e wrectec - he-m Zr: __ a=e curren.J.y ...stet ES prcter.v _n tne L~z.w= -o-:m.• `.s- • records.4.2.8 a) . . . insure the absence of adverse irpacts beyond the Jr:ed:ate space occupied ied by the build=r•.. A.2.20 b) . to arty i2e that has adverse =pacts beyond he immediate • space:occupied by the bu=1i^.z. A.2.21 a) . . . impacts bey - d.. ..zttzte space ...:•r?led by x+.2.21 b) troUlt 4.2.255 b) 1. were :red; See a.'.taoned sheets. __._.._.. ... . 4.3 Permitted Use :able I-1 . . beyald the immediate s ace occupied by t.e buildinm. • X28 . . . beyond the i' :_i to space occupied by the b..=-, • 2 • • ways t-.'= :mediate space c::L'pie: by the building- • r— 5-45 . . . beycnd the 1»-e .ape space c----7A0‘ by the buildinm- . Article 5 - — 7-2 ahould be R-1 And the r'ouc.- .s numbers ac_c the table af;.c- F-1: 20,000 100 3D 15 25 E-2 FD-1 20,000 ---- — — 25 :45,000 26 .C76 .82 .70 .^-7- ?.,-2 20,000 — — — 25 45,000 23 .08+_ .E2 .,2 ,• , 5Ua 110 Add 25 to the table tinier the raninum b_.l.L^„ !•:`-s:t colu~i for all residential districts. 3.2 S:• :fir FaR 1=4 Fr=7777..7-4. DE 0°:=T Add to the table under the taxi= building height col= for 1.0-1, 1d0 2, and CI districts. • Pbd k^ to the table under the ratm2m builc::.nz height column for the 3 district. Article 6 6.21 Within any Zoning district the heigtt of a bu ldina r=y exceed the . . . 6.3.1 Zrrre can be are than one principal structure an cam_dirt ' or industrial lots . . . 6.16.6.3 ilia ie Occ:Ipaticns in the AT; - ? Districts (r :..:u.a 200.000 soua'e 'foot lots) 6.20 Larae Ground Fbscrction Systems C3.000 gals. ter csv) and roc' tie ' ►, se 71::•ea:' .: Hants ':^t:.icited in AP. LI Ground abscr tion syste".s with a aesitm Cara c:" 3.000 c s. • to dad: or here and paces treatse.: plants for sanitary ss::aZ • disposal. . . 6.21.3 . . . -ulster systens, parldng aeas, and =bile he bads. •-•• Article 7 • 7.1+.2 . PD t stricts sha12 be so located with respect to necessary public services an :a=:.:hies (as for eZa hle, ire, police, rescue services, shoo s, p:=.= ' plaYgrou d.`. . . Article 8 e.2 General S:ani:Ys E.21 Bef or'e any appli:.Ftir... . . a re'ete 3.L•; , . not less than 1 no hare than i da:s, ,prior to t'r- date C. tre bearing. • rr.,e 2a .nrr Cfficcr shell =et an the arr•lict t's 2_fer:e r, r-- a notice of the mt,I C .^.s'ar ':n ._ .:_Y. tr c: ..C_.. Written notice shall be sent t.. :artifice. ,mil to - l na.__c.. r __r=7• c.lne _ nnt less .ni. :=7:= • sx 50' 111 Aeiaceat droaert-.y owners are those whose t:-ro'erty lies within ":iU ;et; of he affected Lronlerty aic whose r.ai s Erl� 4G-_•'e:mt.5 are Ct�":`t'�1:.• •l stet in the Uran.Re Co :?.:.^. ! rect'Ys. 8.4.5 relate the last two ra gran'.! C MAL AEJLIC AL I21170n1A=a\: 8.8 Additional Info_:saa;ion required for all Special Use Applications: a) Tnree copies of the Site Plan mrepa ed by a registered North Carolina land st - eyor or engineer who shall Contain the following: 1) North point scale and date. 2) =tent of area to be developed. . 3) Locations widths of all easemnts and r.glts-or-wy within Cr adjacent to the site. . A) Location of all existing w "r=r:and structu son the site. 5) Location of all areas on the site subject to flood .card or inundation as shoal 4'] flood laps or soil's raps. . 5) Locati= of all rater courses c: the site incluli g direction of :loss. 7) Existing topg ap'v at a coL1ttour interval of 5 feet • based oel amen sea,level datum. • 8) Proposed or existing fencing, screening gates, panting, service and storage areas. 5) Access to site including site distances m all =_„s used for access. • 10) Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the tevelop r n; \Y. 11) Names and addresses of owners and applicants. 12) A fee, is set by the Qan e .7,aunty Board of C.^-a{so-balers. E.8.1.1 a) The he plan prepared trove copies o: t. site F,..�1 ; by $ ”�h tanlina registered lend surveyor or�i:- .ee_s sysl Co'1'ain — the -followir. : f2 beo s.fl _ • C&Leto:es - 3 flO becomes #4 . --. ill becr-_.s P5 _ . • • • • 5(3,; 112 ti t• • '.e remaining requiramenta have been switched to 8.8. c) F5 and P7 have been switched to 8.8. 8.8.9.1 f) Certific=ticn all Federal AViatiCn Pz,rdnistr tion and stand=•••.s have teen net. 8.8.12 Temporary Use of 2 Residential ; cile Home (Class B Stecial Use) 8.8.12.1 AC."itic al I cros:ion_ - In addition to tte, info at'ian reouirtid in subsections 8.2 end "b.E.1.1. the followinh shall be s::5:ittea as �w of t.. atnlication. 8.8.21.1 .) delete . • . and tresteetives Article 9 9.11 In taw msrldn of the table add .' . . Premise Sims . . . for the first 11 ro:Is. Add . . . CP.door Advert_.ine Sims . . . for the last 5 row:. • Article 22 • D�e1=.ir„ A lot a bu:lding ocntaind g . • . --. Lwe3:i••.g L'^.it . s. l be =rammed to be 1cdn+ng units. 1 wbi le tomes ar. rodblar units are to be censi.dered dwelline units L_cer ....is 'definition. T' '.rt'1r Care Farf=17:1! f+ far:24LU 11.W^':sei by t e a c"late state areas:' as a • Ca. to 1'ity forr to ..r 5.:atet itua5 Junked or Itecked r.oter Vehicles. of North Carolina, do not have :•.t.enr J e i"a inspection sticYers cr either: (a) . . . Bane . . . over ei t% feet th l."12.t . Vehile )'ones are d'.7e"icy. .its Mho lased as a residentiel structure., VULt►t Club, Bar or :.b An establ s en= that allows feed. alcoholic Gnat and/ cr enterrainmera. treat ?lent Privately owned and Cpe ate0 sewase sew treatrant fact:..t . These plants art aSe: acaL ed by the rLnota.tLt_= 4"d• delivered as completed units to the clients. Faesta tative Care Faellity addicted to alcohol or dr.:G, r€nt= --t fes iCna1 heel_*: care . . . Service £tat mt, ?fit cr 17e �1 e 0) S=ane rotor vehicle innpections. • i 5D 113 • b) Application Criteria .nib district will usually be applied were the following conditions e::ist: - The site is located outside of the Chapel Sill 3oint Plana- 'Ins Area and within an Industrial T=ar:,i`tion Activity node - - or a phral Indst_iar Activity node. 2. Lot size ter individual uses. shawl be c_repriate to the . - method of water supply and sewage disposal. 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular access to streets ' designated either arterial or collector by the Land Use Plat. Access to rail service is desirable but not required. 4.2.22 Medium Industrial-_l (_-2) District - • a) • :xtent The intent O_-the MediL Industrial-22 (:-2) District _. to • r� . provide locations for enterprises engaged in rr_:u`acturlta, •` processing, creating, repairing, removeting, painting, ` ing, and assemh g of seeds, • or egLipmant. Per- . fe=manae staada_rss will be used to insure the absence cf.r.-°- verse impacts beyond the lot boundaries-of the USE. •�- s b) . Aaplication Criteria • _-• s in district will usually be applied were the :ullo g rr,l.• `MF � conditions e-.stn - • 1 • Site is totatted outside the Chapel Sill Joint Planning " .se=,. : • but wit,.:-n areas designated by the adopted land Usc ?lan -.. `. '�•�" ---•�--.. as Industrial Trtnsition activity Node. ct 2. gate= and sewer rag.-as exist at the site or be mete available as part of the devele ent process. • 2. access would consist of direct vehicular access be a stre_r olassidied as either arterial or collector. :.aces: t t • s`r ice is desirable but net required. 4.2.22 Beav "industrial-2=2 t=-31 Zistrict ' a) ;: Intent • The purpose of the Beavy :ssaustria3-I .t-3},~is-tic« E to provide locations for enterprises cn4aged _n;,.a-. r:af _.._,_ of processing, creating„ renai.tir;. paaating, cleaning, or sssenbling of good:, =^:-c:•;�L: . ccsi,.:...en.. .partormance standards gill St uct4 to _4-2. nL absences df aGs.Sdr__ _ _ w b) 7rlication Criteria 4-9 114 • This district will usually be applied where the :ollo•.+in.7 _. conditions er stt: 1. Site is located outside the Thepfl ::ill Joint Plan.-ins eh, but within areas designated by the adopted :sad Jae Plan as: nestrial transition Activity :lode. w Wet= and sewer mains exist at the site or be mate available as part of the development process. 3. Access would consist of direct vehicular aoress to a street classified as either arterial or collector. Access to real service is desirable but not re=cited. 4.2.24 Ar iculturel Service (AS) District a) Intent • • The purpose of the Agricultural Service (AZ) District is to provide sites in the rural portion of the County for rural ' non-term, nem-residential uses which suppert the horticultural, sylvicultural, and .agricultural uses of the 11 districts. b) 'Application Criteria This district will usually be epp o where•the following =meitions exist: 1. Site is within areas designated by the adopted Lstd Use Plan '`•4:\ . as Agricultural Residential. 2. lot size few individual uses would be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. I • Normally, the maximum amount of land teaed r.s at :my lea-:ion. .._.�..r.___�ti„• shall not emceed:ten acres. 4.2.25. Public interest (STD) District ' a) Inte..t the purpose of Public Interest IPID) District to "reserve, • and protect certain public land and trivote cdusa__ona deemed erdvirore ntslly sensitive and C_ major Scientific cc. search zign.,fir:nae from the impacts of development. in add- ftion, these lands will be managed in ways that will prevent any intentia.11y ge=nerated adverse impacts frcm affecting surrounding property. '.., b) Apt li.cition Criteria • :hit district will be applied to the following: 1. .a.' rube To0.e.= ^ancr., the g Tr"'. (- si.y ef^No.h curolina lands,wand• all otter publ ie c r =: eGducetigiswl lands deemed - private "-I � L4 be L:•i:•7r.:.CS�t�.?y sensitive "-It o- ra jet scientific or research zignificane:e. • f • 50t _ I1 ;) • • - 2DD99:77ED OSt A - CL.1SS A W J.L CSt iaZ22C_S) • a - =ASA D S7w2AL CS: (:1e:::D) �R)UJ a21 z3I><:I 1L71118i-3ILCll:C21Ch;Cr;,:C-51021 e21 21 1221:11 SSI•J-17:7 _ . I I • NS Aar !:user-ry. • Dayca:e. Dri- vase Sitter- garden a i1 t D D D D a • • • • - • • 22 >~.>l.ng: Single I.I .I -I -I -I .I .I -I •I -I -I -I J I I I �. • Taoil� 12 Prel.lIms: I-I .I •I -I .I .I .I . .I .I -I -I I I .I ( I • racily NA VAAILLA9: raltgale Teaily i 1 1 -1 - -1 .1 .1 .I ! -I •I ! I .1 1 1 1 I I I >A�ISirtq: ` 1 2e I- . •-I : .I .I .! •I I I -I I• ~ M6 Family Care !tar 1- I•I •I -I •I •I •1 •l .1 •1 • .I .1 1 I I • D7 Gress CartTaagai::iD 1E1 a l D I D I 91 e l Di e1 Di D I D I .t1 DI • I 1 1 1 1 • N6 Aeaa•aClatiwr Carr 1 1 1 I I I I ••I 1 •I 11 I I . Weill-� • I I I III I ' R9 .T-otel: >, retell I I I 1 I I I ' •I .I SID Residential tats! I I • 1 I • 1 1 aratrraltira, I ; Serorit:es a I I 1 Garaiteries) A AI A A • G 1 r x a i r-. Rata. -1 •1 •1 • I I l .1 I I I I I -- N.22. 7aa1m=a97 j I I ' I I I e z ir al a• R a e z- ! r ! el 1112 7AAri5tSee I ' I I •1 •I •I • Il I - I •I•- I I I I I • Aeressecy L?ea 1' .1 • •1 •I•I • -l •I • •i • .1 •I •1 -1 •I. •1 I• - l�IP11A21a])8:iss 17a i7_];;,;Li:2iC=]ie::i,:-s o:iL:::I i_2l:'.I.Si+�frze • -1D • ( • 1 1 ' CHAPEL IIIII.TOI,RISIRP TAR IMP 7l7TAL SIZE OF EXISTING PROPOSED S.R. USE / N0. IIME OF USE BIIS/II7T fAT SIZE ZONING tAT ZONII'I[i 20FIlNG M 1 Auto Repair 2-27 1.27 ac. Whole Int i. t1C EC-5 1009 2 Old Store 4-36 11,46 ac. Approx. 1.5 ac. RC EC-5 1716 (all or lot S. j of 1716) 3 Corner Grocery 5-16 .75 ac. Whole tot Re EC-5 1714 6 1716 4 Iockridge 16C Approx. W1vole Lot P.U.1). PD-1-73 1730 50 ac. 5 Lockridge Sec. B 8G, 38 ac. Whole Lot P.U.D. PD-1-77 1730 6 Woods Cammity Store 14-loo 13.99 Approx. 1 so. oC NC-2 ".c. 86 S. 7 15A-A-11 23.31 +10,000 Sq. Ft. RC Ix-5 . 1803 8 Hollow Rock Store 16-22 1.88 ac. Approx. 1.5 so. RC EC-5 1734 9 17-10 4.09 ac. Mole Lot (IC CC-3 N.C. 86 s. 10 Industrial 184A 20 ac. Whole Lot Ind. 1-1 1727. 6 1725 11 Warehouse 1617 2i0' x 210' Whole Lot Be NC-2 1727 12 18-21 10.7 ac. 1 ac. RC EC-5 1727 13 F'arni House fVitaurant 19-5 22.5 ac. Whole tot GC NC-2 1725 14 Allen 3 Son IIBQ 19-5 22.5 ac. Whole tot OC HC-2 N.C. 86 s. 15 Bug (louse 19-7 1.15 so. 14hole Lot GC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. 16 24-41A 18.9 ac. Whole Lot CC CC-3 1777 & N.C. F...r 1 86 S. 17 Real Estate orrice 24-27A Less IWm lso .Less %han 1/2 ac. RC NC-2 N.C. 86 S. _r) le Cor lore 110-17 58.75 sr ' 1 acne [IC to-1 1117 I i i s i t � I 1 4 use `PAR MAP '1MAL SIZE OR EICISPIna rnapoSEO 3.11. HAM OF USE BADP IJDT SIZE ZCNINCI liar LK 1 19 Old 3er. Sta. 110-17 58.75 ac, 1 acre TIC IBC-1 1009 20 Cates Carage 113-11 7.63 ac 1/2 ac. RC GC-11 tl.C, 511 21. Conv. Store 115-19C 1 act Whole Lot RC CC-4 1005 22 120-19 10,8 an. Whole tot (Co, cc CC-3 1919 Flaming Area) 23 Blackwood Stone 130-11-19 6.16 ac, 2000 x 2001 RC W-5 1008 24 Store 130-C-12 6 ac, 1 ac, t TiC OC-5 1008 s ' EH0 T(AMS11I P 11SE TAX MAP TOTAL SIZE OP EXISH110 M)POSED S.R. L� •.�% 110. NAME OF USE Dwiar IM SIZE 20111110 10I' ZONING 201.11140 N 1 Tom's Quick Stop 5-11 1.38 ac. Whole Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70-A 2 Rural Processing 8-32A 2.3 ac. 100' x 110' RP AS 1554 125' From 15511 i 3 12-4A 122.39 ac. Approx. 1 ac. RC EC-5 1002 4 Tinnen's Crroc. 16-244 140' x 190' Whole Lot RC EC-5 Craig g F11. j 5 Kountry Kitchen 21-39 4.7 ac. Whole Lot RC MC-2 U.S. 70 E 6 Laws Exxon 21-30 264' x 90' WVv3le Lot RC NC-2 U.S. 70 E 7 Pbtorcycle Works A 25-4 a 5A Approx. 2 ac. {thole Lot GC CC-4 U.S. 70 E Jacobs Class S Nursery 25-24 10.14 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-11 158 Z 9 Skylard Motel 25-69 5.62 ac. 14hole Lot CC GC-11 U.S. 70 E 10 Latta Const. Co. 25-67 0.1 ac. Whole Lot GC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 67A, 8 11 A.K. Jackson Prop. 25-61 63;6 Whole Lot GC CC-11 U.S. 70 E 65, 69 12 25-42 15.27 Approx. 2 ac, eC GC-4 Off U.S. 709 13 Inman's Truck Sales 25-116 250' x 150' Whole Lot CC CC-4 U.S. 70 E 14 Auto Repair 25-45 130' x 260' _Whole Lot CC OC-4- U.S. 70 E 15 Bobby Lien Plumbing 25-136 Approx. 1 ac. Whole Lot CC GC-4 U.S. 70 E � 16 Prank's Produce 25-105 1.6 ac. 1 Whole Lot GC CC-4 U.S. 70 E !--+ Cr 17 Dixie Stares 25-102, 0.32 ac. less Than GC CC-4 U.S. 70 E 102A 1 ac. each USE I TAX 14AP '1DTAL ,SIZE OF EXISPINO PW)POSI D S.It. ! Nn, HN•E OF USE BIXAM WP SIZE Zomm igr WHIM ZONING N 18 25-103 Less 'Ilan W11ole Lot CC GOI U.S. 70 E 1 ac. 19 Orange Co. ABC 25-85a .96 ac. Whole Lot CC CC-4 U.S. 70 E 20 C 5 P Auto P.epair 25-05 4.39 Re. Wleole I.ot CC CC-11 U.S. 70 E 22 Gulf Station 25-811 1.83 ac. Whole Int CC GC-11 U.S. 70 E 23 Croucho's Rest. & Sanple 25-83 Approx. 2 ae. 1Arole Lot CC OC-11 U.S. 70 E Case 24 Exxon 25-82 160, x 150' IA�ole Lot OC GC-4 U.S. 70 E 25 Confederate Inn 25-81 6 ac. I+Arole Lot GC CC-4 U.S. 70 E 26 Ileauy Equipment 25-76 9.05 ac. wtrole Int GC OC-4 U.S. 70 E 27 Bane Property 26-35 260 ac. 105 Be. GC GC-4 1812 28 Carolina Builders 25-75A 3.82 ac. Wwle Lot GC CC-4 1012 29 Lanb Dist. Co. 25-75B 3.01 ac. Whole Lot cc GC-11 1812 30 Griffin's Store 26-271B 2.3 ac. 1 ac. RC EC-5 U.S. 70 E 31 Marshall's Paint & Body 26-40 2.8 ac. Whole Lot GC EC-5 1710 shop 32 26-39 9.5 ae. 200' x 400T cc SC-5 1710 33 Blackwelder's Upholstery 4-9 2.76 Re. whole [jot 00 EC-5 U.S. 70 E , Strop 1171 •;.r F-s 1 I V _ IIILLSDOROUGII TOWNSIIIP PROPOSED ri TAX PAP TOTAL SIZE Or ZONING LOT ZONING USE No. NAME OF USE SLR/LOT LOT SIZE (includes h of R/i4) DIS'PRmT SR I 1 Ridge Rd, Store, Launcomat, Thompson's Grill 1-0-16 2).5 Acre 2301ix200' Inc. R/W NC-2 NC 86 2 Ship Ahoy Dinner Club 1-C-32 2.02 Acre 1 ac. $.If.PT. 250' W. //�� of R/W HC-2 HC 66 v V Gas Pumps Vacant 'Itors- 1-9 71 2.14 Acre 1 ac. + 200' E. of RAI r:C-5 HC 116 4 Major Business t'c•cros 3-25 20.38 Acre 430'x400' 225' from HC 86 R/I4 1-1 HC 86 5 McGhse's Used Auta Pacts 2-5A 13.5 acre 2301x200. 175' from E. Boundary EC-5 1551 6 Pantcy Conv, Store 22-C-IA 1.73 Acre 1.73 Ac. + Ii of 9/14 NC-2 us 70 7 Botsford's Radio i TV Repair 22-C-6 1 Acre 1 ac. ► 11/14 Ri 1002 8 family Supermarket t Sea Shanty Restaurant 23-0-1 1. Acre Lot + 1I R/If EC-5 Us 70 9 Colfax Salvage ru-niture 31-B-2 1.9 Acres Whole Lot + I4 R/W HC-2 us 70 10 Wheelers Welding !chop 40-B-3A 2501x175' Whole Lot + S It/it EC-S its 10-A 11 (lines Liner Lumber Co. 40-A-9 27.77 Part In Town Area Hot In Co. Plann- Planning Area Ing Area 1-2 HC 06 12 Carolina Activities Antiques 40-A-90 3.08 Acre Whole Lot 4 RAI GC-4 NC 96 11 Esquire Health Pacloc 40-A-9C .76 Acre t4hole Lot • R/W GC-4 PC 86 1.1 Beauty Salon 32-A-14 1.27 Acre Whole Lot + S R/W EC-5 70 15 11armon Young Truck Stop 45-IIA 37.97 Acre 162,500 sq.ft. 4 SIvIfCC3 HC 86' 16 Gene's Conv. Store 45-11A 11.97 Acre 45.000 sq.+ N R/W CC3 HC 86 17 Gas Station 45-11A 37.97 Acre 1 Acre 4 I4 it/14 CC3 IIC•66 I8 Mr. Bob's Conv. Sbore 45-34 .62 Acre Whole Lot + 14 R/W EC-5 1710 19 Orange Concrete Co. 45-32 1.47 Acce Whole Lot + I4 R/W 1-3 1710 , Woods Sros. Office-Southern Comfort 4S-24 4.94 Acre 2.94 ac. ► I4 RAI EC-S HC 06 21 Paulines Grocery 46-3 4 acre 200'x200' + S 11 111 EC-5 1006 I , I � I rr DiNGIIAf1 T014MI I PI— TAX It%P TOTAL SIZE OF 20HING LOT ZONING USE NO. USE NAME SLK/LOT LOT 512E [includes % of R/W) DISTRICT SR I I Cook's Dairy Bar I-4A Less Than 1 Acre t1101e Lot 4 k R/W EC-S 1001 2 Mebane Oaks Store 1-21 Less Titan 1 Aces Whole l.ut + tl/W EC-S 1007 3 Morris Store 1-14 11.67 1 Acre f h II/W HC-2 1120 4 Buck horn Heat Processing IA-7 200'x200' Whole Lot 0 k R/W I-1 1120 5 Old Leather Works 5-35A Less 'titan 1 Acre Whole Lot + Ir II/14 HC-2 1006 6 Dixon's Garage 26-1 9.23 acre 200'K200' ► P/W GC-4 VC 54 7 Garage 5-12 1 Acre Whole Lot + k 11/14 GC-4 1002 0 Dixie Auto Service 5-148 6.71 Acre 200•x200' + 1} II/I4 EC-5 NL 54 9 Marvin's Sure Fit Auto Center S-40 1.06 Acre Whole Lot 4 ►y R/0 CC-5 1128 10 HDK I3-I1A 7 Acre Whole Lot 11y A/W EI 1102 11 Lloyd's Grocery 14-14 Less Than 1 Acre Whole Lot f "/if EC-5 1006 12 Adam 6 Eve 26-28 0.31 Acre 4501x350' + R/W GC-4 HC 54 11 Tumbleweed 26-6 10.13 200'K200' + y R/W NC-2 NC 54 14 Tar Ileel Food Mart 26-30 5.24 Acre 210'x400' Inc. % R/W NC-2 HC 54 i5 Allen's Exxon 26-19 16.98 Acre 200'K200' f i R/W EC-5 HC 54 16 Classic Car Salon 27-8 267.61 Aces 305'x150' includes R/W Zoning Lot Starts 100' S. of H. Prop. Ln.M-5 It02 17 JW's Place I8-10 3.76 Acre I ec. 205'54 Frontage + 5461-2 R/14 HC-2 1002 10 Branson's Sawmill 20-16 5.95 Acre Whole Lot + 1y R/W AS NC S4 19 Lucas Antique Repair Shop 29-11 63.47 Acre 200'x200' + R/W EC-S 20 White Cross Auto Repair 29-3 19.70 Acre 200'x200' + ly R/lf NC-2 NC S4 21 Larry's Alignment . 30-15 .86 Acre Whole Lot + b R/w NC-2 NC 54 22 Gulf Station Conv. Store 30-20 .80 Acre Whole Lot + R/W NC-2 1952 23 Triple C Auto Sales 30-70 Lose Than I Acre Whole Lot + y R/W NC-2 1952 24 Old School 30-8 7.27 Acre 3l01x175' Includes A/W-2onl+rg Lot Starts 115' H of E.Prop. Ln. HC-I HC 51 2S Ray's Auto Repair 108-S 10 Acre 2001x200' Lot is 165' S. of N. Prop. Ln. 200' E. of R/W EC-5 1952 26 Kluka's Paint 6 nody Shop 15-30 3.51 Acre 305'x150' + % R/W W-5 1005 27 Starr's Cabinet 37-24 33.1 Acre 200'x130' Inc. % R/14 EC-5 1005 26 Crawford's Repalr 40-13 16.75 Acre 200'x210' Inc. S RIW F.0-S 1956 -! 29 Farm Gallery Antiques 17-11 729-34 Acre 310'x175' Inc. II It/14 EC-5 :,T ILL OR GE. COL`-wI'7c PLALVNLN G DLP '.1IE1"T `_ 1:=Z.E730ROCGB i 51z FOR,:$ C.ROZ.S.9.. , 27275 r n FEMO 'N: Planning Board ... FROM: Planning Staff SOB ECT: List of Proposed Nary-Conforming Uses of Land, Uses of . Major Structs and Premises, and Structures DATE: May 6, 1981 _ In order to clarity how the Staff has handled soar cars,:ozrg uses in mange County, enclosed is a list of the non-conforming uses we have 'identifieds • r ENO 'is-=' . ZONE TAX MA? SR P59 Gates Septic Tank Res-A^ e 29A rb2 weld rgShop. R-1 21-B .US 70 7.CUS3ORCITZ TOT" 'I ° #2 Triangle Cr a aaarit R-1 a 3-B....111 1133 P9 Orange Concrete F-1 LJ5-32 1710 172 p, i J Specialty Co. ' F-1 23-A-10 1560 #77 Boranans Pool Hall' - AR 7-1,-7 139.5 #79 Moose L AR 3-A-2S rS70 . Asco/warehouses/welding Shop 9.1 45-19 01d $10, BINGHAM TQ1NS TP - s €12 MOE AR 13-11A 1102 #29 Nello L. 'leer Asphalt Plant R-1 2E-9 NC 54 --__._-... _...._,�. ._, #24 .7.W'.'s ?Lace NC-2 26-18 NC 5M PA Tudoleweed N0-2 26-6 NC 54 CHAPEL RILL TOWN= #3 Castaway Club 1-22 1710 #5 Garage r.-1 5-23A 1714 #6 Gary W. Dean R-1 5-LA 1714 #7 rxus's 'ruck k Coat r'+-1 5-50 1715 #8 Bass Welding R-1 5-55 & 56 1715 #11 Class Cerny R-1 5_Z3 off 1716 #25 Nation.? Ctemica Lab F-1 19-17A NC 56 Planning Board P - +' May 6; 1981 . Page 2r TAT rya 5° - �� B-1 2:-15 old 86 f53 3 .enttnerkvers -• ii-7. ::-5-:- FYY.54 #63 Rill CountrY hum1-z rt j ( 'J14 19 ATTACIIMENT C ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • JECLLSBOROUGEC NOR= CAROLINA. X7278 MEMO TO Planning Board FROM: Planning Stall DATE; May 14, 1981 SUBJECT: Staff recommendations an proposed non-eontoxm►ing uses in unzoned .Township. Hillsborough Township: Bingham Township: 12 Triangle Crematorium #12 MDE #9 Orange Concrete $24 J.W.'S. Place 179 Moose lodge • 129 hello 1. Tear Asphalt Plant Warehouse an old 110 *44 Tymbleweed Warebouse on old 110 SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for American Stone Company . .._..----......,. - The Staff recommends approval of Class A. a Special Use Permit for ex- tractive use to American Stone Company, provided that item 8.8.1.1 a) is shown On the site plan. SUBJECT: Prezoning of Vacant land Staff stands by its previous recommendations that vacant land not-be zoned for any use other than residential SUBJECT: Zoning of Land to Higher Density Residential Staff recommends that the following subdivisions or properties he zoned to the zoning districts indicated. hest Side of N. Fairview A-4 Colonial Sills A-2 Ooppa Oaks A-2 • • Fred Cates-Property on Orange A-8 Grove Road SUBJECT: Treatment of,existing industrial uses in Unzoned Townships r REZONING, SPECIAL USE, MAILING ADDRESS QUEST LIST 2 4 TOWNISHIP TAX MAP BLOCK LOT TOWNSHIP TAX MAP BLOCK LOT illsborough 49 C 4 Hillsborough 49 C 5 .25 acres 1.1 acres 3rvin L. Workman James Warren Hicks lute 5 Box 208 Route 6, Box 375 illsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 illsborough 49 C 6 Hillsborough 49 • g 26 .8 acres 16.8 acres gmer unknown Alfred H. King Route 5, Box 148 Hillsborough, NC 27278 illsborough 49 B 25A Chapel Hill 2 2 .35 acres 8.68 acres illie Yancey Mangum Marshall H. and Cora Edgeil Jx 729 Route 3, Box 452 illsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 lapel Hill 2 3 Chapel Hill 2 15 2.66 acres 13.8 acres revilian D. , Jr. and Thelma C. Eaton Duke Power Company oute 5, Box 198 Old Highway 86 illsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278 hapel Hill . 2 14 Chapel Hill 2 13 acres 5 acres dvisory Board of the NC District Church Anne G. Richardson of Nazarene, 7609 Linda Lake Drive 2247 Walton Street narlotte, NC 28215 Petersberg, Virginia 23805 hapel Hill 3 1 race 735087 and 726768 FP Associates 12 Carolina Forest hapel Hill , NC 27514 • • 125 2}.1 *4 .2 . 2 ' e+ T .,.. ^ r.- _v �: fa e) Intent Amended The purpose of the Existing Commercial -y (!D_5 ) 10-4-82 District is to provide a district to be used only curing the application of coning to previously un2oned townships to accommocate existing commer- cial uses or in coned townships to previously zoned commercial property wnicn is not located in areas designated es Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use Plan . b) Jna'.,.=cation Criteria This district ict w be applied to existing commercial uses in urzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in aLeaS not designated as Activity Nodes it eye - adopted :.and Use Plan. :his desiccation shall only be applied to p=opery used for existing commercial at tie time c: appli- cation of this ordinance. i, .., t : :I: 12 h n • ._ ` 1 INN \ IIr 4 :NM Mil r a E . i • . 1 2 7 • //// • • - • _ • - ,• / .0" -`9"14-7.."-- 1• • • • •••.--•r_.,- • - r . - .•"" • •- - L.. • •••• ;-•-• •"- •_ • - • • • • •■■-, i 128 C/F4;'- wGwtvi 1`/ may ---Corn cow, l /3E I _. r¢ // �oca..Lcc co. 1iSLw Vas, c J- 147 7( k w,tsf riCif 4- 1 Q M g..4 I k LR-c.�.iCt-�t�G � I rtj___ctp p.. c4.liZr._ { +� e ho.‘les 11/1•1-1 - , ISA A-utAvA.)er/ks ($r - 6 rm.a.G po-r ► 4kk pr-a pee be r-cn R-5 .._ CAchA .---_�.p 0, do .`rte-41,1 r � p t -e0-Aed.._.sec4-1oy, - c3...4._._. _ ,�'t petit ._ ..- cuAcC .nnprox &12,J8 Sincerif tiNL 6(1,1, fUAI I�Ll��l .t U��.-U�iI`/- PART NO. DESCRIP?IOM rrol E � . 55� cG P s RT. 3 BOX 185A - NEW HWY.86 rK HILLSBOROUGH, N. C. 27278 919-732-8240 FiE FIVES l3AtF ADDRESS PROMISED A.M ':11' rl nr r• n r 1 I71 P.M. CITY PHONE Dje-1 � tERMS onor 11ri v,,rl-r rF u nr MAKE MODEL YEAR SER. NO. D( LICENSE NO, MILEAflf _ Uv✓ /' MT R.NO. OrcR.Ho. :° ::•h..:!{ REPAIR ORDER INSTRUCTIONS on 7�R•.:1 LVRIIICAIE (j CFIAN6F ❑ CIIAN aE O FLV9H r� FLVSH ❑ yy ASH Pf7L75H Ll OIL OA FILTER TRANS. E_I D11 F, OUTSIDE REPA1Rs – ----- — 9111OUG"T I.ORWAnD IwEwellr�vt,+nwlEl fueAeovra[�w��woeirnsaooHf;LDaawI+HrHrHreeest�r F.S. PHONE WHEN REAOV: E� �•1t�•AL,•wo HEAIEr a[Are+rov.HwcP roVw au.eorll�•t Pulaa•ow+o o�e+7A*1 7H[CA11 am .ucx H117[IH or Q em 1%1 a of I—tTR,wo—A+l a tuv.• r"[.oft To _ 7'V[+OEE O! ftVI=AHO INmpEC110+l-AN!■•11[11"II[CHAHIC't L'lM 11 WPtN• /. TOtALPARTS A[RHOy LE00l OOHlAOVECAIION}711K1T0l ICVI1 lIIIFIYOVN10I11l+A11[THF1[TO TOTALLAl1pR 1 HERl"WItIV!AIY R16Hf TO R!ClIV[A WI+ITTCM ESTTM ATE --- --- 13UAN ACCES.NO. ACCESSORIES PRICE OT THE PIIICE TO co"PLITE THE R[OI/Es T ED REPAIRISI, TOTAL PARTS K 6-414.17 ACCESSORIES OAS,OIL ANO GAF ASE PRICE OAS,OIL R,GRF ASE NOI RESfOASISiE - - --FOR to"an OAA GALS.GAS d OUTSIDE REPAIRS AOt TO CARg OR AR for.EES Up IM -- —--- -- CARS IN CASF OF airs.OIL Ir r y ?III INIFT OR ANY QIIIERCAVSE ;*YO;NO OIIR CO Los.ORE ASE� z RO Bf I TOTAL ACCESSORIES 101 At OAS,OIL AND ORE ASE "T'O )UNI -1- 130 INVOICE RetritraL ii SALES AND SERVICES SUPPLIED r DATE M° YR� Towel & Uniform Service T0: AUTC J»ORKS DRAWER 538, a12 .+CCCY DR PT 2 LCX 185—A L GRAHAM, PC 27253 FILLS8CRCUGH NC C2736 PHONE — 22E-0533 ROUTE DAY ACCT. TOP NO. MISC.INSTRUCTIONS YOUR PURCHASE NO, TERMS ACCOUNT NO. 21 k S7 INVOICE CASH 00000 NUMBER 468044 F E IND. INDIVIDUAL SERVICED AND/OR INVENTORY COLOR OR MIN, OUANTITY UNIT IRETUR 613 PRODUCT D/C . NO. SERVICES DESCRIPTION SNIRTS1pANTS DESCRIPTION PRICE BILLED PRICE CHARGES 77,7" P COOS- MEMO SMALL REC TwL C1 ;100 5.25 7E.C525 ___ 5.25i 2C01 - CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 7.UNIFORMS I R.EXEC.SERVICE CHARGES..F 5.2 5 ^ SIGNED BY ALL ITEMS RENTED FROM US, Z TOWELS 68 -1"p7(-.,4040 . 21 USED IN NIS PLACE OF BUSINESS B WALK OFF MA7 • BY ALL EMPLOYEES. 3.OUST CONTROL 6.FENDER COVER PLEASE PAY` 5.46 __i ALL DELIVERIES ARE MADE PURSUANT TO CONTRACT M,.,........l.._._rw. ^ih gr_yM}t.yww�.=7.. AUTOWERKS - ' r _ - PHONE 732-8240 ►' C : 5 0 3 I ROUTE S. BOX ley A 1 l 3 I HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 _ j 6E-46 • , 1 ii• / / . 531 PAY TO THE ^ % / 19 ORDER OF �Gs�f� ,i:.•` J jr ; 4.,� • / • t _ t _I $ • t., 461. , G� ��,,, COAL CAROLINA /- `, ` C ,• DOLLARS CHAPLI.HILL•NORTH pAllOZTh •/1 • F •�L/, .,z rte' ' 4.-C�r rI - L..= — - [ �I'DDO� Ire - � �: • r _ A 0503 1:053 X0046 ., c 2E1 '4 ;0 4 Ire a 2 2 g 6 D0000 3 5000,, . _ - - .- .4UTOWERKS=• 4. — -- : _ 5 • PMDNE.'782,tI240_`:`'^�•-1'9 •.4- - --- - - _. _ - _ROUTE 8• BOX le$.A, !: - _ .�'.. :7 ::- -';rte NILLSBORDUpH-`NC•2727e• •- •R- - ~ - -._. _ - 6 . • `��. '..;. •`.�:_ �. '^ � ,:';� ��' fir. L. • �A2 . . ��' S31 --• PAY TO THE` �`v_ � '� ` ` O ORDER OF- �/y _' ••• �ari0�/j 42`t�-.: .� f.,. • •...... ... ,,,,- re....,• - ,•�._ . .. • ._. ._ . ..,.„ . (�(� _ LLARS -• -.._ • `... L.t�./B •COI L CAROLI NA$ANS _..',........7 ..' .-- «.. -. . -. _ •. ._^`. . _�• MOm71 CAROLp1A!76?4 '- . _... _ . '. . • . - _. - '" - ~••FoFi~2b5 -r? brllofa1�i i�c[; .' «-_" Imo' - �� ... 000000 53D+r y4053 1004651:4 20"- 104 2 296 lia _ '• "00000 19 200,0 • 132 0. WILLIAM FAISON LAW OFFICES CHARLES GORDON BROWN FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH GEORGE L. FLETCHER MICHAEL B. BROVGH SUITE 1400 RALEIGH OFFICE WILUAM W. BUNCH. HI UNIVERSITY TOWER SUITE 210 A. REXFORD WILLIS, III 3101 PETTY ROAD NORTH CAROLINA FEDERAL BUILDING RALPH B.STRICKLAND,JR, POST OFFICE BOX 2800 4900 FALLS OF NEASE ROAD BRENDA M. FOREMAN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 POST OFFICE BOX 19409 W. RODBINS'COX RALEIGH.NOR'!'CAROLINA 27619.9009 WILLIAM D.BERNARD TELEPHONE(919)489-9001 TELEPHONE(919)878-8160 A. "ANN IRVIN TELEPHONE(919)968-1111 TE.EC0PY(919)'878-8062 TIMOTHY C. BARBER TELECOPY (919)489-5774 JEFFREY N.MASON REGINALD B.GILLESPIE.JR. MARTHA LEANN NEASE FLOYD B. McKISSICK,JR. JOHN C.SCHAFER JAMES E. IIARDIN.JR. FRAYDA S.BLUESTEIIN ROBERT E.HAGEMANN July 7, 1987 THOMAS N.COCHRAN • JAMES C.FRENCH,JR. • Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass 144 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Sheriff Pendergrass: I represent Mr. Chuck Miller, owner of Autowerks, an automobile repair shop located on Highway 86 since 1980. Mr. Miller is currently seeking to have this property rezoned from R-1 to EC-5. As part of the application for rezoning, the Orange County planning staff requires a letter from the Sheriff' s Department confirming that the Department will be able to provide service should the property be rezoned. Mr. Miller is seeking this rezoning in order to expand the buildings located on the site. The proposed expansion would not significantly increase the operation, however it would enable Mr. Miller to move virtually the entire operation under one roof. In 1981 when this property was originally zoned, Orange. County applied R-1 zoning to this property. It is our contention that either a mistake or an oversight was made, as the zoning ordinance required EC-5 (existing commercial ) zoning to be applied to all then-existing commercial uses. The Orange County planning staff has verbally indicated their tentative support for our position. • As we are faced with a July 10, 1987 application deadline, I would appreciate your immediate attention. Thank you for your assistance and . should you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, FAISON, BROWN, FLETCHER & BROUGH Robert E. Hage ann REH/dwc ORANGE COUNTY ]1 S HILLSBOROUGH 1 3 -3 NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Greg Szymix FROM: Bobby Baker ac.:. SUBJECT: E.M.S. Coverage DATE: July 8, 1967 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emeroency Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services to Autowerks located on Highway 86 in Orange County. The proposed changes would not have any impact on our services at the present time. BB/pdg cc: Mr. Bob Hagmann Haamann,Faison, Brown PO Box 2800 Durham, NC 27705 • c 134 HILLSBOROUGH 2c3 5 S-REE7 P 60x30 FIRE DEPARTMENT •+ �.SBG�ROLG� ti0 z72-Pe ESTABLISHED 1937 July 7 , 1987 Mr . Don Hagemann Faison ,Brown , Attorneys at Law P . 0. Box 2800 Durham, N. C . 27705 Dear Mr . Hagemann, The Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department will be able to provide rated fire protection, to the property on N . C . 86 South for which you propose rezoning . This property is currently know as Autowerks , and I understand the proposed use to be an expansion of the automobile repair facilities located thereon. If I can be of further service to you , do not hesitate to call on me . Sincerely, Mark Gordon, Chief 7E. E -0!\E .9'9 73c-7g. . E .1Ear.r•.C:_E b. . LINDY PE!�'DER � `1115 440 GRASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Orfice Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 Robert E. Hagemann Suite 1400 r University Tower 3101 Petty Road Durham, NC 27705 Dear Mr. Hagemann, I foresee no problems in providing service for the rezoned property, formerly R-1, also known as Autower's. If we can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call us. . Sincerely, aid,(4671W)2 Lindy Pendergrass Sheriff of Orange County • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 1 :3 fi HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLIN A 27278 d r�� CERTIFICATE OF MAILING REZONING REQUEST ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , Ehdja__IS1Lk , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, postage prepaid, a Notice of. the Public Hearing to be held on the @eziZalaa_teaue .t__4_6utQtatliaL_Qhaual__killl IQ aah1RL_Iax_Eaa_Z4 _aQirtLQa_Qf_1Qt_1 to each property owner as required by Article 8 Section 8.4. 4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the Rezoning request. WITNESS my hand, this the 1Qth day of tvilaillt,__12B.Z. GLGt.K /e/d Eddie Kirk ZONING OFFICER ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 137 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 lif /1r. AD 'r rr M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY -PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE : JULY 30, 1987 SUBJECT: Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS ELHEUL_ hEQ@MALLO y APPLICANTS : Charles Miller and Merle Dancy Route 5, Box 206 Hillsborough, NC 27278 LOCATION: Located on the east side of NC 86 south of Old NC 10 (SR 1710 ) and north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723 ) in Hillsborough Township. REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Existing Commercial -5 (EC-5 ) Rezoning Request PURPOSE : To allow for Autowerks to become conforming. LOT SIZE : 0.95 acres or 41 ,480 square feet. ^ EXISTING LAND USE : Autowerks garage • SURROUNDING LAND AND ZONING: NORTH j - - Undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 EAST - Undeveloped land zoned R-1 SOUTH - Duke Power overhead line, undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 WEST - NC 86, undeveloped wooded land zoned R-1 LAND USE PLAN: Designated Rural Residential Area in the Land Use Plan MEMORANDUM 13 Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY 30, 1987 PAGE 2 ZONING: The property is presently zoned Residential -1 . The intent of the Existing Commercial -V (EC-5 ) is provided in Article 4.2. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance . a) Intent The purpose of the Existing Commercial -V (EC-5 ) District is to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previous ) y unzoned townships to accommodate existing commer- cial uses or in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use Plan. b ) 61zR11LntZi:/a_CLite.Lla This district will be applied to existing commer- cial uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of appli- cation of this ordinance. The following is a list of permitted uses in EC-5 : H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single-Family dwelling w/wo efficiency apartment H5 Mobile Home dwelling H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations ) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P21 Schools : Dance, Art and Music P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians 56 Banks and Financial institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S10 Farm equipment and sales S13 Greenhouses ( no on premises sales ) S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales) S15 Health Services : Under 10, 000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop) S25 Motor Vehicle Sales Rental ( new and used ) MEMORANDUM 3 t4 Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY 30, 1987 PAGE 3 S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S33 Printing and Lithography S39 Restaurants : Carry Out S40 Restaurants : Drive In S41 Restaurants : General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation ( 0-200 Trips/Day ) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage $43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day ) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Volume Traffic Generation S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where : A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B ) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day ) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S46 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoor S51 Storage and Warehousing, Inside Building S53 Wholesale Sales The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub-stations, Switching MEMORANDUM 1 4 0 Z-4-87 AUTOWERKS JULY :0 ,0 1987 PAGE - Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treat- ment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special , Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P3 Buildings ; Portable P22 Transmission Lines r I ND I RGs or 1NE oltAtia COIIFITY PLAIIIII IIG DE PAR1NE11T PERtAIIII NG 10 APPLICATION: Z-4-81 AUTOWERKS IIASCO Off 11117 APPLICA111011 11AIMAIS SIm1111117D, 111E PLANNIHG STArr RECOlIItENOS IIIAi IfIEnE IS EVE DElicE 10 SUPPORt 111E FOLLOWI RG f l NDI NGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/REZOIIIRG ARIIELE 20 - SI'Ecirle STANDARDS fort EVALUAl1011/REZORING ("Yes" indicates compliance; "110" Indicates Iloncomplianre r1-ALINING STArr rt Awl ING flNi11NGG DASER oil BOARD SUU1fIIIED A'PLICATI011 EVIDEf#CE SUB111110 10 SUrront FIIIO}NGS AFC011111NVEn Ordf+Par+ce Requl ren+e+rf s t!tt0#tiGS The application most compy with applicable requirements specified In Article 20 - Amendments. ! Those requirements incline: 20. 37 n) Hap showing of reeled X Yes Ito Site roan provided at scale of Yes stn properly at 4cale of r+vt le4s 11,40' tl+an 1'*- IOU" nor nn. ►e than V" 20' 70.3.2 11) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with application Yes NO 70.3.2 c) Eeplt+natlon"nl alleged X Yes _flu An error In the zoning atlas Is _Ycs Hn erllos if nnit to be corrected by alleged since this property was not proposed a+�+endurrnt zoned EC-5 in 1931 7p, 3.2 to) Cher+geld cnndf t Anne, I f _Yes Ito Changed App) scant indicates that site Is Ycs 11,E ,11ty, which n+ahr, reacnna- c^"ditip1Q adjacent to property being used for bly nrcessnry to prrnn+te public not alleged.* power transition line to the south health, safely nr+d general welfare. and a previous pIg farm to file Aorth. 20.3.7 e_) 11aptner lot +•rl+lrh proposed Yes X Ilv this area 1s designated Rural-Residen- Yes Ilk) *n+rndmrnI will carry out p lot pnse tlal, Applicant Indicates the amend- _ snel intent of attopled Conq+reticnsive ment ++nuld be In comp) lance with the IJ Plan. tan Ue� Plan which CnntemplatpdC-5 zoo ng or corm+ercia!! uses in 19q , The Planning Staff feels that due Yes !!o �..+ to the reasons stated in the staff recommendation the proposed amend- ment would not carry out the purpose and Intent of the adopted Land Use Plan, ARTICLE h - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTEREST AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Ordinance Requirements Article to-2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for an Exlstin Commercial-5 (EC-5 es gnation. Me criteria for that district are set forth 1n Article 4.2. 12 and are as follows: a) District will be applied to X Yes No Evidence has been submitted which Yes No exi ,tinq commercial uses In indicates that this was an existing unzoned townships and previously Conwnercial use in an unzoned township zoned connnercial property located prior to 1981 . In areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the Adopted Land Use plan. b) Designation can only be X Yes No Evidence has been submitted which Yes No applied to property used for indicates that the use was in existing commercial at the existence at the time Itillsborough time of application of this Township was zoned. ordinance. v . YT l� 1; ( 143 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Auguat_Z 4_12$2_ Action Agenda Item IE 3G SUBJECT: Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. - REZONING REQUEST DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___Yes No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Application Vicinity Map Agency Comments Certificate of Mailing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a rezoning request submitted by Chandler Concrete Company, Incorporated . BACKGROUND: The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of U . S. Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway. This 3. 43 acre parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of Frazier Road ( SR 1310 ) and U . S. Highway 70. It is referenced on Tax Map 28 as Lot 211 . The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial - Industrial Ten- Year Transition . The current zoning of the property is Residential -1 with an overlay district of Protected Watershed II in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed. Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities, and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial - III . RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential -1 to Community Commercial -3. \RULER L A A R The property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use Permit, provides better control over such development in a watershed. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the 144 . proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 14 Date : 7 /7 'P7 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is located on the South side of S .R . f Hwy 70 [ Street/Road) between 5 .R . # and S .R .* It is known as Lots) 21 1 , Block , of Orange County • Tex Map 28 - Cheeks Township . It has a frontage of 150 ' feet and a depth of 825' feet , and contains 14°, .4riO• 6 square feet or 3.43 acres . 2. It is desired and re nested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Residential — ( g Commp'-cial ;I 1 • - .S .- The .following information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required on ell applications) . as. A fully dimensioned rap at a soak of not less than one (1) inch equals one—hundred (100) feet nor more then one 11) inch equals twenty' 1201 Teat showin; the land whion is proposed to ba rezoned. 'b. A level ascription of the land proposed to be rezoned. et. A statement of justification edcressing Ohe or wore of the following: (11 The °Lisped error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with e detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas end detailed reeeons hoe the proposed esenosent will correct the error. t2) The changed or dhanging conditions, if any, in the erne or in the County generally, which ■eke the proposed emenowent reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. '153 The manner in which the proposed amendment will terry out the intent end purpose of the aoopted Lana Use plan or pert thereof. '(4) All ether circumstances, factors and reeaone which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agencies Le.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. C. A list of all individuals. firms or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred 1500) teat of the property sougnt for rezoning is attached. The List is current es of 7/7 Pr • (Oct.) I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of e> . 4.4 Applicant ( s) : Cnandler Corr■ ctc rr Inc Address : Q. 0. Drawer 1220 burl inoton. N. C. 7771A Phone : 919-226-1181 S' ` RL.ZoNiNG REQUEST -CHECKLIST 4- OWNLR,s Nmr., Chandler nrrPtP Cn 1nr ADDRESS -- �TlAt_1 C�srret land use Vacant Current zoningi1lfTota1 number of acres 3.43 . _ AJe N o n1/Yie/!a 14 M Type of rezoning requested III Proposed land use i[ � eA, Tax map #. - 2U Block 0 _ Number of lots 21 1_ ..Proposed Water supply: Publ c X Community Individual proposed Sewage Treatment: Public _Community _ individual septic tank Access onto state road !1 11570 Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing - g y Poorly drained areas critical areas: Flood prone areas Streams Other. sensitive areas -Describe land uses in: General Area_CO�-1rtL?R-Vi=i► L ��G�-► ��DUSTiZ�14� - Adjacent parcels of land Public Service Gas Co Sth Sta -in ns^ Water Sew r Auth & Tank, Hancor Inc. yr 3. L) ^ i t/ _ , 0::\ +r.. 1 L,NEB _ _ _ - -. - _ I, W `4 r II 11--:\ SFE MAP 12 A \1 \_ 09 BI 11n 9867 -� / SE. 23 Z6I � I 1 1�--:4788 ■ �% 1 -18 • u,Ir. 357 Pr.E 218 E?aiIBIT "A" A certain tract or parcel of land in Cheeks Township, range adjoin- ing the lands of R. A. Boone, Ruby Corley, Orange-.Ala mance Water y atery System, Jnc. , Wiley B. Perry and Public Service of North Carolina, and bounded as follows: BEGINNING at a concrete monument on the North side of U. S. Highwa No. 70- a corner with R. A. Boone, Ruby C orle y A, Y, and Wiley B. Perry, and running thence with Ruby Corley and Wiley B. Perry's line and the North right of way line of U. S. High- way No. 70-A, South 86 deg. 42 min. East, 141. 92 feet to a point on the extension of Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. West line; thence South 05 deg. 19 min. East 60. 81 feet to an iron stake, thence South 05 deg, 19 min. East 200 feet to an iron pipe, a corner with Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. and Wiley B. Perry; thence with Wiley B. Perry's new line South 00 deg. 39 min. West 643. 55 feet to a new iron stake on the North right of way line of Southern Railroad; thence with its line North 77 deg. 40 min. West 179. 22 feet to a concrete monument, a corner with Public Service of North Carolina; thence with their East line North 01 deg. 06 min. 30 sec. East 813. 03 feet to concrete monument on the South right of way line of U. S. Highway No. 70-A, thence North 01 deg. 06 min. 30 sec. East 60. 00 feet to the of beginning, containing 3. 425 Acres, according to survey and, map made by point Walker Surveyors, Inc. , October 12, 1967. Y Nt• Glenn This conveyance is subject to right of way for U. S. Highway 70-A. • • • CIHANI)LER CONCRETE (TO., INC. 14 (.4 G7EA'J� M,xED ,7 ONCOE-E POST OFFICE DRAWER 1239 BURLINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 27215 (919) 226-1181 July 10, 1987 Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Chandler Concrete Company requests that the 3.43 acres that it owns in Cheeks Township be rezoned from Residential to Commercial III. This property is in an industrial/commercial transition area. It is bound on the east by. Hancor, Inc. and the Orange Water & Sewer Authority offices. It is bound on the south by Southern Railroad. It is bound on the west by the Public Service Gas Company and used for a sub station. It is bound on the north by U.S. Highway 70. There are additional businesses in the area. The property is vacant. Since this property is in industrial/commercial transition mode the rezoning of the property would be more compatible with the surrounding land. Respectfully requested, CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. T.E. Chandler President TEC/gn ORANGE COUNTY i 15 0 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY SERVICES 106 EAST MARGARET LANE Established 1752 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas E. Chandler FROM: Bobby Baker 64.43. RE: Fire and EMS Coverage DATE: July 28, 1987 Per your request, this is to confirm that Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Orange County Rescue Squad will provide medical and rescue services for Lot #211, Map 28 in Cheeks Township. This is also to confirm that Efland Fire Department will provide fire protection for this area. BB:js LINDY PENDERGRASS 15 1 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 07-28-87 Mr. Thomas E. Chandler PO Drawer 1239 Burlington, N.C. 27216 Dear Mr. Chandler: - I foresee no problems in providing patrol services for the newly zoned area, known as Lot 211 Flap 28 in Cheeks Township. I foresee no assitional costs to the county; as a result of the service we would provide. Sincerely, 6/(V al "C-ti 4(.' Q I1 Lindy Penergrass Sheriff of Orange County' 152 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 3, 1987 SUBJECT: Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. GENERAL J F RMATION Applicant: Chandler Concrete Company, Incorporated P. 0. Drawer 1239 Burlington, N. C. 27216 Location : Western Cheeks Township, on the south side of U . S. Highway 70 and on the north side of Southern Railway, 860 feet east of Frazier Road ( SR 1310 ) . Lot size: 3 . 43 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Use: North - U . S. Highway 70, across U . S. 70 is vacant East - Industry (Hancor, Inc. - manufactures plastic drainage pipe) , Utility offices and water tower (0AWA) South - Southern Railway West - Utility substation (Public Service Gas Co. ) Land Use Plan Designation : Commercial - Industrial Ten Year Transition Area 15 MEMORANDUM Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3, 1987 PAGE 2 Zoning : Current - Residential -1 Protected Watershed II Proposed - Community Commercial -3 Protected Watershed will remain as overlay district The intent of the Community Commercial - III ( CC-3 ) is provided in Article 4.2. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) The purpose of the Community Commercial - III District is to provide suitably located and sized sites for commercial , office and service uses including limited automotive, convenience, durable goods, and other similar uses . Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district boundaries of the use. The following is a list of permitted uses in CC-3 : H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single-Family dwelling w/wo efficiency apartment H3 Two-family dwelling H4 Multiple-family dwelling H6 Family Care Home H8 Rehab i latative Care Fac i I i ty H9 Hotels and Motels Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens and Arboretums P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations ) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P13 Military installations (National Guard and Reserve Armory ) P14 Parks, Public and Non-Profit P15 Parking as Principle Use, Surface or Structure P20 Schools : Vocational P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P23 Universities, Colleges and Institutes P24 Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians S4 Assembly Facility Less Than 300 S5 Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges ; Social ; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses S12 Funeral Homes MEMORANDUM 1 5 4 Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3, 1987 PAGE 3 513 Greenhouses ( No on premises sales ) 514 Greenhouses ( On premises sales ) S15 Health Services: Under 10, 000 sq. ft. 520A Massage, Business of S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop ) 526 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S27 Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building 529 Offices and Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Lot Boundaries 530 Offices and Personal Services That Generate High Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Zoning District Boundary S32 Postal and Parcel Delivery Services 533 Printing and Lithography S35 Recreational Facilities ( Profit/Non-Profit) : Golf Club and Golf Club Country Club S36 Recreational Facilities ( Profit) 537 Repair Service Electronic and Appliance 538 Research Facility 539 Restaurants : Carry Out 540 Restaurants : Drive In 541 Restaurants : General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where :. A) Operations Are Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises" Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B ) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located . A) Medium Traffic Generation (200-300 Trips/Day) 544 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Volume Traffic Generation 545 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: MEMORANDUM 1. 55 Z-5-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY, INC. AUGUST 3 , 1987 PAGE 4 A) Operations Designed To Attract E Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B ) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0-200 Trips/Day ) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building 546 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200-800 Trips/Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S47 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Mer- chandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Boundaries of the Zoning District. High Traffic Generation S53 Wholesale Sales 4 _ = 156 C - a) w U C O Ci 2 v1 in in in in N Z W C7 a) a) a) a a) ••- Z z 7- >- >- 7- r = 0 - zcC ora E ¢ ¢ Ca2 O JOW •- u amce Li_ I 0) C C O X •- to 2 cn Ln +, C •6. (.7 0 a) •- 0 0 U7 2 0 to N 7• a) IV .- 7 .r L. +,+ C] +-+ a) M L 0 (0 . 2 ID 'O - 1 a) U LL .- (CD •- � 0 0 O 0 0. CO M 0.+, •- x 0. 0. a) •- 0 a) (D (D E to as IA a .0 0 0 .0 0 O 0- 0 .0 +, U 0. +, (D + = = U , 0 L . _ U) Ln a) L 'O a) = • O 3 L 0..J.+ co r, L - a) I- ID 10 (D U) (0 0 wC 0 - - -- a) +, - 7- L Z >- .-° I- ' .> -0 C rD >- 0 0 s Q - •_ 00 0) -- X i z E = 0 0. 0) U) CDD '0) v, _J 0 0 rG L (D I.. a) ro (D v U U) 0. 0 0v r 0) y 0 Jr 0 �.+ L C Cr) E C .- - LU rU•) (Wj ID 0. 0 0 L (D (D b 2 od (D 2 0.- - L u a) a) C U a) Z C7 U W 0 •L- L -- - 0. C) +, 2 u") ••- CI m %o u a) +., - Co J O c. -p - -kJ II U) 0. 0 .N 0. U 0. 0L) 2 0 .- - a) 0 0. C " It 0. O I- LL - •- W LA - 0 Z < • 7 "37 G ]- C LL 0 . ,-- CD W d 2 - 2 2 J 1- - N = - 0 V1 LL. a) 0 24 C7 CC - 21 C C; 2 2 ••--• O Wry - - c7 cc 2 3 Ca C7 I- < C6.c^c Ep - - o � 0 0 0 0 0 cC I J J = 2 2 1 = 2 2 2 0 Lf1 a O O 0 Li 0 J I LL. N N LL W LL 4J N LU LU W G V) 0. C= 2 W C C I- Q Q - I- 2 ,- N m i- 2 = 0 2 C) 0 C7 V) W N in an N in 0 O C I- 2 C7 I- a) a) a) a) a) W C I- I- - 2 I- Y 7- r 7- in I- I- 0 < C 2 - - 2 kJ� - 0. -I J d 2 CO X X 1 x 1 X - - 2 = < < J - C n 0 J CO V) 7 C LL V) 2 CL O LIa W ta_ Q C C •I 'O > N 0 O J W Li L. co L 0) •- w 0 (D VI a) •Ln -C z N v) CD - 0 u - 0. 0 CC) r I 0 C CC -v Ln O a) a) ID - 0 0 0. 0 an - +, In aw .o 3 1.. L a) < ' C C T- I ++ a) C - U C 1.. 7 O. 7 L 2 L+) 2 2 U. '0 (/) U r- C 0 10 a) 0 O. 0. 0. Q G 0. 0) 0 •••■ a) (D •- I- • @ s E = V) I- I- E 0- 01 0 IA. a, .0 .6+ w L +r C d L U & 0 O - V) N 0 Ln E V t+- 0 +, 0. 0 0 -- a) +, 0) -- 7 I-) IA U < E (D 0 - U -0 E C -CO I- w LI ca +, In a) a) 1. C +, 0 't7 E a) 3 -0 C C - C +, +, I L O)'- I- U 0 a) 0 0 C 0 O 7- a) L) W Li U. a) in C - C O O (r) '- .0 a) U 0) L 0 L +, - = ■ - E 0 0) 0 - E a) .0 E E O. 0 •- 1- 0. w I- LI v a) E E N 17 .3 a) -w ro Oro ro ro C (D O 0. W W L 0) a) 0 - L C -' C a) O (D L U "D • L a) L + .0 (D 0 ^ CD a) O) C) , a) (0 Q < co V) 7 0 - - U'+ U C (D E C 7•- C - = - 7 U a) to CT 0. 7- ID rD r9 A+-' C - Li W I•- 1 I 0) +, Cr•- w 0. - 0) X 0 .0 E L co rt 0 = C rD a) •+ C (0 +, 0 J W 0 ' L3 0I- 2 I- V) O O U L L .0 5 (D O 0) .0 IA ID ., C N N 0) - < I- .--, r+t)- N •••• U In V) ... +, C 2 2 U •-• A II .0 7- U •- 0 '0 • 0) 0) C a) O W W w 0 0.- C • (D +-' - +, 0. U 0) +, 2 J J r0 0. (0'.- • '0 L - - LV L N - 0 (V 3 a) t N E C c, 2 U L.) C (D U7 7 N a) 0 • a) • L L • C r, • •'() .- W 0 - .0 -I - rn 0. C N M 0. r+1 0 0. M rD r+-, C C Ln .� I- I 'D a) +, a) C U • O ro II • 0 • L • 7^ 7-- • a) -0 (D Q W C CC L .0 •- •- a) C O L X = 01- 01- 7- C? C a) 0E0 - CD cc Q < 0 I- 3 w E .... N 0. +, - N 0. 04 DI .: N (DJL N (D (D0. Z Z Z Z. 1 07 0 W 0 2 U in in (ii si3 2 W G.7 C) Cl) C) C) - 0 = - r r r 7 Z C O O Q 4 (-1 Z .J C W - a CD C' Li_ N (.7 Z C - O C) _ 1 .- m m -- O _ m 0 0) f0 N L C C L ++ .- L E C) -0 4. m •..N +■ CD 0 m +, .0 0) U I- '.., m 7 L N m y '- 0 4' m ---0 '0 h- C C C -- ' 7- C C)) 0)) 0. L - C - in +• • 41 E •- N CD 113 = u a�i m -O0 0) a) v a) RI _ E 7 In a) 7- -- 0 - 3 o u u -o U ^o a) - O - U Z �N N L f0 0 •- -- -p U in I- C c L It c •D 7 a) • m I •� W a 7- Cl) - Cl) •- 7 L L in W N 1- E +•' c 7• @ ++ • f0 0 .- N n•1 00 E fa -- •- 7- N N O a) - fC m 0 7 3 L N ., fO N Cr U • L I- L c-1 .- L C) C L •- m 0) o M 0 C +•' 0 Cr) -I-• C) 0 01 L L • + 4— = +, . C C Q C L fa .L, U c U C- a C to N C U c - C)CO __ a) N rI-) U •- .- C - C) '0 N a) (..». 3 .- �, N c 3 c - c - 0 4.4 +, a) O L - L � a N a W a-C - rD m }' •- .- co f E 0 u, C +) U +•+ m m +1 O- n . C. +■' N O. L m -- o N C E c O_ m O O L E W fD a) N - L Ch 0) fD L - 0 0 C. f0 C a) .- b Cl) 0) -- 0) - •7 +J Q - C) 0 a) m 0 ., N C 0) d +•J a+ L L L L C a) o •C -C CD -- 7 0) .0 a0) 7- Cr W I- 0- 0 1- r -- -0 L u I- 3 N ft 'O I- L N W I- CC U Z 2 0 0_ I- Z 4 0 E O —c. 0 Z Z O 2 - LI- O J Id- W C- O- e (.11 0. C- I- d Q 4 in DO 0 C L.7 r,/) W In In N N a)< - Z1- Y )- 7- x Cr = Z ac 1 = < Zen x x 1 - x W r-) - n $- C W N) Z U- O N -p I N C) cn ID C - fo L +, 7-L o N a) co N a) o — C — L N I- -- 1,_ C ., L .-a C L •-•, I co C- - ., 0) a) 2 _- 0 •- 7- C 0 C m m '0 Q) a) C 0. 0 N -C I `s O C L E C m I- -1, E fCp .L, 7 VI -W i+ W C) r- - - ..CD C 0..- .r CCD a 0 CD • L O 3 E 0 C a- O 7- .• C - - v) .� — O 7- m I- C c U C) O E a) -- - • ro oI C a .- (CO « 0X) 0 • _'_ Cl) O. ✓) N N _ +, a) 0 -- • O. W .- 4 a UO v 3 m i a) E c O 0 0 a co -0 C N 7 ID C I— C — — C O C m E U 0) O -o 0) W a) -o ro -0 U L -- - N U a) a.) •- - N E -- - -- N 0 LO a) CD i E 2 0) CC) a) • Q-r Ih Co 0 A 0 C •- rr O 0 - 0 0 0 a) �•' -- E ., N U 0) d N O. 0 7 +, L N L •N = � aJ L I— _L C 3 L 1 m m = 1.- m 7•-w 7-4) 7- L x +, a) o c L -- 0. o y N L .I- D C ., L C! 1` L "O U 0) - L O o 0 7 -O L ./ .r C 4 L N N ./, CA O. ¢C - U O O •- + .- ++ - - u -0 0 7 C O -I- CD In - 0 I- rC v)U ti N C C • U • A. 110 CO - b 0 - 7 J L .- r C N .0 0 C) 1.0 7 C •• N O.- N i' C +, ■ -- N fD — 4) "o D1 3 7 O N L O -0 s • 3 0 0 -o u E 0 L - re U o) m co U C +, .-+ o. a) - - -- - E -- -- - L ., 0 - < 0 m C •- m +' al U 0 f0 O -- .d O o, W U m +r ., — 0 •, N a) C) -- vo C. 3 — a) U L CO ., ._ - C y .- C ID U O.U ID -- a) L E N -- C 7 E .- C 0 _ L..J p - L U - • N Q) O C) O_ G) C ) 0 L 'O 0 7 +—+ O .., 3 V C U C) L D co m C U 0 O 0 W N -- N O a) C a) •- -0 a) C m a) 0 0 a a)_ - C) +� 0 C.H " -- P- U O -o C .w C o. N E 4,7 N co N m E - J 3 E N L L L a) 0.-- co.0 O .a) .CC L 4 0 4 U -0 m -o I- 'a- -n L 4 - N r�i • O 0 2 2 c ( 158 w W 2 V) in tn 2 W' to CO a) 2 7- 2 C) M — 2 cc O 0 Cr. Q U 2 J Q W — 0. W f1' L4 V> 10 N r) — F I •L H • 1 C C In 03 • c 2 01 7 • .0 -- u to 171 — D 0. to U • c0 — IJ- •In C -- L = O- W - -0 - N I- •O I to -0 E 0 U 0) c — C 10 E '- ++ of d I^- O v) L) W C G. ) U I- a) I In p)-O 0 U L 7. N -- _ V) a) In -p a+ U to al C) c E tea) 7 C fU0 -0 I— .-J I—' 0 U 0 7 C) a) (-I -C 3 E -' v) x 0 s- L) E U — u w fn In cri 0 co I- -- C C U 1... = >.. ►- a -7 L •- • - U .0 4-I I C ti .O Z a) a) 0 0 .0 CO C 'd N 3 f0 0' +r -- O CO in c0 0 V) L = L a) -c 0 L W - A'O U a) 2 C N — la w a) tn 7 0 — •u) 3 •L O' L C — o. f0 -C a) 0 4+ 0 + . a) f7)++ 7 — U L 0 L K) L) ++ Q C.++ I- S fa E- - 2 4' 0 f� 0 0 2 z I,L c •.r' Li W C Q N P- i- 4 d V) CO 0 O tr) W N In 2 c., I— a) co — 2 I— 7 7` 2 — — .--. 2 0 E -o < z DO x 1 x • - — 0 - id la. u.. to, C O N - U +.■ a+ C +� U a) c0 a) tn a) a) w Q •0 'a •— 1- L. CC C C ++ ++ -O N (j) W 7 cC ++ I- 0 7- U) C L 0) L O. E C a) On a) > 0 0 GC CD f0 L. -a fa 4-+ 'CI U U N C -C U f0 E +.+ f0 m O a) 2 7 )9 -a — — a) 0 ✓) E o'+ - .r = 'W •—'W .— C CO O +) I— C X I .0 0 x U 4 a) CO 4.3 -0 E in A C)) � r_+ a) 0 C 0 _o .0 L a) •0 u — 0 •-,-o C .c a) X 7- a) •- 0) a) 0. •7 ++ C as L+ 7 ++ E ++ < Cr 0 L a) I m a) - N +.1 41.) 1;:, u O C • I �--o 0 0 3 •- y -al m U CO c0 — O. C N N a) 4 W C E — — N w -o J f0 L c0 — L CO U a) L) C 0 L- -C — 0 — U to to 2 0 to Q 4- U CO fo 0 I- C^ L • Q 0 LA VD ()lL NU1' c ; 0 1"t . � �"4I�;t; Ti�:�'.�i �I •� 159 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , ELegocx__Zzxmlk , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, by certified mail , postage prepaid , a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the LQp.ualt_fQL_LezQalaa_Qf_a LAI_uare__auLael__ln_Shetkz_IQEnah1R_fLQm__Eezig ntlnlr_l__to CQmmunitx_LLmmazalnl_1 , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the ga day of Auaunts-_12eL.. f 171j GREGORY SZYMIK ZONING OFFICER 1E6() 161 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Auguat_ZAL_12$7_ Action Agenda Item _3r1 SUBJECT: PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___Yes No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Location Map Applicant's Narrative General Information Staff Evaluations Planning Staff Findings Certificate of Mailing Agency Comments Site Plan TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed Planned Development-Commercial . BACKGROUND : Wildwood Corporation has submitted an application for PD-C- GC4 [Planned Development - Commercial (General ) ] classification on 11 . 8 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of 1-85 and N. C. Highway 86. The project is to contain a convenience store/gas station, car wash, restaurant, and motel . The Board of Commissioners approved a Planned Development- Special Use Permit for this site on November 5, 1984. Although the PD-C-GC4 zoning remains on the property, a revised site plan was not submitted, and a Special Use Permit was not issued. The approval thus became void, requiring a new approval in order to develop the site. The property is currently zoned PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development-Commercial -General Commercial 4 ) and R-1 (Rural Residential ) . The property is also located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) adjacent to 1 -85. It is designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan, Central Orange Area Study as 10 Year Transition and Commercial - Industrial Transition Node. These designations are placed on land that is in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban and are appropriate for retail and other 162 commercial uses. RECOMMENDATION : The applicant has responded to Staff review of the applica- tion with a revised site plan and additional information that substantially addresses Staff concerns . However, review agency comments had not yet been received at the time the agenda was prepared. The staff recommends that citizen comment be received on the application, but that the public hearing be continued to October 5, 1987 to allow Staff to include review agency comments in their evaluation of the application. A Staff recommendation will be presented at that time . • . � �, ,•��'� :,,•�, •`.�' :' •�..,,.;.5:_', :. •• is J o NUCHEE di N .1, A P Ll C A T- WILDWOOD.CORPORRT PR SENT 7 NING' Aft, PD-C-GCq %' — — — -- \� YtZo 051=D Z NING PD L.U. DESIGN TIO f COMM1rRC1AL-INDVSTRIRL, i'. �� // , - �\ TRANSITION HaDE I 8��~ \ 4O \ r , 29 J 3.34 AC. ANT R CAL. . /• / ,. I. � , bssn � r4T 4 , t 3'.3� AC � ells IOA 9 , x\2.9 AC. e , �399 �— 6 g AC �1 Id i.I 7 AC�r_ ' IAC OR l06 elBi ( 1 SCE 4 135 ` 1.37 AC. IOC RA:L 48 119 AC: F I 1 2.51 AC.CAt, ` 1 oiTlI UR Ea ` 1283!{ rJ B AC 2 d I---i r+'� BRUNSSEN ENGINEERING 16 4 SERVICES, PA ENGINEERING.PLANNING.CONSULTING 36 CHURCHWELL Cr. 919/544-1'59 DURHAM,NC'27713 OCCONEECHEE POINT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Occoneechee Point is a proposed commercial development project. The project is located in the soot.hwect quadrant of the intersection of. Interstate 85 and NC So south of Hillsborough. The site location is ideal for- commercial development to serve the traffic from I-85 , Hilisbor,Ough and the developing residential and commercial interests along NC SS. RELATIONSHIP OF OCCONEECHEE POINT TO ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN The location proposed is in an area designated by the LAND USE PLAN as TEN YEAR TRANSITION. It is further designated as part- o$ the Commercial-Industrial. . Transition Node. This meant that development of a commercial -industrial nature would be expected within ten years. Hillsborough water and sewer service • is currently available at the Railroad tracks across from the Wildwood Subdivision. This water and sewer will be extended to the project. Natural environmental constraints do not apply to this • piece of property. The terrain is gently sloping and vegetation on this property have little danger of being on the endangered list . Streams are riot located on this section of property that would cause flooding or drainage problems or- 'erosion difficulties. RELATIONSHIP OF OCCONEECHEE POINT TO ORANGE COUNTY ZONING A special use permit had been granted for a section of the property that is being requested for a new special use permit. This property is in a different configeration and doesn 't use as much road frontage but 'uses more depth. It is therefore requested that • that the. new site configeration be designated • PL))-C (G) . Water- and sanitary . sewer service to this site• will be ,provided by the Town of Hillsborough through the etension of the •lines that currently serve the Wi l dwuc'd Subdi si ors. A 12" water line and a pump station serve this area. The Town of Hillsborough consulting engineer has left capacity for this 1 BRUNSSEN 1 Ei r) ENGINEERING SERVICES, PA ENGINEERING.PLANNING.CONSULTING 36 CHURCHWELLCT. 915,544-1159 DURHAM,NC 27713 project in the pump station. The water and sewer lines will be in designated easements. Since all the property belongs to the developer right of way easements to the the existing water and eewer lines are no difficulty to obtain. The site is to served by three entrances which will serve this project and the future area behind the project. N. C. 86 has been widened to provide left turn lanes for aiding the turning movements. The entrance to the convenience store is for incoming traffic only. The other two entrances have a lett. . turn lane to facilitate turning traffic. All roads and perking will be paved. Site drainage will be designed to meet the requirements of the Orange County Erosion Control Ordinance. The drainage from the site will have minimal affect on the surrounding drainage ways of the railroad and I-E5. Fire protection will be provided by the Orange Rural sire Department. Fire hydrants will be installed by the deveoper according to the state standards for 'commercial buildings. police protection will be provided by the Orange County Sheriff 's Department. Solid waste disposal will be provided by dumpsters located adiacent to buildings as shown an the plan. The dumpster will be appropriately screened per the ordinance. The waste will be removed by a private collection firm. Signs will be designed and constructed according to the ordinance with two signs. One will be at the entrance pf the restaurant and the other will be between the convenience store and the MTC buffer. The sign will be a maximum of 72 sq ft and 12 ft tall . Additional smaller signs can be put on or next to the specific buildings as perscri bed in the ordinance. This site is located in the Ma for Transportation Corridor and therefore a 100 foot buffer is added along the I-S5 - off- ramp and the site and a 50 foot buffer along NC B . The site is designed to provide parking in excess of what is required by the ordinance. Landscaping islands will be in the middle of all parking spaces that are longer than 10 spaces. The finish floor elevations of the convenience store le '. 5; restaurant , e 25. 5; and motel varies from 67'4 tn •�lS. The motel will be varied in distinct increments that blend with ry BRUNSSEN ENGINEERING 1611 SERVICES, PA ENGINEERING.PLANNING.CONSULTING 36 CHURCHWELL CT. 919/544-1159 . DURHAM,NC 27713 the existing ground line of the site. Electrical and telephone ' lines will be buried under 'ground , in addition all other utilities will be buried also. All buffers have been shown on the plan. The buffers will use existing trees to provide the required 'screening. After site completion , the coning officer and the developer will determine if the existing trees meet the ordinance requirements. In areas were trees have been removed , trees and screening will be replanted and landscaped in accordance to the ordinance buffer standards. The 100 foot buffer provided between the .development and west property will be installed although that property is not intented for residential use. The owner will rezone this area when the need for ' additional commercial or industrial si. tes are required. At the time of rezoning of that property this buffer will be reduced to meet the requirements of the rezoned property. The maximum hui l di ng height will be limited to 45 feet. This site plan illustrates a good use for this property and look forward to moving this plan through the review process. • BRUNSSEN ENGINEERING SERVICES, PA 1 6 7 ENGINEERING,PLANNING,CONSULTING 36 CHURCHWELL CT. 919/544-115 9 DURHAM,NC 27713 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OCCONEECHEE POINT As shown on the site plan for Occoneechee Point. Beginning at the I--85 right of way marker at the intersection of the off-ramp and NC86 . Coordinater x = 1 , 975 , 827 . 8 , y = 839 , 720 . 13 . 1 . Start, S64-43-03E, 96 . 11 feet, to an iron pipe, 2 . Then, S30-36-58E, 560 feet, to a map point, 3 . Then, 559-23-02W, 440 feet, to a map point, 4 . Then, along a curve, 163 feet with delta of 13 degrees , radius of 690 , and chord of 160 . 5 to a map point, 5 . Then, N30-36-58W, 50 feet, to a map point, 6 . Then, along a curve, 309 feet with delta of 28-30 , radius of 648 feet, and chord of 306 feet to a map point, 7 . Then , N30-36-58W, 330 feet, to a map point, 8 . Then, N59-23-02E, 154 feet, to a map point, 9 . Then, N27-23-02E, 140 feet, to a map point, 10 . Then, N59-23-02E, 65 feet, to a map point, 11 . Then , N70--23-02E, 165 feet, to a map point, 12 . Then, N06-23-02E, 57 feet, to a map point , 13 . Then , N26-23-02E, 60 feet, to a map point, 14 . Then, N59-23-02E, 65 feet, to a map point, 15 . Then, NO2-23-02E, 73 feet, to a point on the right of way of the I-85 off-ramp, 16 . Then , 111 feet along a curved right of way with a delta of 48-25-30 , radius of 357 . 46, and an arc of 471 . 11 feet to a pipe, 1 BRUNSSEN ENGINEERING 168 SERVICES, PA ENGINEERING,PLANNING,CONSULTING 36 CHURCHWELL CT. 919/544-1159 DURHAM,NC 27713 17 . Then N79-53-02E, 44 . 56 to the marker on the I-85 off-ramp, the point of beginning. 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT( cc. , 306F REVERE ROAD C) 'I HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLiNA 27278 r _ � sty M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: GREG SZYMIK, PLANNER Ill SUBJECT: PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT DATE : AUGUST 10 , 1987 EEKEBAL_1IJEQgMAIlQrl Applicant: Wildwood Corporation P. 0. Box 765 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Location : Southwest quadrant of the interchange of 1 -85 and NC 86 Requested Action : Rezone from PD-C-GC4 [Planned Development Commercial (General ) ) and R-1 (Rural Residential ) to PD-C-GC4 and approval of Special Use Permit Purpose : Construction of a 2, 800 square foot convenience store/gas station, 8 bay carwash, 360 seat restaurant ( 10, 500 square feet) , and 50 room motel Lot Size : 11 . 8 acres or 514, 008 square feet Existing Land Use : Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - 1 -85 ; Town of Hillsborough zoning jurisdiction South - Undeveloped, scattered residential , Wildwood subdivision ; Zoning PD- I , R-1 , R-2, R-4 districts East - Service Station, truck stop, restaurant, convenience store ; Zoned CC-3 West - Undeveloped, Zoned R-1 MEMORANDUM 170 PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT l/ AUGUST 10, 1987 PAGE 2 Land Use Plan : Ten Year Transition, Commercial - Industrial Transition Area. These designations permit a range of commercial and industrial zoning classifications and are appropriate locations for Planned Developments. Utilities : The applicant proposes use of the Town of Hillsborough public water and sewer service to the project. • • ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17 j 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: GREG SZYMIK, PLANNER III SUBJECT: PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT - PUBLIC WATER 8 SEWER AVAILABILITY DATE : AUGUST 18, 1987 The application for this Planned Development indicates that water and sanitary sewer service will be provided by extensions of the Town of Hillsborough facilities. In support of this, the applicant has submitted a copy of a recorded Water/Sewer Extension Easement/ Agreement. This agreement between the Town of Hillsborough and Wildwood Corporation, the Planned Development applicant, grants to Wildwood Corporation permission to connect to Town water and sewer lines to provide service to the Planned Development site . This agreement grants access to public water and sewer for the Occoneechee Point planned development, but it does not establish the Town ' s capacity to provide service and it does not specify under what conditions service can be extended. Staff evaluation of existing water and sewer faciliti€ s indicates that extension to both are possible . An existing 12" water line is on the southern boundary of the parcel upon which Occoneechee Point is proposed. Extension to Occonee- chee Point would consist of tapping the 12" line with a connection to the project. The planned development indicates that this extension will be an 8" line . Service will be provided by constructing a gravity line for the project to the Wildwood pump station . The project engineer has indi- cated that during construction of the Wildwood pump station a gravity line stub-out was constructed from the pump station 172 MEMORANDUM PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT - PUBLIC WATER & SEWER AVAILABILITY AUGUST 18, ..1987 PAGE 2 north under the Southern Railroad right-of-way onto the parcel upon which Occoneechee Point is proposed. Service to Occoneechee Point would be provided by extending this line to the project site . No material has been submitted with the application that details the Town of Hillsborough ' s capacity to provide water and sewer service to Occoneechee Point. Other documents, specifically the "Sewer System Feasibility Study for the Central Orange Study Area" prepared by C.E . Maguire, Inc. , May 1985 and the evaluation by Finkbeiner, Pettis, & Strout, January 1987, indicate that water is available in adequate quantities and that there was sufficient capacity in the Wildwood pump station to serve Occoneechee Point. Finkbeiner, Pettis, & Strout indicate that when it was designed capacity was included in the Wildwood pump station for a motel on the Occoneechee Point site . Information from Finkbeiner, Pettis, & Strout also indicate that the Wilmore pump station is not a capacity constraint to sewer service from the Wildwood pump station . This is documented by the attached memo dated August 14, 1987 . As a result of this evaluation, Staff recommends the following: 1 . the applicant for Occoneechee Point obtain from the Town of Hillsborough before plan approval state- ments that it has the capacity to provide water and sewer service to the project and what conditions must be met to extend service to the project; and 2. that detailed water and sewer plans be submitted to the State for approval prior to the initiation of construction activity. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 173 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 17278 E. A i M E M O R A N D U M TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: GREG SZYMIK, PLANNER III SUBJECT: PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT - TRAFFIC EVALUATION DATE : AUGUST 18, 1987 CURRENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS NCDOT TRAFFIC COUNTS 1986 (average daily traffic) NC 86 ( north of Valley Forge Dr. ) 5, 100 NC 86 ( south of Old NC 10 ) 7 , 400 There are no traffic counts on NC 86 between 1 -85 and Old NC 10 and no traffic counts on Old NC 10. If the volume of traffic on Old NC 10 is assumed to be 500 ( a representative volume for Orange County minor arterials ) , the volume on NC 86 between 1 -85 and Old NC 10 would be approximately 7, 900. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY PROJECT 1 . CONVENIENCE STORE (24 hr ) 577 TRIPS/1000 / GFA - 2, 800 / GFA = 1 , 616 TRIPS/DAY 2. RESTAURANT (SITDOWN) 198. 5 TRIPS/1000 / GFA - 10, 500 / GFA = 2, 084 TRIPS/DAY 3. MOTEL 9. 6 TRIPS/ROOM - 50 ROOMS = 480 TRIPS/DAY TOTAL = 4, 180 TRIPS/DAY ESTIMATED TOTAL TRAFFIC ESTIMATED CURRENT TRAFFIC ON NC 86 = 7,900 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC FROM PROJECT __4I1$Q 12, 080 MEMORANDUM 174 PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT - TRAFFIC EVALUATION AUGUST 18, 1987 PAGE 2 CONCLUSION : The traffic carrying capacity of a 2- lane highway is typically 9, 000 to 10, 000 vehicles per day. This capacity is affected by factors such as the types of land , uses along the highway and the number and location of driveways. These factors have a significant influence on this particular portion of NC 86. Adjoining land uses are commercial activities that attract a large number of trucks . Each has multiple driveways. This combination of frequent turns and a large number of trucks reduces the traffic carrying capacity . Detailed traffic volume and description data is not available for the portion of NC 86 that would be affected by Occoneechee Point so an accurate measure of traffic conditions cannot be made. It would be safe to say however that the estimate of current traffic, 7900 vehicles per day, is close to the highway 's capacity. If that is accurate, the additional traffic generated by Occoneechee Point, estimated at 4, 180 vehicles per day, will increase traffic beyond NC 86 ' s capacity. Improvements to NC 86 should be required as part of Occoneechee Point project approval . Since turning movements are a significant influence on capacity in this situation, the following improvements to accommodate turning movements are recommended. 1 . NC 86 should be widened to 3 lanes the entire length of the Occoneechee Point project, the center lane should be a continuous left turn lane; . 2. deceleration lanes should be provided at the two main entrance driveways of Occoneechee Point; 3. the "entrance only" driveway should be eliminated from the site plan, it could be located in a proposed deceleration lane, northbound left-turn traffic would conflict with decelerating southbound traffic, the entrance to the convenience store can be relocated to the main entrance driveway between it and the restaurant; MEMORANDUM 175 PD-3-87 OCCONEECHEE POINT - TRAFFIC EVALUATION AUGUST 18, 1987 PAGE 3 A. only two entrance driveways should be approved, they should be located as shown on the site plan, two driveways are adequate for the estimated volume of traffic to be generated by Occoneechee Point; 5. the northernmost driveway should be redesigned to intersect NC 86 at a 90 degree angle, this would reduce the turning angle for the heaviest turning volumes. PERTAINING TO APPLICATION PD-3-87 OCCONEECNEE POINT Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth In Article 8 for Special Uses as well as those set forth in Article ] for Planned Developments. Article 8.2. 1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: (1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth In Article 8.8 These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and W Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article j standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4) . (2) Other requirements as set forth in the toning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 5 (Dimensional Requirements) and Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Requirements) . listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the applicatlon. in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board In Its deliberations. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("YES" indicates compliance; "NO" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 8.6 - Application submitted on X Yes No Narrative and legal description provided. Yes No forms providing full and accurate description of proposed use, including location, appearance and operational characteristics 8.8 a)-Twenty-six (26) copies of the X Yes No 26 copies of site plan provided. Yes No site plan prepared by a registered Prepared by Fritz 8runssen N.C. land survoyor or engineer containing: I . North point , scale and date X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed X Yes No Shown on site plan. Yes No 3. location and width of all ease- h""+ ments and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the site X Yes No Shown on revised site plan and on utility Yes No plan are utility and right-of-way easements within and adjacent to the site. • A ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.6 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings 4. Location of all existing or pro- X Yes No Site plan shows proposed convenience Yes No posed structures on the site store, car wash, restaurant, motel , swimming pool . 5. location of all areas on the site X Yes No There are no flood prone areas on the Yes No subject to flood hazard or inunda- site according to FIA flood maps. tion as shown on flood maps or soil maps f,. Location of all water courses X Yes No There are no water courses on the site. Yes No on the site, including the -- direction of flow I. Existing topography at a contour X Yes No Topography at two (2) foot intervals interval of five (5) feet based shown on site plan. Yes No on meal► sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, X Yes No Fencing, screening, parking, service and Yes No screening, gates, parking, dumpster areas have been shown on the plan. service and storage areas 9. Access to site Including •sIfe Yes No Access to the site is proposed using a Yes No distances on all roads used for private drive from NC 86 and a public access road (Occoneechee Point Road) . 10. Elevations of all structures Yes X No Individual structure elevations were Yes No proposed to be used In the submitted for all structures except the development car wash. 11 . Names and addresses of owners X Yes No Indicated on site plan. _Yes No I--+ aisd applicants -� 12. A fee, as set by the Board of X Yes No $200.00 application fee paid. Yes No County Commissioners ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STAND ARDS/ALL. SPECi AL USES ("Yes'.' indicates compliance! "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings - Article 8.2 .4 requires the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of provision Yes X No Documentation has been submitted Yes No for sewage disposal facilities, indicating access to Hillsborough solid waste and water service water and sewer. No documentation has been received indicating Hillsborough's capacity to provide water and sewer service. Dumpster locations are shown on the site plan. I b) Method and adequacy of police, X Yes No Fire protection, police, and rescue Yes No lire and rescue squad protec- services are to be provided by tion Hillsborough Fire Department, Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the Orange County Rescue Squad respec- tively-. Responses are attached. c). Method and adequacy of vehicle o X Yes Na Access is by an interior driveway Yes No access to the site and traffic and a new public road (Occoneechee . conditions around the site -Point Rd.) . A revised site plan shows a 3 lane section on NC 86 the entire width of the property, deletion of an "entrance only" drive in front of the convenience store, realignment of the private road to intersect NC 86 at a #—+ 90 degree angle, and addition of deceleration lanes at the two remaining entrances. ARTICLE 8.8.23 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article ] - Planned Development ARTICLE ] - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article ].tt indicates the applica- tion "rust First comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements i nc I title: 20.3.2 a] Hap showing affected x Yes No Site plan provided at a scale of Yes No property at scale of not less 1"=50' — tiran I" = 100' nor more than I" - 20' . 20. 3.2 1)) Legal description of X Yes No Description provided with narrative. Yes No property 20. 3.2 c) Explanation of alleged X Yes No No error alleged. Yes No error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20. 3.2 d) Changed conditions, If X Yes No Changed conditions not alleged. Yes No any, which make amendment reasona- ably necessary to promote public Health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed Yes No Property is located in 10-year Transition Yes No amendrrrent will carry out purpose Area as well as Commercial-Industrial anti intent of adopted Compreliensive Activity Node as revised by the Central Plan Orange Area Study. Designation permits GC-4 zoning provided certain zoning —' criteria are met and a Special Use Permit is obtained. F-1 �T w Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 4.2 Identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the appli- cation of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a p�-C-GC4 designation, The criteria for that district are set forth in Article 4.2.11 and are as follows: Yes No Property is located in Commercial- Yes No a) Designated in LUP as Commercial }( or Industrial Node; in Eno or Industrial Mode HB-4 in Hillsborough Hillsborough Twp. Twp' l,) Water and sewer lines exist ?[ Yes No Executed agreement with the Town Yes No or are assured of installation. of Hillsborough Indicated water and sewer service available at the site. c) Yes No Direct access to NC 86, an arterial , Yes No Direct access to arterial .. (�. or collector street. provided by a driveway on property and a proposed public road. d) Y-es No Yes No — Yes No. Yes No r ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Ordinance Requirements Planning Staff Planning Board Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7,4 then indicates the applicatioii must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Develop- ments. these include: 7.4. 1 so located with respect to X Yes No Direct access provided to NC 26 an major streets and mass translt arterial . No traffic will use minor Yes No facilities and designed so as not residential streets. to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts 1.4.2 so located with respect to X Yes No Agreement submitted by the applicant Yes No water, sewer, and storm drainage indicates that the applicant is facilities that enlargement or responsible for the cost of extension extension will not result in of water and sewer. higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to Yes No Site is presently zoned PD-C-GC4 (].8 Yes No police fire and rescue services, acres) and R-1 (4 acres) . Same range and schools acid parks so as to of activities and access to services have access In the same manner would occur on the PD-C-GC4 zone. as permitted under the existing Additional commercial activity proposed zoning in R-1 zone would have the same access to services as residential development permitted 7.4.3 Site suitable For develop- Yes No by existing zoning. Yes No "tent without hazard From flooding, erosion, anti soil subsidence or Soil survey and topography indicate no slipping wetness or soil stability problems. Storm- water management plan and erosion control would still be required, Fiood Insurance Or. maps show no flood plains on the site, � �, Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence submitted to Support Findings Findings Article 7. 15.5 states that the X Yes No Detailed elevations for proposed structures Yes No maximum height of buildings shall indicate the maximum building height to be be as set forth in Article 5 and 38 feet. Article 6.2 . The maximum building height permitted is 45 feet. Article 7. 15.6 requires that a land X Yes No Applicant proposed 233,481 sq. ft, of land Yes No area equal to .20 times the net for landscaping and pedestrian use. The land area of the property be reserved required area is 97,835 sq. ft. for pedestrian use and landscaping, and that it be improved and maintained accordingly. Article requires that off X Yes No Applicant proposes 234 spaces for off-street Yes No street parking be provided as set parking. The required number is 15B spaces. forth in Article 10. Off-street The required number of spaces designed for loading shall be provided as handicap use is 9 spaces. The revised site appropriate to the needs of the plan shows 9 spaces are all within 100 feet occupants and protection of of the main entrance of the building they adjacent properties. Off-street serve. Loading areas as well as individual parking spaces shall not be used spaces are shown on the site plan. for maneuvering space for vehicles being loaded and unloaded. Article 7,15.8 requires all X Yes No Project narrative indicates that electrical Yes No electrical and telephone lines to be and telephone lines will be underground. located underground. Article 7. 15.9 requires that all Yes No The number and location of signs shown on signs be erected in compliance with the site plan are consistent with MTC Article 9 standards and that no requirements. Revised elevations of the signs be oriented toward nearby signs also meet MTC requirements. residentially zoned districts. TTon L v ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Reauirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 7. 15. 10 sets forth "site lanning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as Follows: a) 1 . Orientation of permitted uses X Yes No Structures are oriented toward NC 86. No Yes No and structures shall be away structure is oriented toward minor resi- from minor streets in dential streets. residential neighborhoods. a)2. Vehicular access point shall be Yes X No The revised site plan shows a 3 lane section Yes No designed to encourage smooth for NC 86 with left turn bays. Staff traffic flow with controlled recommends a continuous left turn lane. turning movements and minimum Deceleration lanes are shown at both entrances. hazard to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Merging and turn-out lanes An „entrance only„ driveway has been removed shall be provided where existing and from the revised site plan to eliminate turning anticipated heavy traffic flows in- conflicts in the deceleration lane for the dicate need. private drive. a)3. External yards of at least 35 X Yes No Site plan shows 100' buffer along 1-85 property Yes No feet shall be provided at the property line, 1001 buffer along zoning line adjacent to lines except where commercial/ R-1 zoning district, 50' -buffer along NC 86 industrial districts adjoin. Yards property line, and no yard adjacent to adjoining shall be landscaped as follows: PD-C-GC4 zoning district. a) Along collector, arterial X Yes No Landscape plan shows trees to be planted and a Yes No or frontage streets, nearest three (3) foot high berm In the 15' closest to 15 feet to right-of-way NC 86 right-of-way. shall be landscaped. b) Along side yards adjoining X Yes No Landscape plan shows a "Type A” screen along the Yes No residential districts, PD lot line adjacent to residential zoning. A nearest 15 feet to property "Type A" screen is 15' wide. lines shall be landscaped. Cr G: Elanning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article ]. 15. 10a)3. Continued: Yes No C) Where lots in a residential Yes No Not applicable district face the proposed PD(C) district, the nearest 10 feet to the right-of-way of an intervening street shall be landscaped. d) In all other yards, except X Yes No Landscape plan shows a "Type A" screen along the Yes No adjacent to commercial or. PO lot line adjacent to residential zoning. A Industrial districts, the "Type A" screen is 15' wide. nearest 10 feet to property line shall be landscaped. Yes Na Required landscaping conceals X Yes No Landscape plan shows landscape and screening extensive parking areas, service between parking areas and external boundaries. _ areas and undesirable views. Yes No Walls, fences or hedges are X Yes No Landscape plan shows landscape and screening provided to screen against around the PD lot boundary. The site Includes noise, lights or undesirable screening around dumpsters. views . Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows: Yes Na b) Facilities and access routes for X Yes No Revised site plan provides access to the servicing, maintenance, deliverles, restaurant and motel service areas that is pick-up are so located as to prevent separated from customer traffic routes. Loading interference with pedestrian traffic. areas are located so as to avoid conflicts with traffic flow. Yes No Buildings, service areas and X. Yes Na Parkin is located to rovide convenient access parking and pedestrian areas are g P located in a unified and organized and is located away from pedestrian routes. arrangement for provide: for maximum Pedestrian facilities are provided between comfort and convenience of occupants. buildings where the main demand for pedestrian access Is expected. Pedestrian access is separated from service areas. Gh s ARTICLE 5 - DIME14SIQNAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "Ilo" Indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Planning Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 5 lists standards For min imurr1 lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maxinwrn building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD-C-GC4 designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5, 1 . 2 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per X Yes No Proposal contains four (4) uses. Total Yes No sq, it, dwelling unit - X0,000 land area is 51 +,008 sq. ft. or 128,502 — sq. ft, per use. b) Minimum lot width - Yes Na sq ft. Not applicable to PD. Yes No — c) Required front setback - Yes No Not applicable to PD. Yes No ft. — d) Required side and rear Yes No Not applicable to PD. Yes No setbacks - ft. - �) Maximum building height - x Yes No Detailed building elevations indicate Yes No 45 ft. maximum building height of 38 feet. Compliance with lot coverage &W development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6 , 00 ARTICLE 6 APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" Indicates compliance; "No" indicates noncompliance) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements `Find ings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6. 12 contains those development Intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land X Yes No Site plan shows the site land area to be Yes No area - 425,600 sq, ft. 489079 sq: ft. 1)) Maximum gross land Yes No No maximum for PD. Yes No area - sq. ft. C) Maximum floor area ratio - X Yes No Floor area for all buildings on site Yes No 566 plan is 82,796 sq. ft. Total floor area including proposed 50 room Maximum floor area extension of the motel would be permitted = 106,196 sq. ft. � 75 sq. ft. c1) Required minimum open Yes No Site plan indicates 445,938 sq. ft. of Yes No space ratio - 71_ open space. Required minimum open space - 347,317 sq. ft. e) Required minimum pedestrian X Yes No Site plan indicates 233,4$1 - sq. ft. of Yes No landscape ratio - - - ,1j$ pedestrian/landscape. Requi red min€mum pe des tr€an Cr l ands cake area - $],0]4 square feet T Note; See Appendix A for "Defifiltions". f Ait1 f Ct E 6 - APPLICATION OF QIMENSIONAL REQUI REMENIS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board ordinance Requirements Flndin45 Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.24 contains those standards applicable in the MIC-Major Transportation Corridor district. These :standards include the followinu: a) Minimum of 250' of total X Yes No Site plan shows 34,608 sq. ft. covered with Yes No lot area shall remain buildings, canopies, and covered walkways. iincovered. 25% of the site is 128,502 sq. ft. b) 1110-foot buffer Yes No Site plan shows 100' MTC buffer along 1-85 Yes No rt-quirod adjacent to right-of-way. Buffer to be kept in natural ed(le of Iiiterstate state. h iiihway r ighL-of-way. Kept in natural state or landscaped in necordance with approved laiidscai)e plan. c) Front, rear, and Yes No Site plan shows 100, ft. buffer from 1-85 Yes No side yard setbacks property line. required as follows: Site plan shows 50 ft, buffer from NC 86 1 . 100 feet adjacent property line. to interstate right- of-way. 2. 50 feet adjacent to other property I it3e5. - i—+ ti Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.24 standards (continued) d) Off-street parking aiid loading shall conform with the requirements of Article 1U. The off- X Yes No Off-street parking shown on site plan Yes No street parking standard is 198 spaces. Individual spaces are for the proposed use is shown on site plan. as follows : convenience store: 11200 sq.ft.=14 restaurant: 114 seats=90 motel : 1lroom=50 Application of the standard results In - a requirement of 154 spaceso the off-street loading X Yes NO Three (3) off-street loading spaces are Yes No standard is : shown on the revised site plan. One (1) Retail : 115000 sq.ft. at the convenience store, two (2) at the restaurant. Appl i cat ion of the standard results in , a requirement of 3 spaces , e) Signage shall conform X Yes No Site plan shows location of two signs Yes No with the requirements of 72 sq. ft. in area, 12' high. Locations Article 9. are consistent with locational requirements of the MTC zone. H Or ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued) Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.24 Standards (Continued) e) 3. No more than 10 x Yes No Site p lan shows individual parkin g spaces. Yes No parking spaces No more than 10 spaces are in an unbroken allowed in a con- row. tinuous row without division by land- scaped itedian strip. Every fourth row of Yes _No Site plan does not show more than four Yes _ No parking separated by rows of parking. 8- foot median with at least one tree for each 60-feet of median length. 4. Type A_screen is X Yes No Property to the west is zoned R-1 . "Type Y'Is No required. Standards A" screen is required only in this area. for that type include Landscape plan shows installation of a the Following: "Type A" screen in this area. a. 6 ' high opaque screen b. 20' high intermittent visual obstruction from opaque screen. I—+ Q^ Planning Staff Planning Board Ordinance Requirements Findings Evidence Submitted To Support Findings Findings Article 6.24 standards (cost t 1 need) f) The development shall conform with the requirements of Article 12 - Landscaping and Screening. These standards are as follows; 1. Street frontage land- Yes X No Landscape. plan shows one (1) tree per Yes No scaping must include 50' . Three (3) foot high berm is a 10-foot landscaped indicated, it is more than 10' wide. area planted with one tree per 40 feet. a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height, and and grass or ground cover. 2. . Peripheral landscaping X Yes No Landscape plan shows one (1) tree per Yes No must include a 10-foot 60' and a three (3) foot high berm landscaping area planted that is more than _10'_ wide. with one tree per 60 feet, a hedge or other durable landscape material at least 3 feet In height, and grass of ground cover. 3. interior Landscaping must Yes X No Landscape plan does not show interior Yes _No provide coverage of at landscaping for parking areas around least 5% of any other the motel. Interior landscaping is vehicular use area. shown around motel , convenience store, and car wash parking areas. Cz ( '1-iA\! , �; f tri "I.:v \1; 1 RT'U: T 191 a 771 f . iltil2.1�� •1 :=4. i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , ELgg.QL __aZ mik , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August 7, 1987, I mailed, by certified mall , postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the Laauast__for__a_ulannad haYalQamen t=apaai$1_uza_Rarmit__fQL-QQQQnaa.Qhaa_PQint_1oQata,d in_tha__aouthaa1t__QQrnez_of_1L11__unh_NL_aa__in_billatDEQUQh IQltnahlD , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the lath day of 6uaua±L_12$2 GREGORY SZ''M I ZONING OFFICER Orange County /e$cue Squad, jaw. 1 1 92 I a 261 S. CHURTON ST.. EXT. '"�� ,.•°, HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Mr. Fritz H. Brunssen Brunssen Engineering Services, PA 36 Churchwell Court Durham, N. C. 27713 Dear Mr. Brunssen, orange County Rescue Squad and Orange County Emergency Medical Services will provide emergency medical and rescue coverage for the newly planned convenience store, restaurant, and 50 unit motel to be located on the property at the corner of N.C. 86 and I-85 We do not foresee any problems with this project but we do request that if there be an elevator installed in the motel that it be of size and structure to accomodate a stretcher. Sincerely, /100t; S. Doris S. Cecil, Secretary Orange County Rescue Squad cc: Orange County Planning Department Bobby Baker, OCEMS " LINDY PENDERGRASS 193 Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 )ffice Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 Residence Phone: 929-5535 • To: Orange County Ptanvu.ng Depan,tment r=nom: Sheaibb Lindy Pendergna64 Re: Law Er oncement Senv.Lces Pon. Occoneechee Point Date: August 18, 1987 Eon E.isca.2 yeah 19r6, the Orange County 5.iien.L66'6 Department &upended to 17,022 catt.6 bon 4e,tt <ice countywide. Couvu y PfannLng popu.Q.a.t on 6.igune6 .show appnox,imatei?y 45,0&0 pen.aon6 LA ted within the county. Based on these 6 Lgune6 the nat<i.o 06 cat's bon 4ehv.Lce countw ide .i4 .37 cater pen person. - The pnopo4ed Occoneechee Point Devetopmevlt L6 in an. undeveloped area, thenebone, a countywide average must be apptLed. F Lgune.6 burnished by Bn.unsoen Engineen.Lng SenvLc.e4 a6 36 Church Wets Count, Dunham, N.C. indicate bows new bu6.Lne.66es to be deveeoped in Occoneechee Point. Based on 1986 i.igunes two ex.is#.Lng bu6.ine66e.6 in the aaea generated 97 catt4 bon 4erv.ice ob the m nLna.2 valu:ety. U.sing these 6igune6 we pno1 ec t the iota new bce.s.Lne44 e4 witt generate an ea imated 194 cae.26 bon .seay.Lce pen year. Ba.aed•on a countyw .de average 06 45 minutes pen cott, the 194 caL4 witt generate a total ob 145. 5 man houa6 pen year. The addition ob th.,.a pnopo4ed project ano the projected 145.5 manhow witt not by .itse 1� , cause a .s.Lgn.L1.icant ,impact on the ability ob the Orange County Sheni.bb'o Department to pnov.ide zeay.ice bon this area. However, this combined with °then pnopo4 ed pao j ec to in this area, could cause the need ban add.itionat manpower to maintain the c: rent Leve..o ob .service. LP:a6 194 HILLSBOROUGH 'F.' FC7 FIRE DEPARTMENT H:; ! ,r, ,r_ ,,: % TF July 22 , 1987 Mr. Fritz H. Brussen Brunssen Engineering Services, PA 36 Chruchwell Ct . Durham, N. C. 27713 Dear Mr.. Brunssen, I have reviewed your plans for rezoning and development of property at the corner of N.C. 86 and 1-85 . The Hillsborough/ Orange IRural Fire Department is equipped and staffed to provide fire protection for this development as proposed. Sincerely, ke467:„ Mark Gordon, Chief ( • 1. m O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _6uai1a±_Z4z_19§2_ Action Agenda Item f__D a SUBJECT: TOWN OF MEBANE - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION REVISIONS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___Yes _ No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Vicinity Map List of Parcels to be Zoned and Proposed Zoning List of Affected Property Owners G. S. 160A-360 Certificate of Mai l ing TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on the rezoning of property affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction . BACKGROUND: The Town of Mebane has revised its Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land that were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane ' s zoning Jurisdiction or within Orange County ' s zoning jurisdiction. For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane 's Jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action. For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Orange County ' s Jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County ' s Zoning Ordinance . Seventeen ( 17 ) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely under Orange County zoning. The County proposes to extend its existing zoning classification over the remainder of each parcels. For those parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential ) by Orange County, AR zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane . For those parcels that are presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential ) by Orange County, R-1 zoning would be extended to the portion } 191 of the parcel previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. No change in zoning classification on property presently under Orange County zoning will be made. The proposal is limited to extending the existing Orange County zoning pattern to land formerly under the Town of Mebane ' s zoning Jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION : The Planning Staff recommends the proposed zoning for the following parcels : PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE ) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 . .21 AR* 3. 1 . . 37 AR 3. 1 . .38 AR 3. 1 . . 39 AR 3. 6. . 8 AR 3.6. . 10 AR 3.6. . 11 AR 3. 6. .25 R-1 * 3.6. .29 R-1 3.6. .33 AR 3 .6. .34 AR 3. 11 . . 4 R-1 3. 11 . . 6 R-1 3 . 11 . . 18 R-1 3.21 .A.24 AR 3.21 . A.25 AR 3.42. . 5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) *R-1 (Rural Residential ) The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed zoning at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. w a T , MEBANE ( ETJ) 197 \ L EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION 1\ _ ...r- -- _- EX tST1 NG ETJ b \ •_.__..Al.' PROPOSED ETJ N \ PROPERTY TO BE i � CO.ZONED BY ORANGE I . 1%‘silii4 b.r: '1 s -111110011111, 1 oak \ - - - \■....„_,„..-. . ...%.=,*:: .■..,. 1 - '' '' loll ■ .4"1-21t31 .1.= ii„, „........ e ei .4.=1.giiiM ' ' . _.;,COM" 6 . _ .. . ,.2ec;01,,—...r. . .7—..._ �� a rtzi..ern ''..11"-#1 •':-.7 il-M-71:;:griMelmill ,,, . „-, - 7-1- -mr,,, lit.° T 0E- , ,. *. _._.alw.. r=r-0.-- . . ..... 4 r-' :\ ;:-1) = 21.2i \ r, I . 4 k 411- 4:.u.‘ii_tama- g R . .,_. WIN - '-,. • lift........... -:.,......,... (c. u. 1: i ivii,_ ',..7.. 2 . _ . i-:\ \ \ , ,:\L..,.. „rile..„,.- Viktr.;-116, . .}.001161/4 j 1 ' ••" ,d i . /\..-■•.--.----0 - Tr .070. \ I � ,. •Y4 ' O 'r/S /5 TO Cert;,-((, tho1 th/S /S Jr/e t b Nr C/e v 5eef/on O9e, al ro .r // ,_ �, ., to the Town o{ Methne, Norrh Caro. .---_ - t a Arco, os oacored Jane 3, / 68, " qq : a rrESr: ,•r -- _ .. pct! •.. ....._,.___— ,,-•?-, , \,-\-.-.._. - • :.- -..• --, ! =55,00D_N . . - .1:•. +4...1.•:,•.Yp�=�.7_r. • ,r. �.�. _ �f y1 _..�.�.w•w-..�. !-•� S' = r;i --,- Lr - �, •ir.', •• x+ _ .---e• 1 _f r 4 - 1 - 3.N•I6 r ,• - V Orange 3.4.26• . . - M H ^= 1 - , ,_II.L • •• Frr_rr...r_ r ,�7N��4.80gA J/ liljnite• -••n. • •,R;,.lrr.a.g .r. .-.fir .s.. r_ ter•-_ .Oiyyf�^ ■ .-.. • ,., -i .w_ a ~ ems Z,...r-a ., • • ':T%l.r•••- 'tt'C _.rr: - - ..,.r.----- --7-'- I 7.-_ _ _ ...- .`3-_ _ .M.w. ' --."- °'b:%e a .:. a+ilr=..s. ;.•tee• _�:.`-�:.yi. .-; ms'•':. '..w�.:.: +1:: :.~,',.4..,,. _ �'''' - ;;,4: � •- .'F•.^'p si°•:~wi.�'*.r, .F `"F�'•,':a.: J8442* :..� +-,.--.. � yN.�}'.-_4„�w _'�+ •_! -- r—'7`-`f�` -teary .-.ti• ,^::L - ••_ - .- �;:s ; .+;- "�g�i►ti-wa, ',7.;':;::4:.l.� _ .y_. '•..' - _ , wr- _� gun., -vcri o►� _■ • -nom •�.� r _ - . . . EXpd& cF4•.•• -• . _ o 4. •�44by _��r •.,..z M :..rte.-r�:.rr�.�;'�',' .• : .4 "--lwl- .'::_ ---,..." _ _ &11111 (') -------------- tr" - 1 ct,,-.74....---4:"7--: -=,....-• -..: _ ._.. - _---s- ''''--- - --,*.=.• • _1 9 (.--) _ _. .-,..,-....--- ..,_ _ ... , - ....-, .. .., ....... - ''. 1..P--1, --44..... ' .......--...oc , ...---"---------'--18 1 ).- o-- I >- Z I- M I 2 ..-,5_... t•,...--14-7-• -f. -4•-•. tit._.....31.,‘....,......... . P.- -1.4•■••••• 'rnwidii,--.b.;milkrZ--,7.-•■.--41/ieit - -40.6 - - = et f; -'ir;-''''$f 7 : .10`,._, - , „,.• _..-.-..- .0.1 • _ • - • -.■=.-t•---,...1.-.L • CI' 1 0 ::: .-.: _ _, .. _ -,1‘,,,,,,r--- C..) . r . - -. ..f",... . 1> _ - C.) ": IF o-.1•R ••• •--..- •-1' - - 4i, - :At--! t • -i• o . • -.-,.1•t _-—* . .::'''...- - • ..., • . la • - • • C.) - ' .4 - -•:..-...'zi. i'- •:.!•-:' .•_ ' •_" ' rp, 4 - -- ._. . ' • . Z 1=' wr-• _s : -••'.' ••=.7 -4.-r.' ' -' • _ - -...... ....: .ot.-. - i • ' < 1 Z . -.:, -. - - _ •• • • ' ; --3.— - -' • • - - • - IP . . - - ,.... -- . ,. ..!... • .41' - . _ -- Z . . .. .. . < '' - 1.-7..-. • -- . . , 42..f r _"-•:-.: - - .• : I .' • .-4 . .. .pal- -•. ' - . . . ...... -I . . - . . • ... . ' ._ - •- . . ..._. . . . ••ir.--P.: ;_- ". ' ' :,...."-.....-...:::, .41,0.7.....,= . • ",-- -,-.-: • •.-,' .A . .',,,..'r- ,- --' • •- 1. :,-, -1 ;.'- A :., -_- :,. _. -_,. • . - - . . •.-:::•-r.•-=.-1 :-.:`-r:•... -. .-,...:.'-- •:._-;-••••• • •-••.. ' . . k._:... •-', .e• .., . ••• .• . • . • _ ,i2i.oCIYUD•qt Si-Z.••••■•••"., .e.i• •-....a...... i... r- • 'I",,''' • .‘,--.0-•••‘,- .sr•71` ' - ' -• '•-• • .''-'"'L."- - - ".•- . ... ''''... ' _ h. - - ' •.. o .e.==.4,•r. -"•-• '.• '• a-'''.. . .' -"''' •••-•-• -''' 1" --•-...-:-• ",- .- : .- ' \ _ •. -L.•.e•-n.. .. - '• ,-.-- ._ 4= .•••,•• •z •::•••. N. --... •I ■ ......,.. . . • • . • Ii...•?...1.r•dp,...).1.5101:4 • ,• ...... .. • : •• ' ,.::•••••••'5'il''',..- T '4,....., n- • •'-'•'..'''.--7+4.1.-t". I z:.:* -.."/ ' '4' • :'‘'... . , ..... .. . ,,,,v- •v■•••• -.:.•,%•,....... s 1 -. -. ''l ''' '--• - ." ' . .- 7 •'':.' \.. t.4.-',""°--I'''1 ••••- --le.'-'' ....• .-----7.--.-......1",'-I.."."..:r...-'''... " -ft-•••••...: ' '',•••-• ,.. ".:••••7 . ,::...Z'•.:..'..,,. 7,„ •, _ "„,=r1gr, ...L.!••1,.: y•7, ' -. .t.,....L.:,,•;:',4 4.1i,..-:, z;•1••: •• ''.•'or',•',1 • - • ''' '.'.''*-•• • • ''..... '.•-"':. '-‘ .'. . •=rielial-:7;:';,....11 z.....,ort ,.1, 7:....„....40:,,...0.... ...7 .., ,,...'' "444:,. .'''' ..:":4-".'"•.T1-.7,- -• i... :•%'*.4.7 ': ;.7.; p!!.:',z4•":7..., ....,•;.;.-,4 •-,;, - e-%•.-9...=--.... .,-, .....:--. ,v..,..ri... ..:,..4.4".-str...icli».;•::.:17..-:::;.r z:..:-. • ::.-' - --.3-.• 1.717.37:r :4,.... 4' -AT *':';•■•L.".•?...ir.a...."'"'"" 4.....;,--Ze.....iik...7Z 7,-1;,":.•.• •!:••C;.:;1..':. ;?1,6,--'17;*7.r-".7..:-. .," •a:••••4•• •••'. •••••7 -7••••••••••,...n.•.-,?..:....".. ...4"-:,-.-1. ..-zattt-4,.-7"..7......--, -•.,-....-•4.••...i. .•• .......-.1",:4,..:7121-'-,--7 7.•"4!....''''':•.'. '•".'1,..1::•... 104. '''''.. 'T:2,7:'•‘,;,,,4:::86•gt•4".N.. '"3.• n..z 4.;.1..4-' ;:'. :'- ic.•:.....•&- -."-•---'•''.:•-.T..or:.-'{4--.-).4.--,'..-"4-.- .•.• 4-i-,'- -' ....t.t•-• --.-.,- - '''' "-.•:•-• --- --•--.•iy..." .-- .-.e....•••• r:zt..... 10.1"-=';:. =11 .4...,;,' -",-,j,..•:--1. -... ''' ..,'''"-,-;.:. ';-'. •.-''''' - .-. .a.:;,'"' ":77‘;':•Z:''.."-' _ .. -.. z._ ■ -. ".. .--- -r ...,, -. -r-, .r...r...,• - - a.a • -• ... .,---i•-•:..i.V-A -••■•:='..."1.- c..."'-'17:=-... ---levt„-_4...---, .a:,e..1-.e.-.;.4-., - :` re• *- ---' .... :, -/Myi, ,„26.:WI••••••'• •,••■•„..V.I.F.W•‘:•,• 47.1::•_:•••n, .77.4=0•,.._,,:r-.4.4....._.•.4-.___ -...----i::-.........„...-4.._ ......Z.J,";-:'-•;,;_,...,....Agi ,,hr..., ;:s. , jp,;..,- 1,-..._*"...1.•-■•1 .....•••••=r:. .2K.:•-•-• !_t...• : d...P.i.-..-,==..... ....-;,....---.-,7-T-z----4'‘:-.."--4--7- =.4.4:-70.42-;?7-r-.,-,-;.=•-..." ...-- --.1• --• -- 2.0,-. ...0.;.z.....e. .:-*-4.‘tr,•7 .=,;:rt...47,_...„'r-i-r.-- -- s___ _.-rw4,....&....e.7-`'-7.7'•.:0‘..:-.:•-,-z.o.--..„-%:7L-..--___. l'i-,41r=7".--4---t--'•.--4,1,-.7.i.i....... —, -va' ---'-'1't....T.=t-- ..t --i--t—..Ai.x.g;_•-..eizr., •-v.w...--.:...4.',---.4"T, ...-zi."...•...... !.2-6:-P.' :--: :'".:-.•!!r•‘-'.7.r.-Fr-te-.. •.,:-.:-..--- - -- .%-- .,41....,....-!-.-4.4.7-e- .,......... ..•.• 7...a%.r.-.."----..-.1. ,;:.c.- ....4-......z.. ..-1 .. ..---,-.e:_...-L•••• -----:. ...,... .....,..... ....„ ,,,,...0.. , . _.,„ .....I., ..„..ii....g.;.‘I.,......,, .7....1..vz',... ...2...,,„-ii, ,r... •,- -.•......■••i-,...•..,...• •Tez.......• ...••• ••• _.v..* 6..7.,"...-7.z,•:..e ..tr- -- -_-,......:-.".Es. .....,-- -4-•4'. rt...-"-•■••7 ... :117,-... ...:•"•'.- .• .' '4--- ... •'•.-'. '''. -..:7--; arZ.- .... ••:■••• ;a,•■ ':!::•••4.t.••::-....%,.....4--•' • II Z_"7.-...T ••-' - ..- -• :...•z..- •;'..,! •••• A.....••••••••.:-.-•.. • ...••......... -1.:, „,....,,_!,,,,, ,,...zr...:7,14•,.., ,p.,..1 .....r..r.. ••......r 1.... , ,..,......./.!■4.;..11-01,%;••,71-:2-- •„47...•..-.,. -,... .•:..r.'.!......•• •7'... .".•.•••••. ,• tri.!. 1:1,17''" ••..-. .•• • ..,....7.......,:"‘...0 •••=47 li."%"".4-: -'•••••T.-- *,....., t!,--,.? .,...- - _ .t.-o, .1.... ... , _,.4- :-.., !....-..-:-....ilitl•!■.„,. . ,....,),...- i.4‘...=.. ;.-,1.jr .4r• '-...- ;•. ...-..... • • .c .....".- .7.•'.-.' . :;.4.E.2t_N"...,,,:•..,...T- ...v.z., 's'.• • ••Vr.•;■••-..w-re!' 7:7 i,.7-^,..,«:-..e..--•a:?'. -•--4!ni_-t""....:•"-:.....::..-3,.. ..Z. •--'.........:-.1-=7 ,..; L.-,-• , ,t-••• -,;.,.-.....iNfr.-a.i .•...-4.-7-.i.ti ..6.-A.,- .1. ...,......oz..- — ..;■-._ ......_:- .. . . = . 7,. . .7.1-v4....r.:,.........-1:,...,. .-:..;.. ,0.44',f,,,!. ,'S-=7, .....•,1 r-... :r • ' ..!••ro,.. .,54;•••,7.5•c,ik•Ce.r.n-1"....- Z,•••'..:;,.;;;;iir.5 ••%-.' •,...1■••••:%:.-....t. ''.1...r......• *-1.6•.'1"..-i ..'Z.?."4•••■774..; "•.... .3r•'4.0V' ...kr 4"'•'''''... - rk'i‘M.F■ ''. 41."-..". ...". .•'. ' • ...: ' '°"..m'" '..•'. ...'L ... 6....,.... ....... . ....- .• ........" .. •L • ••••••• ...Or..1.•%., _,-' ': ...••••.- . • 1 . •• 4 • ••-......•'•";■•"... .".".. ".,. ...77..•V`: 1 .•4.-,77" •'•ii . .1....,...1. ....•■•-•..••.......-.""........' 1...''•• .‘• ....• ••••, •• • ■ ••••" ::. ...--,..7"1-; .,.;-:.•• •.--••• r=•,.....4•;-'.;:7,--:.•;-m:'-o-..:.= ..i....:.:-:•--'-:..i...--'-••-:.• 7=- '7:-.. - "'-''' . '• :1'-.: - . 7-' . ..' "L.71.---4•1;;;.v....1.7.4.1- t•-,....7.4;,..•-77. .....7k7:I..7:i 4...::;-:-....'..=;::.;._.:::•_.. :,-=.11-4";.. ...,*--;,-•-....." ' .• T.:: r--;_ 7;:-•:. --"."-• _ 1 .. -'-r.--.:1.1.-•••••---- 7-'••••••-!-::;:::•-1 ...,-. -•,..1'....,-.:7- .„-'..-6,.'.--,-- . -..---:.,..*-. '7.- •-: ---. -.. .-_"...::* •.::--•: l.:...:.--_... lc " : ...••I' ---_ ,.- ---._-.. -._...„, . •.. _ ,. -____--- ..... •-..,=,..-.-.:. -:-•.:-_ ....-.I... i-.,-. .36.,--..,7-,.--_,-z.,-f":-_--; : -••••• -- -: •,,, -- - .. . . . . - - — -• .. . • • - - . A, • TOWN OF MEBANE - EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION REVISION '‘20(2) PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY ZONING PARCEL TO BE ZONED PROPOSED (TAX REFERENCE ) ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 . .21 AR* 3. 1 . .37 AR 3. 1 . .38 AR 3. 1 . .39 AR 3. 6. . 8 AR 3 .6. . 10 AR 3. 6. . 11 AR 3. 6. . 25 R-1 * 3. 6. .29 R-1 3.6. . 33 AR 3. 6. .34 AR 3. 11 . . 4 R-1 3. 11 . . 6 R-1 3. 11 . . 18 R-1 3.21 . A. 24 AR 3. 21 . A.25 AR 3. 42. . 5 AR *AR (Agricultural Residential ) R-1 (Rural Residential ) The zoning cla$slficatio n proposed for these parcels is the same classification that is on the portions of the parcels currently under Orange County zoning Jurisdiction . 201 SPLIT FARC,LS = FROM TOWN QE 11EBANE IQ ORANGE LDIATY 3. 1 . .37 Beckner, Winifred E. & Betty 4641 Pinedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .38 Beckner, W. E. & Betty 4641 Plnedale Drive Durham, NC 27705 3. 1 . .39 Thompson, Archie H. Rt. 5, Box 129 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 1 . .21 Shields, Odell Rt. 5, Box 132 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6. .8 Kenton, John J. Hrs. c/o Viola Grubbs 8668 Richmond Hwy. Alexandria, VA 22309 3.6. .34 Shanklin, David Rt. 5, Box 648 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6. .33 Carter, Frances Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6. .29 Edwards, A.G. Rt. 5, Box 617 Mebane, NC ' 27302 3.6. .25 Freeland, James Rae, at al & Betty James M. P. 0. Box 896 Hillsborough, NC 27278 202 3 .6. . 11 Ashley, Douglas C. d Ilene H. Rt. 5 , Box 642A Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 3. 11 . .6 Deloache, Thomas B. b Sarah 2918 S. Fairway Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . . 18 Adams, Clarence H. d Mary Frances P. Rt. 5, Box 238 Mebane, NC 27302 3.21 .A.24 Martin, Dennis J. Rt. 2, Box 643 - Mebane, NC 27302 3.21 .A.25 Wynn, Fred J. 4 Bernice Rt. 2 Mebane, NC 27302 3.6 . . 10 Hauser, James P. 919 Turrentine St. Burlington, NC 27215 - 3.42. .5 Wilson, Ben F. Sr. Hrs. Rt. 6, Box 37 Mebane, NC 27302 ' r 203 . ARSELL = .ERQM ORANGE UpEri TO TOWN OF MEBANE 3.6 . .35 J .D. Yancey Rt. 5, Box 650 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .24 Tyson Patterson 730 Heather Rd. Burlington, NC 27215 3. 11 . .34A Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5, Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . . 180 Leo G. & Beulah Hoover Rt. 5, Box 222 Mebane, NC 27302 3.23. C. 14 • Mary S. Wood Box 264 Mebane, NC 27302 3. 11 . .4 Town of Mebane 204 Planning and Regulation of Development ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION Chapter 160A. Cities and Towns. ARrrci.E 19. Planning and Regulation of Development. Part 1. General Provisions. § 160A-360. Territorial jurisdiction.—(a)All of the powers granted by this �7 Article may be exercised by any city within its corporate limits: in addition,any city may exercise these powers within a defined area extending not more than one mile beyond its limits. With the approval of the board or boards of county commissioners with jurisdiction over the area,a city of 10,000 or more population but less than 25,000 may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than two miles beyond its limits and a city of 25,000 or more population may exercise these powers over an area extending not more than three miles beyond its limits. The boundaries of the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction shall be the same for all powers conferred in this Article. No city may exercise extraterritorially any power conferred by this Article that it is not exercising within its corporate limits. In determining the population of a city for the purposes of this Article,the city council and the board of county commissioners may use the most recent annual estimate of po pulation as certified by the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration. rbi Any council wishing to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Article shall adopt. and may amend from time to.time. an ordinance specifying the areas to be included based upon existing or projected urban development and areas of critical concern is the city, as evidenced by officially adopted plans for its development. Boundaries shall be defined.to the extent feasible,in terms of geographical features identifiable on the ground. A council may. in its discretion. exclude from its extraterritorial jurisdiction areas lying in another county. areas separated from the city by barriers to urban growth, or areas whose projected development will have minimal impact on the city. The boundaries specified in the ordinance shall at all times be drawn on a map,set • forth in a written description. or shown by a combination of these techniques. This delineation shall be maintained in the manner provided in G.S. 160A-2' . for the delineation of the corporate limits.and shall be recorded in the office of the register of duds of each county in which any portion of the area lies. IC) Where the extraterritorial jurisdiction of two or more cities overlaps, the jurisdictional boundary between them shall be a line connecting the midway points of the overlapping area unless the city councils agree in another 1977 205 1-10 bountlar` one ei ll!.t" rt' dirt :^.i an a rta-e ri upon exiiAttng nr projected pattern- ofdto.r•ii∎pmr'nt id t If d city ;ail- 1.. adopt an ordinance •pecifvintr the houndaries of it extraterritorial iuri.iiicti�rn, the rnunt%, of which it is a part :hall he authorized to exercise the powers granted by this Article in any area beyond the city's corporate limits. The county may also, on request of the city council, exercise any or all these powers in any or all areas lying within the city's corporate limits or within the city's specified area of extraterritorial jurisdiction. (e) No city may hereafter extend its extraterritorial powers under this Article into any area for which the county at that time has adopted and is enforcing a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and within which it is enforcing the State Building Code. However, the city may do so where the county is not exercising all three of these powers, or when the city and the county have agreed upon the area within which each will exercise the powers conferred by this Article. (f) When a city annexes, or a new city is incorporated in, or a city extends its jurisdiction to include, an area that is currently being regulated by the county, the county regulations and powers of enforcement shall remain in effect until (i) the city has adopted such regulations, or (ii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the annexation, extension or incorporation, whichever is sooner. During this period the city may hold hearings and take any other measures that mar be required in order to adopt its regulations for the area. 41.)_ hen a city relinquishes jurisdiction over an area that it is regulating under this Article to a county, the city regulations and powers of enforcement shall remain in effect until (i) the county has adopted this regulation or (ii) a period of 60 days has elapsed following the action by which the city relinguished jurisdiction, whichever is sooner. During this period the county may hold hearings and take other measures that may be required in order to adopt its regulations for the area. (g) When a local government is granted powers by this section subject to the request, approval, or agreement of another local government, the request. approval, or agreement shall be evidenced by a formally adopted resolution of that government's legislative body. Any such request, approval, or agreement can be rescinded upon two years' written notice to the other legislative bodies concerned by repealing the resolution. The resolution may be modified at any time by mutual agreement of the legislative bodies concerned. (h) Nothing in this section shall repeal, modify, or amend any local act which defines the boundaries of a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction by metes and bounds or courses and distances. (i) Whenever a city or count i, pursuant to this section. acquires jurisdiction over a territory that theretofore has been subject to the jurisdiction of another • local government, any person who has acquired vested rights under a permit. certificate, or other evidence of compliance issued by the local government surrendering jurisdiction may exercise those rig}tts as if no change of jurisdiction had occurred. The city or county acquiring jurisdiction may take any action regarding such a permit, certificate, or other evidence of compliance that could have been taken by the local government surrendering jurisdiction pursuant to its ordinances and regulations. Except as provided in this subsection, any building, structure, or other land use in a territory over which • a city or county has acquired jurisdiction is subject to the ordinances and regulations of the city or county. (j t Repealed by Session. Laws 1973, c. 669, s. 1. (1959. C. 1204: 1961, c. 303; c. 54E. ss. 1, 13/4; c. 1217; 196;,cc. 519. 889, 1076, 1105: 1965, c. 121; c. 348, s. 2: c. 430,a. 1: c. 864,ss. 3-6; 3967. cc. 15, 22, 149; c. 197,s.2: cc.246, 685; c. 1208.s. 3; 1969. cc. 11, 53; c. 1010.s.5: c. 3099; 1971, c. 69E,s. 1;t. 1076,s. 3; 1973,c.426,s. 36:c.525:e. 669,s. l.r 1160A-361. Planning agency. — Any city may by ordinance create or designate one or more agencies to perform the following duties: (1) Make studies of the area within its jurisdiction and surrounding areas; (2) Determine objectives to be sought in the development of the study area; 1977 mmlw ORANGE ('OI' ` x FLAN-N I ( DEPARTMENT 2Uf; .,.l: f4Ulit:}UG11 .1•TT1 ('A1 OLi'A 27278 /o '7;7r CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I , azeggax-.ZZxm11S , Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about August c_ 1987 , Y_ _ I mailed, by certified mail , postage prepai"d;a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the EtQuQS.t__fnt__ZQa1na_Bf ammcalfi_af teated_kx__the_teKla lQn__nf__the_IBan__Qi__Makaae_l Extcztectitsmiul_AuclwilatiQn_limits._in_QEanac_County.L_ChaeLa IQtnahla , to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20. 6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance . The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change . WITNESS my hand, this the lath day of Ausult,_1211L. GREGORY SZYM 1 IC' ZONING OFFICER . 207 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _6uguat_244_12.EZ_ Action A enda Item if_t0.__ SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 4.3 (PERMITTED USE TABLE ) ARTICLE 10. 4 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___YeS No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Ordinance Proposed Revisions TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the amendment is to allow crematoria as a permitted land use in Orange County. At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I-1 , 1-2, and 1 -3 ( Industrial ) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10. 4 would establish parking require- ments for crematoria. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed osed p The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. `08 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 4. 3 - Permitted Use Table Article 10 .4 - Off-Street Parking Requirements ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _ Staff _ Planning Board BOCC _x Pub l i c Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _Middle xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1967 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Article 4 . 3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Crematoria as a use by right in zoning classifications 1 -1 , 1 -2, and 1 -3. IMPACTS/ ISSUES: This amendment arose from a citizens re- quest. The request was for an ordinance amendment that would allow Crematoria as a permitted use. At present, Crematoria are not included in the permitted use table. There is no similar use in the table under which Crematoria may be included . As such , they are not permitted in the portions of Orange County where the Zoning Ordinance is applicable. A review of other local Ordinances shows that Crematoria are allowed as a use by right in industrial zones by Carrboro and Durham County. The Chapel HiII Ordinance does not address them. Orange County currently has a crematorium in operation in Hillsborough Township on Oakdale Drive. Information obtained from that operation indicates that crematoria are not large facilities. A typical facility will be 2,400 square feet in size. They are regulated by both the N.C. Board of Mortuary Science and the N. C. Environmental Protec- tion Division. They are required to have an emissions permit from N. C. Environmental Protection Division and are regularly checked for emission of smoke and particles . It was also reported that crematoria produce little traffic, no noise, and are not visually distinguishable as crematoria. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 210 None . Crematoria are not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: See attached portions of Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table and Article 10 . 4 - Off- Street Parking Requirements. PERMITTED USE A CLASS A SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) B CLASS B SPECIAL USE (ARTICLE 8) AB AR RR i. R2 R3 R4 R5 R$ RI LC I iVC2 C t S48 SavAnl 1Is — _ 3 GC h EC 01 El I 1 12 13 AS ED 'f D S49 Stockyards — — — S50 Storage Of Goods, Outdoor — — 551 Storage 9 Warehousing; — Inside Building — — S52 Waste Management Facility; — — Hazardous f's Toxic S53 Wholesale Sates — ---- A _ a n S54 Ifistoric Structures A NonResidentla1 /Mixed Use (1) A -- — ' S55 Assembly A y and Operations including Mali — — Order Mouses, put Excluding On- Premises Retail Outlets (2) S5b Crematoria amendments: (1) 4 -1_85 — _ RB AR (2) 3-18 -86 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RP .13 LCf IIC?.0 — — — (3) 3 cCfr _c5 0I E I 11 1? 13 As ED PIf) 212 A USES MINIMUM SPACE REAL:REMEti"TS 5-43 Retail trade, sales, and rental One space per 300 square of convenience goods, feet of gross floor area merchandise and equipment 5-44 Retail trade, sales and rental One space per 200 square of convenience goods feet of gross floor area merchandise and equipment 5-45 Retail trade, sales, and rental One space per 300 square of durable goods, merchandise feet of gross floor area and equipment 5-46 Retail trade, sales and rental One space per 300 square of durable goods, merchandise feet of gross floor area and equipment 5-47 Retail trade, sales and rental One space per 200 square of durable goods, merchandise feet of gross floor area and equipment 5-48 Sawmills One space per employee 5-49 Stockyards One space per employee 5-50 Storage of Goods: Outdoor One space per employee 5-51 Storage & Warehouse: One space per employee Inside Building 5-52 Waste Management Facility, One space per employee on Hazardous and Toxic shift of maximum employment 'S-53 Wholesale Sales One space per employee on shift of maximum employment 0!" 5-55 Crematoria One space«per employee 1 211 �Orll 16. 1986 To Whom It May Concern: This is a reouest that an amendment be made to the Orange County Zoning Regulations to permit a crematorium in an area such as GC-4. Pet cremation is becoming more desirable and feasible today due to: a. Lack of available land space for burial b. Exposure of man and animal to health hazards without proper disposition c. Use of landfill or city dump d. Simplicity and care afforded with a proper cremation e. Our emotional adaptation. This facility falls under the direction and guidelines of Ref . Title 15 N. C. A. C. Chapter 2D . 0505 control of particulates from incinerators: . 0521-smoke prohibitions . 0522-prohibits oder. These items are controlled by the proper installation and use of an afterburner. Enclosed are copies of ordinances from Wake and Durham Counties with similar provisions as requested. Sincerely, Will F. Ward Enclosures _; ,4 Z= i'LCMiTF—U LJ1 zot,%-7G �'tQ1�1fT 21.000 Cemetery and CrematOrlum 21,104 Cemeter bow-21,200 Crertatarium 22.000 Nursery Schools, oaY Care Centers 23.000 temporary Structures Used In Connection with the Construction or a Permanent Building or for Some Han - Recurring Purpose 24.000 Bus Station 2S.00o Comm rcIa Greenhouse Operations 25.100 No on Premises sales 26.000 Subdivlslons (NIENCto 1122165) 26.100 Hajor 26.20011f nor f 27.000 Combination Oses 70 nnn vIAnnPd Unit. DevelOpments___ 28.000 Special Events iAIiEHDED 10113M 8- 30,000 planned Industrial Development .- - 31,000 Ofr- Premises Signs (NIEVIDED 1122185) I i i I AHEIiDED S 5 S 10/31/81 1122185 -r©wsj aF CRRRBORA 1AOtE Or PEIVIISSIBtE USES £ 4 6122182. 214186 iJE�►rc►APMEtJT ORDINANCE Z s a 5110183 1237183 R -SIR, R- SIR =t. B-1 9-1 (,C) [9) 8 -2 B -3 B -! H -1 H -2 CT C 0-40 R -BD B -5 � R -2 R -3 R -1.5 ft-10 R -15, R -20 RR ncFS DEStRIFT14R - i I 21.000 Cemetery and CrematOrlum 21,104 Cemeter bow-21,200 Crertatarium 22.000 Nursery Schools, oaY Care Centers 23.000 temporary Structures Used In Connection with the Construction or a Permanent Building or for Some Han - Recurring Purpose 24.000 Bus Station 2S.00o Comm rcIa Greenhouse Operations 25.100 No on Premises sales 26.000 Subdivlslons (NIENCto 1122165) 26.100 Hajor 26.20011f nor f 27.000 Combination Oses 70 nnn vIAnnPd Unit. DevelOpments___ 28.000 Special Events iAIiEHDED 10113M 8- 30,000 planned Industrial Development .- - 31,000 Ofr- Premises Signs (NIEVIDED 1122185) I I I i i I I S 5 S i i S S S _ I Z i I S 5 5 S' S S S C i 5 i — I Z Z I i I I I i I I I L • HIr S S S I I I i i I I S 5 5 i i S S S S I I S C C C C — — — — - - Z i I 2 I I I I I Z Z Z i Z Z - - - -- ZSC ISC ZSC ISC ISC ZSC ISC ISC_ 2SC ISC 2SC ISC ISC ISC ISC i5C 2SC ISC Permissible only in Funned unit DevelO�.'ment Districts [See Section 15 -1J9� pursuant to a _C 101 t�Luse vermsL [ D!i - Li C�� — — �. I—i C C C C C c C C �� C C C C C C - - � �� 15- 13r[b�) r e Development Districts (See Subsection permissible only in Planned Indust nt . jV 6 +r f .. 21 ;i ,.;�K l, ounrp of Blatant :i�! ��*i�L 1M(., ZOMINC • 1MSPECTION DEPT, j"j a Z iBurt)am, goal) Carolina ref w3. " TRANSMITTAL TO: Mr. Will turd ATTN. . -O• B 535 I _ DAT? : 5' BAs x Chile 1 14∎Il ) N .C. RE : Cr�rna r; 2 575 ATTACHED ARE THE FOLLOWING: 1. NUMBER DFSCRTUTON DAT ' T . i I Y. G. O RD�WPJJCe 1 1 1 ! • ii. c. Ordinahce- 1 f REMARKS: Cr . a • , _ is_ i r c. •' , _, , b t . 171 lit pessibaly pass;/a e f pei1h C resn tteriaZia� C .•e. __ •�• 34_16A__a_-- USE PagillrAvANAt___PO -i of . _At trd3. 7/i3 's Koff' c ff i ill ____ r.-_,- _ !:." TO: 4tddreSS lb to . BY : Stit04.010_,SV CC?IES TO: 20: EAST MAIN STREET, DURHru, ':OR`i' CAF :..:NA ' 9, ; 9 ; 688-1396 2 1 f SECTION XIX • 1-2 : HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT : The following regulations shall apply in all I-2 Districts : 1. USES PERMITTED: (a) All uses not otherwise prohibited by law , EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: Abattoirs or slaughter houses Ammonia, bleaching powder or chlorine manufacture Animal black , lamp, black or bone black manufacture Apartment houses Blast furnace , except cupulas or converters used in foundries Campground , except as provided in Section XXXV. Creamatory • Creosote treatment or manufacture Disinfectant , cattle dip , exterminator, or insecticide manufacture , but not prohibiting the compounding of same • Distillation of coal, petroleum, refuse , grain, wood or bones , except in the manufacture of gas Dyestuff manufacture . .' Fertilizer manufacture, including compounding Fireworks or explosive manufacture Gelatine , glue , or size manufacture or process involving recovery fish or animal material Gunpowder manufacture or storage Hotels Incineration , reduction , storage , or dumping of garbage, dead animals , offal or refuse , except by Durham County , and except private incineration of garbage and trash by apartment houses .or industries where approved by the Board of Adjustment. ` 61 yr 217 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _Auauat_Z.4L_12d2_ Action Agenda Item L.._41' __ SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ARTICLES 6. 16. 6, 6.23.4, 7.2. 1 , 9. 11 , & 12. 10 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X___Yes No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Ordinance Provisions Proposed Revisions TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham -- 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to Articles 6. 16. 6, 6.23. 4, 7.2. 1 , 9. 11 , and 12. 10 of the Zoning Ordinance . BACKGROUND: When the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning district was created in January, 1987, some articles in the Zoning Ordinance were overlooked for revision to include reference to the new zoning district. The amendments will correct the oversight by adding references to the Rural Buffer. (RB) district to: Article 6. 16. 6 - REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS AN ACCESSORY USE Article 6.23. 4 - TABLE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS Article 7.2. 1 - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Article 9. 11 - PERMITTED SIGNS : SIZE, NUMBER, HEIGHT, AND LOCATION OF Article 12. 10 - TABLE OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting . The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. 2 j b' 219 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE : Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 6. 16. 6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations, As an Accessory Use Article 6.23 . 4 Table of Impervious Surface Ratios Article 7 .2. 1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Article 9. 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of Article 12. 10 Table of Screening Requirements ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: 4x�Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _High x`Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend appropriate Articles of the Zoning Ordinance to include the new Rural Buffer (RB) zoning classifi- cation. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : When created on January 5, 1987, the Rural Buffer (RB) zoning classification was intended to permit the same uses of land as the Rural Residential (R-1 ) zoning classifi - cation. The chief difference between the zoning classifications is the minimum building lot size. A close review of the Zoning Ordinance has identified several references to R-1 districts. In order to make the Ordinance consistent in treating land uses In the R-1 and RB districts in the same manner, amendments are proposed that will result in the RB district being added for treatment in the same fashion as the R-1 district. The articles proposed for this type of amendment are: 6. 16.6 - Home Occupation Regulations 6.23 . 4 - Table of Impervious Surface Ratios 7.2. 1 - The List of PD Districts 9. 11 - Chart of Sign Requirements 12. 10 - Screening Requirements for Site Plans In all cases, the amendment consists solely of adding the RB district to the ordinance 220 2 so it will be subject to the same require- ments as the R-1 district. They are pre- sented together because they all make the same type of change. The impact of the amendment is to make provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for treatment of the RB district in a manner that will allow for land uses in that district that are the same as in the R-1 district. The amendment will prevent any confusion that may result from the RB district not being referenced. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : 6. 16.6 Regulations Concerning Home Oceypations, As AR Accessory Use. 6. 16 .6. 1 Home Ocsjpations_ In All Residential Districts. f ceepf AR and R-1. The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except AR and R-1 : a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9. b) No more than thirty-five percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration or glare detectable, to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside^the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d ) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f) No more than 1 individual , not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation . 6. 16.6.2 Nome 9ccppatjons In 3-he AR end R-1 Districts The following restrictions shall be applied on home 22.1 3 occupations in the AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200 ,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1 , 000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation . This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. *c) The on premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. f ) No outside storage of goods, or materials. 6. 16. 6.3 Nome Occupations ID The AR-R1 DJstrists (Min. 200,000 sgyare foot lots ) . The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9 . *c) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work In the home occupation. f ) If an accessory structure Is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1 . The accessory building shall be set back at least 4 22 30 feet farther from the road than the residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than 40 feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3. The accessory building shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1 ,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 6 . 16 .6 Regulations Concerning Home Occupations, As An. Accessory USQ 6. 1 6.6. 1 j-Lpme Occ upat_i ons I n All Residential Districts gxcppt Re' AR and R-1 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except $@ , AR and R-1 . a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible, except a sign as permitted by Article 9 . b) No more than thirty-five percent of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. p c) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, vibration or glare detectable to the normal senses at the lot lines in the case of detached dwelling units or outside the dwelling unit, in the case of attached dwelling units. d) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the, ,delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) All activities , shill _— .. . e . conducted hin the ucted w dwelling tin i-t. . -. f ) No more than 1 individual , not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation. 22,E 5 6. 16. 6.2 Home OcSupption5 ID The RB, AR a d R-1 )Districts The following restrictions shall be applied on home occupations in the $@ , AR and R-1 districts on lots less than 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1 ,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. *c) The on premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d ) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. f ) No outside storage of goods, or materials. 6. 16. 6.3 Hpme 0ccujaations In The RB, AR and R-1 Districts (Min. 290,000square_ fopt Ipts ) . The following restrictions shall be applied to home occupations in the .E , AR and R-1 districts on lots in excess of 200, 000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b ) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. *c) The on-premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration or glare detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. e) No more than 2 individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. 224 6 f ) If an cythe structure followingscroiteriaused for the must be met: home e occupation 1 . The accessory building shall ved beas set thback ssiatnleast 30 feet farther from the 2. The accessory building esshall not bey closer than 40 feet to the side 3. The accessory building shall be adequately screened from the roa property shrubsor tr dens ely p ees. dens 4. Any outside storage of materials l for use e from the home occupation shall beo y sin the same manner road and from adjacent property as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1 ,000 square feet. Tit—e etbacl -- from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: _ Article 6.23 . 4 Table of ImperviolstSurfacerR,tios is a full -page chart. See attached AMENDMENT: Article 6.23. 4 Table of Impervious Surface Ratios is a full -page chart. See attached proposed chart. 7 1 EXISTING 2 2 5 *Amended * 6 .23 .4 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS 11-19-85 ZONING DISTRICT WaCA PWII PWII (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER UNAVAILABLE) AVAILABLE) AR 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-1 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-2 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-3 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-4 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-8 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-13 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% LC1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% NC2 NA 12.0% 30 .0% CC3 NA 12.0% 30 .0% GC4 NA 12.0% 30 .0% EC5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% 01 NA 12.0% 30 .0% EI 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% I-1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% 1-2 NA NA NA 1-3 NA NA NA AS 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% ED NA 12.0% 30 .0% PID 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% NA = Uses permitted in these districts ere not permitted in the Protected Watershed-II or Water Quality Critical Area overlay zoning districts . o-23 PROPOSED 22 f; *Amended * 6 .23 .4 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS 11-19-85 ONING DISTRICT WQCA PWII PWII (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER (PUBLIC WATER/SEWER UNAVAILABLE) AVAILABLE) RB 6.0% 12.0% 30.0% AR 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-1 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-2 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-3 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-4 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-6 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% R-13 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% LC1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% NC2 NA 12.0% 30 .0% CC3 NA 12.0% 30 .0% GC4 NA 12.0% 30 .0% EC5 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% OI NA 12.0% 30 . 0% EI 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% I-1 NA 12.0% 30 .0% I-2 NA NA NA I-3 NA NA NA AS 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% ED NA 12.0% 30 .0% PIO 6 .0% 12.0% 30 .0% NA = Uses permitted in these districts are not permitted in the Protected Watershed-II or Water Quality Critical Area overlay zoning districts . , s 7 227 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : *7.2. 1 EstabJJShment Of The Planned Deyelopment Diatricts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following district authorized as in Article 4 are hereby created : *Amended R-13 - PD-H - R-13 11/2/81 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 11 /20/84 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-3 - PD-H - R-3 R-2 - PD-H - R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 - PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 01 - I - PD - 01 - I I -1 - PD - I-1 1 -2 - PD - 1 -2 1 -3 - PD - 1 -3 PWI - PD - PWI PD-MU PD-R PROPOSED AMENDMENT: *7.2 . 1 Establishment Of The Planned Develozment Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following district authorized as in Article 4 are hereby created : *Amended R-13 - PD-H - R-13 11 /2/81 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 11 /20/84 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-3 - PD-H - R-3 R-2 - PD-H - R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 RB - PD-H - RB LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 - PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 01 - I - PD - 01 - I I -1 - PD - I-1 1 -2 - PD - 1 -2 1-3 - PD - 1 -3 PWI - PD PWI PD-MU PD-R 8228 EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 9 . 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of is a full -page chart. See attached existing chart. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 9. 11 Permitted Signs : Size, Number, Height and Location Of is a full -page chart. See attached proposed chart. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : Article 12 . 10 Table of Screening Requirements is a full - page chart. See attached existing chart. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 12. 10 Table of Screening Requirements is a full - page chart. See attached proposed chart. 9. 1 1 PERMITTED SIGNS: SIZE, NUMBER, HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF � 1 EXISTING Resirir_irf ial Commerciwl IrxlitsEriol Districts Districts Distr lei-s AR/RI ALL 0111111 LC-1 NC-2 CC-3 GC-4 EC-5 III 11 1-1 1-2 1-3 AS ED �'Anmridrd 1/3184 MAX Nil. 111- SIGNS• I 1 2 3 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 *Amended MAX Nil. Of SIGNS IN 111CO I 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 614184 1111 Al. 541. I I. I nil• Al.l. SII.N5 4 4 85 1110 200 200 200 n5 100 100 IOU 2(nl IOU 05 MAX 91. 1 1. 511E• I IIll ANY SIGN l 2 05 100 200 200 200 05 100 100 11110 2110 Inn 05 MAX !;If. 1 1. SI1C IN MIC• (flit ANY SIGN 2 2 72 72 72 72 12 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 flAX Ill 1011 111• 51 GM IN 1IE1 N/A N/A 30 35 40 40 40 30 35 35 35 40 35 311 MAX Ill IGIII IN Nil:• 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1 X If N5111N AII0Vr IT!DI:. f A11A1'l I IN 11116 If x X X 10 10 1U X 10 10 10 10 X x 1'1111.11 1:11 nN 1110" IIIIM DING WAI.L X x x x YES YES YES X YES YES YES YES X x 11111111NAIt1) SIGNS AtI1117f11• X X YES YFS YES Vt.S YES YES YES YE.S YES YES YES Y15 PI I -11111INIID SIGNS I 1 1 I I I 1 IIII'AIIIIN OF SIGN U IN SI IIIAI:K x X X x X X X X X x X X X X I PPINI fIISIANCI: 1111ai II/w I I. I 1 1 15 10 10 10 15 10 25 25 25 15 25 S I DI /I!I All FROM Pill N1111Y I INt. t 1 IO 10 10 10 10 15 10 25 15 15 111 is !I IIiACK 11) AD.IACANI 111 ti. IDNI.• N/A N/A 211 30 30 30 311 30 30 30 311 50 30 $0 IOIInnnit At)VI.It11SINf. IN IIIC• x x X x x X X X X X x X X X l U11111DO11 ADVIIIIISING YES X X x x YES YES X x X YES YES X X x 11111DIRI8 AIIVI.IIIISING > ';1111; "Jil lit 1 N/A N/A NIA NIA 1 I. N/A N/A N/A I I NIA NIA SI IOAf'K I fillll 811:111 Ill" WAY 660 N/A N/A N/A N/A 660 660 NIA NIA N/A 660 6611 N/A N/A C3 AI11 A IN SO. I I F I ADJAL'EN1 10 C3 II; 10, NI' 86, NF 51 2110 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA N/A NIA NIA 200 2110 N/A N/A III 11.111 IN I ti l• 25 N/A NIA NIA N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA NIA 25 25 N/A N/A ° !;I'AI:INC 111 I41111ILMi N1 NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A 1nn0' 1000• NIA N/A N/A 1110U' 1DOO' NIA N/A X - Nr+t A I towerl N/A - licit Applicahle •Srr• nl+prnl+r ial.r. sect ia+ of Ai t is le 9 lU r� cc ?f s<`s•. 1l�,nl�k++l Ie} }llnLrirl�l UinLrl�ln I-y---R�,--1.11 I11nLrI0-9 01 El I_I t-2 -• - `'` RBI AftAt1 ALl UIIICIt EC-) -2 . 3 y } s 2 2 2 HAIL tilt. 1111- 2 +2 2 2 2 _ 913/Bh ':,t,n 115 aAmcnJed }IAx NII. 111 !ilt:N!s 111 1110 115 }00 11111 Fli[1 21111 411[1 614184 1111A1. !+11. 1I. 11111' ' -: 4 4 05 140 21H1 21x! 2il1} AL1. 511:NS Ifxl 1[1[1 }411! 21111 11111 65 05 100 21x! 2114 24l! 05 f illt ANY SIGN 72 17 17 72 'IIAx 511. 1 1. 5171 1" FHC' tt 2 72 72 72 72 72 12 72 72 llxt ANY SIGN 'j t ref! f5 $41 40 40 44 34 S5 l5 f5 12 12 11 HAx 111.11:11} Ix* NIA NIA f0 35 12 11 12 12 }7 S1t:I�t 1" 1111.1 , 6 12 12 12 li 6 on In x x 11AS1 111.11:111 1F! 111C1 110 10 x 10 Ili I. II N!+I I1N N1lriE IILIH;. '� +y' x x x X 14 rAIIAI'I 1 IN II.LI' }� x 1.1111[1.11.1'4 I[1N I It[111 , .: x x YC YES T[5 x YLS YES YE5 YI5 x x lollEl11Nf: VA1.1.' :.l X Y15 YES YES H-5 YF.S Y4 ti Yl`, Y}`•' ILI-1fl11NA11_ll SIC.."S x YES Y[S ' YES YC5 1 ► I } �� : X } 1 1 1 } At Lion It' 1 1 1 1 1 fill.I--lwltpMI 11) 511:115 ;.' x x x Llx_Alltl" 111 5110 j' x x >< x x x x x x x IN rA IIIACK X 1 '! 110 10 to 15 t0 25 .25 25 15 25 111111"1 411�i1M1NCL' . ' 1 � } 15 }}I11H 1lIW F 1: t.• 115 S 11x./lIt Ali }IrI1H 1j 111 110 10 15 14 25 1 111 1[1 I'ItIN'I it I Y I INI. 1 Sll SIl SSI S1:l4AI.R 111 AIIJACLNI 20 30 3U 30 311 34 311 311 f% x x x N/A "/A X X x x x x Ili-S. 71111!_1 i• • X x x x x N[IHHxfIT A11111.11115IF1t: IN 11101 is x x YES YES X x x YES YL.S z 1111111111x1 NIYLIIII+lN[: YES x x X N I I NIA NIA IIIHIINIHI WYLIH I51NE: "/A "/A "/A 1 L IA "/A NIA 660 66U NIA !V/A > 5lI;Fl5 011H111It 1 1 NIA NIA MIA NIA fi64 GGl! NIA NIA "/A ° 51.}11AI1( II111FI II}IA11 10 VAY 661! Pi AIR A IN Sfl. 11:1-1 AO.IAL•L"I 14 "IA NIA H/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 225 ?Jill 75 NIA NIM1 ° 11S In, MI: FIRS FN' S7 ?till NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA "IA NIA NIA 11HN1' llrilll' NIA N/A "IA "/A NIA NIA 0 25 a "/A low I4lHl' '' III.lI:111 1H Il[1, i NIA "/A "IA a tfi►l: 111.11111111 Ili.N I NIA x - Nnl Alluwr,,l NIA - MOO. A11011 110 •!;£e nl+I,riq,r lnia t:eea la+'u[ Al i 11:1 n '7 . s � r �.ti EXISTING ARTICLE 12.10 - TABLE OF SCREENING REQUIREMENT'S "ADJACENT USE" ZONING DISTRICT AR Rl R2 R3 nh R5 Ro R13 LCl NC2 CC3 GCb EC5 01 FI[3 Aft R-1 R-2 R-3 R-b A B B R-5 A A B R-a A A A B B B B R-13 A A A A B B B B 1-4 LC-1 A A A A A A B B B B NC-2 A A A A A A B B B B z CC-3 A A A A A A A A B B }3 A �i GC-4 A A A A A A A A B B B A is EC-5 A A A _ A A A A A B A 01 A A A A A A B B A El A A A A A A A A B B B A A 0 11 n A A A n A n A B B B A A n' 12 A A A A A A A A A B B B A A 13 A A A A A A A A A A B B B A A AS B A A A A A A A ED A A A A A A A A A A PID W PROPOSED ARM LL {;LE "ADJACENT USE" ZONING DISTRICT RB AR 111 ;; 112 , R3 fill no . .. R13 LCl NC2 CC3 GCl1 EC5 01 RB -- AR j, H-3 ;. 101 B ^ B IH 11-5 A A A H B H-0 A A A A 13 B B It .3 A A A r1A A B B H }3 B � } — H B A A A A A A A 13 Y3 NC-2 A A A rA A n H $ B 13 A 1 n n ^ n n CC-3 A A A A D A A A A B H A GC-11 A A A ,A A A n 13 A EC-5 A O1 A A A ;,...�A A A ^ $ B t A B B D A A l El A A A A A n A A A A A A n H B $ p n c�04 l.1 A A A A B A A �F B B 12 A A A ^ A A n A A A A B B B A A 13 A A A ,A A A A n n A A 8 B A A ^ ^ A ns n ED A n ^ s^ ^ A n A ^ S CA; 233 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _6uguat_244_12d2_ Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT - SECTION IV-B-8-C LANDSCAPING STANDARDS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _ ___Yes No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Regulation Section IV-B-8-c Proposed Revision to Section IV-B-8-c TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to Section IV-B-8-c of the Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Amendments to the landscaping standards contained in Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations were adopted by the Board of Commissioners on March 24, 1987 To the amendments went into effect, Section IV-B-8-c iwillh be n amended by adding the following language : Amended Effective March 24, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. 234 Fcpc :� ` ~: !• AP._ 1 �•rI�C � 235 rr.: i ,DANCE : zubd i v . c on Reg'. !a, REFERENCE : IV-E-&-c Landscaping _= andards IV-B-6-c-1 Required Lbr,dscaping IV-B-r✓-e Recommended ;- andards for Installation and Maintener e OR ' S 1 N OF AMENDMENT: __x_Staff_xPlanning Board xBOCC Pub I i c Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _ _High Middle Low Cc::,ment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24 , 19E7 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise Section IV-B-8-c • of the Subdivision Regulations and related sections -o address concerns regard- . ing the number , location and cost of plants to be installed in new subdivisions . IMPACTS/ ISSUES : On March 24, 15E7 , the Board COMMIE- ‘*.? of Comm i sioners approved revisions 70 Section 1V-B- 6-c.- Subsequently a cuestion arose about whether the new require-ents would apply to subdivision applica tions that were in process when the • equiremeh7s were adopted . The County A--'..rney recommended that Section IV-B-E-c be amended by adding the effective date as March 24 , 1967 . This would clearly idertify subdivision applica- tions submitted between December 1 , 1986, the date the landscape Provisions were suspended , and ? arch 24, 19E'7 , the date new provisions were adopted, as being exempt. On June 19, 19E7 , the Board of Commis-. sioners adopted • a policy 70 this effect . The ordinance revision would establish it as part of the ordinance. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : The existing provisions would be unchanged. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Section 1V-B-6-c will be amended by adding -ne following : * IV-5-6-c Landsceping Standards *Amended Effective ( March 24, 1967 ) 23 ; •:3 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _6uguat_24.2_12E2_ Action Agenda Item L,.b SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT - SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _KC___Yes No ATTACHMENT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Regulation Section V Proposed Revision to Section V TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to Section V of the Subdivision Regulations. BACKGROUND: Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of required improvements in approved subdivisions . The amendment would delete cash as an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. rC.. 43 ' r 239 PROPOSED ORDINANCE Ar ENDrIENT ORDINANCE : Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE : Section V Improvement. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff _ Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION : High Middle_xLow Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To revise the first paragraph of Section V of the Subdivision Regula- tions by eliminating cash as a form of security that may be posted to provide for the completion of improvements required in subdivision and establish- ing escrow accounts as a form of security. IMPACTS/ ISSUES : When improvements are required in subdivi - sions as a condition for Final Plat approval , Section V requires that those improvements be constructed or a form of security be posted to provide for their completion . The County Attorney has in- formed the Planning Staff that a form of security currently included in Section V, cash , cannot be accepted as security. This amendment would remove cash from the regula- tions as an acceptable form of security and would add escrow accounts as a new form of security. This change would make the Subdivision Regulation consistent with the County Attorney ' s advice. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: SECTION V IMPROVEMENTS Before a final plat of a subdivision shall be approved, improvements shall be provided as follows, or a security bond, or cash , or a satisfactory, irrevocable letter of credit by an approved institution and as approved by the Orange County Attorney shall be 240 posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the completion of the re- quired improvements . ( First paragraph of Section V only . ) PROPOSED AMENDMENT: SECTION V IIf1PROyEMENTS. Before a final plat of a subdivision shall be approved, improvements shall be provided as follows, or a security bond, or escrow agi'pemcnt , or a satisfactory, irrevocable letter or credit by an approved institution and as approved by the Orange County Attorney shall be posted with Orange County by the subdivider to provide for the completion of the required improvements . (First paragraph of Section V only . ) 24 .1. O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date _61ig111t 24L 1987_ Action Agenda Item t 5 • SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATION AMENDMENT SECTION IV-B-3-c-8 MARGINAL ACCESS STREETS SECTION IV-B-3-c-10 DRIVEWAYS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _x___Yes No ATTACHMENT(S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Szymik Existing Regulation Section IV-B-3-c..8 Proposed Revision to Section IV-B-3-c-8 Proposed New Section IV-B-3-c-10 Greg Szymik 8-21 -87 Memorandum TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 PURPOSE : To receive citizen comment on a proosed Section IV-B-3-c of the Subdivision Regulations,mconsisting of a revision to Section IV-B-3-c-8 and a new Section IV-B- 3-c-10. BACKGROUND: Section IV-B-3-c-8 of proposed to be amended byh specifying i -forms Reoflcommon or restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. Section IV-B-3-c-10 would place restrictions on the number and location of driveways that will be allowed in new subdivisions. The amendments are intended to provide more control on the number and location of driveways along major roadways, reducing conflicts between through traffic and turning vehicles, and maintaining the safety and traffic carrying capacity of major streets. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its September 21 , 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. 4 2.2 • 24.E PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV-B-3-c-8 Marginal Access Streets Section IV-B-3-c-1O Driveways ( Proposed) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff x Planning Board BOCC _ Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High xMiddle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1987 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Section 1V-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations to strengthen access controls on arterial and collector roads and to create a new Section IV-B-3-c-10 to define driveway locations on arterial and collector roads . IMPACTS/ ISSUES: There has been increasing concern among Planning Board members about the effect of driveways on major highways in Orange County. The Planning Board is concerned that as land along major County highways develops, both the amount of traffic on the highway and the number of driveways will increase. There will also be increasing conflicts between vehicles turning into and out of driveways and through traffic . These conflicts will create a safety problem and, potentially, a need for road widening that might be avoided if some control is placed on the location of driveways. These concerns can be addressed by creating or strengthening access restrictions to major County highways from parcels of land created under the Subdivision Regulations . It is during subdivision review and approval that the number and location of driveways can be controlled. It is also through subdivision review and approval that lot configurations can be developed that will allow for access provisions other than individual driveways and lot dimensions that will permit desirable driveway locations w ith regard to intersecting streets . 2 4 4 Being part of the subdivision regulations , these requirements would apply to only the creation of new lots . Existing lots would not be made non-conforming as would be the case if these provisions were incorporated in the Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent w ith the concern that additional development w ill create the conflicts cited above. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS : IV-B-3-c-8 Marg j_nAL Access Streets Where a subdivision adjoins a heavily traveled street, in the interest of highway safety, the subdivider may be required to provide either a marginal access street parallel to said heavily traveled street or reverse frontage on a smaller street. Where access is available to any internal subdivi - sion street, whether by reverse frontage or other lot arrangement, private driveways shall not have direct access to said heavily traveled street . It is the intent of this section to minimize the number of points of egress and ingress to main roads within Orange County. There is presently no paragraph IV-B-3-c-10 . It would be a new requirement. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions. Where a subdivision adjoins a street classi - fied as arterial or collector in the Prance cpunty Land Use Plan,., in the interest of highway safety, the subdivider may be required to provide a common driyeway, a marginal access street parallel to the arterjal pr cojlector, or reverse frontage on a smaller street when _the onjy access to. the subdivision will bg from an Arterial 9r. collector and when the arterial or collector. that t19 subdivision will access as , traffic volume gf mpre then 5/ 000 vehicles, pr day according to th_e most recent traffic. cunt,. Where access is available to any internal subdivision street, whether by reverse frontage or other lot arrangement, private driveways shall not have access , to the grteri. l or co11ectgr. It is the intent of this section to minimize the r _ 245 . number of points of egress and regress to main roads within Orange County . IV-B-3-c-10 Driveways, Alp driveways on streets designated as arterial or collector in the Orange County Land Use Plan shall be constructed so that : 1 ) As a minimum, no driveway should be located within 250 feet of an inter- section of an arterial or collector ; 2) When access is available from streets of different classifications, the driveway will be located so as to provide access only from the street with the lower classification ; 3) A single common drive for adjoining lots will be located on the property line common to the two lots. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 4 h 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ae` TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: GREG SZYMIK, PLANNER III SUBJECT: BASIS FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION IV-B-3 OF THE---` SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DATE : AUGUST 21 , 1987 Members of the Planning. Board expressed concerns about development along major roads in Orange County and the impact that driveways serving develop- ments have on the ability of these roads to carry traffic. Staff was asked to review existing ordinance provisions restricting the location and number of driveways and to evaluate these provisions in light of the legal and technical environment within which driveways are controlled with regards to their location and design. EXISTING DRIVEWAY CONTROLS IN ORANGE COUNTY ORDINANCES Both the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance contain provisions that control the location and number of driveways. The stronger provisions are contained in Section IV-B-3 of the Subdivision Regulations. This Section ( copy attached ) contains design standards of streets which include standards for access to streets. It controlsrsubidivision driveways to "a heavily traveled road" by denying private driveway access and instead requiring, a marginal access street parallel to the heavily traveled road or reverse subdivision lot frontage on a minor street. The ,expressed intent of this section is to limit the number of access points on rain roads. - - 3 The Zoning Ordinance controls driveways in an indirect manner. It controls the number of driveways that will result from developmeInt by way of the dimensional requirements in Article 5 established for lbuilding lots. The designation of minimum lot widths for different zoning Classifications has the effect of establishing driveway spacing. This is true at least for residential building lots. Typically only one driveway IS constructed for a single residence. The required building lot width has the effect of establishing driveway spacing . This will not be true for development that typically uses more than one driveway. The ordinance only controls these situations when they are reviewed as Planned Developments. Special access restrictions can be placed on Planned Developments through the Special Use Permit that is approved for it. 24 LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT A search of technical documents was undertaken to determine what standards or recommendations were available in the professional literature. A copy of the report to the Ordinance Review Committee entitled "Driveway Controls" is attached. In summary it says that road users and property owners both have rights with regards to access roads and that the purpose of access or driveway controls is to reduce conflicts between use and access. Restrictions on residential driveways are not suggested because of their low traffic volumes. Restrictions for high volume driveways tend to address only the number of driveways permitted for individual parcels. The North Carolina Department of Transportation issues permits for driveways on public roads. Its publication "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways" , describes the criteria used for driveway approval . These criteria parallel those found in the technical literature. Residential driveways are essentially unrestricted, except with regards to safety concerns. High volume driveways are restricted primarily in number per parcel . An important aspect regarding the permitting of driveways concerns the point that, for North Carolina counties, the Department of Transportation has the sole authority for issuing driveway permits for public roads. This creates important questions about local governments ability to become involved in driveway controls. The role of local government in the location and number of driveways seems to be limited . This is reflected by Orange County ' s ordinances. It is also reflected in the Town of Carrboro' s Land Use Ordinance where the Department of Transportation 's driveway permit is considered to be "prima facie" evidence of compliance with the ordinance ' s requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff investigation of driveway controls provided little guidance with regards to Planning Board concerns about residential driveways. No standards were found that contained specific guidelines for location and spacing. This means that further controls on residential driveways should be based on local policies and goals . Staff recommended amendments to the existing provisions in Section IV-B-3 of the Subdiv4sions that would make them more closely related to local policies. These revisions are contained in the proposed amendment to Section IV-B-3-c-8. Terminology changes now match that in the Orange County Land Use Plan . Additional revisions clarify the application of the requirements. The new paragraph Section IV-B-3-c-10 provides specific locational criteria for driveways that will help achieve Land Use Plan goals for an efficient and balanced transportation system. Staff recommended that revisions to the Zoning Ordinance be given further consideration. Recommendations for revisions will be brought before the Ordinance Review Committee for consideration in the future. 24b :V - B - 3 - c - 4. Intersections - Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles and no street shall interse: any other street at an angle less than sixty (60) degrees . IV - B - 3 - c - 6 . Curves - Horizontal and vertical curves shall ne esigned by the subdivider accord- ing to the standards of the N. C. Department of Transportation and in the interest of public safety and general welfare. Factors to be considered, among others , shall be the type and importance of the street , sight distance , anticipated traffic volume and design speed. IV - B - 3 - c - 7. Cubs-de-sac - Culs-de-sac shall not be used to avoid connection with an existing street or to avoid the extension of an important street. W IV - B - 3 - c - 8. Marginal Access Streets - Where a sub- , 1 division acjoins a heavily traveled street , in the interest of highway safety , the subdivider may be required to provide either a marginal access street parallel to said heavily traveled street or reverse frontage on a smaller street. Where access is avail- able to any internal subdivision street , whether by reverse frontage or other lot arrangement , private driveways shall not have direct access to said heavily traveled street. It is the intent of this section. to minimite the number of points of egress and ingress to main roads within Orange County. IV - B - 3 - c - 9 . Reverse Frontage - Reverse frontage may be requirec along . arterial streets where deemed necessary for adequate protec- tion of residential properties . *Amended 7-5-83 (Sectlao-s IV-B-3-C-5 mid IV-5-3-C-l0 deleted) -29- 5.�. SCIIEDUI_E 1011 HESIDENIIAL OLVE OPMLN I, SINGLE AND I WO IAMILY, MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL 110TELS9 ROOMING IIOUSES, Etc. MIN lot v ARIA AN MIN. i1fe 11% NIN CROSS MAN. Ito Nil IF 0 mill. RIO 14IN 11011 lot l of 1110111 $1011 WAX MAX 111 DC. I All)ARIA 191 It DOR AREA om N SPACE t tv(AAIt i t l AE(R1 Am# 91111 +11101" StIIfACR SMACK KIC111 If0•S 011111 1AI11IC 1AII0 ' RA110 Srm RA110 SfAQ RAI10 lot 81, 120 130 40 20 25 - - - - 028 R8 to-it 81, 120 - - - 25 174 ,240 22 .058 .84 .15 .1171 ►a. 81, 120 25 1 if, ,2rio 22 .058 .84 . 15 014 ra Mltr 81, 120 - - - N/A 811 ,200 22 .058 .84 .75 ,031 tog 40,000 150 40 20 25 - - - - - ,028 ►ar 40,000 - - - 25 s0,000 22 .050 .84 .75 .011 AR ►01 40,000 - - - 25 80,000 22 ,058 .84 .75 ,011 PD-Moir 40,800 - - - N/A 400,000 22 .058 .04 .75 .031 tog 40,000 1)0 40 20 25 - - - - - ,028 Ito-0.1 40,000 , - - - 25 80,000 22 .058 .84 .75 .011 RI 1 40,000 - - - 25 80,000 22 .058 .84 .75 ;014 PD-Mile, QQQ - - - N/f1_4QQ_ 0QO 22 05 _R4 75 03I tot 20,000 100 30 15 2g5 45 - I- - 2- - ,056 R2 to.I No11000000 - - - 15 45:°0°003 ?e :3081 '62 :72 .0062 ►o•mllp 21,000 - - - NIA 400,000 28 .QQf 2 -.22 .059 tot 15,000 100 30 15 25 - - - - - .074 ►o•r - - - - 25 30,000 30 . 100 .00 ,65 .077 R3 ►o-1 25 30,000 31 . 107 .60 ,62 .0Eg7 t" to-Moir 7 - - - - VA 40Q,000 3f .107 .80 .62 lot 10,000 75 25 20 25 - - - - - 1rr °� - - - - 25 15,000 . 35 . 141 .78 ,54 tr4 c� R4 ►01 25 15,000 36 . 152 .78 .51 , 111 r� ro µgar _ - - - NLA_912"12Q 36 _152 _28 .51 .114 log 7,500 50 20 10 25 - 38 , 174 .77 .52 . 197 cl] R5 to - - - - 25 10,000 40 .20104 .76 .52+ .200 PD 400.%99 11 -311 :76 .5! -20f? Z lot 5,000 50 20 8 25 - 4) .245 .75 ,49 ,296 a RR ro-1 �- - - - 25 7,000 45 .28) .74 ,48 ,2909 ►J PD-mIrP - z - - N/i1 400 000 4t :3,0 3 :46 .299 lot 1,000 50 20 0 25 - 46 . 148 .71 .45 • 49.1 R13 ►ol - - - - 25 5,000 50 ,400 .722 .44 , 497 ►0 1 25 5.000 f .429 :32 :4 1 .W t'D-A1trr - - - - N/A 400,000 13 lot - - - - _ - [Cl rot - - - 15 5,000 10 . 100 ,80 ,65 ,077 - 15 5,000 3! ,107 .80 ,62 ,000 tot _ _ _ 15 -- NC2 PD _ - - - 15 5,000 40 .200 .76 .52 . 114 Amended 7-6-87 PD 1 - - - 35 5,000 41 .214 76 51 : 1 1l_ k - 45 - - - - - A rrx� rf nde rp.l . 197 LC3 rot - - - - 45 5,000 50 .400 .72 .44 . 200 Effective - _ _ - 45 5,000 51 .422 .72 .41__. .?QI__--. (July 6, 1"1171 (C5 lot 40,000 too 40 24 25 - - - - too - - - - l5 5.1 . 2 SCHEDULE FOR NON REST DLL-1AL DEVELOPMENT LOT BY LOT, PLANNED DEVELCe .9-NT REO REO- Nil CROSS MAX.GROSS REO MIA REO MIN NON EOt MT110 1 FRONT SIDE 1 REAR MAX 8146. LAND AREA LAND AREA 191 MAX. 1`10011 OPEN SPACE PEDESIRIAA! AREA PER USE WIOIN SETBACK SETBACK "FIGHT (PD'S ONLY) IMS ONLY) RATING AREA RATIO RATIO LANDSCAPE RATIO lot 87, 120 130 40 20 - 22 - .058 - .84 .21 RD o0 87,120 130 - - 25 174, 120 22 .058 .84 21 AR for 40,000 150 40 20 25 - 22 .058 .84 .21 to 40,000 150 - - 25 80,000 - 22 .058 .84 _ .21 111 or 40,000 130 40 20 25 - - 22 .050 .84 .21 40 000 130 25 80,000 - 22 .058 .84 .21 R2 tot 20,000 100 30 I5 25 - - 14 .068 .83 .208 �D 20.1100200 - - 25 45,000 - 26 076 82 .205 113 P t 15,000 100 30 I5 25 - - 28 .088 .81 .203 15,000 100- - 25 30,000 - 30 I00 .80 .20_ R4 tot 10,000 75 25 10 25 - - 33 .123 .79 .I98 Po 10,000 75 25 15,000 - 35 .14I .78 .195 RS 101 7,500 so 20 10 25 - - to 7,500 50 - 25 10,000 - 5 40 .200 .76 .19 R$ tvr .5,000 50 - 20 8- 25 - - 43 .146 .75 .088 to 5,000 50 - - 25 7 000 - 45 .283 .74 .185 1113 to 3,000 so - - a5 5,0 00 - so .400 .72 .10 1._ LC1 lot - 75 15 15 25 - - 30 .100 c? 00 - - - - 25 - 421,344 32 .115 ..79 .198 RC2 1Or 2,000 20 50 - 35 0 - 40 .200 .76 . 19 cn w 2,000 - - - 35 - 421.344 42 .230 .75 .188 o ��$ 10 2,000 20 50 - 45 0 - 50 ,400 .72 .18 - C230 1,000 - - - 45 425,600 1,273,544 52 .459 .72 .18 t 40,000 75 35 - 45 - 53 .492 .71 .178 40.000 - - - 45 425,600 NO MAXIMUM 55 .566 .71 .178 tot 40,000 75 35 - 45 - - 53 .492 .7I .178 DI tot , 50 25 10 35 - - 40 .100 .75 . 19 5 000 4 IU - - 35 200,000 NO MAXIMUM 42 .230 .75 .188 EI tot 0o,000 200 50 50 45 - - 23 200 80 20 - i1 Pot 00,000 200 50 50 45 - 23 .200 .80 .20 - 80.000 - - - 45 80,000 NO MAXIMUM 25 a200 75 .187 I2 to 20,000 100 50 - 45 - - 45 .300 .725 .181--- 70.400 - - - 45 100,000 634,144 47 350 700 .175_ �3 -tot 20,000 100 50 - 45 - 50 .400 .6 75 .!b 9 Po �0,_[t0 - - - 5 621.144 NO MAXIMUM 52 .450 .650 .163 PwE Pat 400,000 200 50 50 45 400,Uou - - - - _ 400,000 - - 45 400,000 - 43 .246 .75 . 19 L AS tot 40,000 200 50 20 45 - - - - .83 .208 `°- ED tot 400,000 200 50 50 45 - - _ .060 - _- PID tot 500,000 - - - 25 - - - .0125 - - -- AEIFh}Itt.'h 7 }_911 ! ! � i t n n r � ..� .,, .. i r• - - i .. 25 ! PD districts shall be appropriately located with respect to in- tended functions, with respect to the pattern and timing of exist- ing or proposed development in the Comprehensive Plan, and with respect to public and private facilities existing or clearly to be available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be needed. All requirements specified in Article 20, Amendments, shall be met, as well as the following specific re- quirements. • 7.4_1 Relation To Major Transportation Facilities • PD districts shall be so located with respect to Interstate high-- %��. ways, arterial and collector streets or mass transit faci- lities, and shall be so designed as to provide -direct access to such districts without creating traffic along minor streets • in residential neighborhoods outside the district. 7.4.2 Relation To Public Utilities, Facilities and Services • PD districts shall be so located in relation to sanitary sewers, waterlines, storm and surface drainage systems and other utility systems and installations that neither ex- tension nor enlargement bf such systems will be required in manner, form, character, location, degree, scale or timing in a manner resulting in higher net public cost or earlier incursion cf public cost than would development in forms generally permitted under current zoning and development • • -- policies for the area. • . • PD districts shall be so located with respect to necessary public services and facilities (as for example, fire, police, • rescue services, schools, and parks, in the case of PD-B Planned Development Mousing districts) as to have access to such facilities in the same degree as would development permitted under existing zoning and shall be so located, designed and • scaled that access to public services is equivalent to, and net cost for such services for development as permitted under existing development controls. 8owever, if applicants will (a) provide private facilities, utilities and services approved by appropriate public agencies as substituting on an equivalent basis, and assure their sat- isfactory continuing.operation, permanently or until similar public utilities, facilities or services are available and used, or (b) make provisions acceptable 'to the County for off- setting any added net public cost or'early commitment of public funds made necessary by such development, location of the PD districts may be approved. In computing net public costs, differences in" anticipated public installation, operation and maintenance costs and differences in anticipated public revenue shall be considered. Expenses involved in making such determinations shall be paid by the applicants. Determinations shall be made by the County or by experts acceptable to the County. 9) Lighting. 2 5 2 During hours of darkness when convenience establishments are in operation, parking areas and pedestrian ways on the premises shall be lighted to an intensity of at least 0.6 foot candle. No such lighting shall be directed in a manner which illuminates adjoining residential 'ouildings, and no source of incandescent, mercury vapor or similar illumination shall be directly visible from any residential building or from any street. No neon lights inside or outside structures shall be visible from any residential building, or from any street. 10) Hours of operation. No such convenience establishment shall be open for business except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. 11) Conduct of operations. All sales, -service or displays in connection with convenience establishments in this district shall be within completely enclosed storage on the premises. No public address systems or other devices for making announcements or playing music shall have speakers mounted outside of such building, or be audible beyond any line of the lot or building site on which the building is located. 7.14.3 Site Planninc a) External Relationships Site planning within the district shall provide protection of the development from potentially adverse surrounding influences and protection of surrounding areas from potentially adverse influences within the development. In particular: 1. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to encour- age smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Merging and turnout lanes and/or traffic dividers and extra width of the approach street shall be required where existing or anticipated heavy flows indicate need. in genera?, minor streets shall not be connected with streets outside the dis- trio= in such a way as to encourage use of such minor streets by subs:antral amounts of through traffic. 2. Access for pedestrians and motor cyclists entering or leaving the district shall be .by safe and convenient routes. Such access need not be adjacent to, or limited to the vicinity of, vehicular access points. Where there are crossings of pedestrian ways and vehicular routes at edges of planned developments, such crossings shall be safely located, marked and cone ollee, I 253 Driveway Controls The efficiency and safety of a street or highway depends on the amount and type of interferences affecting vehicular movement along it. Significant interferences are caused by vehicles entering, leaving, or crossing at intersecting streets or driveways. In order to minimize accidents and to assure the best overall use of the road by the general public, it is necessary to regulate vehicular movements in and out of developments abutting the street or highway and from cross streets. With respect to driveways, road users and property owners have certain rights of access to abutting property as well as the right to travel on the highway with relative safety from interference. Since these rights sometimes conflict, governmental units are generally given the respon- sibility for reconciling these conflicts in order to satisfy the needs and rights of all road users with respect to driveway location, design, and operation . The following design considerations have been established for use in preparing recommendations with respect to driveways. 1 . Direct driveway access to abutting property repre- sents a service to the traveling public, driveways are not special concessions to landowners. 2. The conflict effect of driveways is a function of traffic flow along the street and at the driveway. Traffic from adjacent driveways and from driveways on the opposite side of the road may also conflict. 3. A low-volume driveway causes relatively little conflict on a major route and a high-volume drive- way causes little conflict on a minor route. 4 . Driveway design elements ( location, „spacing, sight distance, throat width, radii , angles, deceleration and acceleration lanes, and grades) should be based on expected volumes. 5• In the absence of a separate left-turn lane, the left-turn into a driveway generally causes the greatest hazard and street congestion . 6. The left-turn out of a driveway is the most sensi- tive to spacing of the driveway relative to the nearest point of street traffic control . Such turns are also relatively hazardous. 7 . The right-turn into a driveway Is the second most sensitive In respect to spacing from the location of street traffic control . Such movements also impede through traffic. • 25 .4 2 8. Because of much higher speeds don u ral l highwais, these driveways require a g than those on urban streets. 9 , The relationship of a site plan -oodrivewayudesign is so critical that revie P and driveway permits should be concurrent. 10 , No one set of regulations can be expected to apply to all access requirements. Therefore, "controls" should ini be iveprVariations gbasedinon, engineering administrat judgement. These deslnn considerations are summarized from a document entitled, "Guidelines for Driveway Design and LoGn'i ion ' i,t c:pi' �d ty the institute of Transportation r , Engineers . They represent the basis for recommendations contained in that document . Of significance, with respect to the Planning Board ' s interest in driveway controls, is that except in the case of limiting the number of driveways serving a single property neither the design considerations nor the ITE recommi5d�he°rsgeneradlepasmtlontthatopraper number atten- af driveways. It Lion to design elementssibefiweenstrafficonentering , adequately address interference and vehicular, movement along leaving, or crossing a highway it. of The one situation where restrictions on the number how driveways permitted is specifically many driveways should be permitted on a single parcel of land. The following table contains the recommended limits . Number of Driveways Permitted Lot Frontage ( ft .1 9 0 1=. 0-50 1 51 -150 2 151-500 3 • 501+ 4 The assumption inherent in this table is that ail parcels of land fronting on a highway are entitled to at least one driveway. This position is echoed In other documents that address driveways. The basis for this position seems to be best presented in design consideration 1 . That Is, that driveways are a form of public service. They ally access 12 property, i .e. , medical facilities, services, shopping areas. So while driveways do produce vehicular conflicts, the ir- professional position i � Best they are able, and through proper 9 n can be reduced to an acceptable level . 25 ,-) 3 It is recognized that there are situations where con- flicts cannot be reduced to an acceptable level or design standards cannot be met. In these situations, it is recommended not that driveways be restricted, but that they be denied. Examples of such situations would be inability to provide adequate sight distance or inability to restrict turning movements. When direct access is denied alternatives such as parallel frontage roads are recommended. Otherwise, some type of compensation to the denied property owner may be necessary. The use of alleys to provide driveway access to the rear of the lot is suggested as a preferable alternative to driveway restrictions such as common driveways. Modern subdivision design, however, tends to discourage the use of alleys. Low density residential development, that is 4 or fewer units per acre provide ample lot widths to accommodate buildings, driveways, and carports or garages . It is only in the range of 6 units per acre that lot widths become too narrow to allow all such construction . At such densities, alleys become an attractive alternative . Alleys designed to modern standards are worth consider- ing in conventional subdivisions. However, the trend toward clustered designs, the integration of various housing types in a single development, the pressure for more open space and common areas, and the additional cost and land required by alleys suggest only a limited role for alleys in future residential construction . The design considerations listed above include location and spacing as driveway design elements. These design elements refer to the location of a driveway on the property It serves and spacing between driveways. The recommended minimum spacing for different types of driveways is contained in the following table. Driveway Spacing Minimum Spacing ( ft. ) Residential Commercial industrial From property line 0 From street corner 0 R Between driveways 3 3 10 3 10 R r Driveway radius NOTE: All distances are measured from the points where driveways radii intersect the curb tangent. These spacing recommendations confirm the professional position that proper design is adequate to handle vehicular conflicts. With regard to the Planning Board ' s interest in driveway controls, they suggest that the basis for any such control will be Justified on other than technical specifica- tions. - COLEMAN. BERNHOLZ, I)ICHERSON, ' BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 110 CHURTON STREET HILLSBOROIIGH, N.C. 27278 919-732-2196 019-042-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 20.FRANKLIN BUILDING 137 E-FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL,N.C.27514 919 92°'715` August 24, 1987 ALONZO B.COLEMAN, JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ DONALD R. DICKERSON ROGER B.BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE MARTIN J. HERNHOLZ RICHARD J. SNIDER,JR. G.NICHOLAS HERMAN KAREN J. SHANORAW Shirley E. Marshall, Chair orcounse, Moses Carey BONNER D.SAWYER Stephen Halkiotis 11902-1972) John Hartwell Don Willhoit Orange County Board of Commissioners 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Vi • d: I" — ,'. , .:.5'',L',`,,1' YYY 1 ./hk.,,a,4• i;, ' -1 ''!i : :'Ir' G:, 91 ' a,:"-v., '' �;, '"i4rd Q �.:,�„ - �: ' � �. ,., _ ^� �� on August 18, 1987 ` k.^. +; 1r ? ; . d t Orange „, . 1r _""2,,4. ; " ge County can ` voluntary : r A^� _"�, `" -,1..,,,,,„' ..(„� un y annexation of W. - - - - • e�. ��' '��`_� �`,�„ , '<,�; � pursuan ^ a� t to Carzboza' - t'''' 1tiw , ' :�'w',' - , 1� pans t �, ,,, together authorize r ze yr . h a 'Y Subdivision ';',4,,t•y �,� - -- :6�y�,,a��-, � 1 ,.% s;1�” 1;1;�;;,,`� �'.� ��, ,I� project. i„,,,414,,,,,44;-2,,,,,,.„,,...1 ,,= r. ;,, �', w I : ,cerrls about ' '''''' ,a '''*'''` ;. ;.:',:; •,' r '4' Ji ,,',,'s the f 1,, r1,:.v::! '�;.,. ,w ':.: ', . rev s approval �� "^ ,�r.� 7',.,�i�, , V� PP 1 process .8 .` ` ;.? y:�� -_- 1�• '1°:" ��.,' - a;'' -' review the ti �,:-:.. ,;,.,,,•.. ",1 a ,,,. - proposed• ,; ', t,.'" fir, the Amberly#' i _ _ -''; , m„ _ ��,� rly Subdivision. �'"r.! e: 1,•`r�+%�«'..' ;,7, .,3 ,,, 1;4 :,r.', .�'n l at ';,x _a`' ,u'' ,,,�,�. _ F", .,,: : tl _ '� County on the issues :, _� ;a;6ao 1, a c1_w • ,µ- :h,,,.„ i, �ndOrangel use y, i i^ ` - -.`41' '.' - :r. ''.',. Orange maintain as a ,� - �. bor 0 - - the e v Air - N'� �_7„'�,�,, .�„ .%s`ian,,NF: _ ':,`�', 9S :1A n'r^^',��' .._ :,v•, Jl a t ;: ifi” .,.. ': k- it is more than'on ae precluded �--. _�, •, ,i'' : �," ,, P laded ' k ''• t9'` ,i,�• ,..v from cr, I �.w 1a:1 �: : r",� ,,,� - ,• �, are as follows: ' a. ;;. :1�'_: ;, ,': �,•, annex ;;,, :d� :; ; :;' `nl_'s , - i`i annexation re o g to the . .�` .,gr; a -: ',.. . - .P.perimete i',,, t'''- ' ;y1-7-4;,:,= Y=: ,; ,�. ' rs are 4'. -- - - - :e' �'�, .� ,' �.i;,.'.� ',��' � .,g A.. pertainin F,. ��l,; :: :. e o f some United r� � _ . - .n.', " , '. - ^ ';:,, s:' statutor I w, ' 1_ - y questions •air,... �^;I� ^, _ 1 Board of Commissioners Page Two August 24 , 1987 none of which appear to me to be implicated, the persons empowered to challenge an annexation decision are expressly provided by statute. As stated by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Taylor v. City of Raleigh, 290 N.C. 608, 227 S.E.2d 576 (1976) : Upon the institution of an action to challenge the validity of an annexation ordinance, one of the court ' s first concerns is whether the plaintiffs are authorized to maintain their action. In Gaskill v. Costlow (cit. omitted) , this court recognized and applied the general rule that unless an S annexation ordinance be absolutely void (e.g. , on the ground of lack of legislative r authority for its enactment) , a of specific statutory authorityntohdoaso, private individuals may not attack, collaterally or directly, the validity of g proceedings extending the corporate limits of '1 a municipality. Such an action is to be y prosecuted only by the State through its E proper officers. (cit. omitted. ) However, if the annexation is neither authorized by 0 o law nor made under the color of law it is void and it is subject to attack by anyone L" having a sufficient personal interest in the tg litigation. (cit. omitted. ) W x L The legislature, of course, may authorize designated persons to contest the a validity of annexation, ordinances, but when z. "the courts are vested with jurisdiction, to review annexation proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited by statute. " (cit. omitted. ) Questions concerning the validity of the proceedings extending the corporate limits of Carrboro in the case of the Amberly project can only be prosecuted , according to the Taylor case, by the State through its proper officers. The persons authorized by statute to challenge annexation decisions are "person [s] owning property in the annexed territory, " (N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 160A-38 and 160A-50) and rural fire departments (who may appeal to the local government commission if the department feels that "no good faith offer has been made by the city to pay the rural fire I department for the loss of tax revenue as the result of I the annexation") . The clear intent of the Legislature is to provide an expedited judicial review, limited in Board of Commissioners Page Three August 24 , 1987 scope and avoiding unnecessary re Cit of Durham Annexation Ordinance r No.delays . In N.C.App. 472 , 311 S.E. 2d 8,98 (1984) . NO' 5791, 66 In summary, although Orange County is a legal "person, " the legislative pronouncement on the persons who can attack annexation ordinances would preclude the County from making such an attack unless it owned property in the annexed territory. The validity of the proceedings themself must be prosecuted by the State of North Carolina. All of this is consistent with the law in other states which tyi 1 government attack on anotpher cally ea local 5 annexation decisions only where authorized by statute. See 22221.-211z Antieau, Local Government Law, Section E 1A. 30. See also it of Orlando . e Count 309 So. 2d 16(F1a.App. 1975) , off d 327 So. 2 d 7 (1976) . o Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have r y recognized 1 one local governmentl'slrightochallengelanotherrs on annexation decisions in North Carolina by requesting a special legislation to enable Orange County and the towns to restrict the annexatior, practices of each 0 other pursuant to contracts to do so. As you know this is the plan for the joint planning area in Orange I County. z � 2. Zanir, Q Statutes Secec or, 16phe38tatute, North Carolina General zone does not provide a or cities to those zoning decisions which are le character. There are, as will be discussed ebelow, some legislative statements concerning challenges to the t zoning and permitting decisions of cities which are not legislative. With respect to the legislative decisions, it is the general rule that only "aggrieved persons" have standing to attack the validity of the zoning decision. A person is aggrieved when he can allege and show that he will be "specially and injuriously affected in his property or other legal rights. " Marietta v. Tra ton Cor oration, 316 S.E. 2d 461 (Ga. 1984) . A person complaining about municipal action in zoning 41114r rezoning someone else ' s property has the burden of proving that he will suffer special damage by reason of such action which differs from that suffered by the general public. " [T] he not only affect a matter in which the protestaro,t hasta specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specifically affected in a way different from that Board of Page Four Commissioners g August 24, 1987 suffered by the public generally. " DuBa v. I Md. 180, 213 A. 2d 487, 489 (1965) . Crane, 240 In North Carolina, the Supreme Court has said much the same thing in the case of Ta for v. Cit of Raleigh, cited previously in this letter. In that case the court said this: [T] he validity of a municipal zoning ordinance, when directly and necessarily involved, may be determined in a properly constituted action under our Declaratory Judgment Act. However, this may be done only when challenged by a person who has a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter affected by the zoning E0 ordinance and who is directly and adversely affected thereby. (cit. omitted. ) Ta for v. Cit of Ralei h, supra, 227 S.E. 2d at 583 . 1 0 Whether a "person" has standing to challenge a zoning decision turns on the challenger ' s personal and specific injury as the result of the zoning decision. Likewise this personal and specific injury must be "in a way different from that suffered by the public I generally. " DuBa v. gnek Crane, supra. This analysis, I , precludes Orange County from bringing such a challenge. There are no reported cases in North p Carolina where one jurisdiction has challenged another ' s zoning decisions. There are very few in g other states and the decisions are not consistent. think on balance that Orange County would have I difficulty proving that it, as a governmental unit, would suffer damage by reason, of a Carrboro zoning decision which differs from that suffered by the general public. 3. The Conditional Use Permit. North Carolina General Statutes Section, 160A-381 authorizes a city council (or Board of Aldermen) to issue conditional use permits. That statute provides that every decision to issue or not a conditional use permit shall be subject to review by the courts and that the petition for review shall be filed with the clerk of superior court within 30 days after the decision of the city council is filed or after a written copy is delivered to every a rieved art who has filed a written request for such copy with the clerk at the time of the hearing of the case, which is later. By statute and by case law the "aggrieved party" standard prevails in determining . • I Board of Commissioners Page Five August 24 , 1987 i who has standing to challenge a conditional use decision. In the case of Heer v. Town of Highlands Zonin Board of Ad 'ustment, N.C.A S.E. 2d 869 (1983) , the North Carolina Court of Appeals found that a group of petitioners failed to meet the standing test. The petitioners alleged that they Were property owners who would suffer a decline in value of their land as the result of the decision in question. In its opinion, the court stressed that the failed to prove that they would be subject to "specials damages" distinct from the rest of the community. Without a claim of " 'special damages, ' the petitioners 3 are not 'aggrieved' persons under [N.C. Gen. Stat. 5 Section 160A-381] , and they have no standing. " Id. 300 S.E. 2d at 870. The court in the Heery case gave this history of standing in the context of conditional use k permits. Earlier versions of N.C. Gen. Stat. g Section 160A-388 [the statute which provides for the procedures involving appeals of Board 0 of Adjustment decisions which are in the § context of standing identical to those under N.C. Gen. Stat. Sectior, 160A-381] , which contain review provisions similar to the present statute, were interpreted to mean 1 that "the appealing party must have some z interest in the Property affected. " Pi ford V. Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C.App, 181, 270 p S .E. 2d 535 (1 980) , disc. rev. denied and ap eal dismissed. 301 N.C. 722, 274 S.E. 2d 1 230 (1981) (cit. omitted) . However, the "property affected" is not limited to the W Property subject to the special use permit. a An order of a Board of Adjustment which exceeds its authority under the zoning ordinance may be appealed by nearby land owners who will sustain, special damage from the proposed use. Jackson v. Board of Adjustment , 275 N.C. 155, 161- 77—"NT S.E. 2d 78 (1969) (emphasis added) . The court defined "special damage" as "a reduction in the value of his [petitioner ' s] own Property. " Id. at 161, 166 S.E. 2d at 82. Id. , 300 S.E. 2d at 871. As is the case with zoning decisions, there are no ' reported cases involving the challenge of a conditional use permit wherein one local government challenges the decision of another. For the reasons stated above in Board of Commissioners Page Six August 24 , 1987 the discussion, of challenges to zoning decisions, i do not think Orange County can meet the necessary test. Because i think it unlikely that Orange County, as a party plaintiff in a challenge to the annexation,, zoning and conditional use permits of Carrboro, could prevail on the question of standing, I have not researched the facts or the law on the merits of Carrboro' s decisions. That is, I have not made an attempt to determine whether Carrboro followed proper procedures when it annexed the Amberly property, when it zoned it, and when it issued a conditional use permit for its development. Nothing in my opinions 5 here is intended to discourage private citizens from pursuing these questions. In fact, an additional danger in the County's involvement in such a pursuit is that the question of the County' s standing will likely become a distraction in the case. The presentatin by Mr. Spalt and information he provided me subsequent to i his presentation raises, at least questions about the 1 procedures followed by Carrboro in this matter . a The wastewater disposal system proposed Amberly developers must be permittedbythe by the o Environmental Management Commission. This is true because what is proposed is a "treatment works and 1 disposal system discharging to the surface waters of 2 the state. " North Carolina General Statutes Section 143-215. 1 provides generally how this occurs. An o application for a permit must be filed with the Environmental Management Commission at least 180 days in advance of the date on which the applicant desires to commence the discharge of wastes. The Commission must act on the application as rapidly as possible but g it has the power to request such information from the applicant and to conduct such inquiry or investigation as it may deem necessary prior to acting on any application. The Commission is also empowered to adopt rules as it deems necessary with respect to the consideration of any application. The staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development provides a written evaluation and proposed determination with regard to the issuance or denial of a permit. When the Environmental Management Commission, adopts a proposed determination, it causes a notice of the application and of the proposed determination to be given to, among others, all interested persons and to the public. The notice must be given at least 45 days prior to any proposed final action granting or denying the permit. If any Board of Commissioners Page Sever, August 24 , 1987 person, desires a public meeting on any application, he may do so by requesting a meeting in writing to the Environmental Management Commission within 30 days following the date of the notice. If the Environmental Management Commission determines that there is a significant public interest in holding such a meeting, it shall do so providing at least 30 days notice of the meeting. The Environmental Management Commission is further authorized to conduct public hearings on any application. Within 90 days following consider the matters and things ation of presented Environmental Management Commission must igrantrorg, deny a permit. 5 North Carolina General Statutes Section 143-215 . 5 provides for review of the decision on the following the public hearing permit following Environmental Management Commission, aridrthenytohtheull courts. However, only those "persons against whom a final order or decision has been entered" are entitled to this review. North Carolina General Statutes Section 143-215 . 3 § authorizes the Environmental Management Commission to o adopt from time to time and to modify and revoke its regulations interpreting and applying the law of North Carolina declaring it to be the public policy State to provide for the conservation ofo its waterhand air resources. 0 Summarizing the above, it would seem that Orange County could have a significant role in the public input portion of the Environmental Management Commission ' s review of the Amberly wastewater treatment system. Likewise the County, through its professional 8 staff and experts hired by it, could develop revisions to and, as needed, new standards related to wastewater treatment facilities in drinking water watersheds and present them to the Environmental Management Commission in the form of requested rule making changes. This can be done in the context of this project only pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-215. 1 or generally pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143-215 .3 . With respet review of the Environmental Management Commission's to decision, however, it appears to be limited to parties to an application. This would, on the surface, rule out Orange County having a right of appeal. Within the time available for the research of the questions posed by the Board, I was not able to determine if there is any possibility of the County intervening as a party in Board of Commissioners Page Eight August 24 , 1987 the permit process. If such is possible, perhaps under the theory that the watershed protection, gives Orange County standing to ensure that the permit issued and its conditions adequately address the watershed concerns, review by the courts would be possible at the County' s insistence. Finally, on all of this, the Environmental Policy Act, North Carolina General Statutes Section 113A-1 et Sea. and especially G.S. Section 113A-8, empowers "the governing body of all cities, counties and towns actin, individually or collective) e developer of a major development o require developer ony. . .private sub detailed statements of the environmental impact mof such 5 projects. " A "major development project" is defined to W include shopping centers, subdivisions and other o housing developments, and industrial and commercial E projects. It does not include any projects of less than two contiguous acres in extent. This legislation is not precise as to its implementation. It has been 4 suggested by Milton Heath of the Institute of .a Government that the County might implement it by 0 ordinance applicable to all major development projects g' as defined in the statute and in the ordinance. I U o think it also reasonable to assume that the County could define major development projects less broadly L9 than is permitted by State law. Very truly yours , 0 4 s PA■• 4 eof re edhill t GEG/lsg xc: Marvin Collins Albert Kittrell I ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION P.O. Box 712 • 117 N. CHURTON ST. • HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 (919) 732-8181 EX,r. 279 (919) 968-4501 MEADOWLANDS ZONING REALIGNMENT EDC STATEMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 24, 1987 EDC Support for the Zoning Realignment. My name is Sylvia Price. I am Director of the Orange County Economic Development Commission, and I am here representing the EDC. Statement of Support. The EDC requests that the record of this Public Hearing show that the OCEDC was briefed thoroughly and considered the matter at its regular meeting on August 13, 1987, and that a motion was passed stating the support of the EDC for the zoning realignment requested by Consolidated Ventures for the Meadowlands project, and that this statement of support should be communicated to the Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board at this Public Hearing. Background. Members of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board are aware that the EDC was involved during 1984 and early 1985 in the identification of the site (the former Beard property) as the best location for a quality industrial park, which the EDC believed is much needed in the northern part of the County. In May 1985, when the original rezoning request was considered, the Chair of the EDC and I both testified in support of the proposed rezoning, stating that the project proposed for the site would meet the need for a quality park in northern Orange. Since the property was rezoned in July 1985, the EDC has continued to work to support the project. Several members and I participated in the "charette" held in late spring 1986, which developed the master plan for the project. One key element that was urged by the charette participants, which is reflected in the realignment before you tonight, is that the road into the project should be moved in order to take better advantage of the beauty of the pond, one of the most attractive features of the site. The first client for the project was announced in May 1987, which is the expansion of TECAN, U.S. I believe that all of us should feel gratified that TECAN has chosen to expand its operations in Orange County, and to locate its U.S. headquarters in the Meadowlands. This is the first example of the quality operations tic ,:aa Meadowlands park will help to attract, and in this case, retain with a major expansion, in Orange County. t 4- Page 2 Meadowlands Zoning Realignment EDC Statement to the Public Hearing on August 24, 1987 (continued) : Looking to the Future. The EDC was created by the Board of County Commissioners to promote quality economic development in Orange County. The EDC believes that its interest in, and support for this project since its inception, is consistent with. and supportive of, the mission given the EDC by the Orange County Commissioners. The creation of a quality industrial park like the Meadowlands, and its attraction of quality companies like TECAN are making a significant contribution to quality economic development in Orange County. The careful attention to master planning. and to preserving the natural beauty of the site, examplify the good faith effort to ensure quality development, which was begun by George Horton and continued by Consolidated Ventures. The EDC needs quality sites with quality environment to help secure companies of the caliber of TECAN. Approval of this zoning realignment now under consideration will advance the dream toward reality, and help the EDC to fulfill its mission. As a resident of Hideaway Drive, I disagree with the proposal pit forth by the Orange County Planning Department to change mailing and street addresses in Hideaway Estates. Name Signature Address 1 ZGAI•06 U - ��-" 1��/�.- 233 1 r . 2 ■Ip./...fleh?) 3 _ 60,- 36#,L , "WAS#0 e .( 5 r o c1I EG t3.4 4 tAec.,,at.1 l�a iv 6 G( re&7iCb 3-f5i 0, ' l _ i r �� dea J 7 ke)k, Lau c , ...�. i� M h-. o 8 % t"- *AA t 1..1. . z3-15 "D, ^. vY 979-Ceiwt- /2f• G- -- '- �� :_. �3 f 10 GL , S •ReoP 231 Hideaway D* 11 14. 2- '4- C�'eLL _ 12 oil/) 13 �fJ� ,.►_�...■►, 14 ) 4V-6-1444441 15 �1 X151 14 13E-nk,v7t kU /I 16 I./�,• _ �1��i� b2Q L� • � � 17 �i.: I.[�_i 3a-/cIttc_, 14/41,cez4_k . 18 4/vit/ k oe-E. .17e° , . 19 -alN Re9a-ER6- 17I i 11 e-g-b ee 20 r]l an LP Iry AVM e f 1�d C�i Inl '✓/�� /J(_ /r / V 21 De. I let ,4 146 J7 ,i�� Low ouic e ✓J 22 ( ' Dir ir 23 Pao& P/a(s Mr' qty 24 -J UD'( Kn Ibl i,J S(CI 0-Or Wi'd lowcuf fir. As a resident of Hideaway Drive, I disagree with the proposal put forth by the Orange County Planning Department to change mailing and street addresses in Hideaway Estates. Name Signature Address 25 vrt> Y4-. Kvz v1(Nsrl a��- tf-,N-Vfw+7 26 27 ',�) r &!�: M EAGMAI �av �9v 28 A n 7 .PAL Q 1w N ado n p , 29 fM� C ��1 /�� Z�t •r��-i �ICJI/ e4n- 30 G hares�?, E �� r �• + ISQcrvo-y� rl 31 T 33 � t 34 35 16(o degt��' 36 L 37 38 r ) { �� A• � 1 1, i I ' Y 4;, F 39 Y A---40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 : CORRECTED COPY MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY MEETING AUGUST 24, 1987 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board met in joint session for a quarterly public hearing on August 24, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Dan Eddleman, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Excused: Prince Taylor. Unexcused: Tim Hubbard, Mike Lewis and Brenda Swann. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Secretary Joanna Bradshaw, Planner Gene Bell, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planner Emily Crudup, Planners Eddie Kirk, Don Powell, and Greg Szymik. A. BOARD COMMENTS None. B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Those who have signed up to speak were recognized at the time their item appeared on the agenda. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Marshall read the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS - RURAL ROUTE 2 Director of Planning Marvin Collins presented for receipt of public comments the proposed assignment of house and building numbers on Rural Route 2 in Orange County. Per an agreement reached in January, 1986 between the County Manager and the Chapel Hill Postmaster, a joint project between the County and the U.S. Postal Service was undertaken to convert rural box numbers to permanently assigned house numbers. Two rural routes (5 and 8) have been converted to house numbers, and, since the adoption of the House Numbering Ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners on April 21, 1987, residents have been using the assigned numbers for their addresses. Rural Route 2 has now been prepared for conversion to house numbers. The route encompasses an area north of Chapel Hill including Blackwood Station, a portion of N.C. Highway 86, Hideaway Estates Subdivision and portions of the following State roads: Mt. Sinai, University Station, Old N.C. 10, New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 86. General Statute 153A-240 requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have 2 been sent to all affected residents and posted in the Courthouse and in at least two public places in Chapel Hill Township (Estes Drive and Franklin Street Post Offices and Sunrise Farmers Market on N.C. Highway 86) . A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed house and building numbers be approved and that notification he done as required by G.S. 153A-240. CHARLES EDELMAN , resident of Hideaway Drive, stated that for more than ten years, Hideaway Drive has had house numbers. He indicated that the numbers already in use are three digit numbers and that changing to four- digit numbers would not provide faster or better emergency service. He stated that having to remember four digit numbers rather than three digits would be much more confusing, especially for a child in an emergency situation. He suggested that Hideaway Drive be eliminated from the new numbering system and that the house numbers already in place be retained. He also suggested that three digit numbers be used rather than four digit numbers. Marvin Collins explained that the four digit numbers assigned were determined by scaling 50 foot increments on county tax maps, southward along Old NC 86 from its intersection with Hwy 70, to a point of horizontal alignment with Hideaway Drive's northern tip. From that point on Hideaway Drive addresses were assigned to residences at 50 foot intervals. The system allows the assignment of comparable numbers to roads which run parallel; in effect, a type of grid system. Mr. Edelman reemphasized the simplicity of a three digit number versus a four digit number. He also presented a petition signed by thirty- nine residents of Hideaway Drive which is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. RICHARD REEM of 233 Hideaway Drive indicated that Hideaway Estates was included in the numbering system simply for consistency and that it will not help postal service or emergency service personnel. He stated he felt it would only create considerable inconvenience and confusion for those residents who must notify others of the address change. He asked that the Board vote to keep the numbers that are in place. Gary McDevin of University Station Road expressed concern that those living on Sandy Road, a non-State-maintained road, were assigned numbers for University Station Road and questioned the outcome if Sandy Road should later become a State-maintained road. Mr. McDevin expressed support for house numbering rather than using a rural route. CARMINE PRIOLI , representing the Stoney Creek Neighborhood Association, noted that there are three digit numbers at the present time in Stoney Creek. While he expressed concern about the wide margin between the numbers, he basically indicated support for the new assignment of house numbers. EILEEN SEEGER of 125 Hideaway Drive questioned the rationale for changing house numbers instead of using a system that provides more of a directional address to help in locating the property. RICHARD REEM asked if it would be helpful to the Board to have input from the Sheriff's Department and Emergency Management Services before making a decision on this item. Chair Marshall indicated that there are several questions that must be answered before a decision will be made and especially the question about Sandy Road. Regarding the grid system, it is a standardized 3 procedure that can be applied uniformly throughout the County. It is preferable to have such a unified system applied rather than allowing exceptions for individual subdivisions and/or property owners. Once applied the numbers become more permanent. JOHN ROGERS of 210 Hideaway Drive concurred with his neighbors and asked about the feasibility of integrating the house numbers with the zip code, resulting in a nine digit number to indicate their position on the grid system. He felt such a system would satisfy the postal authorities, the emergency services, and the property owners. BILL HUTCHINS of Falls of New Hope Subdivision indicated there is not a consistent numbering system in place but that everyone chose their own number. He asked if the grid system sufficiently provided for infill. Chair Marshall indicated that the grid system provides sufficient space for growth and that numbers assigned would be permanent. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The staff was requested to provide more detailed information and a recommendation. 2 . LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS - LUP-1-87 CHANDLER CONCRETE COMPANY The Staff presentation was made by Planner Gene Bell. He stated that on October 10, 1985, Chandler Concrete Company was granted a secondary Land Use Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning, and Class A Special Use Permit for 1.41 acres of land on Old NC Highway 10. The request was prompted by State-mandated requirements to contain runoff from the existing concrete plant. An adjoining property owner subsequently challenged Orange County's approval in court. On December 12, 1986, the court ruled that the Special Use Permit was invalid since the applicant did not meet the required two acre minimum lot size standard, and since evidence had not been presented which proved that the project would maintain the value of existing properties in the area. The affect of the court ruling was to place Chandler Concrete Company in violation of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. To correct its nonconforming status, Chandler Concrete is requesting that the Ten Year Transition area and Commercial Industrial Activity node be expanded by an additional 0.59 acres which when combined with the 1.41 acres currently in the same designation, would meet the two- acre lot size requirement. If the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is approved, Chandler Concrete Company will submit a Planned Development application for the entire two acres. Current policy does not permit Land Use Plan amendment and Planned Development (or rezoning) applications to be handled concurrently. The procedures for amending the Land Use Plan states three reasons for which the Plan may be amended: (1) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County; (2) to correct an error or an omission in the plan; or (3) in response to a change in land use policy. The Land Use Plan amendment application does not adequately address any of these reasons. Evaluation of a plan amendment also requires conformance with the locational criteria for the plan designation being requested as specified in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Plan. The criteria includes land slope, 4 hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services/utilities, transportation system, energy use, existing land use, agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural features. Evaluation of the criteria indicates partial conformity with public services/utilities and nonconformance with existing land use and population density. The Planning Staff recommends denial of the request based upon: (1) the reasons for amendments in the Procedures for amending the Land use Plan are not addressed; (2) conformity with all applicable locational criteria in Section 3 .4 of the Land Use Plan is not demonstrated. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the proposed Land Use Plan amendment at its September 21, 1987 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal for decision on October 5, 1987. THOMAS CHANDLER , President of Chandler Concrete Company, presented background information which led to the request for this Land Use Plan amendment. In late 1984, it was brought to Chandler's attention by the N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) , that environmental problems existed relative to water runoff from the plant site. The water runoff came from washing the trucks as well as runoff of rain water across the land. A meeting with an agent from DEM identified the lowest point on the property where the water would run prior to entering the stream. That point was on the adjoining property which was recently purchased. Mr. Chandler indicated he was not aware that the recently purchased property was not properly zoned for a retention pond and reclamation site. At that point, he secured from the County the proper permits to prepare the site for correction of the environmental problem. It was brought to his attention that the property was zoned Residential-1 and it would not be permissible to operate the retention ponds for the benefit of the commercial property. He petitioned the Orange County Commissioners for a Secondary Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning of the property. After numerous meetings and appearances before the Orange County Planning Board, the final application was for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan and a rezoning for a 1.41 acre tract contiguous with the plant. The 1.41 acre tract of land was the minimum area upon which the retention and recycling activity could be performed. Subsequently, the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was granted and necessary rezoning and authorization for a Special Use Permit was received. During the public hearing there was much community opposition to the proposal because of a misunderstanding that the plant's operation would be expanded into the residential area. The only intent was to correct the environmental problem in order that the plant might continue to operate as it had for the past fifteen years. Mr. Chandler continued that he was advised by the Planning Staff at that time to seek an amendment only for the minimum area needed to correct environmental problems. He added that had he known of the two acre minimum lot size requirement, he would have included the .59 acre for which he is now seeking an amendment. The courts reversed the action of the Commissioners on two bases: (1) The minimum area which could be rezoned was two acres rather than the 1.41 acres, and (2) there had not been sufficient showing in the record that the use of the property would not cause an adverse effect on the surrounding property. Mr. Chandler noted that he had complied with all the requirements of the Special Use Permit before such time as the court overturned the 5 decision. He added that since the time of the Court order he had talked with members of the community, explaining the necessity of the retention ponds and the benefit of the reclamation activity which would be continued. In order for the property on which the reclamation ponds are situated to be properly zoned, he must add to it an additional 0.59 acres of land to meet the minimum two acre requirement. The purpose of the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan is to designate an 0.59 acre tract of land adjoining the concrete plant from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition/Commercial Industrial Activity Node. If the Land Use Plan is amended, he will apply for rezoning and a Special Use Permit to permit a retention and recycling facility critical to the operation of the concrete plant. The request does not constitute an extension of the commercial activity. Mr. Chandler reemphasized that his original request for a Land Use Plan amendment was solely to meet DEM requirements for the control of runoff. He noted that it was late in 1984 when it was discovered that the runoff was an environmental problem. He continued that when the Land Use Plan was adopted in 1981, the property line of the concrete plant was designated as the line separating Rural Residential from Commercial. Based on the use at that time, such designation was both natural and reasonable. Based on technological advances and on increased sensitivity to the environment, it has been determined that the runoff of surface water from the plant site is undesirable. The nature of the natural runoff is now believed by the Division of Environmental Management to be a hazard to public health, safety and welfare. Based on environmental standards when the Land Use Plan was adopted, no detrimental effect was recognized. He noted that the newly recognized hazard presents a changed condition which should be the basis for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan. The granting of a secondary amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Land Use Plan by enabling continued operation of the commercial business in the area clearly designated for commercial use in the original Land Use Plan. Although it would be possible to prevent man-made situations which create runoff into the stream, there is no remedy short of the proposed retention ponds which will prevent the natural runoff. He stated this was a changed condition over which he has no control. The Planning Staff has recommended that the application for redesignation of 0.59 acres from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition Area and Commercial Industrial Activity Node be denied. He indicated that his understanding of the basis of the recommendation was that he failed to adequately state the changed conditions on which he based his request for a secondary amendment and that an 0.59 acre tract does not, in Planning Staff's opinion, at this time meet certain location standards. He apologized if his explanation of the changed conditions was not sufficiently clear and noted that before today, he was not aware that the application was considered deficient on that basis. He asked that the comments he made at this public hearing regarding changed conditions be incorporated into the application to remove the deficiency. Regarding the location criteria, he noted the following: One of the areas which was deficient was the public service/utility area. The plant has access to public water. The property cannot be subdivided and sold. It should be deemed to have the same service availability as the present plant. The reclamation activity will lessen the water consumption because the plant can reduce the stress on the water system. He added that during the drought last year, his plant voluntarily switched from public water to a well system maintained for a backup water supply. 6 The existing land use and the population density in question appear to be a subjective evaluation as to whether the area is in or is adjoining higher density area. His contention is that it is in the higher density area. Mr. Chandler continued that these same criteria were in effect in 1985 when an application for a secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan was made pertaining to the 1.41 acre tract located between the 0.59 acres and the concrete plant. Recognizing the critical need resulting from the changed conditions and environmental problem, the Land Use Plan amendment for the 1.41 acre tract was granted. Mr. Chandler proceeded with slides of the property in order to show the location of the 0.59 acres and the surrounding commercial uses. There were also slides of the retention ponds and reclamation system. Mr. Chandler indicated that when he submits an application for rezoning and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit he would make a detailed presentation concerning the exact location and the nature of the retention ponds and the recycling equipment and the effect of such uses on neighboring property. He noted that such a detailed presentation was not appropriate at this hearing. He asked that Phil Post, the project engineer, talk about the conditions which created the necessity of the retention ponds and Tom Capewell, an appraiser, speak concerning the fact that the secondary amendment to the Land Use Plan will not create a situation which will result in there being an adverse effect on the fair market value of the surrounding area. PHIL POST, the project engineer, gave background information regarding the changed conditions, and the technical reasons why the original request was brought to the Board and approved, and added further information about the Planning Staff's questions with respect to the appropriateness of the Land Use Plan change. Post addressed the concern of the existence of public services and utilities. He indicated that there is in place water lines, power lines, and telephone lines. There is an excellent location for the road transportation system and the railroad transportation system as well. Post stated that the surrounding and existing land uses were compatible with what would be a very small expansion of the concrete plant operation. Population density does not seem to be applicable in this case as one of the criteria. The primary impetus for the request is to bring the plant into compliance with the most up-to-date environmental guidelines. He explained how the runoff would be captured by the ponds and recycled to be used in making concrete. Post reemphasized that the system required by DEM is in place and operating as intended. This request, if approved, would bring the applicant in compliance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The 0.59 acre tract of land would be used as a permanent buffer which would bring the plant further into compliance with the buffering requirements that have been added. Planning Board Member Chris Best asked what was being stored on the western end of the property and Mr. Chandler stated that nothing is on the land at this time. Previously, concrete barriers used in the construction of 1-40 were stored in the area. In answer to a question from Best on the location of the ponds, Post noted that the present location of the ponds would allow all runoff components to be contained on one site. Chandler explained the process used in washing down the concrete trucks at the end of the day. Commissioner Willhoit asked that Phil Post address the fact that the ponds, if located on the western side of the property, could have resulted in them being part of the land already properly zoned and would not have required any further action for compliance. Post explained that the natur7 al runoff would flow by gravity in volumes that cannot be efficiently pumped. By the change that was approved previously and the installation of the three ponds, there was enough room for landscaping and the additional 0.59 acres would add to the present landscaping. In response to Planning Board member Dan Eddleman, Chandler said that the ponds were in operation in accordance with the State environmental protection laws to retain the water in ponds and not let it go into the stream. He emphasized the need to be able to operate the ponds and the reclamation system to keep the concrete plant in operation. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the water in the ponds could be used to water grass and flowers. Post's response was that the water was not caustic but may need to be diluted slightly. Mr. Chandler indicated that the water is used to water trees and shrubs as well as in the making of concrete. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs asked that some documentation be provided from DEM stating their previous and present positions as there seems to be some differences regarding the types of runoff to be retained. Post indicated that his clients' desire was to contain all runoff and not just that produced by the washing of trucks. He agreed that controlling the runoff from truck washing could be handled on the western side but that he felt a better job was being done by handling all runoff from one location. Planning Board Member Steve Yuhasz questioned why all the discussion was centered on the operation of the concrete plant and the location of the ponds, stating that Chandler's request is due to court action which found him in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he felt the discussion should be centered on extension of the zoning to bring Chandler into compliance with the two acre minimum requirement. Chair Marshall noted that the recommendation of the Planning Staff is for denial and therefore the background information is relevant. Planning Board Member Eddleman questioned the changed conditions in the immediate area. Post responded that although the area is changing the major change in conditions are environmental regulations by DEM. Another changed condition would be that of buffer requirements. JOHN CAPEWELL, an appraiser, spoke to the question of area changes. He noted that five parcels in the immediate area have changed to PD-OI, CC3 and CC4. Chair Marshall noted that those changes were not inconsistent with the Central Orange Area Study. MR. ROBERT E. RHINE, owner of land across from Chandler Concrete, stated that he and his sisters were the ones who opposed the original Land Use Plan amendment and initiated court action against Chandler Concrete. Since that time, an agreement has been reached between Chandler Concrete and the Rhine family which states that if Chandler is granted the amendment, replanting of the 0.59 acres will be done with loblolly pines. He summarized the contents of the agreement, noting that there would be no change or expansion of the commercial activity (the concrete plant) . He continued reading the entire agreement, noting that the restrictions and the affirmative obligations on Chandler would become effective only upon approval by the Orange County Commissioners of the above specified amendments to the Land Use Plan and Special Use Permit. Mr. Rhine expressed concern that if the amendment is not granted, Mr. Chandler will be legally forced to leave the area, and no replanting will be done. While he does not enthusiastically support the amendment as reqested by Chandler, he realizes that without the approval, the area could remain bare which would be more detrimental to the surrounding property. County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that the agreement between 8 Mr. Rhine and Mr. Chandler should not be considered as evidence in this public hearing. Commissioner Willhoit asked why the original request was not for the full two (2) acres as required. Gledhill stated that he had advised the Board to waive the two-acre minimum lot size. Since there is an expressed reduction provision in the Ordinance of 10%, a further reduction through a general provision was not allowed. The 1.41 acres was determined to be the minimum amount of land on which to build the three ponds. Gledhill continued that he knew of no provision in the Ordinance that permits Land Use Plan amendments to correct prior actions of the Board. Commissioner Hartwell asked if a Land Use Plan designation was necessary, since the land on which the Chandler Plant is located is already designated in the Land Use Plan correctly and totals more than the two (2) acre minimum. Mr. Chandler explained that there were two tracts of land with two different zoning designations. The concrete plant is zoned I-3 which is not the same as the property on which the ponds are located. Gledhill stated that by including portions of the existing concrete plant in the 1-3 zone, a Land Use Plan amendment would not be necessary. The 1.41 acres is already properly designated in the Land Use Plan. Joyce Garrett, the attorney for Chandler Concrete, spoke to inconsistencies in the minutes of prior public hearings about the location of the ponds. The permits for timbering and grading were secured, and the ponds were placed in accordance with the directive from DEM. She spoke to the economic contributions that Chandler makes to the community and stated that a substantial amount of money has been expended to meet and to protect against the potential environmental problem. It is Chandler's desire to keep the ponds where they are located. She asked that the request for an amendment to the Land Use Plan be granted. Marvin Collins clarified that no permit was needed for timbering, and the permit Mr. Chandler received was for grading. Ms. Garrett acknowledged this correction. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z-3-87 The Meadowlands Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed request by Meadowlands Associates to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located along the south side of U.S Highway 70 Business east of N.C. 86 in Hillsborough Township. The applicant is requesting a realignment of the existing Office Institutional (0-I) , Industrial-1 (I-1) , and Rural Residential (R-1) zones, previously estab- lished by the Board of Commissioners on July 1, 1987. The purpose of the change is to match zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land use designations. The property is located in an area designated as Ten Year Transition and Commercial Industrial Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The proposed realignment would result in the following difference in zones: Existing Proposed 9 Zoning Realigned Zone Difference (0-I) zone 25.4 acres 15.81 acres -9.59 acres (I-1) zone 62 . 3 acres 72 .57 acres +10.27 acres (R-1) zone 22.4 acres 21.73 acres - . 67 acres The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes in the Zoning Atlas for the following reasons: 1) The proposed change would match the zoning district boundaries with the Meadowlands Master Plan land designations. 2) The property is located in a designated Commercial-Industrial transition activity node and therefore consistent with the Land Use Plan. 3) The Town of Hillsborough Planning Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed changes. 4) The Town Board, in their August 10, 1987 meeting, approved tap ons to the existing 12-inch water line and the installation of dry sewer lines to be used at a future date. 5) General Office uses generate twice as much traffic as light industrial uses. Therefore, traffic generation on the site would be considerably reduced. Szymik indicated on a map the existing zoning and the proposed realigned zoning. The owner has submitted a request for zoning patterns consistent with their Master Development Plan. He noted that there were no new zoning classifications proposed. Planning Board Member Pilkey asked about buffer requirements. Szymik responded that the buffer requirement along the 1-85 right-of-way (also the MTC zone) is 100 feet. The current plan for the property shows a 50 foot buffer along the east, west and north property lines. Planning Board Member Kramer asked about the zoning for the heliport shown on the plan. Szymik responded that the heliport would require a Class A Special Use Permit. Lee Capps, Project Manager for Meadowlands, stated that he had copies of the Master Development Plan for distribution. He noted that restrictive covenants have been recorded for the Meadowlands with buffer requirements more restrictive than those set by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that there is no need at this time to pursue construction of the heliport. He noted that NCDOT requirements would also have to be met if the developer should decide to pursue the heliport construction. Planning Board Member Pilkey expressed concern with the removal of three large sycamore trees along the right-of-way. Capps expressed sympathy with the concern but that the developer was not able to avoid removal of those trees. Pilkey continued, asking about the number of trees to be replaced. Capps noted that the restrictive covenants require trees to be placed at 50 foot intervals. Planning Board Member Kramer asked if there were plans to preserve the existing dairy barn, noting it is a prime example of local architecture. Capps responded that the dairy barn and manor house are on the portion of the property to be developed by TECAN, noting that they are very zealous of environmental issues and he did expect they would be ve10 ry sensitive to community feelings regarding preservation of those buildings. Sylvia Price, Economic Development Director, reach and submitted a statement which is a part of the minutes on pages 2,5 G q&6 Za 2,2 Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that a copy of the restrictive covenants be supplied for the Boards. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit and seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Z-4-87 Autowerks Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed request by Charles Miller and Merle Dancy to amend the Orange County Zoning Atlas. The property is located on the east side of NC Highway 86 north of New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) and south of Old NC 10. requesting a rezoning on a The applicants are Township. The g portion of lot 1 of Tax Map 2 - Chapel Hill P• property that would be rezoned contains 41,480 square feet or 0.95 acres. The current zoning is Rural Residential (R- 1) . The proposed zoning is Existing Commercial (EC-5) . The property is the present location of Autowerks auto repair garage. The area is designated as Rural Residential in the Land Use Plan. The applicants maintained that the existing use was in operation in 1981 when Hillsborough Township was zoned and that an error was made at that time in that the property was zoned R-1 and should have been designated Existing Commercial (EC-5) . Szymik continued that it is not clear from the 1981 zoning maps what the intent was for that property. It was not zoned EC-5 nor was it included on the list of properties with non-conforming uses. it is clear in viewing the existing land use patterns and the existing building patterns that there are no unusual circumstances with regard to this property. Planning Staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: (1) The lot proposed to be rezoned is totally surrounded by an R-1 residential zone. (2) The lot is not located in or near a commercial transition node on the Land Use Plan. The closest node is the Harmon Young node which is 4,400 feet or eight-tenths of a mile north of the property. (3) The existing use can continue to operate at its present size and do business as a non-conforming use. Planning Board Member Best asked if there was proof that the business was in operation before September, 1981. Szymik stated there were attachments in the agenda which would indicate that Autowerks was in business, billing for services, and paying NC sales taxes prior to September 1981. Best continued, asking the difference between an EC-5 designation and a non-conforming. Szymik responded that EC-5 is a zoning classification which permits the change of use or expansion, and as non- conforming the garage would not be allowed to expand. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if there would be a problem in rezoning the property to EC-5 at this time. Szymik responded that the procedure would be to identify that an error had been made in the original zoning, and EC-5 zoning should have been applied to the property at that time. Szymik stated that the work maps indicated there was a non- residential use on the property at the time that the 1981 zoning changes were being prepared, but they did not indicate the intent in regard to the property. Planning Board Member Best asked why the applicant desired a rezoning. Szymik responded that with an EC-5 zoning classification, there expassannoppdrbham4p dd use. Planning Board Member Pilkey asked what the previous use of the structure was. Szymik responded that it was previously a convenience store. Planning Board Member Eddleman asked the County Attorney if the applicant's statement of justification which stated that the ordinance requires that the EC-5 district must be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships was correct. Gledhill responded he would pro- vide that answer in time for the Planning Board meeting. Bob Hageman, Attorney for Autowerks, presented the following background for Autowerks: This past spring the owners of Autowerks decided to improve and increase the size of the auto repair shop. It was then found that the property was zoned R-1 rather than EC-5. Mr. Hageman noted that the three reasons given for denial by the Planning Staff are true statements and if it were not for the unusual history of this case, there would be no question but to deny the rezoning request. He continued that those three statements by themselves ignore the history which is very important to this matter. Mr. Hageman stated that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy were Autowerks prior to the zoning of Hillsborough Township ains ptemberer1981. He noted that prior to Autowerks another auto repair shop was in residence for approximately a year and prior to that time, the building did contain a convenience store. He continued that Mr. Miller and Mr. Dancy do not own the property now nor did they own it in 1981, so they did not receive notification of the zoning classification in process. He read from the Zoning Ordinance Article 4.2. 12 b) Application Criteria: "This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and pre- viously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This be applied to property used for existing commercial gnatlothehatimenof application of this ordinance. " He stated that the intent of the Commis- sioners in 1981 was that the classification of EC-5 be applied in a non- discretionary manner once it was determined that those existing commercial uses were not in an activity node. Mr. Hageman stated that he felt one of the reasons for Autowerks not being zoned EC-5 was the fact that the tract of land upon which it is located lies in Chapel Hill Township as well as Hillsborough Township. He noted that with the possibility of different lannin g on the two different townships and the undeveloped in neo the fotel roperty being in Chapel Hill Township, it was possible that it was assumed the property was all R-1. He noted that the Duke Power easement was all that was on the portion in Chapel Hill Township. He continued that he felt t12 he incorrect zoning was simply a case of the property being overlooked. In regard to the idea that the property should be non-conforming, Mr. Hageman noted the following: (1) According to his reading, EC-5 had to be applied to existing commercial properties not in an activity node; (2) Every existing commercial use along Highway 86 in 1981 except Autowerks was given a commercial classification; (3) If the intent was to make Autowerks a non-conforming use, why did it not appear on the May 14, 1981 memorandum from the Planning Staff to the Planning Board. Mr. Hageman requested that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners to honor Autowerks rezoning request. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan although the area is not identified as an activity node, since the plan clearly contemplated EC-5 classifications outside of activity nodes. They also believe that this rezoning would not, in any way be a violation of the comprehensive plan. He concluded that he felt the failure to grant the rezoning request for Autowerks would constitute spot zoning. Chuck Miller , co-owner of Autowerks, indicated the owner of the property would be willing to sell the portion of the property on which Autowerks is located if the rezoning request is approved. He indicated that the desire is to make improvements to the business with one (6, 000 to 7, 000 square ft. ) building in order to accommodate more than one automobile at the same time. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell and seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c. Chandler Concrete Company Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed rezoning request by Chandler Concrete Company. The property is located in western Cheeks Township on the south side of US 70 and on the north side of Southern Railwa parcel is approximately 860 feet east of the intersection of hFrazier3 Road (SR 1310) and US Highway 70. The Land Use Plan designation is Commercial-Industrial Ten-Year Transition. The current zoning of the property is Residential-1 with an overlay district of Protected Watershed II in the Seven Mile Creek Watershed. Adjacent land uses include the railroad, utilities and industry. The request has been made for rezoning to Community Commercial- III. The Planning Staff recommends against rezoning of the property from Residential-1 to Community Commercial-3. The property is located in a Protected Watershed II overlay district and is proposed for non-residential use. A planned development approach, including site plan approval and the issuance of a Special Use 13 Permit provides better control over such development in a watershed. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of the changed conditions in the findings of fact. Szymik responded that the allegation is that the land uses in the general area are compatible with those in CC-3 zoning. There is EC-5 zoning on property to the west and E- I on property to the east. Since there are existing commercial and industrial activities in the area, this property is no longer suitable for residential purposes. Mr. Thomas Chandler president Chandler Concrete Company, stated his desire to have the property zoned CC-3 primarily for the storage of excess plant equipment such as bins and hoppers. None of the equipment stored would be mobile and could only by moved with the aid of a crane. He noted that Planning Staff had recommended that he apply for a CC-3 zoning which would be proper for the use he intended. He continued that at no time had Staff indicated to him that CC-3 was inappropriate or that they would not recommend approval of the requeste that he felt all of the documentation was s pportiveeofn�ag�CC-3e zoning noted classification. Mr. Chandler presented a map showing the location of his property and indicated that the majority of surrounding properties are industrial. He indicated that there was no water course across the property and the proposed use does not present a problem of water pollution to the reservoir. He addressed documentation included in the agenda which indicated a CC-3 rezoning would be appropriate. Planning Board Member Best asked why Mr. Chandler did not know about the Planning Staff recommendation for Planned Development before this date. Planning Director Marvin Collins responded that he changed the recommendation prior to agenda delivery. Mr. Chandler was in attendance at the Planning Board meeting on8/17/87dandteexpressed that he his willingness at that time to answer questions on the items going to public hearing for Chandler Concrete. He noted that no questions were asked at that time by Planning Board members or Planning Staff. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked what Mr. Chandler's response would have been to a previous recommendation of planned development. Mr. Chandler noted that he did not care for a planned development, noting that such a recommendation would require screening and buffers which he did not need simply for the storing of stationary equipment. Planning Board Member Yuhasz asked if this were to be long-term storage. Mr. Chandler responded that he did not know, since several factors would be involved in the possible use of the equipment at another point in time. He noted that the property was maintained by mowing. John Ca swell real estate appraiser reemphasized the fact that this property was bordered on both sides with commercial and industrial uses. He noted that he felt Residential zoning of this inappropriate. property is Joyce Garrett attorney representing Chandler Concrete, restated that the basic criteria for a CC-3 zoning had been met. She addressed the concern with protection of the watershed. She indicated that a change in the underlying zoning should not have an affect on watershed protection. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked that Mr. his recommendation. Collins responded that he was concerned Collins use of the property and future protection of the watershed. With a straight rezoning, the County would lose control of the future development of the site. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 14 A motion was made by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be considered by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: Unanimous. d. PD-3-87 Occoneechee Point Planner Greg Szymik presented for the receipt of public comments a proposed Planned Development-Commercial by Wildwood Corporation. Wildwood Corporation has submitted an application for PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development - Commercial - General) classification on 11.8 acres located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of I-85 and NC 86. The project is to contain a convenience store/gas station, car wash, restaurant and motel. The Board of Commissioners approved a Planned Development-Special Use Permit for this site on November 5, 1984. Although the PD-C-GC4 zoning remains on the property, a revised site plan was not submitted, and a Special Use Permit was not issued. The approval thus became void, requiring a new approval in order to develop the site. The property is currently zoned PD-C-GC4 (Planned Development- Commercial-General Commercial 4) and R-1 (Rural Residential) . The property is also located in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) adjacent to 1-85. It is designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan, Central Orange Study as 10 Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Node. These designations are placed on land that is in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban and are appro- priate for retail and other commercial uses. The applicant has responded to Staff review of the application with a revised site plan and additional information that substantially addresses Staff concerns. However, review agency comments had not yet been received at the time the agenda was prepared. The Staff recommends that citizen comments be received on the application, but that the public hearing be continued to October 5, 1987 to allow Staff to include review agency comments in their evaluation of the application. A Staff recommendation will be presentd at that Szymik continued noting Staff concern that atwo-lane highwaymsuch as NC 86 could not handle the increase in traffic. concern with the large volume of turning activityThinto athelsother commercial uses on each side of NC 86 as well as the large trucks turning into the truck stop. Szymik stated that Staff had recommended to the applicant that a three-lane section be constructed on NC 86 with a travel lane in each direction and a continuous left turn lane in the center. Staff also recommended that the entrance-only drive to the convenience store be eliminated, that only two driveways be approved to the project, that there be deceleration lanes for each driveway, and that the northernmost drive be realigned to intersect NC 86 at ninety degrees. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which addresses all but one of these recommendations, and it places left turn bays on NC 86 instead of a continuous left turn lane. He noted that these recommendations were consistent with NCDOT's response to the original project in 1984. The applicant has submitted an agreement with the Town of Hillsborough that grants access to the Town's water and sewer facilities. The Staff, however, has requested documentation establishing the Town's 11M/ ability to provide water and sewer and any conditions the developer m15 ay have to meet to obtain access. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the loading bay at the con- venience store. Szymik responded that he felt that was an appropriate location for a loading bay for the smaller trucks making deliveries to the store. The location would place the trucks out of any immediate flow of traffic. Commissioner Halkiotis asked the distance of the railroad from the building site. Szymik responded that the track would be 1100 feet from the southern line of the planned development zone. To the rear, the distance to the railroad would be 600 feet from the development, and the hotel would be approximately 750 feet from the railroad track. Commissioner Carey asked if the access road to the site would be a public road. Szymik responded that Staff had recommended a public road to provide a service road to the motel and restaurant as well as access if there should be further development to the south. Commissioner Willhoit asked about plans for reforesting the MTC, noting that he felt a very detailed landscaping plan should be submitted to restore the buffer which had previously been removed. Planning Board Chair Jacobs asked about the restrictions regarding signs on the sides of the buildings. Szymik zone each parcel of land is allowed two sigslwithstwodadditional signs M(4 square feet in size) flush-mounted on the sides of the building. Planning Board Member Pilkey expressed concern that the Town of Hillsborough would not be able to provide the amount of water to be used by the car wash as well as the remainder of the project. Szymik indicated that he had not received a response from the Town of Hillsborough regarding its capacity to provide services to the project. Pilkey asked that it be specified that the response come from the Town Engineer. Planning Board Member Eddleman inquired about the widths of internal roadways. Szymik responded there would be ten foot directional travel lanes which is an acceptable standard. Planning Board Member Margison asked about the restoring of the well and its possible use for the car wash. Szik well was to be a decorative feature not a water source. responded that the Commissioner Carey inquired about the stub-out to the R-1 p to the rear of the motel. Szymik indicated that it would not beusedras access unless the property zoned R-1 was incorporated into the project. In answer to questions about impervious surface and planning of parking lots, Szymik responded that a stormwater management plan and a landscaping plan would be provided. Fritz Brunssen, the project engineer, spoke regarding the site plan for Occoneechee Point. He indicated that the developer was in agreement with the Planning Staff to deceleration lanes. He addressed the proposed oprivateurroad, noting that it was to be used for the benefit of anticipated bus traffic, turning movements, and parking. He said the well is not to be used as a water source but only as a decorative feature. He indicated on the plan where buffers were to be placed. He noted a willingness to work with the Planning Staff to provide any required buffering. He indicated that Mr. Freeland did have a water/sewer service agreement with the Town of Hillsborough and that the question of capacity is currently being studied. He said a letter to the County from the Town of Hillsborough would arrive soon. THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded 16 by Commissioner Carey to continue the public hearing on Occoneechee Point until October 5, 1987 to receive additional information. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. e. Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Limits Planning Director Marvin Collins presented for receipt of public comment the rezoning of property affected by the revision of the Town of Mebane Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. The Town of Mebane has revised its extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction limits to follow property lines. As a result, parcels of land which were divided between Mebane and Orange County zoning will be placed entirely within Mebane's zoning jurisdiction e County's zoning jurisdiction. on or within Orange For those parcels that will be placed entirely under Mebane's jurisdiction, it will be necessary for Orange County to relinquish its jurisdiction. This will be done by separate action. For those parcels will be placed entirely under Orange County's jurisdiction, it will be necessary to zone them in accordance with Orange County's Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Seventeen (17) parcels of land that are presently split between Town of Mebane zoning and Orange County zoning would be placed entirely Orange County zoning. The County Y zoning classification over the remainder opofeSeach parcel its For parcels that are presently zoned AR (Agricultural Residential) by Orange parcel. For those County, AR zoning would be extended to the previously zoned by the Town of Mebane. For those parcels of the parcel presently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential) by County, R that zoning would be extended to the portion of the parcelgepreviously zoned byning Town of Mebane. by the No change in zoning classification on property County zoning will be made. P p Y presently under Orange existing Orange County zoning The proposal is limited to extending the Town of Mebane's zoning s iction. to include land formerly under the q jurisdiction, Collins identified the affected parcels on a map. Mebane released those parcels as of June 1, so they indicated that unzoned. There are twelve parcels to be zoned 9AR�and tfive parcels currently zoned R-1. P Plannin Staff recommends that the parcels to be Planning parcels be zoned as indicated. THERE BEING NO COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis and seconded by Commissioner to accept the Planning Staff recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. net 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 4. 3 - Permitted Use Table (Crematoria as a Permitted Use) Article 10.4 - Off Street Parking (Off-Street Parking - Crematoria) Planner Greg Szymik presented for receipt of proposed amendments to Article 4.3 and Article 10.4 ofblthe comment Zoning Ordinance. 17 At present, crematoria are not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would make them a permitted use in the I-1, I-2, and 1-3 (Industrial) zoning districts. The amendment to Article 4.3 would add crematoria to the Permitted Use Table. The amendment to Article 10.4 would establish parking requirements for crematoria. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked about the and Szymik indicated that one space per employee has been proposed. parking DOROTHY BANE stated with regards to the parking requirements that memorial services are usually held at the Church and not at the Crematoria. She feels the land should be commercial and not industrial. There has been a 25% increase in the demand for these services and in 25 years, it is expected to increase another 25%. Crematoria are checked periodically by the EPA, there is no odor or smoke, and they have very complicated filters. There are less pollutants than in a funeral home. Szymik stated that the crematoria does have to meet certain emission requirements. THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Article 6. 16. 6 - Home Occupations (Rural Buffer) Article 6.23 .4 - Impervious Surface Ratios (RB) Article 7.2.1 - PD Districts (RB) Article 9.11 - Permitted Signs (RB) Article 12 . 10 - Landscaping/Screening (RB) Greg Szymik stated these amendments would complete the references in the Zoning Ordinance to the new Rural Buffer zoning district which was created in January, 1987. They add Rural Buffer to these sections, and they do not constitute a substantive change in the way the land zoning classifications would be handled. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation for consideration to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-8-c Landsca in Effective Date Greg Szymik stated that on March 24,adopted regulations to clarify the �effectiveh date oofd the amendments. At that time, questions were asked about the treatment of subdivision applications received by the County during the suspended 18 period. Section IV-B-8-C would be amended by adding an effective date of March 24, 1987. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board with a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Section V - Im rovements Greg Szymik explained that Section V identifies the forms of security that may be used to guarantee construction of re improvements in approved subdivisions. The amendment would delete cashras an acceptable form of security and add escrow agreements as a new form of security for required improvements. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board nwith by a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1987. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. c• Section IV-B-c-10 Section IV-B-3-C-8 - Mar inal Access Streets Amend Add New Drivewa s Greg Szymik explained that Section IV-B-3-c-8 of the Subdivision Regulations is proposed to be amended by specifying forms of common o restricted access to lots in new subdivisions along major streets. Section IV-B-3-c-10 would place restrictions on the number and location of driveways that will be allowed in new subdivisions. The amendments a intended to provide more control on the number and location of drive are along major roadways, reduce conflicts between through traffic and turning vehicles, and maintain the safety and traffic carrying capacity of major turning ]or items relating Barry Jacobs referred and page stated of the agenda and the three intersection addresses a Chapel Hill requirement,tt the the access road with a lower classification addresses conditionthatissoften put on subdivision during the approval process and the common drive is more of a definition. The proposed amendment IV-B-3-c-8 Access Restrictions base on traffic counts, precludes most of the roads in Orange Count d noted that a lesser number should be considered. y• Jacobs Szymik explained that the reason for using 5, 000 vehicles per day is that on a standard 2-lane highway that 5, 000 vehicles per da represents the volume of traffic which would represent traffic level "Cy which is the level of service that can be carried before problems occur. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item seconded on Amendment, Section V Improvements 5b Subdivision Regulation Amendment, recommendation to be presented to the Board ofe Commissioners oondOct ber 5a 1987. 19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. D. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA - AMBERLY DEVELOPMENT co of the Attorney's letter is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill responded to a request from the Board to determine what Orange County can legally do in response to the voluntary annexation of land, the zoning of that land pursuant to Carrboro's Zoning Ordinance and the issuance of a conditional use permit by Carrboro, which actions together authorize the development of the Amberly Subdivision project. With reference to the annexation, the zoning action taken by Carrboro and the Conditional Use Permit action taken by Carrboro, he concluded that it would be unlikely that Orange County could withstand a challenge to pursue this matter. There is no law in North Carolina which address whether one local government can sue another over these points. There is no limitation on the ability of towns to annex and very little room for challenge of those decisions. With reference to zoning and the Conditional Use Permits, the standard seems to be that only the "aggrieved p who have special damages as a result of the action tand which1damagesrtxes" are different from that suffered by the general public may matter. If action is to be taken to challenge the action p ntaken the Carrboro, it must be brought by the right people with focus on the merits of the issue and not distracted by any side issues. Gledhill made the point that his comments are not to discourage any private citizen who may have standing to available for challenges to zoning and planningrdecisions. avenues that are The area where the County may become involved is in the approval process nmeof the astewaterCommissal system.steth Y The County could the the will be reviewing the the staff people of the EMC who petition from concerned�citizensain�the and if coupled public a meeting would almost guarantee that one would be held. g for a Public The statutes suggest that the only people who can a staff decision on the permit are the ones who would be the recipient of the permit. However, there may be an opportunity appeal the intervene in this process. Once the permit pisrissued, the County may have some appeal rights if the County is unhappy Y then In conclusion, Gledhill mentioned that the Environmental Policy Act authorizes local governments to re ul a major development project to d priv of the environmental impact of such projects. It was suggested Milton Heath of the Institute of Government that atthe° County llmi g ht implement it by ordinance applicable to all major development projects as defined in the statute and in the ordinance. probably the best way to implement an ordinance would the stated decide what projects would be subject to environmental impact statements. The statute permits counties to place development projects greater than two acres intsize. requa.rement on major done in Marshall re the annexationnttakeslplaceythe development is not in the County's jurisdiction. Gledhill noted that th County does have jurisdiction countywide in such areas as health regulations and is limited in other areas. 20 Commissioner Willhoit expressed concern about the safety of the type of disposal system and that fre local agencies are able to enforce lagstlbehind lwhatha the hscientific knowledge indicates. He suggested that the question of safety be examined through a public meeting. At the conclusion of the comprehensive study, it may indicate that sewer line extension is the way to go. A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Carey to request that the County Manager write the Environmental Management Commission to request a public meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. sE. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered by the Board, Chair Marshall adjourned the meeting at 12:35 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held September 8, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Shirley E. Marshall, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary