HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-24-1981 "q4
AGENDA
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1981
7:30 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS' ROOM, ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
1. Does any Board member desire to modify this agenda?
2. Does any member of the audience desire to address the Board about:
A. Matters on this Agenda;
B. Matters not on this Agenda?
3. The Clerk submits Minutes of meetings held June 22 and 23, 1981,
for Board consideration.
4. The owners of the Gary and Gail Barker property have requested the
Board reconsider its decision an the subdivision. The Barkers were
not present during the Board's earlier deliberations.
5. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer position will become
vacant on September 4; the Manager recommends this position be un-
frozen.
6. Will the Board consider the issue of staff tine being spent on
duplication of State reporting regulations and fiscal audits?
7. The Human Services Advisory Commission reports to the Board as re-
quested on:
A. Revised Block Grant position;
B. Work program for this fiscal year.
8. The Commission for Women seeks Board endorsement of its plans for
a WOmens' Training Board.
9. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council will make certain rec-
ommendations regarding the proposed Community Development park pro-
ject in the Northern Fairview Community. Mr. Wayne-Weston, Recreation
Director, and Mr. Albert Kittrell, COmmunity Development Director,
will be present.
10. The Manager s report and recommendations regarding the County's
Capita] Improvement Project for Fiscal. Year 1981-82:
A. Manager recommends the Board employ an architect for proceeding
with the Old Courthouse project;
B. The Manager presents a proposal for the Northside Multipurpose
Center project. Messrs. Webb and Kolodij will, address the Board.
11. The Manager recommends the Board approve application for 1981-82
JJDP-I.BAA funding for Tree House, Inc.
12. The Purchasing Officer, Mr. Mark Rees, recommends the County pur-
chase four vehicles for the Sheriff's Department and one vehicle
for the Motor Pool through the State Contract procedure.
13. The Finance Officer presents for Board consideration:
A. Budget Ordinance Amendment;
B. Project Ordinance Amendment.
14. Appointments:
A. ONISA --one vacancy;
B. Energy--one vacancy;
C. Commission for Woman—five vacancies;
D. Chapel Hill Board of Adjustrrent--one vacancy;
E. Triangle J EMS Council--Consumer delegate and one alternate
consumer delegate.
F. Planning Board--Dr. Logan Irvin's term expired August 15, 1981.
15. Exadutive session to discuss persdnnel matfers.
d 4 f
AGENDA ATTACHMENT 4
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMRNT
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CARou-NA.
27278
MEMO
TO: Bill Laws, Acting County Manager
FROM: Orange County Planning Department
DATE: July 22, 1981
RE: Planning Board recommendation on Preliminary Plan for the Property of
Gary and Gail Barker
This case was referred to the Planning Board for their consideration
at the July 20, 1981 meeting of the Planning Board.
The Planning Board recommends: approval of the Preliminary Plan for
the Property of Gary and Gail Barker.
A
4,414
•
Planning Board Minutes
July 20, 1981
Page 3
He added that there were additional problems when roads are
involved.
General discussion followed.
Kizer motioned that the Latta Subdivisionbeconsidered as a
major subdivision. Irvin seconded.
Gledhill cited two policy issues: 1) the fee issue and 2) the
policy for describing the subdivision process. He noted that
these are separate issues on which the Planning Board could take
the initiative. He added the Board needed to decide whether or
not to treat this §ubdivision as a major or minor.
Gordon asked what precedent would be set with this motion. Gledhill
clarified that this was merely a staff referral which could be
approved without addressing the question. Callemyn noted that they
had chosen this subdivision to highlight their concerns but that
there will be similar cases in the future.
Cleary noted two items: 1) the subdivision was referred to the
Board by the staff for action, and 2) the Board has given previous
instructions to the staff to refer any questions on the use of the,
minor subdivision process to the Board. Kizer added that the
Board would not be inconsistent in taking this approach. Irvin
concurred. Shank]in also cited past interpretations.
Crawford asked if the fee issue was applicable as a separate item.
Gledhill responded affirmatively and added that the Commissioners
usually requested Planning Board input prior to their action.
Greer felt the Board had the responsibility to apply the regulations
as written as well as to change the regulations as needed.
The Board voted on the motion. The motion carried. Opposed:
Cleary. Abstention: Lunsford.
Gordon suggested that the problems with the minor subdivision process
be addressed by the Staff as quickly as possible. The Board
concurred.
Cannity indicated that the revision of the Subdivision Regulations
would be the Staff's next project.
Kizer moved to recommend approval of the Latta Subdivision. Cleary
seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item #4 Gary and Gail. Parker Subdivision.
Kirk gave a presentation on the Gary and Gail Barker Subdivision.
He noted that Carrboro recommended denial of the subdivision because
of its location in University Lake watershed. Carrboro requested
a minimum of 5 acre lots. He added that the Planning Board
44c
Planning Board Minutes
July 20, 1981
Page 4
recognized their zoning, but could not make a similar recommenda-
tion until the recommendations of the Water Resources Task Force
had been adopted for the County's watershed areas. •
General discussion followed.
Irvin questioned whether the irregularly shaped lot had adequate
frontage. Kirk responded affirmatively.
Kizer moved approval of the subdivision. Laszlo seconded. The
motion carried. Opposed: Cleary.
Agenda Item #5 C.M. Mayse Estate Subdivision.
Kirk gave a presentation on the C.M. Mayse Estate Subdivision.
Mr. Mayse indicated that the land could not be sold except to
other heirs as specified in the Will. Cleary clarified that the
purpose of the subdivision was to meet the specifications of the
Will and for tax purposes.
Shanklin moved approval of the subdivision with a Class C road.
Lansford seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 Roy C. Felon Subdivision.
Kirk gave a presentation on the Roy C. Belton Subdivision. Re noted
that the lot was sold by deed and never went through the subdivision
process. Cannity added that the individual could only obtain a
30 foot right of way and therefore could meet the Subdivision
Regulations except with the partial right of way.
Cleary asked what type of road was recommended. Staff indicated
that a Class B road was recommended. Kizer indicated it was a
trade off between a Class B road and allowing a 30 foot right of way.
Cleary motioned approval of the subdivision with a partial 30 foot
right of way. Kizer seconded the motion.
Gordon cited the letter from Carrboro. Cannity indicated Carrboro
failed to recognize it was also in the University Lake watershed.
Cannity noted that in the Staff's view the road was a public road.
Cleary asked for clarification on this point. Cannity responded
that the deed line was also the edge of the right of way and
constituted a motion toward public dedication. He added the
subdivision was drawn in 1949 and recorded in 1956.
The Board discussed combining the 2 issues of subdivision approval
and road improvement requirements. General discussion followed
regarding public, private and non-state maintained roads.
MAJOR SUBDIyisioN CHECKLIST
NAIIE OF SUBDIVISION PROPER IVY Or GARY AND GAIL BARKER - OPENER OR DEVELOPER GARY AND GALE BARKER
ADDRESS MUM 1 HOX 93F CHAPEL HILL NC
T014NSIIIP cjjApEL HTj,L TAX MAP 12Q _BLOCK LOT Fire District
NAME OF SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER
Total number of lots 2 To be developed in L _phase{s}, Total number of acres 2.22 :,n_
Typical dwelling units at present or proposed
14ATER SUPPLY: Public(name) Community Individual.
SEWAGE TREATMENT: Public Community Individual Septeic tankerSCHOOL DISTRICT
Access onto State Rossi U-LgJL—Road Standard: Public x or Private Class A , B , C w
Existing critical areas such as streams { ), Flood prone areas ( }, Historic Sites { ), Other ( ), Explain:
Land uses in the general area:_
SKETCH PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 5-29-81 Approved ( } Recommended Changes ( }
PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date) 7-14-81 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN RECEIVED (Date)
Preliminary Review by Health Department Erosion Control Officer 't,(r msat
Board of Education _EAU Map 7_14_a7 Department of Transportation
-- 014ASA (if possible)
Other -Mebane (if possible)
--Hillsborough (if possible)
--orange/Alamance (if possible)
Preliminary Action by the Planning Board Reccnuended approval 1120181
Preliminary Action by the County Commissioners
FINAL PLAT RECEIVED (Date)
{ ) All lots were approved by the Health Department
{ ) Lots failing Health Departments approval are combined or listed properly on the plat
( ) Road Maintenance Agreement submitted (where applicable). Approved
( } Improvements have been provided for; completed, bond, letter of credit, cash. Date
:( } Final GWASA approval (where applicable) on all plans & specifications. Date
} Final DOT approval on plat
Final action by the Planning Board
44'(
:. ■ .
.,i; C•• '', ''7,1 i ,--.^
1
I
I
„ . .
I 104
• i 93_9 ....7
. ..——
-
. .....- -- .-:- 7630
. 's-----
. '
/
I I
/ 1
// ,0 ......„32.52.
//
; .
€1 ,/
,. / 1
, 4
1 4,72 AC.
7 . .0869
4111) 874 //. ..
-' . "•Cc.' G, .
. G
"7876 ^
44.54
• , CA . 3
.
8.3 ,./- ,., :,
3 AC- 779
;-------- C) .
y.4J , • 5. €3
- . 6 433 '• CI?. c ,5.C. ,
z
3.27 152r
I 7 65 AC.
/ 34 3 i 6279 ...-4
j /\
. 1
'IN \-- .•__..), ,, 375.C ri
12 AC'D j
,---, I 3196 i
■ I
- ..^ '.1 1
,.. „
/
L5
4. 1.'-/C
, , , \ s /
' /
-,/' ' 1 7-3 - 7"
- 1. -i \
,.;'./
\
, Z./ ,iC 4 ........
ir ..........,
,/,./
..i. I ' / ,4163 ■ 1
IA /
:7,I
41
(
. --....-
■* i
/
1 \ !
6479
/ I / 0
I .".-----
,__. --;:.-:--::'7------:---.: ,'•:: ...,
■
•
4 4 6
TOWN OF CARRBORO
NORTH CAROUNA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. c�'
July 17` 1981
Mr. Eddie Kirk, Planner
Orange County Planning Department
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Gary and Gail Barker Property
Tax Map 120' Part of Lot 8C
Dear Eddie:
We have reviewed the plat for the Barker property on Damascus Church Road
and recommend that the subdivision request be denied.
_
As you are aware, Carrboro has recently rezoned property near University
Lake to "Watershed". The Watershed zone is an attempt to protect the water
supply at University Lake, Subdividing land in the Watershed will require
5-acre minimum lot sizes. The subject property is very near our Watershed
and will drain into Price Creek which connects to University Lake. We
therefore, do not recommend approval.
If I can be of further a»s/stance, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ann L. English
Interim Planning Director
tp
, 0 BOX 37 WEST MAIN STREET CAnRoopp.NORTH CAROLINA 27510
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4c-.1
AGENDA ATEFICHNEW 5
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
YTTT.T.SBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA.
27278 ..
01 ._
t:
MEMO
TO: Bill Laws, Acting County Manager
FROM: Jim Polatty, Planning Director
DATE: August 19, 1981
SUBJECT: Request to unfreeze the Sedimentation Erosion Control Officer's
Position that will become vacant on September 4, 1981
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Officer's position will become
vacant on September 4, 1981. I request that the Board of Commissioners
unfreeze the position so that someone can be hired to replace the in-
cumbent. The absence of the Officer will bring all work in the S &
Division to almost a complete halt except for the most rudimentary site
inspections The Officer has been responsible for the entire 2 person
S & E Division. Without this position, Orange County cannot enforce
our Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. The choice Orange County
has is '....o fill this Position or to effectively cease enforcement of the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance.
JP/sw
1
45C
12
Io
272'ffi
nzir
-7 VI GCS7V.1::C-N
4 .:"WILoinir
RECU7,1DED POLICY AND SUATEGIES
FOR
ADDRESSING BED GRANTS IN ORnNGE CODY:TY
I. Past Action:
On June 1, 1981, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a
statement supporting the following policies:
1. Provision of block grants for htlmen services by Lhe State to the
County. Regulations on the use of these grants should be no more
restrictive than Federal law and State statute require.
2. Regulatory refonm to allow the County to distribute human service
funds in the most flexible manner 'Ibis includes the removal of
unrealistic formulas, arbitrary rules andidntenance of Effort
clauses on funds provided to the County by the State, with the ex-
ception of income maintenance programs.
3. Counties that are able and that can demonstrate the capability to
handle local human service decision making should be allowed to do so.
4. Local government should be involved with the State in developTlent of
guidelines through which block grants can be distribated in en orderly,
effective and least restrictive manner.
II. Present Situation:
Ideally Orange County would like to see Block Grants hsndled in this
first year according to these principles, hoever it appears that at
the present tire:
1. Funds are more categorized than at first seed likely, an2 there will
be little flexibility at the State level.
2. The State is apparently contemplating passing on percentages of
Federal cuts to local programs, rather than setting priorities in
the near future.
3_ That regulations at the State and Federal level will be Fore strin7ent,
rather than being relaxed.
4 5 j
Birth Grant Strategies
Page t;:o
4. The State does not vet know what the Federal reguiations will be,
since these are still being formulated_
5. Vore budget changes and cuts are likely to be enacted by Congress
in the near future.
6. No decision has been made by the State as to when they will assume
responsibility for the administration of Block Grants. The possible
range is October 1, 1981, to October 1, 1982,
Therefore, this gives little flexibility at the local level, and con-
tinues the uncertainty about what may hapoen.
III. Policy and Strategies for Orange County in 1st Year:
1. Continue to monitor end influence decisions being made at the State
level.
Strategy: Continue to develop working relationships with North Carolina
Association of County Coamdssioners (NCACC) , National Fzscciation
of Counties ( Co) State Associations of Department Directors,
United Way Coalition, and other influential groups to gather
information and take cooperative action..
2. Work on reform of State regulations.
Strategy:
a, Adoption of a policy by the County Commissioners that
staff time for duplicative State reporting must be specif-
ically approved by the Commissioners.
b. That all County Department Heads gather data on past
duplication of reporting and auditing, and share this
with the Commissioners as a base of information,
a—
That the ao.wissioners share these actions with NCACC,
MACo, and recommend like action by other counties.
d. That all DepaiL■ent Heads with State Associations share
this action with their groups, en ll urge similar action in
other counties,
e. That County Department Heads heap a log of new regulations
coming from the State that are duplicative, time-consuming,
or expensive, and that impact critically on the effectiveness
and operation of programs at the local love 1.
That these logs be turned in periodically to the Plod:
Grant Committee for compilation. This will be gien
to the Commissioners, who will, pursue ap:r3ropriate action
r-;
;-
; H[t:
Block Grant Strategies
Pn7-
three
through CACC.
3. Work through HSAC to minimize the impact of cuts at the local level.
Strategy: The HSAC Block Grant Oommittee will be responsible for
coordinating this effort.
N. Policies For The Second Year Of Block Grants:
1. That local allocations must be based on priorities resulting from
an assessment of needs and services in Orange County,
2. That all possible influence needs to be exerted to acsure that
real Block Grants with local control are enacted, rather than con-
tinuance of the present categorical funding.
3. That a high degree of cooperation be developed beteen all public
and private funding groups in Orange County in order to :7,47-)•:a the
best use of monies available.
4. That the present cooperation, coordination and comluni.cntion among
--- private and public agencies and gove=erxtal groups through tta
HSAC is critical to a rational process.
Ado „ed by the Orange County Board of Ccumissioners August 24, 1931.
�� �� � ��/ �
x^vr v ^ "'-v 'm
- ,
.. � �
ecEmcAooIocomsNr 7
ORANGE COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH
NORTH CAROLINA
=`11"414e='` iD0te" fiaat&l-azd ,r/,
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Anne Barnes, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: William F, Baxter, Jr., Chairman
Human Services Advisory Commission
Subject: HSAC Paid Consultation and Support Staff Needs for FY82
Date: August 13` 1981
I sent a form to all HSAC Committee Chairpersons as to their needs in
terms of paid consultation and clerical support for the fiscal year 1982.
I compiled the responses I received Rrto two reports which are attached'
At the August 13, 1981 two lists
were discussed the $5,000
budget which S7Pig The prioritieSsen were as follows:
l. Overall
provided bY;Wa.V.,WoOtWPiganifgETI $ 2,000
2. Conti 500
3' Design, 1
Needs Ass� �. '.��=`'*` . 2,600
----��z��:��� —'''----~�--_.r�.�����r'�'--
Total $ 6,000
A memorandum from Bill Woodward and David Kiel elaborate on the types
of consultative duties which they would provide in their roles as Consultants
to HSAC.
During the HSAC Steering Committee discussions of the consultative and
support needs we determined that most of the activities required by the
Finance Committee in its Proposed Analysis of the HSAC Agencies Funding
could be performed by the Orange County Finance Office.
Encl/ 2
PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATES 215 North Columbia Street
Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27514
19191 942-8596
TO: Bill Baxter, Chairman of the Orange County Human Service
Advisory Commission
FROM: Dave Kiel and Bill Woodward, Commission Consultants
RE: Budget for Counseling Services during the 1981-1982
Fiscal Year.
DATE: July 20, 1981
As set out in our recent note on challenges and opportunities
facing the OCHSAC during 1981-1982, we feel that the upcoming one
is a crucial one for the Commission. We would very much like to
participate again with the HSAC in active way as consultants.
Since HSAC is still in its formative stages and is operating
on still meager financial resources, we do not propose to bill
HSAC for every consulting hour we spend rather with HSAC.
Instead, we are/asking in this proposal for a fixed price of $1000.
per consultant for a moo general set of services during the
year 1981-1982.
The consulting activities included )6(4/0% under this
proposal are:
1. Regular consultation to and attendance at the HSAC
steering committee and regular meetings (at least one consultant
at each meeting and most times both consultants)
2. Preparation of post meeting evaluation forms and assistance
to the steering committee in tabulating and discussing them.
3. Conduct at least one evaluation of HSAC by members and
commissioners and the members.
4• Occasional consultation to task force and study committee
chairpersons‘and their committees on as needed basis.
5. Other services mutually agreed upon by the consultants
and the steering committee.
This proposal does not include:
Technical assistance or staffwork on particular HSAC projects
such as block grants or needs assessment which may be Of0Xcfg(
undertaken by the consultants for additional fees or orp.
volunteer basis.
We shall be happy to discuss this proposal with you and
the steering committee.
_ —
45t
PROJECTED NEED FOR PAID CONSULTATION BY HSAC COMMITTEES
FOR FY 82
PROJECTED HOURS OF
PAID CONSULTATION ESTIMATED r.OST
TIME NEEDED TO PER HOUR OF
COMMITTEE AND COMPLETE PROJECT CONSULTATION TOTAL
PROJECTS/TASKS OR TASK FEE COST
HSAC CHAIRMAN
1. Preparation of Position Papers for 8 hrs, x 12 mos. 96 x $10. $ 960.00
HSAC and County Commissioners
2. Research of Specific Issues Being 25 hrs. 25 x $ 5. $ 125.00
Considered by HSAC (Study of
Literature, etc.)
3. Assisting Chairman in Preparation 50 hrs. 50 x $10. $ 500.00
of Various Reports, Data, etc.
for HSAC and County Commissioners
SUBTOTAL $1,585.00
FINANCE (Analysis of Agency Funding)
1, Contact Member Agencies to Explain 25 x 1 hr. each 25 x $ 5. $ 125.00
Purpose of Review of Budgets
2, Provide Instruments and Explain Them 25 x 112 hx. each 3712 x $ 5. $ 1B7.50
to Agency Finance Officer Head
3. Consultation of Spedial Problems 12.5 x 1 hr. each 1211 x $ 5. $ 62.50
4. Receive and Analyze: Agency 25 x 4 hrs. each 100 x $ 5. $ 500.00
Data
5. Follow-up and Elaborations 25 x ;2 hr. each 121/2 x $ 5. $ 62.50
6. Compile & Prepare Data for 8 hrs. 8 hrs. x $ 5. $ 40.00
Presentation
7. Report to HSAC 2 hrs. 2 hrs. x $ 5. $ 10.00
8. Prepare Report for Commissioners 2 hrs. 2 his. x $ 5. $ 10.00
SUBTOTAL $ 997.zn
45k::
PROJECTED HOURS OF
PAID CONSULTATION ESTIMATED COST
TIME NEEDED TO PER HOUR OF
COMMITTEE AND COMPLETE PROJECT CONSULTATION TOTAL
PROJECTS TASKS OR TASK FEE COST
CASE MANAGEMENT
1. System Design/System Transfer
2. Development of a Resource
Directory 7 days x 9 mos. $ 25.00
3. Development of Intake and
Tracking Technology
4. Final Design Report (20-30 7 days x 9 mo-
o. Description of Orange
County System) SUBTOTAL 63 (9 mos) $ 12,600.00
EEDS ASSESSMENT TASK GROUP
Implementation of Needs Assessment 904 hrs. 904 x variable $3,000.00
(Data Collection & Analysis) to
$8,000.00
CHILDRENS HEALTH TASK GROUP
1.. Identify Sources of Data 4 hs. 4 x $5. 20.00
2- Identify Gaps in Data Available 2 hrs.
3. Identify Sources of Financing and 4 hrs.
Available Amounts
4. Identify Existing Problems and Study 16 hrs.
Them
5. Devise Methodology by which Reliable 4 hrs.
Data may be Obtained or an Estimate
Made
6. Apply Methology 4 hrs.
, Analysis Results 2 hrs.
3, Reports
SUBTOTAL 52 hrs. 52 x $5 $ 260.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 18,441,5C
to S 23,442 .5C
45"/
. ,
PROJECTED NEED FOR LOGISTICAL SUPPORT STAFF BY
HSAC FOR FY '82
COMMITTEE & TYPE OF SUPPORT FREQUENCY ESTIMATED #
PROJECTS/TASKS STAFF NEEDED NEEDED '1F HOURS
HSAC CHAIRMAN
HSAC Monthly Meeting Clerical-taking Monthly 3-4 X 12=36
minutes and typing
up.
HSAC Monthly Steering Committee Clerical-taking & Monthly 3 X 12 = 36
typing up of
minutes
Typing HSAC Monthly Agenda Clerical Monthly 3 X 1? = 36
and Reproducing and Mailing Out
Sending Special Mailings & Clerical Monthly 3 X 12 = 36
Notices to HSAC Members, County 144
Commissioners and Others
FINANCE COMMITTEE
1. Secretarial Typing, Tele- Weekly 500
phoning
2. County Finance Office Consultation Occasionally 50
3. County Manager Consultation Occasionally 25
4, Other Paper, Reproduction, Clerical
Postage
575
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
1. Revise & Update Orange County Typist, Xerox One Time 40
Transportation Plan (40 pages)
2. Client Transportation Survey- Typist, Xerox One Time 20
Tabulate & Type Up Results
60
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
1. Preparation of Orientation Clerical 6 Times 3
Packet for New Members Per Year
2. If Director or Agency Summary
Prepared Help Will Be Needed Clerical Annually 8
SUBTOTAL 11
45
COMMITTEE TYPE OF SUPPORT FREQUENCY ESTIMATED #
PROJECTS/TASKS STAFF NEEDED NEEDED OF HOURS
CASE MANAGEMENT TASK GROUP
Support For Repor: Printing Clerical, Print!..ng
NEEDS ASSESSMENT TASK GROUP
Implementation of Needs Assessment Clerical 1/4 Clerical
Position for
8 months
SUBTOTAL 1/4 X 2,080 343
CHILDRENS HEALTH TASK FORCE
Letters, Notices, Reports Clerical 2 hrs Weekly 24
Postage, Reproduction
SUBTOTAL 24
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Analytical Support Professional & Several hrs
Technical Monthly
GRAND TOTAL $ 1,157
4.5
-g I/
r r
ALENDA ATTP_CHMENT 8
Orange County
Commission For Women
131 Court Street Hillsborough:732.8181
Hillsborough, N,C, 27278 Chapel Hill:967-9251
—Ext.zin
Mebane:227-2031
Durham:688-7331
TO: Orange County Commissioners
County Manager's Office
FROM: Orange County Commission for Women
RE: Placement on County Commissioner's Agenda
DATE: July 27, 1981
The Orange County Commission for Women would like to be
placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Orange
County Board of Commissioners to announce our plans for
a Women's Board Training and to seek endorsement for the
Training from the Board.
The Women's Board Training is scheduled for Saturday,
September 12, at Burroughs Wellcome in Research Triangle
Park.
4
AGENDA ATTACHMENT 9
..t■Ii.„--:
tu...,_ % @range (gaunt .erreation anb parks BEpartment
-
=, 300 West Tryon Street
HILLS80ROUGH,NC 27278
Office of Director
R WAYNE WESTON
MEMORANDUM
a
TO: Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
'
FROM: R. Wayne WestoRAM)n .
DATE: August 14, 1981
RE: Agenda Presentation -Time/Day/Date: request for
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council hereby requests to appear on the
formal agenda of the Board of County Commissioners at the earliest and most
convenient occasion. The Council, through its subcuuuuittee for park and
facility planning, after thorough scrutinizal of recreation and park planning
firms, will make recommendation to the Board that the firm of Recreation and
Park Consultants, Inc. of Raleigh be contracted for their planning services.
These services would be utilized for the proposed Community Development park
project in the Northern Fairview Community.
Respondents to be present:
Ron Hyatt, Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Don Roberts, Vice Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Mary Howes, Chairperson, Park/Facility Subcommittee,
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Ron Johnson, Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc.
Jerry Turner, Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc.
Wayne Weston
Planning costs: $6,700.00 -- Community Development Funds; $500.00 County Funds =,
$7,200.00 Total (Funds are presently available to begin
services at once.)
Your attention and consideration are greatly appreciated.
RWW/srs
Copy to: Ron Hyatt, Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Don Roberts, Vice Chairman, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council
Mary Howes, Chairperson, Park/Facility Subcommittee, Recreation and
and Parks Advisory Council
Ron Johnson, Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc.
Jerry Turner, Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc.
•
AGENDA. ATTACHMENT 10-B.
JAMES M W E B , AIA - AIP
ARCHIT ECT & PLANNER
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
20 . ZA47 ; : . LY 47
August 19, 1981 CHAPEL HILL, N C 27514
TELEPHONE 979 - 63a5
County Commissioners
County of Orange
Hillsborough, N. C. 272778
Dear Sirs:
At the request of Mr William Laws, Acting County Manager, we are pleased
to submit for your consideration the attached Preliminary Building Sur-
vey Report and a Proposal for Architectural Services in connection with
the contemplated remodeling program of the Multi-Purpose Center Building
at the Northside Campus, Chapel Hill, N. C.
As you may know the firm of James M. Webb, AIA, AIP, has provided a
wide range of planning and design services to the County in ongoing
development at North Side. We believe that the results have been
successful in meeting the budgets and providing the facilities needed
to service the various programs. We hope that you will find our
services will meet your future requirements and that we can continue
to participate in the development of that site.
We shall be glad to discuss and to clarify any points you may wish to
raise.
Very truly yours,
/1.1/.44d..1. ;
Roman Kolodij
Project Manager for
James M. Webb, ALA, AIP
RK:h
Enc.
46'
J A M E S M W E B B , A I A . - A . I . P .
A R C H I T E C T & P L A N N E R
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
2 0 1 EAST ROSEMARY 5T
CHAPEL Halt, N . C 27514
August 19, 1981 TELEPHONE 929 . 6185
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY BUILDING SURVEY
NORTHSIDE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER, CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
The Northside Multi-Purpose Center Building is the remaining classroom
wing of the original Northside School. The building is a one story, brick
wall, wood frame structure with shingle roof and contains approximately
10,000 ft of gross floor area. The space is subdivided into eight class-
rooms (24' x 30'), two toilet rooms, and general offices, connected by a
wide central corridor, which provides a flexible arrangement of uses.
The building is now used by J.O.C.C.A. and other agencies serving the
elderly, and it houses a children's day care center at the north end.
The Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center is located in an adjacent
building on the same site. There is ample paved parking, circulation
and open space on the site. The land and buildings are owned by Orange
County.
All needed utilities are available at the site and most of them were
upgraded during remodeling of the Mental Health Center building.
GENERAL CONDITION OF MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING:
The structural system appears to be sound and adequate for the intended
uses. The roof has been maintained in serviceable condition by the
County but may need replacement eventually and should be examined criti-
cally before other improvements are made.
The toilet rooms are in good condition and meet the required needs.
Additional small toilet would improve use of day care center for staff.
A new oil-fired boiler was recently installed by the County to serve the
existing steam heat radiator system.
Handicapped access was installed this year as well as new lighting and
ceiling system in part of the building.
46
.,p
-1
ta
0
. S S•
° : 'i}j41-"Ci•
$ •0! i
101 1 --------__ -,
\.9 f 0:
. .1
II ' 1 01 ul
0 ii.z.,
j
i is:'
g-L:...
...-a \,..
..iu
./ 1 0 2
Man-rilhP05E Cili.. -
i
1 0: ,.---,w
/ _ -....._ .1/4..,
. .,- •..... ....f.
. 1.• . 0
/ • i
---___.
,g1 .
(
' r
. \r
' a 1
0
1.
I' It
0 1 0 .. z
r.... . w..
• . . / , t I t , , -. .
. ,
. ,
P Ijk*Nt-, _—_ -- — , , , ... I
0 1 'Si%, -— ., _77—ii— k ■-- / - ' 4-.'1' ) N 7.
.. • ,,, 0 .„.. al,7 - ' - 4‘. Vill..7117.,r/ '1
----. ■.) ,b Z1------ - ____--- ' •/, --, -0 1 •.--/' 1
.:
l --- --:::-.------,.-.-;-:---„--
-=-.-.------}1 -------- .'//C;g . ■-
1 __-; , - - ' : .,.
• •: -_,.:,- — --
_
.' 1 ',,,--/•
, .-,
>"---.
4 '''.----------- _-- ..---' .........„---% V../."--,•
0 -1 ..-/------
P
. .-
4+ .._.,•- II
„,,------- _=----------- -_ _ _____- ----- -:-----;------ •*•\ --'- -1'
,_„------------------ 2. -I • *
0 3:1 / 'lin;1 \\' \\--/---------' • 7 --- -. ,-------------
$‘, 1111,::,..,/9;ill ift,_. ----,'■-`,N______.-:; ...__L ///'. . - .„.•
' /' /'////
1 ■•ir.1."' /' '...,/i/ ..) -...-- i>. N-'''', -.:11. •■''-. • i '''. ,
•P el .0 i,;....1...' ,11:i
4.1 • 4.11,----11 r...___ •
—P i
0 I.....,......s. S V 0■• • •Z------ ■ • •.•."--------"--
S .....o.............0.... G.wetwask-a•--ae.
,
trnt-iff Lecvew t7 - - G11. ORIEN-rg'ION • PLN ..
U. -
11111011111.1WM& 1•6111% GAS'
S 11••wa'••■■• 1%1■1. 5ENt■lf-ig Fi& 1 * 0 1
loves....... WIINOWINVIIIL. wk,-it/2, -
ta-a.E.micsomier a.v...e.m.x...
46q
Webb Survey of Building p. 2
MAJOR DEFICIENCIES:
The most serious drawback to safe and efficient use is the inadequate
electrical distribution and lighting system.
Another important deficiency is the lack of air conditioning and proper
ventilation. The two problems are interrelated in that ample electrical
service must be provided in order to install central cooling or window air-
conditioners. Required power, supplied by Duke Power Co., is available at
the site. The existing connection to the building, however, does not meet
required standards. Use of appliances now creates hazards and causes power
outages.
The following list of recommended improvements outlines the most pressing
remodeling needs;
With regular maintenance and timely improvements the existing building can
continue to be as useful as a new structure at much lower initial cost.
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM IMPROVEMENT:
1. Electrical Distribution & Service Connection:
New outlets, panels, and wiring to meet Code
New service connection (400 amp. min.) from existing transformer
Estimated Cost: 22,500.00
2. Air Conditioning:
Zoned central cooling system, ducted to rooms, served by two
10-ton cooling units
Note: Refer to solar screen item below
Estimated Cost: 45.000.00
3. Solar shading screens for windows:
Similar to equipment installed at Mental Health Center. Required
to allow use of A/C equipment sizes specified above
Estimated Cost: 12,000.00
4. Windows:
Replace with insulating sash or repair existing and install
storm sash
Estimated Cost 16,400.00
5. Lighting and Ceilings:
Acoustical suspended ceilings, with lay-in fluorescent fixtures
Estimated Cost: 21,500.00
46c
J A M E S M _ WEBS , A I A - A . L P .
A R C H I T E C T P L A N N E R •
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS
201 E + 3 i .: r., ' ' 4Y S T.
C H A P E L H I L L. N. C 2 7 5 1
TELEP H O N E 9 2 9 . 6 8 5
PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
FOR NORTHSIDE MULTI-PURPOSE CENTER REMODELING
PHASE 1. SURVEY/PROGRAMMING/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN
SCOPE:
Measure existing building, prepare Drawings -
Examine in detail existing structural, mechanical and architectural
conditions
Analyze floor area use based on present occupancy
Determine program requirements of various agencies housed
Establish program, space allocation for anticipated occupancies
List improvements required to remedy deficiencies and to support
anticipated uses and to promote operating efficiency
Prepare schedule for long-range improvements program and recommend
appropriate sequence for implementation
Prepare preliminary cost estimates
Review program with Owner
Estimated Time for Phase 1. 30 days
Fee Allocation for Phase 1. 257. of total
PHASE 2. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
SCOPE:
Review program and proposed budget with Owner and Agencies served
Coordinate project with code and zoning requirements and secure
approvals from appropriate regulatory agencies
46�
Webb Proposal p. 2
PHASE 2 cant.
Adjust program to incorporate review information and proposed budget
Prepare detailed Drawings of proposed improvements
Prepare revised cost estimates
Estimated Time for Phase 2. 30 days
Fee Allocation for Phase 2. 207. of total
PHASE 3. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
SCOPE:
Prepare final Drawings and Specifications
Secure final approval from regulatory agencies
Revise cost estimates as required
Estimated Time for Phase 3. 20 days
Fee Allocation for Phase 3. 307. of total
PHASE 4. BIDDING AND CONTRACTS
SCOPE:
Advertise for Bids
Receive Bids
Prepare Contract Documents
Estimated Time for Phase 4. 30 days
Fee Allocation for Phase 4. 57. of total
PHASE 5. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
SCOPE:
Supervise Construction
Review Shop Drawings and other Documents
Certify request for payment
4(3''
Webb Proposal p. 3
PHASE 5 cont.
Verify Contractor's performance
Conduct Final Inspection at completion
Prepare As-Built Drawings
Estimated Time for Phase 5. 90 days
Fee Allocation for Phase 5. 207. of total
Total Estimated Time for Project Planning and Construction: 200 days
Architectural Fees, estimated at 8.257. of Construction Budget, are based on
schedule of standard fees for projects of similar scope and complexity,
published by North Carolina Dept. of Administration.
Actual Fee Structure and Project Time would be subject to negotiation with
Owner.
Webb Survey of Building p. 3
Improvements cont.
6. New Roof Shingles:
May require removing existing shingles
Estimated Cost: 8,500.00
7. Replace Gutters and Downspouts
Note: This is a critical item to prevent damage to building
exterior
Estimated Cost: 2,400.00
8. Insulate Crawl Space
Estimated Cost: 6,000.00
9. Miscellaneous:
New entrance doors at day care, new vinyl flooring in certain
areas, misc, repairs and adjustments. Cost shall vary with
extent of work.
Estimated min. 6,000.00
Total 140,300.00
Contingency 5,000.00
145,300.00
A/E Fees ( 8.257. 11,987.00
Estimated Budget 157,287.00
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF NORTHSIDE PROPERTY
..:VAAPEL HILL
FOR DEVELOPMENT BY ORANGE COUNTY
April 26, 1979
AR4
Itt
i vt",3.3
. f64Z1 jeS1
• - PEG
James M. Webb, AIA, AIP
201 E. Rosemary Street
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
47U
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF NORTHSIDE PROPERTY, CHAPEL HILL, FOR DEVELOPMENT
BY ORANGE COUNTY
CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Site Characteristics
1. Location
The Northside Property, originally consisting of 9.23 acres, was
deeded to Orange County by the Chapel Hill School Board (Tax Map
Ref. Map 84, Block 7, Lot 3). It is located on McMasters Street,
and is surrounded by older, established residential areas.
2. Land Area
In 1978, Orange County conveyed approximately 0.65 acre to Chapel
Hill Housing Authority. An additional 0.7 acre must be deeded to
Town of Chapel Hill for proposed Caldwell Street Extension. McMas-
ters Street R.O.W. widening will require 0.25 acre dedication,
required Chapel Hill "Greenway" easement along Tanyard Branch (west
boundary of Prop.) will require an additional 0.5 acre.
Total conveyances and dedications of approximately 2.1 acres reduce
property area to 7.13 acres.
3.- Terrain
General topography can be described as being approximately one third
relatively flat open field, a sloping, terraced middle section (con-
taining buildings, parking and circulation), and an overgrown, un-
developed area which slopes moderately to the Branch from the toe of
embankment at the edge of existing drive and parking. The property
has adequate natural drainage to handle surface run-off, but some storm
sewers will be needed with new construction,
4. Access
Church Street is now the principal thoroughfare from the general
neighborhood to Town Center. McMasters Street and the "temporary"
section of Caldwell Street provide access to the Property from Church
St and so to "Downtown." When Caldwell St Extension is completed,
it will provide a connector to traffic from West Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. The property will then front onto two streets, allowing
several access points, if needed.
5, Utilities
The property has access to or is serviced by the following Utilities
& Services:
p. 1 of 12 p.
471
. . -
A. 5, Utilities (cont.)
Electric: 120/208 volt 3-phase, underground, by Duke Power Co.
from Caldwell St Extension and overhead McMasters St
Natural Gas: Public Service Co. of N. C. Gas line is in the R.O.W.
of McMasters St and an Existing :ap excandl: :a
Bldg on the site.
Telephone: Southern Bell Tlephone Co., service line from Caldwell St
Water: 6" line in McMasters St, fed by 8" main in Church Street.
Existing building served by 2" connection. Supplied by
OWASA
Sanitary Sewer: Existing on-site sanitary system, consisting of 6"
B & S, vitrified clay waste lines and manholes, connecting
to 18" rcp OWASA outfall along west property line. Present
system is rapidly deteriorating and should be replaced with
concrete pipe lines before any future development is con-.-
templated.
Storm Drainage: Existing buildings and parking areas are served by
underground, piped storm sewer system.
Police Protection: Chapel Hill Police Department
Fire Protection: Chapel Hill Fire Department, Station Number One.
Existing fire hydrant near Mental Health Center on
McMaster St
Refuse Disposal: Separate "Dumpstee' bins for each building, collected
by Town of Chapel Hill
p. 2 of 12 p.
47
B. Existing Structures and Facilities
1, OPC Mental Health Center - 14,270 sq. ft
Formerly classroom building, which had been severely damaged by fire,
vandalism and neglect, it was recently restored and remodeled for
mental health clinic and office use. The two-level, steel frame
structure with masonry/glass exterior walls was completely refur-
bished, including new plumbing, air conditioning and electrical sys-
tems. Existing hot water, oil-fired heating was restored and up-
graded.
The building contains 48 offices, 6 therapy/conference rooms, 3
classroom spaces, plus waiting areas, circulation, staff lounge,
toilets and other related spaces.
2. Existing Multipurpose Center - 10,200 sq. ft
See Report by M. Ray Harden, Jr, P.E. for general description of
existing structure, materials and conditions.
The building is the remaining classroom wing of the original North-
side School. It contains eight generous classroom spaces, two toilet
rooms, six offices, and a wide connecting hallway the length of the
building.
_ - The building is now being used for various purposes by J.O.C.C.A.
programs and services, and also houses a children's day care center.
The present arrangement allows some flexibility in assigning areas
for independent, diverse uses, but lacks any coherent sense of
organization. The central hallways is an "under" used space, but a
needed thoroughfare.
As indicated in the Engineer's report, much basic maintenance and
general repair work is needed, in addition to upgrading to meet cur-
rent Code requirements. Specific internal re-arrangements may be
needed to allow more versatile use.
3. Existing Cafeteria Building - 2660 sq. ft
The existing building is exterior masonry bearing walls, wood frame
roof structure, asphalt shingles, concrete slab on grade floor, indus-
trial-type steel sash. The building finishes are run down, but
structurally it appears sound. New electrical, plumbing, and heating
will be required, as well as a new roof covering, insulating glass
windows and other energy-saving measures such as wall insulation.
The smaller size and fixed structural system limit somewhat the uses
to which this building can be put. The contemplated remodeling to
house OPC Mental Health Therapy Day Hospital and Adolescent Program
is an appropriate and reasonable use, because of proximity to present
clinic.
p. 3 of 12 p,
4 7 4
g. 4. Existing Parking and Circulation
Under contract and nearing completion are general site improvements,
consisting of paved and guttered parking areas and drives, and
concrete walkways. These will provide permanent spaces for 85 cars,
which is the requireu numoer specified by zoning .*:o 3ar7e zg
buildings. The general circulation pattern of the upper parking area
will allow fairly simple extension to accommodate additional parking
areas, required by new buildings. This particular area is entered
from Caldwell St Extension and serves the central parking needs of
visitors and patients.
p. 4 of 12 p.
47q
C. Codes and Regulations
1. Zoning
Any development on this property falls under provisions of Special
Use Regulations of Chapel iii ning Ordinance.
a. Setbacks. Required Front Yards on McMasters St and on Caldwell
St are 35 feet. Minimum side yards are 8 feet.
b. Building Height. Maximum standard building height permitted is
35 feet and 21/2 stories. Building height may be increased to 45
feet maximum, or 344 stories, by provision of 5 feet additional
front and side yards.
c. Building Coverage. Building floor area is limited by height
restrictions and required parking, subject to Special Use Permit
approval.
d. Required Parking. For quasi-public uses ( similar to Special
Use provisions for OPC Mental Health Center) the ordinance re-
quires one parking space for every 300 sq. ft of gross floor
space. For predominantly office uses, one parking space for
every 200 sq. ft of gross floor area is required.
2._ N. C. Building Code
General planning considerations for buildings must include the
following code requirements:
a. Access. (Section llx, 4.9)
All County, Municipal, & State Government buildings with services
to public over one story height shall have approved ramps or
elevators to connect to all floors.
b. Energy Efficiency Requirements.
Building envelope and siting considerations should be kept in
mind to meet "building energy performance criteria" N. C.
Code, Chapter 32.
p. 5 of 12 p.
• 47
. :
D. Alternatives for Development, and Comparable Costs
These are presented as possible ways to develop usable floor space on
the site but are not intended to be read as mutually exclusive options.
Actual development may occur through any one means or a combination of
all of them, depending on more precise needs or conditions as they arise.
1. U.:rade, Rehabilitate Existing Multipurpose Center - 10,200 sq. ft
a. Minimum investment to meet Code requirements.
M. Ray Harden, Jr, P.E., in a report dated May 3, 1978, proposed
a minimum program for upgrading the building to meet N.C. Code
Requirements and generally to repair poor conditions. The esti-
mated cost for such work was $78,540.00. The life expectancy of
such limited improvement is necessarily also limited, perhaps as
short as ten years.
A new, oil-fired, steam boiler has been installed since the date
of that report. This represents a substantial investment by the
County in the present structure. Other investments include in-
stalled insulation plus parking lot construction. Some of the
repair and upgrading is being done piecemeal. Such an approach,
while workable, creates problems of efficiency and coordination.
In addition, repairing the "mechanical" parts of the building may
not substantially improve the efficient use of the available floor
space, because general subdivision of spaces remains the same.
b. Optimum Upgrading and Rehabilitation
To rehabilitate the Multipurpose Center to a "like new" condition
with a life span comparable to new construction would probably
cost $25.00 to $30.00 per sq. ft. These figures could include
some interior modifications to partitions, but not major struc-
tural changes. This compares with actual recent costs for the
OPC Clinic rehabilitation of $27.31 per sq. ft. That project was
more elaborate, but using a similar figure would make realistic
allowance for subsequent increases in construction costs. This
would bring estimated construction to roughly $280,000.00.
Parking has already been provided under ongoing program.
Based on current square foot costs for new construction of $40.00
to $50.00 per square foot, a new building of similar size might
cost an average of $450,000.00 Costs for demolition of present
structure would have to be added to that figure for replacement
costs.
p. 6 of 12 p.
47 k~,
4 r;
D. 1. c. One drawback to any wholesale rehabilitation of the Multipurpose
Center is the need to provide temporary quarters for the programs
currently occupying the space.
Another is the fixed amount of floor space, which may not be ade-
quate to house needed programs. Some of that could be remedied by
small additions. See specific section on that topic.
Such rehabilitation would entail essentially new plumbing, heating, air
conditioning and electrical systems, new or restored interior finishes,
new insulating windows and doors, and restoration of exterior features
as needed, including new roofing.
2. Upgrade and Rehabilitate Existing Cafeteria Building - 2b60 sq. ft
Proposed remodeling, repair, and upgrading to provide Day Hospital
for Therapy and Adolescent Program in connection with Mental Health
Center is expected to cost $80,000.00, or approximately $30.00/sq, ft,
based on a comparable bid received in 1977, as an add alternate to
OPC Mental Health Center Proposals, but was not awarded. The seem-
ingly higher square foot cost stems from smaller size of project,
where mechanical and electrical costs become disproportionately high-
er to overall area.
The project would include new electrical, plumbing, heating and air
conditioning systems, new partitions, new insulating windows and doors,
and needed exterior repairs. Essentially, the scope of work is to
bring the building to "like new" condition.
Parking for this facility has already been provided.
3. New Construction - Costs and Other Factors
a. New office construction costs should be estimated in the range of
$40.00 to $50.00 per sq. ft depending on structural complexity,
finishes and interior arrangements.
b. New parking facilities costs average $850.00 per parking space.
(Figures based on current construction at the Northside site.)
c. There is no significant difference in cost between a one story
scheme and a two story scheme with an elevator. A 2500 lb.
capacity hydraulic elevator may cost from $20,000.00 to $26,000.00.
d. New One Story Buildings- See Figure 1.02.
The maximum possible new one-story building area as shown on the
site diagram, which meets zoning requirements, would be 50,000 sf.
The limitations are derived from required parking to floor area
ratio (1 car space/300 sf building). Applying the higher square
foot building cost ($50.00/sf) the expected cost of structures
would be $2,500,000.00.
p. 7 of 12 p.
47(
D. 3. d. New One Story Buildings (cont.)
Required parking must provide 167 car spaces. At $850.00/car,
this comes to $141,950.00.
Total basic development cost for this amount of floor area would
ther-fore be tst'_mated at $2,641,950.00 for construction. Land-
scaping and other needed expenses should be added to this figure.
e. New Two Story Buildings - See Figure 1.03.
The solid "building" outline in this diagram shows the general.
size of building needed to provide equivalent amount of floor
space possible in one-story scheme (50,000 sq. ft). We can assume
costs (building and parking) would be the same.
This leaves room on the site for an additional 12,000 sq. ft of
floor space contained in a two story structure, plus the provision
of additional 40 car spaces that would also be needed, The ad-,
ditional costs, using the same unit figures would break down as
follows:
1) 12,000 sf bldg @ $50.00/sf - $600,000.00
40 car spaces @ $850.00/car $ 34,000.00
Total $634,000.00
2) Total construction costs of 62,000 sq. ft of floor space
housed in two-story buildings and 207 required parking
spaces would be estimated at $3,275,950.00
f. An elevator will be needed for each two story building in order to
meet N.C. Code requirements for access of handicapped persons.
Ramped walkways can meet the access requirements where terrain and
structural considerations permit.
A multiple-story building releases some land for other uses, such
as needed access, required services and open space, or perhaps
for siting of additional buildings. However the requirements for
parking become a limiting factor on the total amount of usable
floor space that could be planned on the site economically.
Desirable spatial arrangement and aesthetic considerations would
not suggest development that fills the site with just buildings
and parking lots. Some open areas around and between the buildings
should be reserved for walkways and landscaped outdoor space.
A two level building sited on a slope would allow on-grade access
at both levels. (The existing OPC Clinic building is sited in this
way.) This may eliminate the need for an elevator in some cases,
but only if separate programs or services can be located on sepa-
rate floors, and where no direct connection is needed between them.
More detailed information about the nature and requirements of the
proposed uses would be necessary before such alternatives could be
realistically considered or proposed. Drawbacks are costlier base-
ment walls and reduced access of daylight,
p. 8 of 12 p.
4'76
D. 4. Additions to Existing Buildings
a. Small scale, incremental additions:
Small scale additions to existing buildings may be possible and
in some cases, desirable, to meet specific program requirements
and all:tor floor space need increases.
Usually, such additions should be kept to approximately 107. of
existing floor area in order to make use of existing electrical
and mechanical systems' reserve capacities.
Costs for small scale additions which do not require major re-
visions to existing systems can be kept as low as $20.00/sq. ft.
Minor additions can be useful in providing improved facilities
for specific programs and therefore extend overall usefulness of
an existing building.
In the case of the Multipurpose Center building, 1000 sq. ft could
easily be added in this manner. Estimated cost - $20,000.00
The Cafeteria building could be expanded more substantially (more
than 107.) because the present system is inoperable and new heating,
cooling, plumbing and electrical systems will be needed in any
case to make that structure habitable. Site limitations (e.g. ex-
.
isting oil tanks and underground electric service) confine the
possible addition to approximately 1400 sq. ft of one story space.
Cost would be higher (est. $25.00/sq. ft).
Existing or planned parking would be adequate to serve minor
additions.
Such small additions would not measurably reduce the permitted floor
areas of proposed new development.
The principal requirement in considering incremental additions is
that the existing buildings must also be upgraded and rehabilitated.
Ideally, remodeling and additions should be carried out at the same
time for better results.
b. Large scale additions:
Large scale additions to existing buildings would be limited by
site conditions, program requirements and costs.
Costs for large scale additions- would be the same as for new con-
struction, and such floor areas would require the same numbers of
parking spaces as new development.
p. 9 of 12 p.
I
D. 4. b. Large scale additions (cont.)
The main advantages would be to allow better internal circulation
and housing of related programs or services in a single building,
without the need to build unduly large new, single buildings.
They also may permit a more compact arrangement of buildings.
These additions would not need to be limited to single story schemes.
Large additions would proportionately reduce the amount of future
new development in independent buildings.
p. 10 of 12 p.
48t.
r..
_
1 w
3 t
>i s z
/ ''
O ; 01 ) p
-- r-(
I Nj
•flu r' /� 1i_
• ' i
0 rl° uI o .0 10 :w 11-r .
�
1iL rij1 �/ ) •r X rs
0 ' — 0 ,z v---7--- ._,—.' • ." fr. -al.. ._) r 1
_____, „ . .e4. /
"'" ' SNV °I Z ,N1?tZ cid �s1X� �- i ,..,-- •
ill 1.,. ... Ili i „ ./___. ________,... ____________----7_-----. ---..._---------______,___.. __z-:----_;.._---''.-,-------i-,_.,,_.,:___ _ n i
f ---------
0 . 3; /i/'1./I('1' ''--,— * '- . .--.X--;----_- ":;% %-":"---_____,_.----,,-,-_–. ...., 4.
f r f
--- ,
• ;. r
---
- j 4aaa r,- as aaasaaaia...►a `aa■ aaallE► C. a ■aa-111.
LITI L1Dr tib -_ C QRI N'CAT(0N PLAN
as as G aaaa
aaaa Gj aaaa A+ SDN-R �(& 1 . 01
�a.da Naaw_ wzgm.17i
-
e.ss E.= sir n .rgit.z;L
481
j)
IL
-I
3' -x
ca 'Z
—$
5 .:* 0
1
v • 'qSW‹ "171.11crim9 ./4.vars.14
...LSctl,s i 0 r.a
,..1 I -‘B 4 u:.
' „ .....
til :,f7.:Ki.5•%*,':•::::::::,*:::::::::::::::::::::;::.:•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.,„:„;.:,
• a z Q (i
I 141 2 ' A '
I ! cy
3 42
: •::::::::::::g:::, :::::::::::::::::::x:::::::::::::.K:K::::::::::::::::::::::m: A
* 1- — —
I :.
1 1 :-.*:':*f.':*?,01•:'
.,,,......-..., •
l' I :*:::::::a::::.:•,•,••••:.i.:..y.......:::::
•••••.„.„,,.•.................„
•:::::."..:1".:::::::::::...."..":-'---..._. r
- 1 I
.z.. % 1 k ......„...• :. .....-.
I. ...4.,,,..:4„...........:. ______, 1 `' 1 VL i
1 ; • t)
: d 4
I
• I r‘ 1..
E3 .21 1
• i Is, .
cL
0 ID 1
. ,
1
,• .
• .5, ,q2 02, Th >1a ....st.g-a ..„..-.::::::::5::::Mft‘A.),...„
.......,.-011=1:::::8:::,1,:,::::::,:. 4.. \
i :,1. :::,...1,,,:*.m.- :,:,....,:::,,,,,.::::::m::::::::::::,,,,,,7:::::nv.:,:::::,:?..;;:ropii:,,Iii.,:-,4y!,:f.::".g.R.,:::.:4.:::::::"A
- .
'.,?,, --- • inp-Rp::::1.41:1:exo. :11:4:aa,toi : .-- . .. \ i
,v:::::::::::::::::al.:::,:::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::,,,..::::::.,...,.....,::::::::::::::„,„„:„:„..,:,..,„,::::::::::..,,...•_,.. ....... ,
..-.
/ \ .. ,
I ! ..
i . fl•••,•••••• • AI'.... • ...It
„."
• I ..
'."••••• • •""•"..4•°wk.' irravas.41 >at') j
I
ON giORY/ D .Va0PilN
48
U
il3
ILI
8rs, 2
...... • -•-• • ........ • ....- • ....... • -.., . 0/WNW 4,••••••• • ommo•Mo 1*
• . •
4 1'1 1.*I.7, :....,:..,.:-2,,....-..,4,,,,.....,-7..t..,..,,,....v.,-,,z..%
. 1 . ri
-,,
, •
i I 1.:
0 Li 1,..4:"2 .r...,.....
2' \--ax
i 1 j r '" vl
L! 'z40 .'4- 0 -.., :::::,,,,ii:;:::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::: ::::g:.:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. I ,
: :: * 114.:.:::::::::::.;5:::::::;:i.:.111.1a::: ::::::';',::::::::,:::-::1:::::::::%:-. 0 .
,- t.. 6 ‘`-s-' .latAISAggegMMO W
..1....-. ..*Wm* ,,...... .la.
i 1. ' ''S .....••-... -..,,,....,.•.......,,,,.,,,.
7:::•3',:?:.if::::. .:::4.....::::::::::::::::::-.......;.:, IC) • : ■
' ii::::**::::::*.:::::"..:Kii::::::::::::::§:::::•g:` 0 I .
i I
••••••....,...,,,..•....,......,...
•••",..............•...,...,„„..
•e.,.,..".....•...,,„„...,,..,.. 2
Si 1 •
1 1 1 ...y.f.,),,y,,,,,/,...",....,..,...........,.
W * 5\r I
.M. 1 1 4 LC
I 1:g.::■: :!*:::::•:.:
: — ‘'"'
Cji
'''" s5 ci
Va .
.7_, o
0 1 : wwl cC .:.:%%11* ,„:;:i )C
. • l(04
■ I . ' ' :::;..:**;:....1,;..,. .:::: ill
' ii1::::: :::::::;•::::::::::::::::::;:: I ''• I %
0
1 *•1 • 1
. 14 ■ =
1
. 1 w
J• 10 : 91 1 1 .
0
cc ,
\ .
ii r-•—' l':12 07, .91.41A:rtkl 1,S1XM
. iI ....'"4::::::::::::::::::•:::;,::-,::: ::'.:;:;:-.;:::.‘ — 2,.
1.,::::: ::;:::MV..:f::::;, ;:,?:::3:::;:j:,.41 ::: *:: .*:6:1:,:: : ::*,/,;1.%::11.:::',.,„1,...4.........*..1...—
— - 1 i-=.;';'...: :::',::::::,:•*,:,-.*;:%'';:/:,.:;.:6:::...%%.Y..::::..-;6:;•-•;',....4..::;?. ...,:.;:;:-.:.:::..........;*,-,,:.,,..-,::;.::::.;..6.,:.:;;,;,:.v...,,,:,,,--
,..............-....„•..,...„..............................................•
/ r . ON•11•*••■ • .1....... ....:\q.t.
. 1 ., ......, ,
• •••••4 '•••ri .11.0t1".M.515 ,),11'• . t
••••••• •• i
.4....•....... • ......... • ....-- -
- \t\/(2 6:21.0Kf r)N .I.c.x9t/i5N-1
•t& 1.05
4 8
Fig. 1.04
A POSSIBLE RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS
1. The County now rents approximately 15,000 sq. ft of space. Allowing
10,000 sq. ft for expansion and other needs, this indicates a new
building with 25,000 sq. ft of floor area may be justified now. Park-
ing requirements specify 83 new car spaces.
Estimated costs for development at this scale would consist of
$1,250,000.00 for building, $70,550.00 for parking, or $1,320,550.00
total new construction.
Assuming that existing M/PC and Cafeteria Buildings would be upgraded
to "like new" condition as part of this development program, $360,000.00
should be added to the budget.
This would make the total of an "intermediate" scope of development
cost $1,680,550.00.
2. For purposes of comparison the following range of development and
costs are given below:
a. Minimum Expenditure (repair and minimum rehabilitation) $130,000.00
b. Intermediate Scale Development (substantial remodeling
plus new construction) $1,680,550.00
c. Maximum Expected Development (substantial remodeling
plus maximum possible new construction) $3,660,000.0C
484i
E. SUMMARY
1. Based on the general factors considered (terrain, available utilities,
access, disposition of existing buildings, and available land area,
together with applicable zoning restrictiOns), the Northside Property
is suitable for development of up to 62,000 sq. ft of new floor area
of office-type space if housed La two story buildings (only 50,000
sq. ft if in one story structures).
This would require the provision of 207 additional parking spaces,
(167 for one story scheme).
Estimate costs for such ultimate development would be $3,100,000. for
buildings, $175,950. for parking, or a rough total of $3.3 million.
2. One existing building, OPC Clinic - 14,000 sq. ft, was recently restored
to "like new" condition. Two other buildings, Multipurpose Center -
10,200 sq. ft, and Cafeteria Building - 2660 sq. ft, are in need of
considerable repairs and upgrading. In their present state, they de-
preciate the investment by the County in the OPC Mental Health Center.
3. Minimum investment for upgrading the two buildings to meet N.C. Code
requirements would probably mean an expenditure of $130,000.- $78,000.
for M/P Center, $52,000. for cafeteria space.
Required parking has already been provided.
Remodeling these buildings to meet expected program needs and upgrading
them to "like new" condition requires tentative costs of $280,000. for
M/P Center and $80,000. for Cafeteria (OPC Day Hospital) or a total
estimated cost of $360,000.00. Estimated costs for equal amount of new
floor space (12,860 sq. ft) at $45.00/sf would be $580,000.00.
4. Provision of required parking spaces will be a significant factor in
any decisions to construct new buildings or large additions.
Large parking areas can create problems for visitors when employees,
staff occupy spaces close to buildings.
An employee-staff parking area should be set aside, preferably as a
separate area.
One area which seems feasible for this purpose is the undeveloped sec-
tion below and to the west of OPC Mental Health Center. Between 80
and 90 long-term parking spaces could be accommodated there.
5. Future Considerations
The scope of this study has been limited and general by necessity.
More detailed evaluations will be essential before specific decisions
can be made or before accurate recommendations can be proposed.
Future studies should consider at least the following points and would
require the following additional information:
p.11 of 12 p.
r r
E. 5. Future Considerations (cont.)
a. More detailed program or space needs, internal relationsips and
anticipated uses by the various agencies or services expected
to be located at the Northside Property, as well as a general
sequence.
b. Coordination among the various program agencies in order to
eliminate unnecessary duplication of facilities, and to permit
efficient grouping of programs to take advantage of shared
facilities in buildings or on the site.
c. Specific building shapes, sizes and orientations, based on use
program needs, should be reviewed and tested for most efficient
siting to conserve energy demands and equipment costs.
Building configurations will also have effect on structural
economy, but considerations of structure should not compromise
specific program needs.
d. Programs should be developed which consider immediate needs and
should try to anticipate how these needs may change; specific
building designs, shapes should anticipate and allow economical
expansion in the future.
p. 12 of 12 p.
4gb
�� _ �^m� ~�� ` ��—
r ~ ^ = ���' " ^
mfENDA AITACTIoNTlz
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Mark H. Rees, Director of Purchasing & Central Serviceq*~`
DATE: August 20, 1981
?E: Purchase of Vehicles Through State Contract
The North Carolina Division of Purchase and Contract has invited .)
Orange County to participate in their purchase of police vehicles' and
automobiles During the budget process, The Board authorized
passenger of four midsized Sheriff's vehicles and one Motor Pool
the purchase » d n:that the County again participate in the State
Contract for the acquisition of vehicles for the following reasons.
A. Whereas pricing information on 1982 vehicles is not
t available, in last year's purchase of 24 vehicles
ye State Contract, the County was able to save approx-
imately $3600'00 compared on ' " d t the lowest priced local
vendor.
B. Since the County will not be buying vehicles in such
mb they did last year, the possibility
ufi a price a largo number
ber rean as local vendors `due to quantity
may not be as great this time.
C. Mr.Mr Ron Phillips, Director of Public Works says that ' ^
a minimum h d uf problems with the maintenance
we have a bought of the vehicles we bu ht through State Contract '/
procedure last year.
48't /9)Mr , ��� c� ����
� ,
AGENDA ATTAGNmNT 13-A,
Orange County
Proposed
1981-82 Budget Ordinance
Amendment
The 1981-82 Budget Ordinance of Orange County as adopted on Juno
1981 and subsequently amended, is hereby amended as follows:
Increase
Fund - Item (Decrease) Total
Social Services - Permanency Plan - Personnel $ 1,893.00 $I0,907.00
Fund - Resource
Social Services - Permanency Plan - Grant 1,093.00 10,410.00
Adopted this the day of (2 , 1981.
"
488
�
�
�� ��� �� �� ` '-''
a '�'' "
AMNEaszTxoayENT 13-e.
Orange County
Proposed
1981-82 Project Ordinance
Amendment
The 1981-82 Project Ordinance of Orange as adopted on December 1,
1980 is hereby amended as follows:
Increase
Fund - Item (Decrease) Total
Community Development - Rehab 100,000,00 292,000,00
Community Development - Street Improvement (100,080-00) I70,000.0O
Adopted this the _94/ day of (/2-4J44.--s4- 11981,
p,1/'
AGENDA ATTACHMENT 14–C.
Orange County .
Commission For Women
131 Court Street Hillsborough:732.8181
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Chapel Hill:9614251
Mebane:227-2031 —Ext.282
Durham:688-=1
TO: County Manager's Office
Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Orange County Commission for Women
RE: Appointments
DATE: August 3, 1981
The Orange County Commission for Women would like to re-
quest that we be included on the County Commissioners
agenda on August 18th, 1981. Four vacancies remain on
the Orange County Commission for Women at this time. It
is crucial that these appointments be made immediately
so that new members will be able to attend the Board
Training Workshop scheduled for September 12 .
A member of the Commission will be present at the meeting
to assist in the appointment process. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
4 9 G
.,
AGENDA AITACHMENT 14---C.
1
"4"
-t )
pa ...„. _..
. t r
,
i
r
,... _.,
, ---) ,.......
I i
a._ r ..,..,) ,.. r
...____ . ..........
: , —"\
. ■,..,,,:e„„a{.,1..,-7 7, ,.- \—..'./\-01,--:-, -
-- (
—1 -, --,---
- . / ..i I I , '; \,.....• , --- ...,
A ,,,,,,,...„)....___ ...........-- ...,
, \ .,-• 4
/7
. ,
•,---
, • A---,, , -
,-- . . ., • . ,-...-- -. '''
r .4- , -, k ■--'-‘-‘ ' 1, i \- ' / ',--...-;-..-.,.,--.-'•--",_.. ' ,.
l e . (_,,,,(... ,.,, -3c.„._ ,„.
'",----' --,
-,........ - , ',..„,,,.,,_. 71
1 --
C ---x-,----
i
I ,
,, , i
0
.„..... ,,,..... ..„. , ,..„......-- -—
---"■ 1
SS i--
, 1 i
, .....,
...L__.,., ,......._,,,
,
..,
49j
/ad r
AGENDA ATTACEMENT 14-D.
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
106 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET ,
CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA .17514
August 13, 1981 Tetephone (919) 929.1111
Ms. Paulette Ponds
Clerk of County Commissioners
106 E. Margaret Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Ms. Ponds:
Attached please find the memorandum from Mr. Art Berger regarding the re-
commendation from the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment of Mr. Douglas Ludy to fill
the vacancy created by Ms. Ilse Sonner.
Please be sure that the Clerk's Office, Chapel Hill receives notification of appoint-
ment by the Board.
Sincerely,
A.4"-C212 d'Abl-4\6///
Brenda P. Cherry
Deputy Clerk
Town of Chapel Hill
AC1LNDA ATTACHMENT 14—D
A e, Ca",(-1 45C-C-CL/V1,61 /5C17 4is/e,..--Az
/-3„ / (
sy F1
l -ve Cc 9f-( /3c12 l et
ic`"4" n 1)0 ci V.
z - 3I 6.4-- a7,00 1;1 4 Ap-ak.,7
,41
/-0,-; 4 /-t-te_
e—cf1 r,c , Ice(51e,se,, '
v 74-
. /14, Tcx
yic
AGENDA ATTACHMENT 14-F
MEMO
TO: Paulette Pridgen-Pond
FRCM: Planning Department
RE: Planning Board tPrm of Dr. Logan Irvin
DATE: 8/20/81
The Orange County Planning Board term of Dr. Logan Irvin expired on
August 15, 1981. He has consented to be reappointed to the Planning
Board if the Board of Ccmnissioners wishes to do so.