HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-05-1990 ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990 ON ALL ABSTRACTS
7 : 30 P.M. AVAILABLE IN THE
OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE CLERK'S OFFICE.
HILLSBOROUGH, NC
I. BOARD COMMENTS
II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
IV. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead
of time so that you are not overlooked. )
B. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
PUBLIC CHARGE
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 person 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.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
(Any item may be removed for separate consideration)
A. Memo of Agreement Between Health Department and
Planned Parenthood
B. Weatherization Contract Awards
C. Tax Refunds Request
D. Real Property and Tax Lien Advertisement
E. Correction of Minutes 12-1-87
F. Rencher Street CDBG Financial Status Update
VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
A. Resolution Supporting Further Study of Regional
Light Rail.
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Distinguished Service Award--Anne Presnell
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. For Citizen Comments
1. 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan Public
Hearing
IX. REPORTS
A. Impervious Surface Standards for Watershed
Protection
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
A. Proposed Text Amendments--Interim Development
Standards
B. Sykes Glen, Phase 3--Preliminary Plan (Revised)
C. Durham Estates--Preliminary Plan
D. Tripp's Trailer Court--Partial Width Right-of-
Way
E. Employee Assistance Program Contract
F. Advertisement--February 26, 1990 Public Hearing
G. Advertisement--February 28, 1990 Public Hearing
H. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment--Article 20.7
Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment--Section
VII-D-4
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. MINUTES
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
(*) Indicates items that need immediate attention.
Approved: 3/5/90
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, February
5, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , Commissioners Stephen
Halkiotis, John Hartwell , Shirley E. Marshall , and Don Willhoit.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert
Kittrell and Ellen Liston, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Kathy Baker, Budget Officer Rod Visser, County Engineer Paul Thames, Budget/Management
Analyst Donna Wagner, Data Processing Manager Keith Brooks, Tax Assessor Kermit Lloyd,
Director of Personnel Addie Wright Turner, Health Director Dan Reimer, Systems Analyst
Jane Sparks, Programmer/Analyst Anne Presnell , Planner Mary Scearbo, Director of Revenue
Johnny Horner, and Planning Director Marvin Collins.
NOTE: Copies of all documents referred to in these minutes are in the permanent agenda
file in the Clerk's Office.
I. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Halkiotis thanked Commissioner Hartwell for accompanying him to Talmage
Stevenson property to gather data on a sewerage problem that has been going on since 1970.
Paul Thames who also attended will do a written report on the problem. This report will
also include recommendations for D.E.M. to carefully consider before they continue with
the installation of the proposed new treatment package plant at Carden's Mobile Home Park.
Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that D.E.M. and county government have been unable to
correct this problem.
Commissioner Hartwell indicated that there has been a clear miscarriage of
regulatory process in this case. The most current permit issued in 1987 allowed them to
continue to operate as they were. During this same time frame fines and enforcement
action were pending. It is clear that D.E.M. has not done the enforcement job that is
needed. The sand filter system has failed and the discharge of this system is not into a
perennial stream which is a requirement for permitting such systems. This has relevance
to the kind of regulations for community systems that are being considered by the County
at this time.
II. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
John Link stated that the staff's response to the County Commissioners'
retreat will be forwarded to the Commissioners within the next several days.
III. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
None.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A, MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Those in the audience who would like to speak to an item on the printed agenda will be
recognized at the time the item is being discussed.
B MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA
Tom Roberts, a Hillsborough resident, requested help from the County in determining what
the Public Service Company is planning for the County. They are actively surveying in the Northern
part of the county. Roberts indicated that the County Engineer had not been informed by the Public
Service Company as to their intentions even after he specifically requested that information.
Chairman Carey asked that the Board be advised at the next meeting of what is being planned
by the Public Service Company. Mr. Roberts will also be advised as to the findings.
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chairman Carey read the public charge.
V. ITEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve those
items on the Consent Agenda as listed below.
A. MEMO OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD
To renew an agreement between the Health Department and Planned Parenthood to continue
the implementation of the minority AIDS education project, "In The Know". This agreement is for
the period of October 1 , 1989 through June 30, 1990. The funds are not to exceed $14,200.00.
B. WEATHERIZATION CONTRACT AWARDS
To Award twelve (12) energy conservation improvements contracts for the County's Energy
Conservation Program as listed below:
DU 2 Taylor $7,870
DU 11 Hayes $5,540
DU 12 Hayes $4,950
DU 13 Hayes $2,950 (due to withdrawal)
DU 14 Taylor $5,650
DU 15 Taylor $5,400
DU 16 Morrow $5,305
DU 17 Hayes $4,850
DU 18 Morrow $4,645
DU 19 Morrow $2,875
DU 20 Taylor $4,400
DU 21 Taylor $5,950
C. TAX REFUNDS REQUEST
To approve the 10 requests for refund of tax bills listed below.
ACCOUNT # NAME AMOUNT
124915 Spransy, John $ 13.64
65006 Lakey, Steve 41 .28
136552 Bank, Dominion 76.38
87001929 Hughes, Stanley B. 34. 13
120219 Creative Credit 96.32
3
ACCOUNT # NAME AMOUNT
23294 Horne, Charles 24.22
110020 Eldred, Timothy 17.06
122372 World Omni Leasing 56.87
78092 Chansky, Arthur 364.75
D. REAL PROPERTY AND TAX LIEN ADVERTISEMENT
To report on the amount of current unpaid Real Property Taxes as of January 31 , 1990 and
to recommend the date of May 9, 1990 for the Tax Lien Advertisement. This is mandatory per General
Statute 105-369.
COUNTY $ 1 ,973,938.64
CHAPEL HILL 620,654.37
CARRBORO 119,820.88
HILLSBOROUGH 37,813.74
TOTAL $ 2,752,227.63
E. CORRECTION OF MINUTES 12-1-87
To approve the amendment to the Orange County Board of Commissioners December 1 , 1987
minutes on four amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance as presented by the County Attorney.
This amendment is incorporated herein by reference and may be found on pages of these
minutes.
F. RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE
To provide a quarterly status update to the Board of Commissioners on the Rencher Street
CDBG Program.
VI. RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
A. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FURTHER STUDY OF REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL,
The presentation was made by Gene Bell . The purpose of this presentation was to consider
a resolution forwarded by the Orange County Planning Board. The resolution asks that the N.C.
Secretary of Transportation consider the proposed light rail system as a reasonable alternative
to be studied and evaluated as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Raleigh and
Durham outer loops. The Resolution does not call for the implementation of the proposal , but that
it be studied as a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Jim Clark, President of "Save The Water" presented a petition with over 1000 names on it
which has been circulated in Orange County. The Carrboro Board of Alderman and the Orange County
Planning Board have both passed resolutions supporting this study. He stated that Falls Lake is
the sole source of drinking water for the City of Raleigh. The Little River reservoir and Lake
Mickie are the two primary sources for the City of Durham. The headwaters area north of Orange
County is also very important. The Department of Transportation has proposed outer loops for North
Durham and for Raleigh. These loops will enter the heart of the watershed. He stated that this
is a 1950's transportation philosophy applied to the 21st Century. He suggested that an
alternative to this ever increasing system of loops would be to use the existing right-of-way for
the rail lines to form an efficient mass transit system. This system would be called the Triangle
Express. This system is expandable so that after Phase I was completed and in operation a larger
service area could be reached through expansion. Hillsborough, Roxboro and Wake Forrest could be
tied into the system after the Durham, Chapel Hill , and Raleigh area section was completed. The
initial Phase would consist of 16 stations with most of the high traffic areas being served,
including the airport, RTP, the stadiums, and the downtown areas. Actually this proposal would
achieve more transportation goals than the two outer loops because they would only serve the
4
northern parts of Wake and Durham counties. The cost for this system would be about 1/2 of the
750 million projected for the loops; the drinking water supply and air supply would not be
affected. Federal law requires that D.O.T. do environmental studies and that they study "all
reasonable alternatives". This has been presented as a reasonable alternative. He indicated that
the newly formed Triangle Transit Authority was being encouraged to undertake its own feasibility
study.
In response to a question from Commissioner Marshall , Mr. Clark indicated that although it may
be necessary to expand the existing right-of-way, that would be much preferred to purchasing right-
of-way through existing neighborhoods which is what D.O.T. will need to do for the proposed loops.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis about inducements to encourage people to
ride the rail and the number of riders that would be needed daily to make it cost effective, Clark
stated that the funding threshold by the Urban Mass Transit Authority was 50,000 trips a day which
was close to what it is now. A first class system with secure stations and coordinating fleets
of vans and taxi 's that would shuttle people to their destination would be needed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to adopt the
resolution as stated below and forward it to the N.C. Secretary of Transportation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports the development and promotion of public
transportation to supplement the continued construction of highways and improvement of North
Carolina's transportation system.
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes that the increasingly urbanized and
integrated nature of this Region requires regional cooperation in order to provide an adequate and
efficient transportation system for Triangle residents;
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has approved plans for the development of outer
loops for the Raleigh and Durham metropolitan areas; and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly acknowledged the need for the development of high
occupancy vehicle and mass transportation alternatives such as rail service and allows for NCDOT
to spend up to $5 million from the Highway Trust Fund each year for this purpose;
NOW THEREFORE, the Orang County Board of Commissioners recommends that:
- The Secretary of Transportation consider the Triangle Express Rail Proposal a reasonable
alternative to be studied and evaluated as part of the legally required Environmental Impact
Statement on the programmed Raleigh and Durham Outer Loop projects;
- AND, that the Triangle J Council of Governments Regional Transportation Committee and the
Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority work together to evaluate the
Triangle Express Proposal ;
- AND, that the Governor's Rail Passenger Task Force also review this proposal as an integral part
of future rail passenger service in North Carolina.
5
VII. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD--ANNE PRESNELL
The presentation was made by Dan Reimer. The purpose of this presentation was to
recognize Anne Presnell for her outstanding service to North Carolina Public Health. At the 1989
Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Public Health Association a distinguished service award was
presented to Anne Presnell as the individual who has made a significant contribution to Public
Health who is not employed in the Public Health sector. This award was received for the
development of a model Health Services Information System Software Package that has been used by
Health Departments across the state.
VIII.PUBLIC HEARING
A. For Citizen Comments
1. 1990-95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
The Capital Improvement Plan was presented by Rod Visser. The purpose of this
Public Hearing was to receive public comments concerning the Capital Improvement Plan for 1990-
1995. This public hearing allowed citizens the opportunity to provide written and oral comments
concerning the five year capital needs for Education, Public Buildings and Equipment, Public
Safety, Public Works, Recreation and Parks, and Water and Land Resources.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the communications tower and asked if the plan was to
add onto the existing fire service tower. Visser indicated that that was one option. However,
moving to another location is also being considered.
In response to comments from Commissioner Willhoit, John Link indicated that the amount of
funding for future land acquisitions was intentionally vague. It could be property the
Commissioners decided to acquire around a reservoir over and above what may be purchased through
the bond, or for recreation purposes or public building needs.
Chairman Carey inquired about the school capital funding that the State approved. Visser
indicated that those funds were included in pay-as-you-go funding and currently stands at
approximately Two (2) Million Dollars.
THERE WERE NO FURTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to close the
Public Hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the
Capital Improvement Plan for 1990-1995.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
IX. REPORTS
A. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANPARDS FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item is to present a
report outlining the applicability of recommended impervious surface standards for University Lake
Watershed. In October, 1989, the Board of Commissioners adopted interim development standards for
University Lake watershed. Specific concerns were raised at the November, 1989 public hearing
involving the applicability of the proposed four percent impervious surface ratio in conjunction
with the five-acre minimum lot size. The same concern has been raised about the six percent ratio
as applied to two-acre lots.
Commissioner Marshall stated that most of the people would not be using the total six percent.
It would only be those people using the total six percent who would run into the problem of being
told that they had reached the limit of impervious surface. Only a small number of people would
have that problem.
Chairman Carey stated that he liked the idea of a sliding scale which would eliminate some of
the unfairness of a person having 1/10 of an acre too little.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that his understanding was that going to six percent would be
acceptable if special attention was paid to how things were laid out on the lot.
Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that he and Paul Thames went to Lake Orange and it was apparent
that the thinking of the people was different when the lake was built. It would not be built that
way today. There are homes that come right to the water and the septic tanks are right there at
the lake. He pointed out that many people today still feel that the Lake Orange model is just
fine. He asked if other areas that are under similar water restrictions were studied to come up
with the current model?
Ed Holland indicated that data was collected from a variety of land use types. The assumption
was that if this is what the watershed looks like in 30 years, this is the kind of run off that
will be produced. That is the basis for the model .
Craig Burch, a resident of Orange County, illustrated how he believed settlement ponds could
solve the problems of runoff in the watershed.
Mr. Link indicated that the recommendation contained in this report is one that both he and Mr.
Gledhill agree. Going to the six percent impervious surface ratio and requiring further
development standards of the developer is a way to protect the watershed and provide some
flexibility to the property owner.
Bill Burch mentioned that the guidelines from a N.C. Department of Environmental Management and
Water Quality study shows two types of areas in the watershed. One of them at the critical point
and the other one upstream and not so critical . According to these guidelines the critical point
would require four percent impervious surface and two acre lots. Outside of the water critical
area may exceed six percent by developing several settlement ponds and then increasing to as high
as 35% impervious surface. He suggested raising the four percent ratio and going back to the two
acre tract. He also suggested using washed rock on the roads to filter the runoff. He believes
that gravel roads should not be included in the impervious surface ratio.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the origin of the figures mentioned above go back several
years. Those guidelines were based on Falls of the Neuse and Jordan watersheds which are large
7
watersheds. University Lake has a small watershed and the entire watershed is considered to be
a critical area. He also mentioned that the CDM report indicated that the recommended five acre
minimum was probably more severe than would be recommended for other watersheds.
Ed Holland indicated that the important aspect of the University Lake watershed that requires
the five acres is the size of University Lake watershed itself.
X. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
A. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS--INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider
proposed amendments to the interim development standards applicable in University Lake watershed.
The proposed amendments, if adopted, would provide more flexibility in the administration and
application of the current standards contained in Article 6. 15.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Section IV-C-2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
In March, 1989, the Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study was issued by Camp, Dresser,
McKee (CDM). Orange County subsequently adopted interim development standards for the watershed
for a six-month period, including a five-acre minimum lot size where more than five lots are
created. OWASA also continued its moratorium on water and sewer extensions into the watershed.
The Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group reviewed the study and provided recommended watershed
protection strategies to its constituent jurisdictions. In October the Work Group completed a
proposed agreement on University Lake watershed protection and circulated it to the respective
governing boards for comment and adoption. The proposed agreement included several provisions
which, if implemented, would provide greater flexibility in the interim development standards by
addressing potential hardships experienced by landowners in the watershed.
The current standards require each lot to be at least five acres in size. The proposed
standards would allow the subdivision to be approved, provided all other non-watershed standards
were met.
The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on November 27, 1989. While many
comments were received, those persons in opposition focused almost exclusively on the five-acre
minimum lot size requirement adopted on October 2, 1989.
A specific concern raised at the hearing involved the applicability of the proposed four percent
impervious surface ratio in conjunction with the five-acre minimum lot size. The same concern was
voiced about the six percent ratio as applied to two-acre lots.
At the December 12, 1989 Planning Board meeting the Planning Director was requested to present
additional information to address the potential hardships resulting from the inability of citizens
to comply with the proposed ratios.
At the January 9, 1990 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Director presented a more in-depth
analysis of lot-by-lot development scenarios using the four percent and six percent ratios. He
indicated that compliance with the four percent ratio was feasible (60 percent compliance) but
would require significant education and design initiatives The proposed six percent ratio was of
greater concern, since only 30 percent of the lot scenarios indicated compliance with the standard.
At the Planning Board's request, the Planning Director presented various options utilizing
technical solutions which would allow the raising of the impervious surface limits. The options
provided a mechanism to comply with recommended impervious surface ratios and included the
following.
1 . Accept the CDM recommended standards;
2. Increase the impervious surface ceiling;
3. Discount unpaved road surfaces;
4. Discount all unpaved surfaces, such as roads, driveways, and sidewalks;
5. Establish design standards which assure compliance such as a maximum permitted driveway
length;
6. Increase the minimum required lot size requirement; and
7. Require compliance with a four percent impervious surface ratio and a density standard
of one unit per five acres but permit a minimum lot size of two acres.
Following consideration of the various options, the Planning Board voted to recommend approval
of the proposed revisions to the revised interim development standards with the following change
to Article 6. 15.2 a.3.a. ) of the Zoning Ordinance:
a) Basic Requirements: In the University Lake water supply watershed, lot size averaging
is a it d ro id d the overall residential density for any development application
s al not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres, no lot shall be less than two acres
in size = d o more t an i ve two-ac a ots a •e rested =s 'art of an de e l o•,,,.At
application. except as permitted under subsection b) or c).
An identical change was recommended for Section IV-C-2 a.3.a) of the Subdivision Regulations.
While still recognizing the difficulty of complying with the recommended impervious limits, the
Planning Board felt that "averaging" provided the greatest flexibility for property owners.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the
proposed amendments per the Planning Boards recommendation as amended.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
B. SYKES GLEN. PHASE 3--PRELIMINARY PLAN (REVI ED
The presentation was made by Emily Crudup. The purpose of this item was to consider a
revision to the preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3.
The property is located in Bingham Township on the east side of Oak Grove Church Road (SR 1117)
0.3 mile north of the intersection with Vernon Road (SR 1118). The total acreage of the tract is
74.03 acres. It is zoned Agricultural Residential and Protected Watershed II (Cane Creek).
The original preliminary plan was approved for twenty-two (22) lots to be served by new public
roads, and by individual wells and septic tanks. Lot sizes range from 2.0 acres to 5. 12 acres.
On May 1 , 1989, the Board of Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for Phase 3 of Sykes Glen
with 6 conditions:
1. Add to note #4 that septic tanks and wells are also prohibited in the stream buffer.
2. Re-align the entrance road to provide a 90 degree intersection with SR 1117.
3. Dedicate 10' x 70' sight triangles at all intersections.
4. Adjust the 30' drainage easements shown on lots 4 and 7 to follow existing swales.
5. When the entrance road is re-aligned, combine the resultant strip of land on the north
side of the new right-of-way with lot 16.
6. Delete the plat note stating "A 2' strip will be left between the Road R/W and Property
of Jonathan Sykes".
9
The intent of condition #5 was to prohibit connecting the resultant strip of land with lot 1
on the opposite side of the road, to be consistent with Section IV-B-5-e of the Subdivision
Regulations. The owners have decided to create a common area to be dedicated to the Homeowners
Association for entrance landscaping and signage. Restrictive covenants have been prepared which
include provisions for an assessment to be used for maintenance of the common area.
Since condition #5 specifically required a combination with lot 16 creating open space, it is
subject to approval by the County Commissioners as a revision to the preliminary plan. The owners'
alternative plan is consistent with the intent of condition #5, since the strip of land will not
be combined with lot one.
The other five conditions of approval have been met.
The revised preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3, was presented to the Planning Board on
January 16, 1990. The Planning Board recommended approval with the following conditions.
1. On sheet one, label the 30' drainage easement which crosses lots eight and seven.
2. Revise sheet one to include the square footage of the open space and label it as "Property
of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, Homeowners Association, Inc."
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to approve the
revised preliminary plan of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, as per the Planning Board and Administration's
Recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
C. DURHAM ESTATES--PRELIMINARY PLAN
This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. The purpose of this item was to consider the
Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates Subdivision.
The property is located in Chapel Hill Township along Dairyland Road (SR 1112). W. T. Durham
is proposing a subdivision with 10 lots to be created from a 60-acre tract. The property is zoned
Rural Buffer (RB), and Protected Watershed (PW-II - University Lake). The Land Use Plan
designation is Rural Buffer and Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses include Phase IV of Laurel
Springs Subdivision, other single family residential lots, and undeveloped land.
The subdivision will be served by Dairyland Road, Creekstone Drive (public) in Laurel Springs
subdivision and a Class B private road which is proposed to serve 4 lots on the north side of
Dairyland Road. Individual wells and septic tanks are proposed. The average lot size is 5.38
acres and the smallest lot size proposed is 3.59 acres. There is a total of 2.60 acres proposed
for recreation /open space.
A 1988 traffic count on Dairyland Road indicated 3,300 vehicles per day.
The Orange County Health Department located a suitable area on each lot for a septic disposal.
OWASA has indicated that the proposal conforms to the major recommendations of the Camp, Dresser
& McKee University Lake Watershed Protection Study. The North Carolina Department of
1 Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has
indicated that the subdivision meets stormwater management requirements. An erosion control plan
must be submitted and approved prior to road construction. Carrboro recommended that all septic
10
and well areas be located on each lot and shown on the plans. They also recommended that lots 7,
8 and 9 receive access from the road in Laurel Springs Subdivision. This has been added as a
condition on the Resolution of Approval. The Recreation and Parks Department has indicated that
the 2.6 acres offered for dedication as public open space/recreation exceeds the acreage required.
The Concept Plan for Durham Estates was approved by the Planning Board on October 16, 1989 with
the following condition:
1 . Lot #10 must contain a minimum of 5.0 acres in order to comply with interim development
standards for Watershed Development. If development standards are revised to allow lot
*10 to remain 3.60 acres, this may be reflected on the final plat.
The Preliminary Plan was approved by the Planning Board on January 16, 1990 with the following
condition: Amend D1 in the Resolution for Approval to read as follows:
The applicant shall dedicate and deed to Orange County 2.6 acres of parkland located
along Morgan Creek as shown in a cross hatch pattern on the Preliminary Plan. The
applicant shall also dedicate a 60 foot wide parkland easement along Morgan Creek
extending from the 2.6 acres described above to Dairyland Road (SR 1112).
Also recommended for approval was a revision to the Interim Development Standards to allow for
lot size averaging. The latter proposal was considered by the Commissioners as a separate agenda
item.
Mr. Mark O'Neill , of Flat Rivers Properties and representing Mr. Durham, pointed out that this
parcel of property is unusual in that it has a lot of road frontage. This gave Mr. Durham an
opportunity to create five acre lots without constructing a large number of public roads, and
therefore did not hurt him economically. He also mentioned that the four percent impervious
surface ratio is already becoming an issue in marketing efforts. The public is indicating that
this is a concern. Some of these homeowners will own horses and will be putting barns on their
property. He is assuring potential homeowners that the 4% impervious surface excludes gravel
driveways.
Commissioner Willhoit asked what the affect would be on a subdivision approved under the current
standards if the ordinance is changed and gravel roads are considered impervious.
Mr. Link indicated he understands that six percent including gravel roads as impervious surface 1
and lot sizes of five acres minimum is basically the same regulations as presently in place with
the interim standards.
County Attorney Geoff Gledhill mentioned that lot standards are not typically part of the review
process. They are established by the ordinance. The landowner does not acquire an invested right
when the property is purchased and the lot standards may change from time to time. If a property
owner buys a lot this week and gets his building permit 10 years from now he will have to comply
with the zoning regulations in effect at the time the permit is issued. Legislators cannot resolve
this issue. The Board of Adjustment's function is to deal with unique situations and attempt to
resolve them.
Commissioner Hartwell pointed out that Collins was advocating, and possibly requiring, that the
impervious surface restrictions be delineated on the plat.
Gledhill indicated that Collins mentioned that as a possibility. That has not been decided.
11
The Planned Development Special Use permit is the means of dealing with those kinds of lot by lot
conditions.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the
Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates Subdivision as recommended by the Administration.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. TRIPP'S TRAILER COURT--PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. The purpose of this item was to consider a
request by Victor Tripp for a reduction in right-of-way width from 50 feet to 25 feet.
On July 14, 1989, the Planning Staff approved a Minor Subdivision Concept Plan for the Tripp's
Trailer Court property. The subdivision is located on the west side of Orange Grove Road between
Teer Road and NC 54. The total lot size is 4.33 acres. A Class C private road about 450 feet in
length is proposed along the northern boundary of the property. An existing well , which will serve
both lots, is located about 25 feet from the property line within Lot 2. A mobile home is located
on Lot 2. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 25 feet is needed to exclude the well from
the private road right-of-way. Staff can identify no reasonable alternative to the proposed
location of the road. The Planning Board recommended approval of the partial width right-of-way
on January 16, 1990 but indicated that administrative approval of a flag lot may have been
preferable in this situation.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve a
partial width right-of-way of 25 feet for Nightmare Lane.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
E. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT
This presentation was made by Addie Turner. The purpose of this item was to provide
information on an Employee Assistance Program for Orange County employees, dependents and retirees
through a contract with Human Affairs International. The primary purposes of the EAP will be 1)
to enhance existing health and safety programs for Orange County employees, 2) to strengthen Orange
County's compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 and 3) to position Orange County for
more vigorous management of health care costs as they move into the 1990's. Research on existing
EAP's have shown employers will get a return of 3 times their cost. The Town of Chapel Hill , Town
of Cary, Northern Telecom, IBM, Honeywell and Mitsibushi are included in the list of organizations
which currently contract with Human Affairs to provide Employee Assistance Programs to their
employees. Employee Assistance Programs strive to reduce health care costs by assisting employees
in 1) more effective use of their health care benefits, and 2) more cost-effective use of health
care benefits. In addition, EAP's provide a further benefit to employees, thereby improving
employee morale.
Mr. Link indicated that a benefit of this program is that they will be there to help Orange
County employees in a crisis as well as help them access the services they need on a more long term
basis.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the
contract with Human Affairs International for the period beginning February 6, 1990 through June
30, 1990 at a cost of $3,457.90.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
F. ADVERTISEMENT--FEBRUARY 26, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider
the legal notice and items for discussion. The regularly scheduled quarterly public hearing will
be held on February 26, 1990. The Board of Commissioners reviews notices of public hearing for
form and content prior to advertisement. The Board also reviews proposals to be considered at
public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the
Notice of Public Hearing for February 26, 1990.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
G. ADVERTISEMENT---FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING
This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. The purpose of this item was to consider
setting February 28, 1990 as the date for a Joint Planning Public Hearing and to consider the legal
notice and items for discussion. The purpose of the hearing is to receive public comment on
proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement, and the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. The amendments, if adopted,
would implement strategies for the protection of University Lake watershed.
Discussion ensued and it was decided to advertise for the Public Hearing on February 28, 1990.
It was also decided to call another meeting of the Intergovernmental Work Group before the public
hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall , seconded by Commissioner Hartwell to recommend that
February 28, 1990 be set as the date for a Joint Planning public hearing to consider proposed
protection measures for University Lake watershed.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
H. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT--ARTICLE 20,7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT--
SECTION VII-D-4
This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. The purpose of this item was to consider
proposed amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances establishing guidelines by which
information received after the advertised date of a public hearing may be considered by the
Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. Evidence received at a public hearing becomes part
of the public record and is considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Unless a
hearing is specifically held open by the Board of Commissioners, new information or evidence
submitted by staff, other departments or agencies, or the public cannot be considered without
readvertising and conducting an additional hearing. The proposed amendment would allow for
information received after the public hearing date to be considered, if it is presented in writing,
and it is made available to the Planning Board prior to its recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners. On October 16, 1989, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed
amendment, with provisions that testimony introduced after initial date of the public hearing be
in written form. The amendment was further revised to specify that no new information will be
considered by the Board of Commissioners in making its decision unless that information was
available to the Planing Board at the time of its recommendation.
Commissioner Carey stated that this is a reasonable way to add some flexibility in what is
considered after the Public Hearing but limits it to things that are submitted in writing to the
Planning Board before they make their recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
A motion was made by Chairman Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to approve the proposed
amendment per the Planning Board recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
, -. ,
13
XI. APPOINTMENTS
The following appointments were duly approved by the Board.
ARTS COMMISSION - Katherine Nelson and William Hannah
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - Jean Hamilton and Dan Eddleman
XII. MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell , seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the
January 6, 1990 minutes as corrected.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the
January 8, 1990 minutes as circulated.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
XIII.EXECUTIVE SESSION
None.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With no further items to be considered, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next
regular meeting will be held on February 20, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the old Post
Office in Chapel Hill , N.C.
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. V /g
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1990 Page 1
SUBJECT: Memo of Agreement Between Health Department and. Planned Parenthood
DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311
Three page agreement
Budget (copy) TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: This memorandum renews the agreement between the Health Department
and Planned Parenthood to continue the implementation of the
minority AIDS education project, "In the Know". This agreement is
for the period of October 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990. The funds
are not to exceed $14,200.00.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Health Department was one of five in North
Carolina to receive a grant to carry out the project indicated
above. The proposal indicated that a portion of the project be
subcontracted to Planned Parenthood through its "Natural Helpers"
program. Sufficient funds are available through the grant project
ordinance approved 12/19/89. No county funds are required.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the attached agreement and authorize the
chair to sign.
Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This memorandum confirms the agreement between the Orange
County Health Department (OCHD) and Planned Parenthood of
Orange County (PPOC) to implement the minority AIDS education
project "In The Know" . This agreement is for the period
October 1 , 1989 through June 30 , 1990 .
A. PPOC will provide the following services:
1 . The Natural Helpers Project Coordinator will meet
with the OCHD "In The Know" Advisory Board. The
Board will help provide community support for the
project, identify potential Natural Helpers, and
review AIDS-related educational materials.
2 . PPOC will continue to train and supervise Natural
Helpers to provide information about AIDS and family
planning issues.
3 . An additional group of helpers will be trained in
Orange County on issues related to teen pregnancy
and AIDS by June 30 , 1990. At least five minority
helpers will be trained.
4 . PPOC will provide at least five community AIDS
education programs.
5 . PPOC Natural Helpers will provide information about
and referrals for AIDS to approximately 200
community members by June 30, 1990.
B. All volunteers trained by PPOC will be supervised by the
PPOC Natural Helpers Project Coordinator. This
supervision will include personal visits, contact by,
telephone, and monitoring of volunteer reports.
C. The OCHD Clerk will provide secretarial support to the
Program. This will include production and distribution
of the Natural Helpers newsletter, notification of
meetings and distribution of the monthly calendar to
Helpers, preparing materials for training, and
tabulating and typing of reports.
Page 3
D. PPOC will provide quarterly reports to the OCHD on
progress toward meeting objectives and expenses
incurred. These reports will be due to OCHD on April
15, July 15, and October 15 . The format of the reports
will be consistent with the reports required by the
Division of Health Services. OCHD will file reports
with the Division of Health Services.
E. OCHD agrees to pay PPOC for services provided under the
term of this contract. Total compensation will not
exceed $14,200 ( see attached budget) .
Compensation will be made in the following manner:
1 . For the first quarter: Upon execution of this
agreement, OCHD will make payment to PPOC of one-
quarter of the funds budgeted for the year.
2 . For the second and third quarters: One-quarter of
the funds budgeted for the year adjusted by over
(under) expenditures reported for the previous
quarters will be paid by the last day of the first
month of the quarter.
Any refund due OCHD for unexpended funds during the
period of this agreement will be refunded by PPOC before
July 30, 1990 .
F. Any media material must be submitted to the Executive
Director of PPOC and to the Director of OCHD prior to
release to the public.
G. This agreement may be modified upon mutual agreement of
the OCHD and PPOC. All modifications must be in writing
and signed by the parties to this agreement.
H. Either party may terminate this agreement by giving 30
days written notice to the other party. In the event of
termination, PPOC will be paid an amount which bears the
ratio to the total compensation as the services actually
performed bear to the total services of PPOC covered by
this agreement.
I . Both parties agree to abide by all laws and regulations
regarding the confidentiality of patient information.
J. PPOC agrees to abide by the standards contained in the
Consolidated Contract between the State of North
Carolina and OCHD or to provide such information as to
allow OCHD to comply with these standards.
Page 4
K. PPOC agrees to provide professional liability coverage for
its staff and volunteers for the activities funded by this
contract.
L. Karen Price is designated the PPOC contact person and
Eileen Kugler is designated as the OCHD contact person
with responsibility for matters relating to this
agreement.
Agreed:
Executive Director, PPOC' , Date
President, PPOC Date
Director, OCHD Date
•
Finance Director, OCHD Date
(This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required
by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. )
Chair of the Board of Commissioners Date
OCHD
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No._ ta
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Weatherization Contract Awards
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
Results of Bid Opening
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To award twelve ( 12) energy conservation improvements
contracts for the County's Energy Conservation Program.
BACKGROUND: The County is participating in the N.C. Housing Finance
Agency Energy Conservation and Housing Rehabilitation
Program to provide energy conservation improvements to
targeted homes in the County. Eligible improvements include
the installation of storm windows, storm doors, insulation
and heating equipment . Twelve homes have been identified as
needing conservation improvements.
The Housing and Community Development Department solicited
bids from qualified housing rehabilitation contractors
participating in the County's Housing Rehabilitation
Program. Sealed bids were received from three contractors
on January 10 and January 30, 1990 and were opened on these
days respectively. Bid results are attached.
Present program procedures provide that all housing
rehabilitation contracts be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder. Staff recommends that these contracts
be awarded based on this criteria.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Approve award of twelve energy conservation improvements
contracts to the lowest bidder as denoted on the attached
bid tabulation sheet .
N
WEATHERIZATION BID TABULATION - JANUARY 1990
r'
DO 2 DU 11 DU 12 DU 13 DU 14 DU 15 DU 16 DU 17 DU 18 DU 19 DU 20 DU 21
COMPANY
HAYES $8700 *$5540 *$4950 **$2950 $6600 $5900 $5965 *$4850 $5555 $3995 $5550 $7400
MORROW $10015 $6905 $5645 $2995 $6310 $5815 *$5305 $5505 *$4645 *$2875 $4445 $6820
TAYLOR *$7870 $6375 $5600 *$2550 *$5650 *$5400 $6100 $5400 $5700 $3650 *$4400 *$5950
DU a DWELLING UNIT
* LOW BIDDER
** LOW BIDDER. DUE TO BID WITHDRAWAL
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. 1/-L
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Tax Refunds Request
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
Tax Supervisor
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Individual Request TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill -- 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To consider 10 request for refund of tax bills.
•
BACKGROUND: General Statutes 105-381 (b)
Action of Governing Body - Upon receiving a taxpayers written statement
of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the
Taxing Unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine •
whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part
thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount
that is determined to be in excess of the current liability or notify
the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Board approve request for refund of tax bills:
ACCT # 124915
TRACT #
MAP
BILL # 8965313
C John3 Spransy
c/o A.C. Williams
3410 E. Oak Drive
Durham, NC 27712
C ]
COMMENT: Mr. Spransy mistakenly listed the wrong year for his mobile home for
1988 and 1989 (bill #8965313). Should have been a 1974, 12 x 60 Crim,
not a 1977, 12 x 60 Crim. Value should be $3,870, not $4,500 for
1989 and $4,030 not $5,030 for 1988.
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through clerical error.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 and 1989 tax overpayment
1988 Valuation $1 ,000 1989 Valuation $630
GO $6.45 GO $4.47
FD .52 FD .33
Late List 1.39 Late List .48
$5.28 Total Refund $13.64
$8.36
•
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
•
•
3
ACCT # 650 6
TRACT # 100737
MAP 13A. .3
BILL # 8834002
Steve M. Lakey
& Barbara J.
7105 New Sharon Church Rd.
Rougemont, NC 27572
COMMENT: A 1986 custom trailer (YIN 1DHB3AU2) was listed for 1988. This trailer
was matched with a value of $6,390. Per phone call and attached letter
the trailer is only a boat trailer. The trailer was overpriced. The
value on a boat trailer should be $400.00
REF: G.S. 105-381(1)(a)a. A tax imposed through clerical error.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1988.
Valuation $5,990
GO $38.64
FH 2.64
$41.28
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
ACCT # 136552 4
TRACT #
MAP
BILL # 891574
C ]
Dominion Bank
P.O. Box 12904
Roanoke, VA 24029
C ]
COMMENT: Refund overpayment for 1989. Listed 1986 Subaru in both Orange County
and Durham County. Should have been listed in Durham County.
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1989.
Valuation $5,240
GO $37.20
G2 29.87
CH 9.31
$76.38
•
•
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
ACCT # A7fC11 Q2Q 5
TRACT #
MAP
BILL # 8750918
C ]
Stanley B. Hughes
Rt 2, Box 247
Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
C
COMMENT: Owner was living and paid taxes in Person County for 1987.
Wages were garnished in the amount of $34.14. Taxpayer
requests refund for 1987 in the amount of $34.14
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax on 1979' Ford Trk. $3190.
GO 19.33
FH 1.'24
Late List 2.05
Interest 3.51 i
Garnishment 8.00
Fee
$34.13
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
•
•
1
ACCT # 12(1919
TRACT #
Y
MAP
BILL # _ 841344
Creative Credit Services
P.O. Box 310
Barrington, IL 60011
COMMENT: Incorrect rate code used, in billing. Should have been rate code 08,
not rate code 22.
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through clerical error.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1989
Rate Code 22 Rate Code 08 $201.86
- 105.54
GO $98.33 `GO $98.33
CH 24.58 FD $ 7.21 % 96.32 Total Refund
G1 78.95
$201.86 $105.54
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
•
ACCT
23294 7
TRACT # 713261
MAP 7.78..31 A
BILL # 8922846
[ 1
Charles H. Horne, Jr.
Rt 7, Box 152
Durham, NC 27707
[ J
COMMENT: Incorrect rate code used in billing. Should have been rate code 08,
not rate code 22.
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)a. A tax imposed through clerical error.
ACTION REQUESTED: REfund tax overpayment for 1989.
Rate Code 22 Rate Code 08
GO $24.73 GO $24.73 $50.76
G2 19.85 FD 1 .81 -26.54
CH 6.18
$50.76
$26.54 $24.22 Total Refund
.RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
ACCT #
110020 8
TRACT # 732064
MAP 7.118E. .17
BILL # $917884
[ ]
Timothy B. Eldred
& Gwen 1 . Edlred
107 Mel Oaks Dr.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
[ ]
COMMENT: Taxpayer listed a 1984 VW in error; should have listed as a 1982 VW
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund tax overpayment for 1989
Valuation: $1770
GO $12.57
FL 1.35
CH 3.14
$17.06
-RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
•
•
_ r
9
ACCT # 122372
TRACT #
MAP
BILL # 23962
World Omni Leasing, Inc.
120 N.W. 12th Ave.
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
[ ]
COMMENT: Listed 1986 Toyota Corolla in both Orange County and Alamance
County. Should have been listed in Alamance County.
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1988 tax overpayment
Valuation = $8425
GO $54.34
FB 2.53
$56.87
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
•
•
10 :
ACCT # 78092
TRACT # 713985
MAP 7.25A.A.30
BILL # 8912753
Arthur K. Chansky
114 Kirkwood Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
3
COMMENT: 1988 Mercedes 190E listed by both the lessee and lessor. Should
have been listed by leasing company.,
REF: G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax.
ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1989 tax overpayment
Valuation $22,750
GO $161.53
LL 33.16
G2 129.68
CH 40.38
$364.75
.RECOMMENDATION: Approve
ORDER:
DATE:
r
ORANGE COUNTY l
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. V-0
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5 , 1990
SUBJECT:
Unpaid Real Property and Tax Lien Advertisement
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes __ No
Revenue
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
John T. Horner Ext 432
1 attachment to follow
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough -- 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE:
1- To report the amount on current unpaid Real Property Taxes
as of January 31, 1990.
2- To recommend the date for the Tax Lien Advertisement.
BACKGROUND:
Mandatory per General Statute 105-369
On the first Monday in February in each year, each County Tax
Collector and on the second Monday in February in each year,
each Municipal Tax Collector shall report to the governing body
the total amount of unpaid taxes for the current fiscal year
that are liens on real property, and the governing body shall -
therefore order the Tax Collector to advertise such tax liens .
For the purpose of this section, district taxes collected by
County Tax Collectors shall be regarded as county taxes and
district taxes collected by Municipal Tax Collectors shall be
regarded as municipal taxes .
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of County Commissioners accept this report and
set the Tax Lien Advertisement date of May 9 , 1990 . •
2
DATE: February 1, 1990
TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: John T. Horner, Director of Revenue
SUBJECT: Unpaid Real Property Taxes and Tax Lien
Advertisement
The Orange County Department of Revenue reports the
following unpaid taxes that are liens on all Real
Property for the year 1989 .
COUNTY $ 1 ,973 ,938. 64
CHAPEL HILL $ 620 ,654. 37
CARRBORO $ 119 , 820 . 88
HILLSBOROUGH $ 37 ,813 . 74
TOTAL $ 2 , 752,227. 63
vimmmmw
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Ag enda
Item No. V-E
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
, Meeting Date: February 5, 1990
SUBJECT: CORRECTION TO THE DECEMBER 1, 1987 MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X
ATTACHMENT(S) : YES INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To determine the intent of the Board on four amendments to the
Animal Control Ordinance.
BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987 the Board considered four changes to the
Animal Control Ordinance. The minutes reflect that these amendments were
referred back to the Health Board and not approved. There is no record of
these amendments being approved by the Board. The County Attorney has
reviewed these minutes and recommends an amendment to the minutes to
reflect the true intent of the Board's action. That amendment is attached
to this agenda abstract.
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Approve the amendment to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners' December 1, 1987 minutes as presented by the County
Attorney.
AMENDMENT TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DECEMBER 1, 1987 MINUTES
7 . ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE CHANGES
Beverly Whitehead made the presentation. The Board of
Health recommended four changes to the Animal Control Ordinance.
These changes are listed below:
( 1) No animals should be exempted from the Ordinance.
(2) Change the designation of Non-Commercial Kennels to
Class I Kennels and define it as follows . Any
person maintaining an establishment where animals
of any species, excluding domesticated livestock,
are kept for the purpose of showing, competition,
hunting or sport, and which establishment is so
constructed that animals cannot stray therefrom,
and which maintains six ( 6) to nineteen ( 191
animals .
(3) Change the designation of Commercial Kennels to
Class II Kennels and define it as follows . Any
person maintaining an establishment where animals
of any species, excluding domesticated livestock,
are kept for the purpose of breeding, buying,
selling or boarding such animals or engaged in the
training of dogs for guard or sentry purposes, and
which establishment is so constructed that the
animals cannot stray therefrom; or any person owning
or keeping twenty (201 or more animals, excluding
domesticated livestock, each of which is four months
of age or older.
(4) Change Section XIX (Kennel Standards) #13 to read
as follows:
Provisions shall be made for the removal and
disposal of animal and food waste, bedding and
debris .
Several citizens spoke in opposition to the
recommendation. George Maynard asked for another recommendation
exempting sportsmen who keep dogs to hunt. He opposed having to
apply for a Kennel' s License. Octavious Tate noted he owned
fifteen dogs and cannot afford to pay $15 . 00 per animal. Willard
Ward commented on the makeup of the committee that made the above
recommendation. He made reference to a letter from Tony Laws which
stated that exemptions may be allowed as long as it does not alter
the intent of the Ordinance. Ward asked that hunting dogs be
exempted from the Ordinance.
Commissioner Halkiotis expressed concern that if the fee
for registering dogs is too high that not all animals will be
registered. He proposed a fee of $15 . 00 for each of the first
three unneutered or unspayed animals in a household with the fee
for each additional animal set at $5 . 00 with no limit.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that the process used by
ample Board pp t Health r citizen input.the The Board of H Health expressed
ample opportunity
f.
concern about the cost implications of these changes and therefore
set the level for the two different designations of kennels.
Chair Marshall suggested postponing a decision on the
recommendations until the December 15, 1987 Board of Commissioners
meeting in order to get additional Health Board input. She asked
whether this plan would permit enough time to prepare amendments,
advertise and conduct a public hearing on January 4, 1988 .
Commissioner Carey stated that Commissioner Halkiotis
was not suggesting that the recommended ordinance amendments be
changed but that the recommended fees be changed. Any change in
fees would not require a public hearing.
Chair Marshall observed that the Administration's
recommendation is to approve the ordinance amendments recommended
by the Board of Health.
• Commissioner Hartwell suggested taking action on Items
(2) , (3) and (4) of the recommendation because there is apparent
agreement on those items .
County Attorney Gledhill informed the Board that
amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance can be made without a
public hearing because the Animal Control Ordinance is not an
ordinance for which a public hearing is required. He further
stated that if the Board wants a public hearing on the proposed
amendments it could now direct that the advertisement for the
hearing state the Board is considering either the reduced fee
approach or the no exemption/exception approach recommended by the
Board of Health.
Commissioner Hartwell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis, the adoption of the amendments recommended in
recommendations (2) , (3) and (4) and the referral of recommendation
(1) back to the Board of Health for reconsideration along with
Commissioner Halkiotis ' suggestion on fees. Thereafter a public
hearing can be held to let people comment on the fees and exemption
questions .
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
•
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda
Item No._V!E
ACT ION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 6 , 1990
SUBJECT: Rencher Street CDBG Financial Status Update
DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: x
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes
Status Update
TELEPHONE NUMBER-
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE: To advise the Board of Commissioners of the status of the
Rencher Street CDBG Program.
BACKGROUND: One of the requirements of the County's plan for CDBG
Program Administration for the Rencher Street Project is
the provision of quarterly status updates on expenditures
and accomplishments to the Board of County Commissioners.
In order to comply with this requirement, the Housing and
Community Development Department will submit these updates
to the Board at the end of each quarter until the project
is complete.
This is the fifth update which covers the fifth quarter
which ended December 31 , 1989 .
RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive as information.
2
RENCHER STREET CDBG FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE:
EXPENDITURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PROJECT AREA: Rencher Street Area
REPORTING PERIOD: Fifth Quarter ending December 31 , 1989
REPORTING DATE : February 5, 1990
ACTIVITY: BUDGET: EXPENDITURES:
Acquisition $ 3, 000 -0-
Street Improvements 99, 925 $ 11 , 940
Sewer Improvements 249,441 10 ,531
Water Improvements 64, 718 8, 900
Clearance 1 , 700 -0-
Housing Rehabilitation 185, 128 57, 681
Administration 81 , 388 32, 860
TOTALS $685, 000 $121 , 912
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
1 . Held quarterly Project Area Committee meeting with neighborhood
residents - November 14, 1989.
2. Awarded bid for public facilities improvements work to Billings
and Garrett , Inc. for $282, 083 .
3. Completed housing rehabilitation work on five (5) houses.
Continuously prepared work specifications for additional work to
be completed.
r ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date FEBRUARY 5, 1990
Action Agenda
Item # V1=A
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FURTHER STUDY OF REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
* - Planning Board resolution David Stencil, Ext. 566
* - Draft Planning Board minutes
1-16-90 TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
* - TJCOG resolution Hillsborough - 732-8181
* - Map and letter to DOT Durham - 688-7331
* - News articles Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider a resolution forwarded by the Orange
County Planning Board.
BACKGROUND: On January 9, 1990, the Planning Board invited Jim
Clark of "Save the Water" to present his "Triangle
Express" , a proposed regional light rail system
designed to serve the Triangle and mitigate the need
for the DOT-programmed Raleigh and Durham Outer Loops .
As a part of the presentation, a resolution previously
adopted by the Triangle J Council of Governments was
included for the Planning Board' s consideration.
The resolution asked that the N.C. Secretary of
Transportation consider the proposed light rail system
a reasonable alternative to be studied and evaluated
as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Raleigh and Durham Outer Loops . To date, NCDOT has
not officially considered the proposal.
The resolution does not call for the implementation of
the proposal, only that it be studied as a reasonable
alternative. It further calls for evaluation by
regional authorities and the Governor's Task Force.
On January 16, 1990, the Planning Board adopted the
resolution, and asked that the resolution be forwarded
to the County Commissioners for consideration. An
identical resolution is currently under consideration
by the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill
and Carrboro.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends adoption of the
resolution.
t 1 v
2
•
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports
the development and promotion of public transportation to
supplement the continued construction of highways and
improvement of North Carolina's transportation systems;
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognizes
that the increasingly urbanized and integrated nature of this
Region requires regional cooperation in order to provide an
adequate and efficient transportation system for Triangle
residents;
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has
approved plans for the development of outer loops for the
Raleigh and Durham metropolitan areas; and,
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly acknowledged the
need for the development of high occupancy vehicle and mass
transportation alternatives such as rail service and allows
for NCDOT to spend up to $5 million from the Highway Trust
Fund each year for this purpose;
NOW THEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Commissioners
recommends that:
* - The Secretary of Transportation consider the Triangle
Express Rail Proposal a reasonable alternative to be
studied and evaluated as part of the legally required
Environmental Impact Statement on the programmed Raleigh
and Durham Outer Loop projects;
* - AND, that the Triangle J Council of Governments
Regional Transportation Committee and the Research
Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority work
together to evaluate the Triangle Express. Proposal;
* - AND, that the Governor's Rail Passenger Task Force also
review this proposal as an integral part, of future rail
passenger service in North Carolina.
BE IT RESOLVED, this 5th day of February, 1990.
Moses Carey, Chairman
Orange County Board of Commissioners
1
3
DRAFT: 11/7/89
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Triangle J Council of Governments supports the development
and promotion of public transportation to supplement the continued
construction of highways and improvement of North Carolina's
transportation systems;
WHEREAS, the Triangle J Council of Governments recognizes that the
increasingly urbanized and integrated nature of this Region requires
regional cooperation in order to provide an adequate and efficient
transportation system for Triangle residents;
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has approved plans
for the development of outer loops for the Raleigh and Durham
metropolitan areas; tend,
•
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly acknowledged the need for
the development of high occupancy vehicle and mass transportation
alternatives such as rail service and allow for NCDOT to spend up to $5
million from the Highway Trust Fund each year for this purpose;
NOW THEREFORE, the Triangle J Council of Governments recommends that:
o The Secretary of Transportation consider the Triangle Express Rail
Proposal a reasonable alternative to be studied and evaluated as part
of the legally required Environmental Impact Statement .on the
programmed Raleigh and Durham Outer Loop Projects;
o AND, that the TJCOG Regional Transportation Committee and the
Research .Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority work
together to evaluate the Triangle Express Proposal;
o AND, that the Governor's Rail Passenger Task Force also review this
proposal as an integral part of future rail passenger service in North
Carolina.
• BE IT RESOLVED, this 29th day of November, 1989.
•
•
Rebecca Heron, Chairwoman
•
THE " TRIANGLE EXPRESS " 4" '
Fast , Comfortable Mass Transit
For The Research Triangle Area
\Z.?' !leis i
•
- r•� l
7411\-"\--.."".1%**PERSOW • ' COUNTY r
OKANGt COUN7•y DURHAM COUNTY
® Stem
1 4 ' 3+• � w t• • r _
I•• 1 �. �' \
•���•
O�::i• r 1,'•/• 1 VIII
•
_. .
■•ru•
••f ti...�• `. •�♦ ?i
a•. i...cI i CreeCmoor /lit•
Hillsborough 1 •
I •::•�. Fr
I • I t , ,
I� ��� ! X 1,1 _/V ■. !• ) L
„w,
/ V-4\••••••. I 1/. i ' I 1 rt. -r .�.r'r^Sri/ ... ...v1 r% :, Sy'
i - . a'akc Fore-
.1.1„ i•1 ;, Dnrbam
Cartbr—rp `. ,1 Hi11 1 �y •� �lJ rf -' f^v Jr....
�. \ . r• cr 1 r �� / ^ 70 III
••• . gr3 al . • .......1 ........,-) • .4 I,s. '.... r ill'i" Asrl `... CD ;."' •-•.'-'4-
• • •1 ..� i•••11•1*. •* 40 : •.i Raleigh•
. . �' .'I:.r. - wS • ,.•• .•
, J • . -ed, i , ..., ,_.. .. : . -/ - J -::;.
1 t 1 1 '•
•1`�z- '�4�r�_r }-`��•I l w Cary`• �. _ .:;..
N. . / =;. w I.
� r •• 1 11r..
proposed by :
SAVE THE WATER, INC .
Post Office Box 15795
5
SAVE THE WATER !
We all need clean, safe, and pure water to drink
September 28, 1989
Mr. James E . Barrington
Secretary
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Ofice Box 25201
Raleigh , North Carolina 27611
Dear Secretary Barrington:
As you know, your department has proposed two super highway
" outer loops " for north Raleigh and north Durham that run right
up into the heart of the Falls Lake watershed and threaten the key
drinking water rivers and reservoirs for both Triangle cities . The
very serious environmental damage to our precious drinking water
supplies and the exorbitant $ 750 ,000 ,000 cost of• these damaging
super highways are unacceptable to the people and taxpayers of
Raleigh and Durham.
According to the National Environmental Policy Act and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act , major multilane super
highway projects such as these proposed " outer loops " require
a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement that is properly
prepared and circulated under state and federal laws and regulations .
As a vital part of the legally required EIS , your department must
include a rigorous and objective analysis and a comparative evaluation
of all reasonable alternatives . Federal regulation 1502 .14 of the
National Environmental Policy Act says " This section is the heart
of the environmental impact statement . Based on the information and
analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment
( 1502 .15 ) and. the Environmental Consequences ( 1502 .16 ) it should
present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives
in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing
a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmakers and the
public . "
We are today officially requesting that the legally required
Environmental Impact Statements on both the Raleigh and Durham
" outer loops " include an objective analysis , " substantial
treatment " and a fair comparison of cost and environmental impact
of our enclosed proposal for the " Triangle Express " as a far
less costly and much more environmentally sound transportation
alternative to the proposed highways in our watershed .
As you know from my comments at the public hearing on the
Draft EIS for the north Raleigh loop on July 19 , 1989, we object
P. O. Box 15795, Durham, North Carolina 27704
6
to the adequacy of the draft study for two major reasons .
First , ,
the Draft EIS was not properly or legally circulated to interested
citizens which is a violation of Federal Regulation 1502. 19 ( c) .
That regulation requires free and wide access to the environmental
ed
y for everyone,o one who wants to participate in the legally requr
ra
and very important public input process. By printing only 280
copies for a metropolitan area the size of Raleigh and by charging
citizens $ 20 for what should be a free public document your
department has illegally restricted access to the Draft EIS and
has violated both NEPA and SEPA. Second , the Draft EIS fails to
adequately consider mass transit as the single mot attractive
alternative . Section 2 .2 .2 .2 attempts to very quickly
light rail as an alternative and obviously does not meet the
requirements of Federal Regulation 1502 .14 . request
Because of these serious legal deficiencies , we re uest .
that the Draft EIS be reprepared to include a complete ,
objective and substantial treatment of our enclosed proposal
for the Iriangle Express as a viable and attractive alternative
to the environmentally damaging outer loop highways in our water-
sheds . And , we request that the new Draft EIS be widely and freely
distributed to everyone on your mailing list for the project and
everyone who requests a copy . Of course we would also expect that
the environmental studies on the north Durham loop would also
include complete information and , a fair comparison of mass transit
as an alternative when the studies are prepared in the future .
We believe that as we enter the 1990s , mass transit is an
f
idea whose time has come for the Triangle area. Instead o000 ,000 on
polluting our drinking water supplies and spending $
new super highways in our ecologically sensitive watersheds , why
not build a modern , state of the art , mass transit system
would link all of the Triangle area and keep our drinking water
and our air clean ?
Will you please direct your staff to reprepare the Draft
. EIS to include the Triangle Express as an alternative and to
widely and freely distribute the study when it is completed ?
Hay we hear from you on this important matter ?
Thank you for your cooperation. Please include these
comments in the EIS .
Sincerely,
m Clark
President
7
.r.-. -
- . oru ::: .._
__
, ..,
_ . _
• . ..
; _ ,
•
PAGE 4
THE CHAPEL HILL HERALD • WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1989
Editorial . • -
•. .`Trian le Express'x .deserves study .
The question of Triangle-wide mass transit is a Durham. -
matter of when, not if. There is no question that a rail system would
And we're inclined to join those who say the do less environmental damage than the huge loop
sooner the better. • • . , roads the N.C.Department of Transportation is
Durham's Jim Clark,with the environmental now planning for the Triangle.Interstates
group Save the Water,has suggested the state consume land like locusts consume wheat.The
construct a light rail passenger train system paved surfaces would introduce stormwater
connecting Raleigh,Durham and Chapel Hill.He runoff in drinking supply watersheds north of
proposes that the rail system could replace,the Durham and Raleigh. The interstates could lead to
massive loop roads now slated for Raleigh and sprawling development that promotes heavy
Durham. automobile commuting and eventually makes even
While Clark may optimistic in saying that more roads necessary.
loop roads won't be needed if the rail system were
built,the so-called"Triangle Express" is an idea Orange County also has a big stake in the loop
Well worth examining.And we join the Triangle J roads plan because Durham's bypass would cut a
Council of Governments in urging the state to swath right into the relatively green area between
consider it carefully as part of evaluating the Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. -
damage that the proposed loop roads will cause to • Whether Clark's plan is a viable alternative to
the environment the loop roads remains in question. But an area
Clark has suggested that the state could put with the resources and vision of the Triangle
together a passenger rail system for$300 million, ought to pay more than lip service to the truth
far less than the 5750 million that would go into that mass transit, in the long run, is the best
the loop roads.The proposed system would use 50
miles of existing railway roadbed, some of which answer. _ .
is abondoned.The system would have 16 stations, We urge The state to take a long,hard look at
including one each in Chapel Hill and southern the"Triangle Express."
•
CU o :. awIo6• - a,cc � o
Vl So' r C i.r- V a- C d
v = d E" W W C C 4 OS ..
•rp 4� CQ~.'r.. v E1: yU tom^ N
CC
.C.r. : p h = - A too I. Ix
v G
rill PM( Eoay.= a'flF �•i 0 �ett
mmill4 cl: w▪zz-= ..... . g a aa.. c IA AR T�1 • o CC 0 Y., .. W W es..:
V,� W 'fl y, Cl 6� .mow
K^V'� W.3 N� L k V- . V O.3 .
r__. p
w 2C.. mc°aA. F ea.= 4JC= cU
• I■il Eill .1 it 1,2 5 W C _.
H W 0
w G W .._ 0— cm
Cit .,
ebb {.f c V-. u Erg. ih..c `a
. wimm) IC) .., ,--c : c—;to W L C ra E v • 4 c.) A= q d s 'O i• t, .,, t: a' lel CC.; 1c2I' A
y,�rr, o c: 2 S^ ... ▪ c c o a.p h H
' E ,
CI) Cli Can C!TO Ca•7 C g C; ' Mj c ca rs�..•.r,', aO
g. �a F+V C . C^^ M H v a eC, v d LO
3=E" 0 ip C47=g la.0�L2==
_ L C S G w LLi h G 0.' r
gii- is
II-- .i: Co) Cl) z =0 sip H ^ L�^ h y
W a W h C = r7.= Cyr 0.A.. p Ca
iiiMail N =3 w c a�� 3 �s
• � w _
v �.r a,� c _ 3 eaU '..r.
lin C��=� � F u v ,aY3 a er •
- - W Ca.. V V v Y J W y m a W
- }n G.iz �. Ca
illib..,, y I c a.ao'c a 3— .E"a ,,
A
-y� - < 1-• ms-. C1 ��r v V.'J Yyi� as y r
+ 4 !=
a 1 u t Q 5` .r W."' yLC c u,as C= h
CJ
-:«4}{: ;
C V r u
�� -
r w �. ■•, 8 C
6 Ln 5 g %...., _..).> ,..,.-....1
S )l rti, }:.4 . ,n
L..� k O CT�.�
•. ! 8 To k-
f
i o
cu c
CI L7 _ 1~~" AN i5 a,ON P .p•�
p 1
U CLO 1 NgWp crto c+ !5 ;g"r= 3 N — °'t .
i'fm 1u 1 �nia4aar:aoao;
9
•
not brought us any choices,except
a big bill for more highways."
Sandy Ogburn. a Durham City.
Council member,agreed.
"Highway construction tends to
be reactive. You can't build until
the need is there,"she said."But
this is taking a look down the road
and is proactive."
Continued from page 1C
Raleigh and Durham are exam-
To attract commuters, the sys- . ining proposals to build Outer
tem might have communication Loops around their northern bor-
Ex-
cars wilh cellular phones and fax dcrs. The Northern Wake Ex-
machines that would operate from pressway would cost 5x14 million
6 a.m.to 6 p.m. during the week. to 5433 million,while the Durham
Under Mr.Clark's proposal,the Outer Loop would cost about 5350
rail system would be funded with million. Both projects are funded
state transportation money and
in a multibillion-dollar highway
support from local governments,
program approved this year by
Operating costs would come from the o gram General Asseed ssembly. •
the cities and towns it would Both the proposed roads cross
serve. He gave no estimates for or are near watersheds and drink-
the annual operating cost. ing water supplies, .11r. Clark
Mr. Clark said the rail system said. "The highways would only
could be developed in much less benefit the northern areas, which
time than the proposed loops and happen to be in the most ecologi-
could be in operation as soon as tally-sensitive areas we have."he
the early 1990s. The only new said.
track that would have to be built
would be between Durham and As is currently proposed. the
Chapel Hill. Durham loop would run near the
The proposal has been sent to little River Reservoir, one of
state Transportation Secretary Durham's major drinking water
James E. Harrington for study. resources. It also would came
But a spokesman for the Depart- close to Falls Lake. P.aleigh's
ment of Transportation said Fri- matn water source.
day that Mr. Harrington had not Designed to handle the area's
•had an opportunity to review it. traffic needs through the year
"We'll be happy to take a look at it 2010, both loop plans have been
as we do with thousands of sug. criticized by neighborhood groups
gestions from other citizens,"said and environmentalists, while
James T. Sughrue, special assis- highway planners say the roads
tans for public affairs. would relieve growing traffic con-
Durham County Commissioner gestion.
Rebecca Heron. who attended In Raleigh.the loop has become
Friday's announcement, said the a campaign issue in the race for
proposal was worth studying. mayor. Raleigh City Council
"For the first time,we have an member Charles C. Meeker has
alternative to move people," said questioned the need for the road,
Mrs.Heron,who is also chairman while Mayor Avery C. Upchurch,
of the Triangle J Council of who is seeking re-election, says
Governments. "The Department the loop would ease traffic woes
of Transportation certainly has for commuters in North Raleigh.
10
Light Rail For Triangle?
,orcp
Charlotte Should Follow Raleigh-Durham Group,s Lead
A Raleigh-Durham G�+xr Ti H- 0 8 S R V EP1.
sleigh-Durham conservation built more quickly than the outer
group has conceived a mass transit loops and would cost only about S30D
plan that goes to the heart of the million to build, as opposed to 5750
Research Triangle's transportation million for the loop expressways. The
problems instead of skirting the edges, mass transit system would also pro-
as a proposed outerbelt expressway mote greater residential density, thus
would do. It's a plan that other metro- discouraging sprawl and saving land.
politan areas, including this one, The Research Triangle is far ahead
should consider. of the state's other metropolitan areas
The idea came from a group called in organizing a regional authority to
Save the Water. But in addressing plan and operate mass transit systems.
Research Triangle traffic jams, the The Save the Water plan. or something
plan would also save considerable similar, could put the area even father
time, land and money. ahead,by demonstrating the feasibility
The Triangle's transportation prob- of light rail.
lcm is the reverse of most places'. in Would that metropolitan Charlotte
Charlotte and most other metropolitan
centers, traffic from surrounding sub- had a regional transit authority and a
urbs grows more congested as it ap- similar public-interest group. Then,
proaches the urban core. In the Trian- perhaps. this area would be farther
gJe, traffic from the three urban cores along in considering alternatives to
Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill building highways.
•
-- grows more congested as it reaches
the suburban offices and laboratories
in Research Triangle Park.
So far, the traffic engineers' recom-
mendation has been to build more
roads, including urban loops around
Raleigh and Durham and connectors
to bedroom communities in Garner,
Apex and Cary and Chapel Hill.
The Save the Water plan calls for
using existing railroad and highway
. corridors for a light-rail system that
would connect the heart of the Re-
search Triangle Park with Raleigh,
Durham, Chapel Hill and their sub-
urbs.
Proponents claim the plan could be
•
, ,
1`
y
.1
. : e .�. w== r:':.f 7,--...4.12,;Z_'`` � `._,. . . g... „ . _... . .
r.„,...„...,..„-„..,
. . , _ ..
. ._
Express Yourself
parks, further and further out: until
MR. SPECTATOR: conceivably the whole region is one big
the Triangle Express sprawl. from Henderson to Fayetteville.
Cold S trolley i P proposal values nearly doubled all along the
to build a trolley Ionic linking the region: I ���'
think it's the bit idea I've heard in all the Portland lice.even before the trolleys started
I've lived here. The Triangle running. If we build Triangle Express, the
years density will follow it. If we wait for the
desperately needs some sort of transit system: si it won't.
has need den
needed one, in fact. for years now. sir to need Triangle Express volleys. •
Transportation planners land others) who ive,visionary Express trolleys.
scoff at Triangle Express remind me of the We n�progressive,ss�av anary tr nspo and
Victorian zoologist who, seeing a giraffe for planners rs ive politicians with nd
the first time, exclaimed "There is no such equally p��� pair vision. guiding
animal!" "Transportation." to them, means strength to
ears, and "planning" is making more roads development into corridors transit can serve.
for cars to run on. Alternatives are beyond We don':and to follow the same old "more
their blindered comprehension. They should roads"pattern of past years— it's ruined our
visit Portland. Oregon, whose recently built downtowns. polluted our air, decimated out
trolley line is so popular that it had to double farms and forests with urban sprawl. We've
its capacity, even on weekends. The been on that wrong track—or road—far too
Department of Transportation. no less. says long. It's high time for a new direction.
that the line has eliminated 15 million auto Smith
trips a year. and is urging Portland to build MaD'rlin ins K K.. N.C.
more.
The Portland line probably isn't recouping
its cost: neither would Triangle Express.
Neither will the Outer Loop. the
Parkway. or the widening of 1-40 and 1-85. Consider mass transit
Incidentally, the cast of the Outer Imp
(serving only Raleigh)would be 5100 million; The concept of efficient, affordable
the cost of Triangle Express (serving she mass transit for the Triangle is o�erdue.
whole region)—5=75 million.That's a savings According to the Federal Highway
of Sc million (of our tat. dollars). plus Administration, areas with populations
immeasurable savings o an cleaner air, less under 1 million that are experiencing
urban sprawl and a safer watershed.
These same ex its say that we haven't rapid growth can expect congestion
the density to support mass transit. implying increases of more than 1,000 percent
that if we wait 20 or 30 years, enough
over the next 2D years.
skyscrapers and apartment blocks will have Surely cities such as Los Angeles.
been built on every corner to feed a rail line. Dent Denver and Houston are examples of
I doubt it. The growth will probably follow what accommodating Houstong are
automobile
the same pattern as before:more roads•more has done. In'these cities, 90 percent of
followed by loops and suburbs, al wide oink the workers commute by car.as opposed
followed by more suburbs. malls and office to 40 percent in European cities where
efficient mass transit is in place.
In California the average commuter
speed is 33 mph. By the year 2000.
allowing for population growth. it is
expected to drop to 15 mph.
The loss of valuable land required for
roads and parking should be of major
concern. Close to half of all urban space
in the United States is used to accommo-
date the automobile.
Policies have long postured auto de-
pendence at the expense of cost-
effective, environmentally sound alter-
natives. it's time to reconsider these
• policies.
JODY SITZ
Chapel Hill
12'
i -
I
I The People's Forum
•
Rail system better idea ..
It was gratifying to read about the
Triangle rail system proposed by a
Durham environmental group. Using
tracks and rights of way already in place
instead of building the Northern Wake"
Expressway and Durham Outer Loop is- -
truly innovative planning.
North Carolinians expect the agency.
responsible for our future roadway sys-.
tems,the Department of Transportation,_
to exercise prudent and responsible
planning. Now that someone else, has
proposed a plan that makes sense, the. •
DOT should at least look at this proposal=.
However, James T. Sughrue of tE.e Rail has many benefits
DOT said."We'll be happy to look at this We consider the Triangle Express light
plan as we do with thousands of sugges-
Lions from other citizens." This conde- rail system a farsighted and responsible
scending remark does not convey a alternative to the Northern Wake Ex-
commitment with a sense of urgency. pressway. It is about time someone
came forward and grabbed the reins on
DOT's proposed Northern Wake Ex- the runaway "transportation•by-triage"
pressway will cost approximately 5450 plans of the city and county. What
million in today's dollars, while the disturbs us is that The News and
proposed Durham Outer Loop would cost Observer, following an increasingly an-
another 5350 million. Since both are' noying trend in media, chose to title the
planned to be built in or near the Raleigh Sept.:9 article"Environmentalists pro-
and Durham watersheds, this suggests pose Triangle rail system."
that approximately 3300 million is being. This system would provide numerous
spent very unwisely. benefits in addition to the environmental
Mayor Avery Upchurch and his supr ones. Ultimately it would curb health
. porters contend that the Outer Loop will care costs by reducing atmospheric
ease traffic woes in Raleigh, a fact that pollutants and decreasing the stress of a •
is not upheld by the DOT's own study. . morning commute, provide additional
The proposed loop will do little to' jobs, attract business by showing the
improve traffic conditions in North Ra-- nation that the Triangle can plan ahead
leigh; in fact, many of the main roads of municipal needs, and reduce the
will be more congested if it is built. It assault on our environmental quality.
will increase the number of critical Why cheapen the proposal and polarize
-- traffic points in North Raleigh rather'' the issue by attributing its origin to
than alleviating any of them. ... "environmentalists." a label that has
• come to represent extremist, left-wing
The legislature has already approved views? Wouldn't a far larger number of
a highway plan totaling approximately'. readers have become familiar with the
59 billion. The taxpayers deserve better plan had you titled the article."Citizens'
for our money than what the DOT has.' group proposes Triangle rail system"or
been planning to date. "Railway alternative to Durham and
BRUCE L. ERICKSON•• Raleigh Outer Loops proposed"?
President,Shannon Woods. BILL AND MELISSA ZIELINSKI
Homeowners Association. Raleigh
Raleigh - •
'1
13
Letters To The Editor
is a real danger that the opponents of pub-
Support Triangle Express' lie transportation may succeed in reducing
the scope at the rail system to the point
I was appalled to read your editorial of where it 14111 not be able to attract rider-
Oct 3 attacking the proposed—Triangle Ex- ship.Thus,I recommend full and unequivo-
press"rail system by dubbing it"...an- cal support of the-Triangle le Express"by all
other idea to pull the rug from under Due citizens and legislators who care abort the
ham's economic future" long-term future of the Triangle metropoli-
T'here are absolutely no data to justify tan area. ELLEN'COIF
this opinion.In fact,all of the available data
lead to just the oppns,ite conclusion.Look-
ing ahead,not only at the next decade,but
at the next century,Durham's economic fu-
ture will depend on the development of ef-
ficient,attractive and safe alternatives to
automobile transportation.
The'Triangle Ecpress"sounds as if it
could be the first step in this director.For
every person who uses the rail system
there will be one less car on the highways.
one less pa.-icing space used and a little less Li 2ht rail works
pollution in the air.Good public tt-ansporta-
lion would greatly increase economic and Once again our good friends at the.
social opportunity for young.poor and state Department of Transportation
handicapped citizens have plundered the truth. In what has
I strongly support the proposal by Jim become a familiar and discordant re-
Clark president of Save the Water,to de- train, they tell us that the Triangle le is
velop a rail system lininrtg Durham.Rs• g
Leigh,Cary and Chapel Hill.However,there With disdain they a point even larger
With disdain they point to even larger
urban areas where they imply light rail
has failed. A planning engineer for the
state says. 'Studies done on such sys-
tems in Miami, Dallas and the [San
Francisco) Bay area show ridership is
much less than expected.. ."
But the Bay Area Rapid Transit has
operated at near-saturation levels. Dal-
las has yet to begin construction of its
system. And, as anyone with even a
cursory knowledge of light-rail activity
knows. Miami utterly botched its sys-
tem. Bus systems classically serve as
feeders to the rail stations. Miami
dismantled its entire bus system
cannibalized it. really, in a misbegotten
effort to fund the light rail.
The use of these examples to influence
our judgment is scandalous.At the least.
it is a mark of stunning ignorance.At the
worse,it is the hand of callous deception.
Light rail is succeeding around the
country.Buffalo and Portland are prom-
inent recent success stories. It is suc-
ceeding where there is foresight and
clarity of thinking. A review of the
literature is in order.
ROSS ALLARD
Cary
14
RT idential for the purpose of' cultural Res
A r� .
g
assigning a buffer, if one is required.
The second amendment to Section IV-B-8 will
clarify the purpose of the buffer waiver
provisions and extend the scope of IV-B-8-g
to include waivers for other landscape
requirements contained in the Subdivision
Regulations.
The Planning Staff recommends that the
proposed amendments to be advertised for the
Public Hearing to be held on February 26,
1990.
MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff's
recommendation. Seconded by Yuhasz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Section III-D-1-b - Planning Department
Review Procedures
MOTION: Best moved approval of the Planning Staff's
recommendation. Seconded by Jacobs.
Yuhasz asked that the word at be changed to
no later than for the written analysis and
recommendation. This was accepted by the
first and second to the motion.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #12: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
. b. County Population Estimates and Five-Year Growth
Trends
David Stancil summarized the abstract and the
Staff Memorandum both of which are attachments to
these minutes on pages
Best requested that the resolution from Triangle
J Council of Governments regarding Light Rail be
sent to the Board of Commissioners and request
that they forward it to NCDOT requesting their
continuation in studying alternative
transportation for the Triangle J Region.
A copy of this resolution is an attachment to
these minutes on page
MOTION: Best asked that this resolution be sent forward
ID ni 15
from the Planning Board asking the Board of
Commissioners to join in the resolution and
forward it to NCDOT. Seconded by Eddleman.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Meeting adjourned 10:33 p.m.
•
ORANGE COUNTY 1
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No. Vjj 14
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1990
SUBJECT:
Distinguished Service Award from the North
Carolina Public Health Association to Anne
Presnell.
DEPARTMENT: HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Distinguished Service Award Certificate. HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 968-4501
Mebane - 227-2031
Durham - 688-7331
PURPOSE:
To recognize Anne Presnell, Orange County Data Processing Department for
her outstanding service to North Carolina Public Health.
BACKGROUND:
At the Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Public Health Association every year
a distinguished,service award is presented to an individual who has made a
significant contribution to Public Health who is not employed in the Public
Health sector. At the 1989 meeting, on September 14, 1989 this distinguished
service award was presented to Anne Presnell for the development of a model
Health Services Information System Software Package that has been used by Health
Departments across the state. The narrative of her distinguished service award
is attached and deserves due recognition.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Provide Anne Presnell with recognition for her outstanding service to Orange
County and the State of North Carolina.
2
Distinguished Service Award
1989
Anne Tresneit
5orunfai(ing dedication,dependability andf1exibitity,
as weft as a willingness to Listen,
For professional commitment to focal initiatives that
have proven to, have valuable statewide application,
For the development of excellent, weft-documented,
easy to use, affordable software for focal-heath depart-
ments,
For unsel f'�hl y working as a computer autyst, pro-
grammer arid instructor for a public hearth computer
package that .has been recognized as a model for the
entire public h eearo reporting system in North Caro-
Czna,
For these andothersignificant contributions to public
hearth, the North Carolina Public Heath Association
presents the 1989 Distinguished Service .[ward Lo
Anne PresneCC.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Action Agenda
Item No VI]I-A
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 5, 1990
SUBJECT: 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan Public Hearing
DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES X NO
ATTACHMENT(S) Letter from INFORMATION CONTACT
Superintendent, Orange County Schools Rod Visser, ext 492
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Mebane 227-2031
Durham 688-7331
PURPOSE:
To receive public comments concerning the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for 1990-95.
BACKGROUND:
This public hearing will allow citizens the opportunity to provide
written and oral comments concerning five year capital needs for
Education, Public Buildings and Equipment, Public Safety, Public
Works, Recreation and Parks, and Water and Land Resources. The
Board of Commissioners set the public hearing date at their
meeting on January 8, 1990.
At the CIP presentation on January 23, 1990, the Commissioners
raised several questions concerning certain Orange County Schools
capital projects. Dr. Dan Lunsford, Superintendent of the Orange
County Schools, has provided a written explanation that addresses
these concerns. A copy of his letter is attached for information.
RECOMMENDATION(S) :
Receive citizens' comments as presented and Dr. Lunsford's letter
for information.
o f n
2
Grange ( uuntg **ails
200 EAST KING STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278-2570
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT (919) 732-8126
January 29, 1990
Mr. John Link
Orange County Manager
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear John:
Following our discussion and a review of your letter of January 24,
1990, I have prepared the enclosed response.
I have structured my response in two parts. Part I is a focus on the
development and cost of New Hope Elementary School. Part II is a response
to the questions on the proposed discretionary funding of environmental
testing and compliance.
As always, if I can provide further clarification, please let me know.
"ncerely,
Dan G. Lunsford
Superintendent
/ha
Enclosures
c: Orange County Board of Education
Mrs. Millicent Rainey
Mr. James Colavito
Mr. Wayne Watts
3
Part I - New Hope Elementary School
This section of the response will deal with the historical development of
a new elementary school now designated as New Hope Elementary School.
The earliest work on this project began in the spring of 1986 with the
search for a suitable site, which included a review of the concept with county
administrative staff. Subsequently, $400,000 was appropriated in 87-88 for
initial land and design costs.
A memorandum dated January 29, 1987, was forwarded to the Board of
Commissioners which cited a K-6 elementary school to house 700 students at an
estimated cost of $5,716,000 inclusive of all costs. In November of 1987
Interim County Manager Albert Kittrell and the staff reported a CIP to the
Board of Commissioners with this project cited at a cost of $5,991 ,000 (inclusive
of site costs at an amended amount) .
In May of 1988 I reported to Mr. Link priority rankings for a 5-year Capital
Plan (dated May 10, 1988) . This memorandum cited an estimated cost of $5,991 ,000
inclusive of site costs.
The basis of the initial projection of $5,716,000 in 1987 and the revised
amount of $5,991 ,000 was a document from the Division of School Planning, North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction, entitled "Guidelines for Estimating
School Construction Costs - October 1986" (Attachment # 1) . Using this document
we estimated the cost for a 700 student elementary school at $6,000 per pupil
x 700 pupils, which resulted in the $4,200,000 basic construction cost cited
in the earlier documentation (see Attachment #2 dated 1/29/87) .
Using this process, we continued to estimate costs and did minor adjust-
ments in 1988 after we had the exact cost of the land.
As the County Commissioners, staff and others were considering a method
for funding this need and other needs, the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction staff were considering a major revision of the school building
standards. Also, in the spring of 1988 the Orange County Board of Education
employed Doggett Architects, Inc. , to design this project. In February, 1988,
a committee of staff, Board and parents submitted the educational specifications
for this project to the Board of Education. Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners
proposed a bond package of which $6,000,000 was identified for this K-6 (700
students) elementary school. The voters approved this bond and $5,991 ,000 of
bond funds was designated for this project.
Ultimately, the North Carolina State Board of Education adopted the new
building standards. In the fall of 1988 the North Carolina School Boards
Association and the North Carolina Association of County Commissionrs issued
a report entitled North Carolina: First in Minimum Standards. I have included
page 20 of this report (Attachment #3) which states that these standards
increased the typical elementary construction costs by 41 .4%. A table showing
specific increases for this computation is included as well (Attachment #4) for
a 510 student elementary K-6 school at $72 per square foot.
During the summer and fall of 1988 the architectural staff, Board of Education
and school system staff were reviewing the educational specifications in relation
to the new standards, and were trying to reduce costs where possible. At one
-2-
point in late August of 1988 the estimated square footage was 116,485 (this 4
square footage would have cost $7,571 ,525 at $65 per foot) , but changes were
still being made. Finally, on February 6, 1989, the Board of Education
approved the Design Development phase after all possible reductions for a
total of 99,328 square feet, with an estimated building cost at $65 p.s.f.
of $6,456,320, with a range upward to $70 p.s.f. for a possible building
cost of $6,952,960 (see Attachment #5 - Doggett letter of February 6, 1989) .
Having realized that these changes would have a significant impact, we
submitted an updated CIP in late January, 1989, which showed an updated total
cost of $8, 122,370 with a projected completion date of August, 1990 (see Attach-
ment #6) . Also note that the school size had been reduced to 600 students to
save costs.
To comply with North Carolina State School Board regulations where a design
does not meet specifications, we submitted a request for approval for deviation
in March of 1989. The requirement called for Board of Commissioners approval,
and this was granted on March 21 , 1989. At that time we reviewed with the Board
of Commissioners our concerns about the new standards and the impact on cost .
Out of an ongoing concern for 1) best utilization of school building space,
2) cost of new construction, and 3) population growth, in the spring of 1989
the school administrative staff proposed that the new school be built to house
K-5 students instead of K-6. This would require the ongoing utilization of
A. L. Stanback as a sixth grade middle school and allow time for additional
revenue development for the proposed second new school for the Orange County
Schools. This proposal was communicated to Mr. Link and the Commissioners.
The Board of Education approved this proposal on April 24, 1989.
Concurrently, the school staff and the architectural staff were trying
to meet the requirements of water/sewer service for the new school and still
have fourteen ( 14) months of construction time prior to a targeted completion
of August, 1990. Because the possibility of water/sewer service from Hillsborough
was not clear at that time due to needed county policy development and intra-
governmental review scheduled for September, 1989, and the state on-site water/
sewer review process was so extensive, I determined in late May, 1989, that we
would not be able to make our targeted opening of 1990. Reluctantly, I acknowl-
edged this, and the opening was rescheduled by the Board of Education for the
fall of 1991 . This delay, of course, will have definite impact on construction
costs. _
When we reported our updated CIP to Mr. Link on December 5, 1989, it
reflected a total cost of $8,547,386, up from the late January, 1989, cost
cited above of $8, 122,370. I would like to note that this projected cost of
$8,547,386 is for a mid-range building construction cost of $7,254,304 including
water/sewer service of approximately $645,000 for a net building cost estimate
of $6,609,304. This total project cost was included in the working figures
reviewed with the County Commissioners at their early January, 1990, retreat
that Dr. Singer and I attended (see Attachment #7 - county staff worksheet) .
In addition, there was an inquiry about the designated $300,000 for
equipment and furnishings. This allocation is less than the 8% suggested
cost percentage shown in the earlier cost estimate. This formula would
produce an equipment/furnishings amount of approximately $530,000. However,
this $300,000 is to purchase student desks and chairs, teacher desks/chairs,
media center furnishings and other support furnishings, such as the cafeteria.
By illustration the current cost of one quality student desk and chair is $65.
This figure for a beginning school population of 550 would require $35,750.
In addition, since this will be an additional school, we will need to fully
stock the media center with equipment, books and audio-visual material.
-3-
5
In summary, the current projected construction cost of $6,609,304 is a
result of: 1) the Board of Education responding to a forward thinking group
that produced an excellent set of educational specifications; 2) a design
that includes a super insulation package such as a R-40 roof system and a
R-35 wall system (this will provide for significant cost savings in energy
throughout the life of the building) ; and 3) a new set of state standards
that resulted in a significant cost increase, from which we were able to
deviate only slightly.
It is also important to note that if the proposed water/sewer service
with Hillsborough is finalized in its current form, the net cost will be
$245,000 less than the estimate of $645,000.
In conclusion, there are some key points:
A. The planned purpose of the bond funds has remained
the same.
B. The additional cost is being covered through pay-as-
you-go funds through stronger revenue collections and
delaying of other projects to be funded from that
source.
C. We reported the increased cost in late January, 1989,
and again in December, 1989.
D. It is our practice to give the best projections
possible with the data available as it changes,
instead of waiting for the bids to be received and
then having to adjust.
E. These figures remain estimates; therefore, final cost
can only be determined after actual bids have been
received and approved.
GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
October, 1986
The following guidelines are intended as a tool for developing
estimates in planning new school construction and additions.preliminary cost planning purposes only. More detailed estimates should be obtained
from design professionals when projects have been more specifically defined.
It must be kept in mind that costs will vary among variables as availability of contractors and 1 abor,phterraiin, material
costs and transportation. Costs will also vary according to design, materials
selected, space desired and quality demand through community expectations.
Complete New Schools
Approximate Estimated Approximate
Type School Sq. Ft./Pupil* Cost/Sq. Ft. Cost Per Pupil**
Elementary 100 $60.00 17` $6,000
Middle/Junior 120 60.00 7,200
High School 160 60.00 9,600
The above estimates should be increased to provide for the following:
o Site and development
o Special site problems
o Up to 10 percent for movable furniture and equipment
o Up to 10 percent for fees and related costs
o On-site water and sewage
o Increased cost due to inflation
o Remote areas where labor and delivery of materials are more
costly
o Small schools
a Isolated areas where there are few contractors
o Areas with much competition for labor force due to other large
construction projects
o Stadium complex--$200,000 to $1,000,000
Additions
Major additions should be calculated at $45 - $70 per square foot. Increase
estimates to provide for:
•
o Considerations listed above
o Auditoriums, gymnasiums, and cafeteria/kitchens
o Kitchens, toilets, shower rooms , etc. , when they are a signifi-
cant part of the addition
o New HVAC System if required for a small addition
o Elevators--2 stop, minimum size--$65,000 - $100,000
*These approximate square footages have been increased to allow for
compliance with the Basic Education Program recommendations.
**Based on $60.00/sq.ft. This figure can vary from $50 - $70/sq. ft. or more
depending upon design, size, materials selected, timing, etc.
Revised i/L9/6t
PROJECT DETAIL
(Category, Trame• Location, Cost) 7
Replacement of TenporarY Facilities
1987-90
Cameron Park Renovation/Addition
1. Remodel art roam into 2 special program rooms
(AG and Chapter I) $ 30,000
2. Convert music roam to foreign language
3. Remodel media center to became'
a. Computer lab, b. Music roan,
c. Multi-purpose teaching room 650,000
4. Construction of new space for (a) media
center, (b) speech and language, (c) art
roan and (d) storage (10,250 sq. feet) 10,000
5. Air Condition Wing W 190,000
Original & 1st Addition 35,000
Electrical Service 130 000
Window Remodeling $ 1,015,000
Sub-total
Inflation (10%) 101,500
Total 1,116,500
-0-
1990-93 Cary Total $ 1,116,500
Replacement of Obsolete Facilities
1987-90
K-6 Elementary School (700 students)
Basic Construction Cost $ 4,200,000
Site Acquisition 300,000
Furnishings (8%) 336,000
29
Architect & Related Fees (7%) 4,000
Water/Sewer 250,000
Inflation (5%) 216 000
Contingency (3%) $ 5,716,000
• _0_
1990-93 Category Total $ 5,716,000
q
Page 20
g
justification. A comparison of the 1986 BEP suggested classroom
sizes, which are identical to those recommended in the Policy .
Council guidelines, and the minimum facility standards adopted by
the State Board for a typical elementary, junior high and senior
high school building illustrates the dramatic fiscal impact on a
local government attempting to provide a safe, attractive and
functional learning environment for every student. The minimum
standards increase the cost of a typical elementary school from
$4, 114 ,882 to $5 , 818, 374 or 41 .4% increase; for a typical
junior high the cost increases from $6, 300, 576 to $7 , 295 , 638 or a
15 .8% increase; a typical senior high cost increases from
$9 , 554,400 to $10, 451 , 772 or a 9.4% increase.
Several caveats about the analysis are as follows :
- The cost analyses are based on a literal comparison
of the guidelines in the 1986 version of BEP and the
minimum standards approved by the State Board in June
1988.
- There are significant variations between the two
documents which impact costs. In the BEP standards ,
swimming pools are local option. In the minimum
standards, a swimming pool appears as a minimum
Elementary School - 6rades K-6 l/`
Avg. Daily Membership 510
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS 9
CATEGORY ADM BEP 1986 NEW STDS
Classrooms
Gr. K-1 138 7 8,280 8,280
Gr. 2-3 138 7 6,900 6,900
Gr. 4-6 234 11 9,041 9,041
Music Room 1,000 1,000
Vocal Music n.a. 1,000
Art Room n.a. 1,200
Computer Room n.a. 1,000
Remediation Lab n.a. 450
Theater Arts n.a. 2,000
Auditorium n.a. 4,600
Dance Room n.a. 2,000
Reading Lab 450 n.a.
Mathematics Lab 450 n.a.
Exceptional
Resource 450 450
Self-Cont'd 1,200 1,200
Gifted n.a. 1,000
Physical Ed. n.a. 3,600
Project Room 1,200 1,200
Principal 250 200
Asst. Principal 150 150
Secretary/Reception 400 n.a.
Secretary n.a. 150
Reception n.a. 400
Guidance 150 450
Health/Restroom 300 200
Other Student
Services 150 200
Workroom 300 200
Conference 300 200
Custodial 400 400
Records Storage n.a. 100
General Storage (Office) n.a. 100
General Storage 1,500 1,000
Book Storage 1,000 800
Media 510 3,750 4,750
Dining Room 170 1,700 1,700 .
Kitchen 1,800 1,518
Playroom/Assembly 3,600 3,600
Teacher Lounge 500 171
Teacher Workroom 500 450
Teacher Offices
Grades K-3 14 n.a. 1,725
Grades 4-6 11 ' n.a. 1,064
Instr. Assts. 2 n.a. 200
Circulation, etc. 825% 11,430 16,162
Total 57,151 80,811
Construction Cost/Sq. Foot $72 $72
Percent Cost Increase
Total Cost, Less Site $4,114,882 $5,818,374 41.4%
/ 5
February 6, 1989 Page 10
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Project: Orange Co. K-6 School
L. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Gross Area = 99,328 GSF
@ $65 to $70/GSF = $6,456,320 to $6,952,960
This includes sitework, landscape, building, built-in casework and
kitchen equipment. Movable furniture, kitchen utensils or small wares
are not included. Land cost and A&E fees are not included. This esti-
mate is made at the Design Development Phase and is based on a num-
ber of assumptions. Estimates after construction documents are pre-
pared may vary from this estimate. Actual bids may vary from all esti-
mates.
END
�[frr
W.T. Doggett, AIA
DOGGETT ARCHITECTS, INC.
WTD :jdd
cc: Dr. Dan Lunsford, Superintendent
Board of Education Members
File 8802-DD1
r
r
FY 1989 1994
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN •
PROJECT REQUEST FORM 11
I. PROJECT TITLE: New Elementary School
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A new elementary school to house 600 plus students.
The costs include basic construction for a new elementary
following state guidelines.
III. PROJECT TIMETABLE:
Prior Years: Land 4cqu i s i t i on
FY 88-89: Architectual planning, complete land acquision
FY 89-90: Construction
FY 90-91: Complete construction by August 1990.
FY 91-92:
FY 92-93:
FY 93-94:
Beyond FY 93-94:
i
•
F
r w. o 0 0 0 0 0 12
�0 ` 0 M 0 0 0 cr)
A a r. A a n
o r-1 .-9 Q O 04
M Cry 4.0 O 0 N
M CO CV) N r-1
a n
t0 CO
v 0
0 04 0
0 •1 0
Y• 0. A.
m O
0
a. r-1
. o
a
0
1 0
M
! ft
w O
} O
. y ry
0
M 0
a 0
N
a 0
■ 0
4r H
•
0
0
N 0
a
0
0 w 0
r-•
r
u
. s r
M A C, 0 0 0 O S.
I a a
Y
W 0 0 0 O 0
= w 0 r i ri N r-1
•, n n
r-1 r-1
0 0 0 0 . 0
O O 0 O o
Cn n n. n A a
r— 40 0 1--1 O O 1-1
¢ 1- Cr) 4.0 0 0 0
Q r 1-1 Cd N r-1 N
a a
U tt") 40
N
A
S. '
Y q
aCi ; Ca 00 0 rn
4E 13.1 r 0 1•-1 1.4
X.
r 0 CO CO
W 0 10 4.0
N r-1 M
3
C!
W
J
1. N
AB ag
r • 0 0
uo CO
M Y F CO
Y y1 r—I rti
su CC 0 w n
» "
en
Cr)
0
4 .4 N N
C •
r a
G x "
w "'
" •- II
N .0 4 M
a • a
F. 61 Cg w W y
4J Q U Z C
C: O 7 u OI .-I r 0 w o
4r ca I. A C 1- V. y
•C 1 a •_4 a. AS t W r et
• ~ _ 7 7 C 1 ce ...
N •
4. b }
0 v
A. J 4— W {a 0 0 K • Z
13
t7 N O b O O O p, O b O
N N 00000013000, 000
o O O O �}
G M N O 6 00000001-. 000 O O to O O in
a I-in w 0000
/.. l: M A O to 0 0
O Q 1 1 N O *O Y1 /� ' ^ Y�1 N Lei 4 O a
A
1� g .t
a 0. in N Is;
N N .} M M
A ^ Q
� .- N
O 0 O
Co 3 in O W O O D p
MI g O.a
rpp.
P O o — 4 0 O P
W ..1 V O ti 0 A M
in
O. N in in `0 M M
4 O Co a O O O
7- a
0000000 O
0 O
0
O
M 1�A in p 0 H'1 O O
W
Os M b 1A O pp
N v 2
V
O Q
O
in
O O~ CO O O CO
CI
cr
in
M M ti O 5 Q O N
on r r W G en
H U ' 0
5 W 0. M 0
iii a Y P 0 v 1A O con
in
li , r' P_ M' 1A C
d p O N N p N
GI.
a 7 Um
d
U
0 O to Q
sfi
0 1A O N to- O '0 b J m .G
1 V tA0 in N f► O 'x O _ -
U O. O A O
in C 41 47
4; C .4-
=x C a 0 CO 4:1
rr
D q V O CO 0 CO a t0
t7 W cos v ^ Aps M 0 M
d CO co to O• .} p M•
�+
O d N r
7 N M
a)
Er ts- N
3 La
O.
co O w M O M
0. r �a u ni
o w+ 0 uoi
L
I.
0.
0)
n
4
« w
ILI
g 5 U a
•
0 L ti C 41
in CC 7 O a+y W w O O L r' a+ 0 w .. .. - 0.2 ) c z O C Q W 1 L 0 ]. z C 3. C E a 0 to H Al N Al t o -.C , g i t d d V 4 V O 2 2 7+ W 01 N _C W U O -.. U J W w 0
0. t O t o • m 0 .0 0 O O. yy Y - 'D T " O 0 U . V; in ta O 0 V 4 4- .0 ..V 0 O 0 0 ]. O "p H C 4= 4. ail .0 L 9 o 5- C N L CC N _C C x y U N W 0 . - L .0 C 0 d w N M 0= x U .0 (n 3 U in o to a2i Y W to W.84
2 H 0. 44
Part II - Discretionary Funding Request 14
On December 5, 1989, I forwarded to Mr. Link the School Board adopted
CIP for the 1991-95 five-year period. Included with that request was a request
for "County Discretionary Funds" (dated 12/4/89) in the amount of. $200,000.
The request was based on the need for complying with a series of environmental
protection issues; including underground fuel storage tanks, lead in the water,
radon and asbestos. Subsequently, Mr. Link recommended that $ 150,000 be
approved from the "Discretionary" account.
The letter of inquiry first, asked for information in this area on the
EPA regulations that call for this action. I will respond by category.
1) Asbestos: We are operating under two sets of regulations.
The first set is based on federal law (AHERA) signed by
President Reagan on October 22, I986, for which EPA issued
final rules in the Federal Register on October 30, 1987.
The second set of requirements came from North Carolina
law, specifically N.C. House Bill 516 (Chapter 724) rati-
fied on August 3, 1989, with an effective date of
November 1 , 1989. The North Carolina requirements are
further outlined in the N. C. Administrative Code -
NCAE 7C.0601-.0602, Section .0600 - Asbestos Hazard
Management Programs.
2) Underground Storage Tanks: This area is addressed in
technical standards of EPA in 40 CFR280, which became
effective December 22, 1988. Also applicable in this
area is N. C. G.S. 143-215.75.
3) Lead in the Water: Lead in drinking water is covered in
U. S. Public Law 100-572 entitled Lead Contamination
Control Act of October 31 , 1988. EPA issued a guidance
document and testing protocol.
4) Radon: EPA recommended that testing for radon be con-
ducted in all schools and issued a report in March of
1989 (EPA-520/ 1-89-010) .
A second part of the inquiry dealing with environmental issues asked
about expenditures on asbestos. On June 13, 1989, the Board and I reviewed
with the Commissioners in a budget work session a report of needed asbestos
work which was prepared by an engineering firm, EEC, Inc. , of Raleigh. At
that time the Board requested only $313,000 of the estimated amount of
$846,000, and I stated that this total work should be done over two or three
years. I also stated that additional requests would be forthcoming for the
balance. Subsequently, the Commissioners approved the $313,000 when the
1989-90 budget was enacted.
At this time we have spent approximately $86,000 of the allocation,
another $37,000 * is encumbered and additional work is planned for the next
seven months to utilize the balance of the $313,000.
A third part of this request focused on radon testing and the results with
possible action to be taken. During the Christmas break we began the testing
program and have spent slightly over $1 ,000 on testing alone. The results have
not been received at this time; therefore, the course of action has not been
-2-
15
determined. If the results require a response, then one possible method is
air exchange fans, but this process is not one that is usually in continuous
operation.
As a conclusion to this part of the response, I wish to emphasize that
the Orange County Board of Education has been supportive of administrative
efforts to respond to environmental protection mandates. Certainly, these
areas of concern have changing regulations that often are more specific and
demanding for public schools for the obvious reason that we work with children.
It is my intent that the Orange County Schools be responsible in this area
out of, first of all, a concern for the children and secondly, a commitment
to respond to legal mandates.
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
90
Meeting Date: February Action Agenda
Item 41 AllgiLAL
SUBJECT: REPORT - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS FOR WATERSHED
PROTECTION
DEPARTMENT: Planning
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Report - Impervious Surface Marvin Collins - Extension 346
Standards for University TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Lake Watershed Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 of
PURPOSE: To provide a the
recommended impervious
Watershed.
BACKGROUND: In October, 1989, the Board of Commissioners adopted
interim development standards for University Lake the
watershed. The standards were based generally
recommendations contained in the Final 119.22==
Universitv Lake Watershed Study prepared by Camp,
Dresser & McKee (CDM) for Orange Water & Sewer
Authority.
In November, 1989, a public hearing was conducted for
the purpose of considering revisions to the interim
development standards which would allow oreoncern
flexibility to property owners. A specific conce of the
raised at the hearing involved the applicability
proposed four percent impervious surface ratio in
conjunction with the five-acre minimum loCesize. Theas
same concern was voiced about the six p
applied to two-acre lots .
The Planning �iabovermentioned present
concernsfindings as
related to h
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS -
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
COPIES: GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY
PAUL THAMES, COUNTY ENGINEER
At the November 1989 public hearing, proposed revisions to
the interim development standards for University Lake
watershed were presented. Mr. Bill Birch, a resident of the
watershed, expressed concern about the ability of existing
and future residents to comply with the proposed 4%
impervious surface limit for 5-acre lots. A similar concern
was expressed about the proposed 6% limit for 2-acre lots .
Subsequent to the hearing, I met with Mr. Birch to discuss
his concerns . He provided two examples to illustrate his
point (see Attachments R and 13 ) . Based on the discussion, i
told Mr. Birch that I would examine the applicability of the
proposed impervious surface limits in greater detail .
This memorandum summarizes my efforts to date. Because of the
amount of material involved, i have tried to limit my
comments only to significant points. The basic premise
underlying my work was not to challenge the findings of the
Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) study but to determine if
citizens could comply with the recommended impervious surface
standards, and, if they could not, what options were
available.
Origin of the 41 and 6% Standards
In March 1989, CDM issued the Final Report - University Lake
Watershed Study. Subsequently, the Joint Chatham-Orange Work
Group began reviewing the study for the purpose of
recommending watershed protection strategies to its
constituent jurisdictions .
In October 1989, the Work Group completed a proposed 13-point
agreement (see Attachment a.) . Among the representatives of
the Joint Watershed Work Group, there was consensus on the
following basic strategies :
3
1 . A non-structural (or land use control) approach is
preferred.
2 . A four percent (4%) impervious surface limit is
preferred.
3 . A five-acre minimum lot size is preferred.
The strategies were based on the following CDM
recommendation:
"Restrictions on density and imperviousness represent
the preferred approach to watershed management. For
those jurisdictions which elect to rely in whole or in
part upon land use controls, a five-acre minimum lot
size for single-family residential development is the
optimum restriction. In order to be effective at
managing future nonpoint pollution impacts, the 5-acre
lot requirement must be accompanied hy a Ai
imperviousness ceiling. To ensure adequate water supply
protection with land use controls alone, a minimum
residential lot size of 5 acres (4% imperviousness) or a
clustered development equivalent should ideally be
maintained throughout the watershed. "
The agreement and the strategies identified above are the
basis for the proposed revisions to the interim and permanent
development standards .
Spreadsheet Template Development
Initially, 36 sketches of various development options were
prepared and evaluated for compliance with the impervious
surface standards. Because of the limited number of options,
and based on the examples provided by Mr. Birch, a Lotus
1-2-3 template was prepared with which to evaluate individual
building sites (see Attachments .q and 23) .
[Lotus 1-2-3 is a computer software program presented in an
accountant's worksheet or spreadsheet format. Also referred
to as a template, the format permits the user to organize
data and perform a variety of calculations. The worksheet as
well as graphs and charts may be printed using the program. ]
The template uses a number of factors to calculate the amount
of impervious surface for a specific building site. These
factors include the following:
1 . The ground floor area of the dwelling;
2 . The area covered by utility structures and uses
4
(garages, storage buildings , porches, etc. ) ; and
3 . The area covered by driveways and frontage roads .
The template not only calculates the amount and percentage of
impervious surface, but it identifies the degree of
noncompliance and the minimum lot size needed to comply.
Regardless of the standards eventually adopted, the template
will reduce the amount of staff time necessary to determine
compliance. The standards will require, however, greater
detail on site plans submitted as part of building permit
applications.
Template Expansion/Scenario Development
While the template proved useful for evaluating individual
sites, the amount of time required to evaluate a number of
development scenarios or alternatives would have been
enormous. Thus, the template was modified to calculate the
amount of impervious surface and required lot size for up to
a number of development scenarios.
In applying the template, a number of design elements were
considered. In each scenario, impervious surface was defined
to include paved and unpaved surfaces . The scenarios included
the following:
1 . Lot Configuration: Four lot shapes were evaluated -
narrow, typical, square, and wide (see Attachment ) .
Lot shape is important for one principal reason - the
greater the lot width, the greater the road frontage
used in calculating impervious surface.
2 . Road Classification: Four road classifications were
evaluated - Public (22 ft. width) , Class A Private ( 18
ft. width) , Class B Private ( 12 ft. width) , and Class C
Private (8 ft. width) . Only new roads were considered,
and only half of the pavement width was used in
calculating impervious surface.
3 . Dwelling Area: Four dwelling sizes were evaluated -
1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 square feet (sq.ft. ) . Size
categories were based on discussions with Inspections
personnel which indicated:
a. 1000 sq.ft. in floor area represented the
lower limit for one-story single-family residential
construction; and
b. 2500 sq.ft. was the upper limit for one-story
single-family construction.
5
Although the categories were based on one-story
construction, the square footage could be representative
of two-story construction. As an example, a dwelling
with 2500 sq.ft. of ground coverage could be a sprawling
ranch-style dwelling with garage, porches, etc. It could
also be indicative of a two-story dwelling with 1000
sq.ft. on the first floor and the remainder ( 1500
sq.ft. ) covered by garage, porches, and utility
building.
4 . Driveway Area: Driveway area was determined by
multiplying the length times a standard width of 10 ft.
Driveway length is influenced by one or more factors -
the location of the nitrification field (and thus the
dwelling) on a lot, the necessity of avoiding
topographical and environmental constraints, and
aesthetic concerns . The minimum length was considered to
be 60 ft. (40 ft. building setback + 20 ft. distance
between property line and edge of road) . Driveway
length (and dwelling location) was increased in 50 ft.
increments until the rear yard setback would have been
violated. A 400 ft. turnaround area was included in the
calculation of driveway area.
To illustrate the application of the template, a complete run
of the model is provided. The example is included as
Attachment and is representative of a 5-acre lot with a
2000 sq.ft. dwelling area.
Template Application/Results
Listed below is a summary of the results derived from
applying the template. Results are presented for 5-acre and
2-acre lots.
5-Acre Lots
For 5-acre lots, 672 design possibilities were derived using
the factors identified above. General findings are as
follows:
1 . Of the total number of scenarios, 405 or 60. 3% complied
with the 4% impervious surface standard while 39 . 7% did
not.
2 . Lots fronting on a Class B or C private road, and having
smaller dwellings and shorter driveways were more likely
to comply (see Attachment C) .
3 . Lots fronting on a public road, and having larger
6 •
dwellings and longer driveways were less likely
to comply (see Attachment E) .
4 . Typical and square lots were more likely to comply
than wide and narrow lots (see Attachments G , N, i,
and fl .
5 . For all lots to comply, the minimum required lot size
would have to be increased to 7 . 6 acres or the 4%
impervious surface standard would have to be increased
to 6. 11% (see Attachment At.) .
6. The average required minimum lot size for all lot
configurations was 5 .05 acres while the average
impervious surface ratio was 4. 03%.
2-Acre Lots
For 2-acre lots, 416 design possibilities were derived using
the factors identified above. General findings are as
follows:
1 . Of the total number of scenarios, 123 or 29 . 6% complied
with the 6% impervious surface standard while 70 .4% did
not.
2 . Lots fronting on a Class hoH driveways were more likely
smaller dwellings and shorter
to comply (see Attachment 4- ) .
3. Lots fronting on apudrveways,were less likely
dwellings and longer
to comply (see Attachment G. ) .
4 . Typical and square oisotswere
seemore
Attachments to comply
D ,
than wide and narrow
and #12 ) .
5. For all lots to comply, the minimum required lot size
would have to be increased to 4 . 0 acres or the 6%
impervious surface standard would have to be increased
to 11 .97% (see Attachment 1g) .
6. The average require��m�nac��slwhilesize
thefor
averagelot
configurations was
impervious surface ratio was 7 . 0%.
Relationship to Actual Building Trends
To determine if the scenarios developed with the spreadsheet
template were representative of real-life situations,
7
building permit trends in the watershed for 1988 and 1989
were evaluated (see Attachment R.) .
In 1988, a total of 155 permits of all types were issued for
building purposes in the watershed. In 1989, the number of
permits declined to 105, a decrease of 32% . Of all permits,
approximately 35% were issued for mobile homes during the
two-year period. A further check indicated that approximately
40% of all permits for mobile homes were for replacement
units .
Single-Family Residential Construction
For 1988, 50 permits were issued for new single-family
residential construction in the watershed. In 1989, the
number of single-family permits dropped to 29, a decrease of
42%.
Presented in Attachment S is an evaluation of the range of
dwelling sizes constructed in 1988 and 1989 . The floor area
ranges were divided along the same lines as for the template
scenarios ( 1000, 1500, 2000 sq.ft. , etc. ) . Based on building
permit and tax records for which floor area data was
available, it was determined that approximately 75% of actual
building situations ( 1000-2500 sq.ft. ) were covered by the
template scenarios. Since earlier modeling efforts included
floor areas ranging from 1500 to 4500 sq. ft. and the
compliance rates were generally the same (60% for 5-acre
lots/30% for 2-acre lots) , it was felt the template
accurately represented actual situations .
For both 1988 and 1989, the mean (average) and median
(midpoint-half above/half below) size of single-family
dwellings constructed in the watershed was approximately 2100
sq.ft. Thus, the 2000 sq.ft. scenarios would be indicative of
the difficulties experienced, on average, in complying with
the recommended standards.
Alternatives to Recommended Standards
Based on the analysis of development scenarios and building
construction trends, the following alternatives to the
recommended standards are suggested for consideration:
1 . Accept the CDM recommended standards.
By accepting the CDM standards, 60% of 5-acre
development scenarios and 30% of the 2-acre development
scenarios would comply. To deal with those situations
which do not comply, several possibilities exist.
8
a. Provide assistance in terms of "up-front"
subdivision and individual site design to assure
compliance.
b. Provide for exceptions where technical solutions
are provided to deal with runoff. Such solutions
could include, among others, porous paving, dutch
drains, dry wells, etc. They would, however,
require the development of specifications for such
devices and the evaluation of proposed solutions by
the County Engineer and Planning Staff.
c. Require the developer/owner to provide lot sizes
large enough to accommodate the type of housing
unit and accessory uses desired.
2 . Increase the impervious surface ceiling.
The "worst case" scenarios in terms of meeting the
impervious surface limits involved lots with public road
frontage, building coverage of 2500 sq. ft. , and, long
driveways . The amount of impervious surface in these
situations ranged from 5 .57% to 6. 11% for 5-acre lots
and 10.93% to 11 .97% for 2-acre lots.
By increasing the impervious surface ceiling from 4% to
6% for 5-acre lots, and from 6% to 12% for 2-acre lots,
the number of development scenarios able to comply
increases from 60% to 99% for 5-acre lots and from 30%
to 100% for 2-acre lots.
If this alternative is used, it would be desirable to
have a sliding scale of impervious surface limits rather
than broad categories for 5+ acre lots, 2-5 acre lots,
etc. A sliding scale such as the one shown on Attachment
would avoid situations where a 4 . 9 acre lot would be
permitted a 6% limit and a 5-acre lot would have to
comply with a 4% limit. The sliding scale shown also
accounts for lots less than 2 acres in size. Such lots
represent existing lots and constitute 7% of the
watershed land area.
3. Discount unpaved road surfaces with CDM standards .
Presently, unpaved roads are not included in impervious
surface calculations If this practice were continued,
the number of development scenarios able to comply would
increase from 60% to 76% for 5-acre lots and 30% to 55%
for 2-acre lots.
4. Discount all unpaved surfaces, including roads,
9
driveways, sidewalks, etc . with CDM standards.
This is similar to #3 above in that Orange County does
not include any unpaved surface in impervious surface
calculations . This alternative would result in 100%
compliance for both 5 and 2-acre lot scenarios .
5 . Establish design standards which assure/encourage
compliance.
Examples of design standards which would assure
compliance include the placement of restrictions on
driveway length and lot configurations. Since long
driveways increase the impervious surface, limiting
their length to a set maximum distance would assure
compliance. Coupled with such a standard might be one
which limits lot configuration to a "typical" or
"square" shape, since such lots demonstrated greater
compliance rates .
6. Increase the minimum lot size required.
Of all the alternatives, this is least acceptable but
still assures compliance with the CDM standards. For 5-
acre lots, the minimum lot size would have to be
increased to 7 . 6 acres . For 2-acre lots, the lot size
would have to be increased to 4 .0 acres .
7 . Permit lot size averaging.
This alternative would require a 4% impervious surface
ratio but would permit lot size averaging as long as the
density did not exceed 1 unit/5 acres . This alternative
is based on the fact that for all 5-acre scenarios, the
average lot size was 5.05 acres, and the average
impervious surface ratio was 4 . 03%.
For 2-acre lots, the same solution is not possible. The
average lot size for all scenarios was 2 . 35 acres and
the average impervious surface limit was 7% .
Recommendations
Based on the above information, I believe that alternative #2
provides the best solution to the impervious surface limit
problem in terms of permanent standards. For the interim
standards, the fact that Orange County currently defines
impervious surfaces to include only paved surfaces provides
the relief needed for individuals to build. I would
recommend, however, that any increases in impervious surface
limits be coupled with design standards which required roads,
home sites, and nitrification fields to be located outside of
10
stream corridors or buffer areas. Such buffers or corridors
can be defined as part of the permanent standards to be
presented at the February 28 public hearing. Exceptions such
as those identified in #1b above may be needed to address the
occasional situation in which someone cannot meet the
standards .
- - _ .
:141411.- - - - -
•
_.
-- - .=-_-. '--.-- •,..'
...• - -
'
-- -
. . -;. ' ,'
. .,
- • is. .. .. ,
. -
0 •
, .
- 1 - ....
. „
. .
- .. _
- + - ••••.,.
w .. . • :-.-•
cr .
nr
, „--
--. ' --"••• 211- I _NI, - - .
. - "--
'..-, ',. '• -.z.Ch -
W— - Z
• IN 0 s ,
t.) ... ';.: 4, / - to Ch • - . .... .._ .
ci)
-. ... ., al- / ,0...on - . • -... E - •
•
- 4 7;. :-;. . P••• -
. ,.
.. . .. . ... .._ ,-. .
• . . . .• ••"-•.• :
4- ".`4;.:-
2 _ , .
• . • . ..
. .• .. .. " '
. ,
• " . -
..;......,-:.-: _::• , '4.4,0 '_ ,...: - ..-• .1 ,..4 .. • : - • :_ _ _ li.1 • . _
•;.•• •■• to , -
. _
- - ........,. .._' -'• ),,\
- -
.• -1- .
. • - - _, ,, . . • , - •-
. , - - •
. . .. -- • - - -
u..1 •• = ••- - •• ATTAC.HMENT. A.
-,,:-. -•-... ;-,:-,:-. ,--. , - _, .4-10.
'n .,1:---- ,-.- --..• :•.-.. -:-- _.....-' : .' ' .--'%--''••:.''-'_:".--:.: -:-.....-.. ::::''- ...2.:' ' •- :''. .-.''• ,z-. :'
-
. . .
1 .. .. .
: . .
‘t ic . ,9
- .
• -
• • , - , .
- .
. . ' ..;--_-.3-t....-- - .7-----1-Z---‘- °'11. 7
. •
.. - • .
. .. • ,_.:,„,.,_. ..., ... . . . ,-..---:, i7 k' I
. , • . •
_
. .
-- -
-• . ,
- • -• ,
- -
, ...•.---••• .. •-
_ •, _-_-._-.:._:,-:,-- '1.:1-,-5;:;:-,-. -i'D -:--'7'.'AC: `..7n...,:::'',-,::::; :7 40.". '•,,.:.-'.... -: •;:...;-.7.js•••:.mi-it---'-'-'
. - . . • .. , .
, .. .
. .- .
._. .. . ,
w '.. • :_......-.--, •:•--- - ,e----..'.---_,;•:-.. ....::-..:.•:-;-••,-,. . •,•• -:,-• --.,!----•• :
. ..
. . . . ..
. . .
4 v.-..,. ..:.:•:;., , •:`'.."1'_.:,7, `:-.4 :'-': I ,. ri. ,t'i: .,.:-. ..;„.: _:3-,:- .7;,...-, t:7:z' -.---:_:-.,.;;-'--,-e-:--.:' •
. „ . ....
'--- .: •• :. ; . .::-!•,',... ...,-. -i IA, , , •••- 7 .._-- -r.:.,...:---,-.:•..1.---...:u-.2:,...."-....-•• ': - :.i.:-.:::_•-.-...,.,:...‘,---.
. . . . . .• :.-I cc; . - .. 000 - .-.--...-- -- ::-•:-.•- ..,. t-i'1-,:, ' I ....:.,,......:::-;;.,-.--.': :i.v.--g1;;.1'..:,...-..".•'...,4....- ,..-. .;,.... '...-:.-"...,:. ".7?..'-..■::"•
• ,
4..3.:••;',', :--,. ----.'-•7:•a!--7. 6 1.7,4-..,=•.:;'iii!--.±.4.'-.:•..7;:_:;-,.....--.;''S,-.-•'•'`I'-r-4-.:7. A -.. i''" -:.-7--' '.--- '-'-.'"•'---.
--1_:-; :-... h. 0 :---•-. 7.-' , :- -•' :-•.."-:_•`-' i i• 1 ,:,.."-;•:•.';'•'• • ••••.,..--is:.- 4 -1.4.1....' -; V --' ...:: %:-:" ' '••' ;'
....
'1, . •0 7-: • , t'...,. ,,,,.• s ;.,..-6'...,7 ••,tr"":- • • ' 1 r ..:r•.--.-;:.:1--•••••...7-)..,:‘.:-.7s . .--•••••••. 7..'..;:■. •...' I :.'".
....,L.'. ' 2... 1 W.r9 NI -7- ,; :.-.-.-4'-....-::-.''......'-',-7,,,•":1 I:• ,. ..;..1?-..,1•..,::-.Z.,':':,;;!..,4,-.1.':._,7V•t.4.. ,....," '7.'t.." :-•:.71---■'--;.".1••!•,-.-;- ". •
,--. -S.?.-- - .;-.•••--- --"-d, 6 .--• 7...f-',...,-.. 5. . 1 i, •-.-N- •-•'-'.?•-..Q .z r.;-.:... •,---,.• .-':-::--•-•'-'-'- ",-•
-.-- . • :•• -=:::....:..,;v.. ..n--I,.•-••••••-•-::•.; - • '' •, -'... •- rigt...27.,'•.::•-•.It• ..f.----Nr..e•?..r- -'4,••■-•...--: 4,-, ..-
_".....::::-..;;;.:..-4. ,. ,.7.1-,,- •••••••... , , ,, ..!"'•a - ,..•,:. ..1' , ,- ,•-",_;'•; ••1 . -1: ',:, -.-.. ;': .•- -,.._.-; -
--,-_ -:'.. ' 7,..r., --.--r....::, s-'-:- ,, Q -W:.* r••_ ..t'.4.7•; ,, ..7•,,..-.4":,' -`'I■•■'.1.-. ---
- -- : .'r' -4.-,-.:-r.• -.t•
• - '' .7...,. ..,._^'•,,:,:-....t,■':t vq ¢ ,-...,-- -'s'7'4. f`.'•- fi IA' - 7...•-.'nult••••••,?-S;rt-rd,-.4.•77,-".:`,r ff.' ..!4).:-..,:‘..:1,-•-•----.=•,---?.:-
• .-. -.- , ,' '.. : ..-- _...- -...".:. •....-..,...-.4: _,:---, ■'-'t:i 0 --.e-'1.111'-"",L- ',...,-......451s•e:7,-:•,,-•;",74:-..Z.4%...$-",..'---.-•;-, -7,7'.2. ..•.• -,--;. • "-
. .. .
-- -:• ::•.... ": .._ - • •,• -. -. .. :, , .- :.-- •-:--•.;---••-7
, - :_.,.'-2-.-- .-:•-',7.-......-...:. . . . _ .- -,:,'_.-..- „......,...,.:;-....,.-..•,.,.:.,..-.^:,••.:.:,•..•.-'.,:,...:.-.1.-.-;,,•-_..,-.::.„,.i,-:,,-,c-:-7.:;.'-,47...,.;1-7,7-;..,.•..;i._-:'.F-s•••' o--'-:...-...s.1-..J .A 1
0, , - '-1 c ma,.r c-o 17-.--•.-'7.-._2.7..,4-,--.,• -:7.,e'r. r. 4 ; , --.•...;-••..--..-.;--:•;:7,,-.--.----,."...•"•;'L•.•-
-•
7'1--'•,-`.1.-.-'',- •-.,-• ii.:''- -.--
.-• .. • - .. •.., ... , _ _ .,..„.... -._., '..-,:r '1.4.--. 6;-:4---.-' . t•-.rl. : ,i,. ..-*,',....-
it Ul'I
. ._ , - .._-..-...... _,• , .•',,....., , . 't" - ". ."•c.,'1.0111111111 -tr, .i•,1•:-.. -t-A• IA
....-
. .
' :7 7
.4,- ',..„• .1,A
-.-
-,.....,
.. ,,.,,, ,A., ,_,N ,N ------..- •
. .
. _• : -.- _. - - lti , LW u) ''''. .: •'' '"" -----' - -. !,'• - - cg•- "( 03i5 :''' - - -
. '5-. ....., ii -. • "'•,.,, -,-
,. , • .
'. _ • r-, "
- ILI •• •_,
.. -. . ..-
-
' • - mcr in 15 - -' - - ' --- - ;-•....• --.- -.I ..f':%;---:- -
'
. - • - .: 0 C) co , • - .
_
in re) z ' .-
7 0 . . . .u) •,‘9.. 1-t`b „. ----: •
_ \-1\ . . ,
-.A• — -
_
44
.5‘
- - .. . . . _ _.- - . .•
oh \c3 • - - - - -
- . .
. . . . . .. .
. . .
_ -
. ,. , _ • ... • r..-
. • „_ . . .
. . . .._ _ .. .
• • - -
. . _ . , - -.-: •
- -- -
• _
- _ . • .
.. .
.
.
•
. .
. . .
- - •
,... . . .
io
•
. ,
. .
. ,
• -
. .
. . .
. . . .. . '
" . . . .
•-• . . -
_ .
. ,
. .
•
t
ATTACHMENT A
12
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1/3/90 Print
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC
PROJECT DATA:
Applicant Name:
Location:
Tax Map Reference:
Lot Width (Ft): 345 Road Class: Public
Lot Frontage (Ft): 485 Road Width (Ft): 22
Lot Depth (Ft): 795
Lot Area (SqFt): 239144 Dwelling - Number of Stories: 1
- Total Living Area (SqFt): 1910
Dwelling Setback (Ft): 140 - First Level (SqFt): 1910
Driveway Length (Ft): 795 Utility Structures/Uses: Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Garage 0 0 0
Storage 0 0 0
Utility 82 40 3280
Porch 0 0 0
Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 4.00% Sidewalk 0 0 0
Maximum Impervious Surface Area (SgFt): . 9566 Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool/Tennis 0 0 0
Other 140 30 4200
Total 7480
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total %
Parcel - Impervious Impervious
Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface
(Acres) (SgFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt)
239144 1910 7480 9390 795 10 8350 485 11 5335 23075 9.65%
RESULTS: DOES NOT COMPLY - EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ISR DIFFERENCE: -5.65% OR -13509 SQ.FT.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED TO COMPLY: 13.2 ACRES OR 576875 SQ.FT.
NOTES: (1) "Utility structures/uses" are not included as part of, but may be attached to or separated from, the Living area.
(2) "Driveway Length" includes parking/back-up area for vehicles plus property line-to-road distance.
(3) "Open, wooden decks" are not counted as impervious surfaces.
v■
•
ATTACHMENT B
lJ. a - 1.3
. N - ► ;r
til .
li. NI - r-z li . c.
1
O N
'3 p..,1\ \
o
i ,ao
t- S , U \
..,n 1-- A
- - ---s
y ; !
6\
t
•
0-S":-.S"
_ --� — �r rgfp∎,cii'. _� ���,j ,
n 0 - . .
CO .3. Gp•ti ,�be
M - 0
`r:'
O
~ Y / a I 4
r !j' .
0
•
1
i
ATTACHMENT B 14
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION TEMPLATE
Version 1/3/90 Print
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC
PROJECT DATA:
Applicant Name:
Location:
Tax Map Reference:
Lot Width (Ft): 335 Road Class: Public
Lot Frontage (Ft): 335 Road Width (Ft): 22
Lot Depth (Ft): 650
Lot Area (SqFt): 217750 Dwelling - Number of Stories: 1
- Total Living Area (SqFt): 1400
Dwelling Setback (Ft): 470 - First Level (SqFt): 1400
Driveway Length (Ft): 565 Utility Structures/Uses; Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 12 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Garage 0 0 0
Storage 0 0 0
Utility 0 0 0
Porch 0 0 0
Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 4.00% Sidewalk 0 0 0
Maximum Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 8710 Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool/Tennis 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total %
Parcel Impervious Impervious
Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt) ---
217750 1400 0 1400 565 12 7180 335 11 3685 12265 5.63%
RESULTS: DOES NOT COMPLY - EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ISR DIFFERENCE: -1.63% OR -3555 SQ.FT.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIRED TO COMPLY: 7.0 ACRES OR 306625 SQ.FT.
NOTES: (1) "Utility structures/uses" are not included as part of, but may be attached to or separated from, the living are-.
(2) "Driveway Length" includes parking/back-up area for vehicles plus property line-to-road distance.
(3) "Open, wooden decks" are not counted as impervious surfaces.
ATTACHMENT C 15
REVISED: DECEMBER 01, 1989
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL
TENTATIVE
WORK SCHEDULE
NOVEMBER 15, 1989 - DECEMBER 15, 1989
Staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro to prepare the
following materials:
1. Informational materials for the public to be distributed
before the public meeting including means of distribution
(i.e. media) and schedule for distribution.
2. Draft of "Development Standards" including:
•
a) Lot placement to minimize waterquality impacts for
•
1) cluster subdivisions
2) standard lot subdivisions
b) Siting of structures.
c) Septic tank setbacks from streams.
d) Stream buffer requirements. . -
e) Open space set aside in cluster development . to prohibit
further subdivision. : =`° `
f) Placement and character of:
1) driveways
2) roads
g) Definition of impervious surfaces.
3 . Proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
and Subdivision Regulations and amendments to the
Carrboro Land Use Ordinance which will incorporate the
"Development Standards" as well as the. Orange-Chatham
Work Group's proposed approach to development outlined
below: . - -
A. BASIC STRATEGY
Minimum lot size 5 acres
Density 1 unit per 5 acres
Impervious Surface 4%
Wastewater Disposal Individual, on-site septic with
public monitoring or alternative
disposal with Board of Health
oversight and inspection.
Stormwater Onsite structural BMP' s not
required.
_
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL (con't)
Page 2
REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 16
B. CLUSTER STRATEGY
Minimum lot size 1 acre
Density 1 unit per 5 acres
Impervious Surface 4%
Wastewater Disposal Individual, on-site septic with
public monitoring or alternative
disposal with Board of Health
oversight and inspection.
Stormwater On-site structural BMP's if
needed to control slug loadings
(public inspection and
maintenance required) .
Open Space Land not in lots due to
clustering -- to be " set aside
permanently.
C. EXISTING LOTS (AS OF OCTOBER 02 , 1989)
1) Less than 5 acres
a) allowed to develop at current size
b) structural BMP's not required
c) impervious surface
12% for lots less than 2 acres
6% for lots between 2 and 5 acres
4% for lots greater than 5 acres
2) Any lot may be subdivided to create up to 5 lots no
less than 2 acres in size with remaining land
subdivided with 5-acre lots
6% impervious surface for lots between 2 and 5 acres
4% for lots greater than 5 acres
4 . Joint Land Use Plan Amendment necessary to accommodate
proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments such
as the creation of a water supply watershed land use
classification.
5 . Joint Planning Agreement amendments necessary to
incorporate proposed Joint Land Use Plan amendments.
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL (con't)
Page 3 17
REVISED DECEMBER 01,, 1989
JANUARY 10. 1990
Staff recommendations completed for review by governing
boards.
JANUARY 23, 1990
a) Review by the Orange County Board of Commissioners
b) Review by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and referral to
the Carrboro Planning Board for review
c) Review by the Chapel Hill Town Council and referral to
the Chapel Hill Planning Board for comments on proposed
changes to the Joint' Planning Area Land Use Plan
JANUARY 29/31, 1990?
Question and Answer Forum: Camp, Dresser, McKee Report and
13-Point Agreement.
FEBRUARY 01, 1990
Carrboro Planning Board review.
FEBRUARY 05, 1989-
Orange County Commissioners set a public hearing.
FEBRUARY 13, 1990
Carrboro Board of Aldermen to consider Planning Board
recommendations and set a public hearing on Land Use
Ordinance amendments for February 28, 1990.
FEBRUARY 14, & 21, 1990
•
Public hearing notice to be advertised in newspaper.
FEBRUARY 19, 1990
Orange County Planning Board review.
FEBRUARY 20, 1990
Chapel Hill Planning Board review.
FEBRUARY 23 , 1990
OPEN HOUSE - Educational Session on Watershed Protection
Proposal, Zoning, Subdivision, Joint Land Use Plan, and
Joint Planning Agreement amendments
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL (con't)
Page 4 18
REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989
FEBRUARY 28, 1990
A. Joint Public Hearing on:
1) Joint Planning Agreement Land Use Plan amendment
2) Joint Planning Agreement amendment
B. Orange County Public Hearing on:
1) Zoning and subdivision regulations amendment
C. Carrboro Public Hearing on:
1) Land Use Ordinance Amendments
2) Zoning Map Amendments
MARCH 15, 1990
Carrboro Planning Board to make final recommendations on
Joint Planning Agreement Land Use Plan, Agreement
amendments, and amendments to the Carrboro Land Use
Ordinance.
MARCH 19, 1990
Orange County Planning Board to make final recommendations
on Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan amendments,
and Zoning and Subdivision Regulations amendments.
MARCH 20, 1990
Carrboro Board of Aldermen adopts Land Use Ordinance and Map
amendments and Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan
amendments.
MARCH 26, 1990
Chapel Hill adopts Joint Planning Agreement and Joint
Planning Agreement Land Use Plan amendments.
•
APRIL 02,1990 -
Orange County adopts Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use
Plan amendments, and Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
amendments.
•
ATTACHMENT D
19
LOT CONFIGURATIONS
W
L W
W
L W
L
L
Narrow Typical Square Wide
Width (Ft) Length (Ft)
5-ACRE LOTS
Narrow 165 1320
Typical 330 660
Square 467 467
Wide 660 330
2-ACRE LOTS
Narrow 130 670
Typical 209 417
Square 295 295
Wide 417 209
•
ATTACHMENT E 2
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00
Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Typical
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - Public
Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2000
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Utility Structures - No
Lot Width (Ft): 209 Road Class: Public
Lot Frontage (Ft): 209 Road Width (Ft): 22
Lot Depth (Ft): 417
Lot Size (SqFt): 87120 Dwelling- Number of Stories: 1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Driveway Length (Ft): varies Utility Structures: Length width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0
Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 5227 Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
. Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total % Requi ed
Lot Lot ...__ Impery Impery Mini um
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lot S ze
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Acr s)
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 60 10 1000 209 11 2299 5299 6.08% '.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 11 2299 5799 6.66% '.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 11 2299 6299 7.23% .4
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 11 2299 6799 7.80% -.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 11 2299 7299 8.38% -.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 11 2299 7799 8.95% ;.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% ..2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% ,.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% ;..2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% ..2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% 6.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% 6.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% 6.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% .2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209, 11 2299 8299 9.53% .2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% 3.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 11 2299 8299 9.53% 3.2
AVERAGES 7.80% 2.6
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
■ ram■
21
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00
Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Typical
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - A Private
Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2000
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Utility Structures - No
Lot Width (Ft): 209 Road Class: A Private
Lot Frontage (Ft): 209 Road Width (Ft): 18
Lot Depth (Ft): 417
Lot Size (SqFt): 87120 Dwelling- Number of Stories: 1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Driveway Length (Ft): Varies Utility Structures: Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0
Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 5227 Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total % Required
Lot Lot ------ Impery Impery Minimum
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lot Size
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Acres)
2.00 87120 ---�2000 0 2000 60 10 1000 209 9 1881 4881 5.60% 1.9
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 9 1881 5381 6.18% 2.1
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 9 1881 5881 6.75% 2.3
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 9 1881 6381 7.32% 2.4
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 9 1881 6881 7.90% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 9 1881 7381 8.47% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 9 1881 7881 9.05% 3.0
---� AVERAGES 7.32% 2.4
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
i .
22
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00
Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Typical
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - B Private
Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2000
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Utility Structures - No
Lot Width (Ft): 209 Road Class: B Private
Lot Frontage (Ft): 209 Road Width (Ft): 12
Lot Depth (Ft): 417
Lot Size (SgFt).: 87120 Dwelling-Number of Stories: 1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Driveway Length (Ft): Varies Utility Structures: Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0
Max Impervious Surface Area (SOFt): 5227 Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS: ,
Structural Coverage Driveway Road . % Required
Lot Lot Impery Impery Minimum
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lot Size
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SgEt) (SgEt) (Acres)
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 60 10 1000 209 6 1254 4254 4.88% 1,6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 6 1254 4754 5.46% 1.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 6 1254 5254 6.03% 2.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 6 1254 5754 6.60% 2.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 6 1254 6254 7.18% 2.4
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 6 1254 6754 7.75% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 . 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 ' 6, 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8'
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% 2.8
AVERAGES 6.60% 2.2
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway Length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
23
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00
Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Typical
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - C Private
Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2000
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Utility Structures - No
Lot Width (Ft): 209 Road Class: C Private
Lot Frontage (Ft): 209 Road Width (Ft): 8
Lot Depth (Ft): 417
Lot Size (SqFt): 87120 Dwelling- Number of Stories: 1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2000
Driveway Length (Ft): Varies Utility Structures: Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0
Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 5227 Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total % Required
Lot Lot ---------- Impery Impery Minimum
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lot Size
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SgFt) (Acres)
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 60 10 1000 209 4 836 3836 4.40% 1.5
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 4 836 4336 4.98% 1.7
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 4 836 4836 5.55% 1.9
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 4 836 5336 6.12% 2.0
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 4 836 5836 6.70% 2.2
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 4 836 6336 7.27% 2.4
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 ' 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 4 836 6836 7.85% 2.6
AVERAGES 6.12% 2.0
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
i
. ATTACHMENT F 2 4
FIVE-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS
BY ROAD CLASS FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt)
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent
Class Area Items compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 42 21 50.00% 21 50.00%
Public 1500 42 18 42.86% 24 57.14%
Public 2000 42 15 35.71% 27 64.29%
Public 2500 42 12 28.57% 30 71.43%
TOTALS 168 66 39.29% 102 60.71%
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 42 27 64.29% 15 35.71%
A Private 1500 42 23 54.76% 19 45.24%
A Private 2000 42 19 45.24% 23 54.76%
A Private 2500 42 16 38.10% 26 61.90%
TOTALS 168 85 50.60% 83 49.40%
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) • .
B Private 1000 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67%
8 Private 1500 42 32 76.19% 10 23.81%
- B Private 2000 42 28 66.67% 14 , 33.33%
- B Private 2500 42 24 57.14% 18 42.86%
TOTALS 168 119 70.83% 49 29.17%
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
- --. ... C Private _ ..- 1000 42.... 37 88.10% 5 - 11.90%
C Private 1500 .. 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67%
C Private 2000 42 33 78.57% 9 21.43%
C Private . . . 2500 __._ 42 30 71.43% -.- 12 - 28.57% -
TOTALS 168 135 80.36% 33 19.64%
GRAND TOTALS 672 ..- 405___ 60.27% ... ... .......•- 267 __. .. 39.73% -
25
ATTACHMENT G
FIVE-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR NARROW LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 17 10 -+�58.82X 7 41.18% 3.59% 4.5
Public 1500 17 9 52.94% 8 47.06% 3.82% 4.8
Public 2000 17 8 47.06% 9 52.94% 4.05% 5.1
Public 2500 17 7 41.18% 10 58.82% 4.28% 5.3
TOTALS 68 34 50.00% 34 50.00% 3.94% 4.9
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 17 11 64.71% _ 6 35.29% 3.44% 4.3
A Private 1500 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% 3.67% 4.6
A Private 2000 17 9 52.94% 8 47.06% 3.90% 4.9
A Private 2500 17 8 47.06% 9 52.94% 4.13% 5.2
----� --
. TOTALS 68 38 55.88% 30 44.12% 3.79% 4.8
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) - �w--- --�~�_-~-_---�
B Private _ 1000 . 17 12 70.59% . 5 29.41% 3.21% 4.0
- B Private 1500 17 11 64.71% 6 35.29% 3.44% 4.3
B Private 2000 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% 3.67% 4.6
_ B Private 2500 17 9 52.94% 8 47.06X 3.90% 4.9
,
TOTALS 68 42 - 61.76% 26 38.24% 3.56% 4.5
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) --- w-�
___ - _ C Private -- 1000 :.. 17 -. -_- 13 76,47% 4 23.53% 3.06% 3.8
C Private 1500 17 12 70.59% 5 29.41% 3.29% 4.1
['Private 2000 17 11 64.71% 6 35.29% 3.52% 4.4
C Private 2500 17 10 ' 58.82% 7 41.18% 3.75% 4.7
TOTALS 68 46 67.65% 22 32.35% 3.41% 4.3
4.3
- -------------------
-- GRAND TOTALS... _ .---.. _... -._ 272 -.._- 160 - 58.82% - . - 112 - - - 41.18% - 3.67% 4.6
ATTACHMENT H
FIVE-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR TYPICAL LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SgFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent
Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft width)
Public 1000 12 7 58.33% S 41.67% 4.22% 5.3
Public 1500 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% 4.45% 5.6
Public 2000
12 5 41.67% 7 58.33% 4.68% 5.8
Public 2500 12 4 33.33% 8 66.67% 4.91% 6.1
TOTALS
48 22 45.83% 26 54.17% 4.57% 5.7
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
4 33.33% 3.92% 4.9
A Private 1000 12 8 ' 66'67% 41.67% 4.15% 5.2
A Private 1500 12 7 58.33% 5
A Private 2000 12 6 50.00X 6 50.00% 4.38% 5.5 .7 58.33% 4.60% 5.8
A Private 2500 12 5 41.67%
TOTALS 48 26 54.17% 22 45.83% 4.26% 5.4
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
-__----
B Private 1000 12 10 83.33% 2 16.67% 3.46% 4.6 3 25.00% 3.69% 4.6
B Private 1500 12 9 75.00% 4 33.33% 3.92% 4.9
B Private 2000 12 8 66.67%
4.15% 5.2 4.
- B Private 2500 12 ' 7 58.33% 5 41.67% -
TOTALS TOTALS
48 34 70.83% 14 29.17% 3.81% 4.8
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
. ..-1 C Private 1000 12 11 91.67% 1 8.33% 3.16% 3.9
% 2 16.67% 3.39% 4.2
12 10 83.33
C Private 1500 25.00% 3.62%
C.Private 2000 12 9 75.00% 3
_ C Private 2500 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% 3.85% 4.8
.. . . . _ __-^---^------- "-_^--
__--- -�
TOTALS 48 38 79.17% 10 20.83% 3.51% 4.4
---
GRAND TOTALS 192 120, , 62.50% 72 37.50% 4.03% 5.1
ATTACHMENT I
FIVE-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR SQUARE LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 4.51% 5.6
Public 1500 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 4.74% 5.9
Public 2000 8 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 4.96% 6.2
Public 2500 8 1 12.50% 7. 87.50% 5.19% 6.5
TOTALS 32 10 31.25% 22 68.75% 4.85% 6.1
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 8 6 75.00% 2 25.00X 4.08% 5.1
A Private 1500 8 5 62.50% 3 37.50% 4.31% 5.4
A Private 2000 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 4.54% 5.7
A Private 2500 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 4.77% 6.0
TOTALS 32 18 56.25% 14 43.75% 4.43% 5.6
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
B Private 1000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.43% 4.3
B Private 1500 8 7 87.50% 1 12.50% 3.66% 4.6
8 Private 2000 8 6 75.00% 2 25.00% 3.89% 4.9
B Private-`--- 2500 8 5 62.50% 3 37.50% 4.12% 5.2
TOTALS 32 26 81.25% 6 ---___18.75% 3.78% 4.8
-"- --------------------------
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
C Private 1000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.00X _..._ 3.0
C Private 1500 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.23% 4.0
C Private 2000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.46% 4.3
C Private 2500 8 7 87.50% 1 12.50% 3.69% 4.6
TOTALS 32 31 96.88% 1 3.13% 3.35% 4.0
__ GRAND TOTALS 128 85 66.41% 43 33.59% 4.10% 5.1
28
ATTACHMENT J
FIVE-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR WIDE LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Duelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.03% 6.3
Public 1500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.26% 6.6
Public 2000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.49% 6.9
Public 2500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.72% 7.2
TOTALS 20 0 0.00% 20 100.00% 5.38% 6.8
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 4.43% 5.5
A Private 1500 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 4.66% 5.8
A Private 2000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 4.89% 6.1
A Private 2500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.12% 6.4
TOTALS 20 3 15.00% 17 85.00% 4.78% 6.0
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
B Private 1000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.52% 4.4
B Private 1500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.75% 4.7
B Private 2000 5 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 3.98% 5.0
- .- B Private 2500 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 4.21% 5.3
TOTALS 20 17 85.00% 3 15.00% 3.87% 4.9
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
C Private 1000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 2.91% 3.6
C Private 1500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.14% 3.9
C Private 2000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.37% 4.2
C Private 2500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.60% 4.5
TOTALS 20 20 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.26% 4.1
GRAND TOTALS 80 40 50.00% 40 50.00% 4.32% 5.4
■
29
ATTACHMENT K
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE
Version 1/3/90 Print SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 5.00
& Inspections Lot Configuration - Narrow
Department of Planning pections - Orange County NC Road Class
Public
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2500
Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Lot Width (pt); Utility Structures - No
165 Road Class: Public
Lot Frontage (Ft): 165 Road Width (Ft): 22
Lot Depth (Ft): 1320
Lot Size (SqFt): 217800 Dwelling- Number of Stories:
1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2500
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2500
Driveway Length (Ft): Varies Utility Structures:
Driveway Width (Ft): Length Width Area
10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 4.00%
Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 8712 Bldg # 0 0 0
Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS: Total 0
Structural Coverage Driveway
Lot Lot - Road Total % Required
Impery
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Area IAreav Surface Lot nSize
(Acres)- (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SgFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Acres)
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 60 10 1000
5.00 217800 2500 165 11 1815 5315 2.44% 3.1
0 2500 110 10 1500 165 11 1815 5815 2.67% 3.3
5.00. 217800 ' 2500 0 2500 160 10
5.00 217800 2500 2000 165 11 1815 6315 2.90% 3.6
0 2500 210 10 2500 165 11 1815 6815 3.13% 3.9
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500
5.00 217800 2500 260 10 3000 165 11 1815 7315 3.36% 4.2
0 2500 310 10 3500 165 11 1815 7815 3.59% 4.5
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500
360 10 4000 165 11 1815 8315 3.82% 4.8
5.00 217800 2500
0 2500 410 10 4500 165 11 1815 8815 4.05% 5.1
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 460 10 5000 165 11 1815 9315 4.28% 5.3
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 510 10 5500 165 11 1815 9815 4.51% 5.6
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500
5.00 217800 2500 560 10 6000 165 11 1815 10315 4.74% 5.9
0 2500 610 10 6500 165 11 1815 10815 4.97% 6.2
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 660 10 7000 165 11 1815 11315 5.20% 6.5
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 710 10 7500 165 11 1815 11815 5.42% 6.8
5.00 217800 2500
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 760 10 8000 165 . 11 1815 12315 5.65% 7.1
5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 810 10 8500 165 11 1815 12815 5.882 7.4
0 2500 860 10 9000 165 11 1815 13315 6.11% 7.6
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width AVERAGES 4.28% 5.3
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on Lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
ATTACFM"!FI T L
30
TWO-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS
BY ROAD CLASS FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS
Project Data Compliance Data --_��
(SqFt)
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent
Class Area Items Compliance compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width) -�N�w-_��-'�
Public 1000 -_---26 6 23.08% 20 76.92%
Public 1500 26 4 15.38% 22 84.62%
24 92.31%
2 7.69%
Public 2000 26 96.15%
Public 2500 26 1 3.85% 25 %
TOTALS
104 13 12.50% 91 87.50%
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width) --_--
----------------------------- 10 38.46% 16 61.54%
A Private 1000 26 19 73.08%
A Private 1500 26 7 26.92%
26 4 15.38% 22 84.62%
A Private 2000 24 92.31%
A Private 2500 --26--_--_� 2 7.69%
--------_____ - _._..-.....-104 �_ - Z2.12X --------
81 77.88%
TOTALS
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
�--- 14 53.85% 12 46.15%
8 Private 1000 26 16 61.54%
B Private 1500 26 10 38.46%
23.08% 20 76.92%
26 6 23.
B Private 2000 � %
8$.y�
8 Private 2500 26 3 11.54% ___3 - �+�
TOTALS
-------------- ----- _104 -_ __--33---_ 31.73% 71 68.27%
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
C Private 1000 26 18 . 69.23% 8 30.77%
10 38.46%C Private 1500 26 16 61.54%
12 46.15% 14 53.85%
C Private 2000 26 18 69.23%
C Private 2500 26 8 30.77%
TOTALS 104 54 51.92% 50 48.08%
__-----___ ---_-^-'------
____----- ____-416 w-----1� �_ 29.57% 293 70.43%
GRAND TOTALS
�----
y . . I
ATTACHMFN^! ?1
31
TWO-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR NARROW LOTS
Project Data -------------- ---------__�»---------------------
Compliance Data
(SqFt)
Road Dwelling Total Average Required
n9 Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-
compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 �4__-_---�_Q__--__O_�---- 4 ---------
Public 1500 4 100.00% 7.09% 2.4
0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.67% 2.6
Public 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.24% 2.7
Public 2500 4 0
0.00% 4 100.00% 8.82% 2.9
TOTALS 16 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 7.96% 2.7
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.80% 2.3
A Private 1500 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 7.37% 2.5
A Private 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.94% 2.6
A Private N»2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.52% 2.8
TOTALS 16 3 18.75% 13 -- »�"'"" '""'_____�_
-----------------------_.-_ 81.25% 7.66% 2.6
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) »_ »
B Private 1000 4- __-�_-_"__75.00% -»-_w 1__�� -
25.00% 6.35% 2.1
B Private 1S00 -
4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.92% 2.3
B Private 2000 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 7.50% 2.5
B Private 2500 4 0 25.00% 3 75.00% 8.07% 2.7
TOTALS 16 6 37.50% 10
62.50% 7.21% 2.4
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) »_ - __
C Private 1000 4 4 100.00% 0 - 0.00% 6.05% » N2.0
C Private 1500' 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 6.62% 2.2
C Private 2000 4 3 75.00% 1
C Private 2500 25'00% 7.20% 2.4
4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 7.77% 2.6
TOTALS 16 13 »81.25% ------ 3---- -- --------------------
____��� 18.75% 6.91% 2.3
GRAND TOTALS y -
---------------------------------------- 42 65.63x 7.43% 2.5
A-�
mTACH*R ;NT N 32
-
TWO-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR TYPICAL LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 6.66% 2.2
Public 1500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.23% 2.4
Public 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.80% 2.6
Public 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.38% 2.8
TOTALS 16 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 7.52% 2.5
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.18% 2.1
A Private 1500 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.75% 2.3
A Private 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.32% 2.4
A Private 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.90% 2.6
TOTALS 16 3 18.75% 13 81.25% 7.04% 2.4
CLASS 6 PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
B Private 1000 -- 4 ---
3 }75.00% --M-N 1 ------25.00% 5.46% 1.8 , .
B Private 1500 4 2, 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.03% 2.0
- 8 Private 2000 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.60% 2.2
B Private 2500 4 0 25.00% 3 75.00% 7.18% 2.4
TOTALS ---------------- 16__w___6_....-_-37.50% 10 ---- 62.50% 6.32% 2.1
-----
. CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
C Private 1000 4 4 100.00% � 0 0.00% - 4.98% 1.7
C Private 1500 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 5.55% 1.9
C Private 2000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 6.12% 2.0
C Private 2500 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.70% '2.2
TOTALS 16 13 ---�-81.25% --_�-„_3 18.75% 5.84% 2.0
GRAND TOTALS ----N--_-64 22 34.38% 42 65.63% 6.68% 2.2
ATTACHMENT () -
33
TWO-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR SQUARE LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 6.88% 2.3
Public 1500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.46% 2.5
Public 2000 4 0 0.0= 4 100.00% 8.03% 2.7
Public 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.60% 2.9
TOTALS 16 - 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 7.74% 2.6
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.20% 2.1
A Private 1500 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.78% 2.3
A Private 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.35% 2.5
A Private 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 7.93% 2.6
TOTALS 16 3 18.75% 13 81.25% 7.07% 2.4
CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
B Private 1000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 5.19% 1.7
B Private 1500 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 5.76% 1.9
B Private 2000 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.34% 2.1
B Private 2500 4 0 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.91% 2.3
TOTALS 16 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 6.05% 2.0
CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width)
C Private 1000 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 4.51% 1.5
C Private 1500 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 5.08% 1.7
C Private 2000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 5.66% 1.9
C Private 2500 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.23% 2.1
TOTALS 16 13 81.25% 3 18.75% 5.37% 1.8
GRAND TOTALS 64 22 34.38% 42 65.63% 6.56% 2.2
-
34
ATTACH-PI h1T P
Y
TWO-ACRE LOTS
COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZES
BY ROAD CLASS AND DWELLING SIZE FOR WIDE LOTS
Project Data Compliance Data
(SqFt) Average Required
Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Impervious Lot Size
Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Surface (Acres)
PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width)
Public 1000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.13% 2.7
Public 1500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.71% 2.9
Public 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 9.28% 3.1
Public 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 9.86% 3.3
TOTALS 16 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 9.00% 3.0
CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width)
A Private 1000 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 7.18% 2.4
A Private 1500 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 7.75% 2.6
A Private 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.83% 2.8
A Private 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 8.90% 3.0
• TOTALS _, 16 3 18.75% 13 81.25% 8.17% 2.7
▪ CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width)
-- - B Private'- 1000 4 3 75.00% . 1 25.00% 5.74% 1.9
�'- B Private' _. 1500 =--- 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.32% 2.1
B Private- 2000 4 -._ 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 6.89% 2.3
B Private 2500 4 0 25.00% , 3 75.00% 7.46% 2.5
TOTALS 16 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 6.60% 2.2
-w CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) . ..
C Private 1000 -- 4 " 4 - 100.00% 0 0.00% 4.78% 1.6
C Private 1500 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 5.36% 1.8
--•-- C Private 2000 4 - . 3 " 75.00% 1 25.00% 5.98% 2.0
C Private • 2500 :: - 4 2 -' 50.00% . 2 50.00% 6:51% 2.2
TOTALS 16 13 81.25% 3 18.75% 5.66% 1.9
A GRAND TOTALS 64 22 34.38% 42 65.63% 7.36% 2.5
immommomm
35
ATmACHM NT C)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00
version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Narrow
Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - Public
Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2500
PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies
Utility Structures - No
Lot Width (Ft): 130 Road Class: Public
Lot Frontage (Ft): 130 Road Width (Ft): 22
Lot Depth (Ft): b70
Lot Size (SqFt): 87120 Dwelling- Number of Stories: 1
- Total Floor Area (SqFt): 2500
Dwelling Setback (Ft): Varies - Ground Floor Area (SqFt): 2500
Driveway Length (Ft): Varies Utility Structures: Length Width Area
Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt)
Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 6.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0
Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 5227 Bldg #2 0 0 0
Bldg #3 0 0 0
• Patio/Deck 0 0 0
Pool 0 0 0
Tennis 0 0 0
Total 0
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & CALCULATIONS:
Structural Coverage Driveway Road Total % Required
Lot Lot -__.._�______- Impery Impery Minimum
Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lot Size
(Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Acres)
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 �. 60 ----�10 1000 130 11-�- 1430 4930 5.665 1.9
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 110 10 1500 130 11 1430 5430 6.23% 2.1
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 160 10 2000 130 11 1430 5930 6.81% 2.3
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 210 10 2500 130 11 1430 6430 7.38% 2.5
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 260 10 3000 130 11 1430 6930 7.95% 2.7
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 310 10 3500 130 11 1430 7430 8.53% 2.8
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 360 10 4000 130 11 1430 7930 9.10% 3.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 . 2500 410 10 4500 130 11 1430 8430 9.68% 3.2
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 460 10 5000 130 11 1430 8930 10.25% 3.4
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 510 10 5500 130 11 1430 9430 10.82% 3.6
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 560 10 6000 130 11 1430 9930 11.40% 3.8
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
2.00 87120 2500 0 2500 610 10 6500 130 11 1430 10430 11.97% 4.0
AVERAGES 8.82% 2.9
NOTES: (1) Lot configurations are: Narrow - lot width equals one-eighth depth; Typical - lot width
equals one-half depth; Square - lot width equals depth; and Wide - lot depth equals one-half width.
(2) Septic field location on lot is determinant of dwelling setback and driveway length.
(3) Driveway area includes 400 square foot back-up space for vehicles.
c
ATTACHMENT R 36
Y
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED, BY TYPE
UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED, ORANGE COUNTY, NC
1988 AND 1989
Number Percent
Type 1988 Percent of 1989 Percent of Change Change
Construction Permits Total Permits Total 1988 to 1989 1988 to 1989
New Work 56 36.1% 38 36.2% -18 -32.1%
Mobile Home 50 32.3% 39 37.1% -11 -22.0%
Addition 22 14.2% 18 17.1% -4 -18.2%
Accessory Building 20 12.9% 4 3.8% -16 -80.0%
Alteration 6 3.9% 3 2.9% -3 -50.0%
Repair 0 0.0% 1 1.0% 1 100.0%
Move Building 1 0.6% 0 0.0% -1 -100.0%
Sign 0 0.0% 2 1.9% 2 100.0%
Totals 155 100.0% 105 100.0% -50 -32.3%
Source: Orange County Building Permit System.
,
AmTACHrrtFrTT S
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA
University Lake Watershed, 1988 37
Floor Dwelling
Area Midpoint Units in Percent Cumulative
Range of Range Range Distribution Distribution
(SqFt) (SqFt)
1000-1500 1250 10 20. 0%
1500-2000 1750 i1 4 . 0
2000-2500 2250 22. OX 422. 0%%
2500-3000 2750 17 34. 0% 76. OX
3 6. 0% 62. 0%
3000-3500 3250
9 18. 0% 100. 0%
SOURCE: Orange County Building Permit System
NOTE. Floor area includes area in dwelling plus
area covered by a garage, porch or similar
impervious surface. Structures surveyed
include one and two-story dwellings
but only the ground floor area was used in
the above calculations.
SF CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA RANGE
35% Univarmiljr tales er■hed, 1988
25%
i lox
t r r ir
O MI WW1
70- r r ipor
S% AI4I4f74
r r r Er r
_ ox A
1250 1750 2250
2750 .3250
Raga Mi oirg i Squa.Fed)
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA 38
University Lake Watershed, 1989 T.
Floor Dwelling
Area Midpoint Units in Percent Cumulative
Range of Range Range Distribution Distribution
(SgFt) (5gFt)
1000-1500 1250 3 14. 3% 14. 3%
1500-2000 1750 4 19. 0% 33. 3%
2000-2500 2250 a 38, 1% 71. 4%
2500-3000 2750 4 19. 0% 90. 4%
3000-3500 3250 2 9. 6% 100. 0%
SOURCE: Orange County Building Permit System
NOTE: Floor area includes area in dwelling plus
area covered by a garage, porch or similar
impervious surface. Structures _
surveyed include one and two-story dwellings
but only the ground, floor area was used in
the above calculations.
SF CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA RANGE
Urirc rrit} Lake Watershed, 1
40%
Sax
a
•c
z
y or ._
Ad, ,
, 15% 'mor
11 mi:111rffliAllrWAIIMA
10% r or or'Air
or
5% All. All A Er
0% 2750 3250
1250 1754
Ftworie tM;dpairrtf ( gua+e Feet)
r
ATTACHMENT T 39
RECOMMENDED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS FOR UNVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED
THE TOTAL THE TOTAL
IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS
WHERE THE SURFACE MAY WHERE THE SURFACE MAY
LOT SIZE IS: NOT EXCEED: LOT SIZE IS: NOT EXCEED:
5.0 acres or above 6.0% 2.5 acres 11.0%
4.9 acres 6.2% 2.4 acres 11.2%
4.8 acres 6.4% 2.3 acres 11.4%
4.7 acres 6.6% 2.2 acres 11.6%
4.6 acres 6.8% 2.1 acres 11.8%
4.5 acres 7.0% 2.0 acres 12.0%
4.3 acres 7.2% 1.9 acres 12.2%
4.2 acres 7.4% 1.8 acres 12.4%
4.2 acres 7.6% 1.7 acres 12.6%
4.1 acres 7.8% 1.6 acres 12.8%
4.0 acres 8.0% 1.5 acres 13.0%
3.9 acres 8.2% 1.4 acres 13.2%
3.8 acres 8.4% 1.3 acres 13.4%
3.7 acres 8.6% 1.2 acres 13.6%
3.6 acres 8.8% 1.1 acres 13.8%
3.5 acres 9.0% 1.0 acres 14.0%
3.4 acres 9.2% 0.9 acres 14.2%
3.3 acres 9.4% 0.8 acres
14.4%
3:2 acres 9.6% 0.7 acres 14.6%
3.2 acres 9.8% 0.6 acres 14.8%
3.0 acres 10.0% 0.5 acres or less 15.0%
2.9 acres 10.2%
2.8 acres 10.4%
2.7 acres 10.6%
2.6 acres 10.8%
An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural
infiltration of water into the soil. Such surfaces shall include any paved or unpaved surfaces
comprised of asphalt, concrete, crushed stone, compacted soil or other similar material. These
would include, but not be limited to, streets and driveways, sidewalks, patios, garages,
dwellings, and similar structures which cover the land.
9
1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February a., 1990
Action Agenda
Item # f%
SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS - INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(ZONING ORDINANCE - ARTICLE 6 . 15 .2 )
(SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - SECTION IV-C-2)
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _XNo
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
Existing/Proposed Ordinance Planning Director - Extension 346
Amendments
Proposed University Lake TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Watershed Protection Agreement Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham Estates Subdivision Plan Durham - 688-7331
11/27/89 Public Hearing Minutes Mebane - 227-2031
12/18/89 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501
Watershed Analysis Summaries
1/16/90 Planning Board Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the interim
development standards applicable in University Lake
watershed. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would
provide more flexibility in the administration and
application of the current standards contained in
Article 6. 15 .2 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Section IV--C-2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
BACKGROUND: In March, 1989, the Final Report -University Lake
Watershed Study was issued by Camp, Dresser & McKee
(CDM) . Following the release of the Final Report, the
Town of Carrboro adopted a moratorium on development
within that portion of its planning and zoning
jurisdiction in University Lake watershed, pending a
decision on water quality protection strategies .
Orange County subsequently adopted interim development
standards for the watershed for a six-month period,
including a five-acre minimum lot size where more than
five lots are created. OWASA also continued its
moratorium on water and sewer extensions into the
watershed.
In addition to the above actions, the governing boards
of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro adopted
resolutions, requesting that the Joint Chatham-Orange
Work Group review the study and provide recommended
2
watershed protection strategies to its constituent
jurisdictions . In October, the Work Group completed a
proposed agreement on University Lake watershed
protection and asked that it be circulated to the
respective governing boards for comment and adoption.
The proposed agreement included several provisions
which, if implemented, would provide greater
flexibility in the interim development standards by
addressing potential hardships experienced by
landowners in the watershed. (See #2, #3, #4, and #5a
of the attached agreement. )
Though not the stimulus for the proposed ordinance
amendments, an example of the flexibility needed in the
standards was presented to the Planning Board at its
October 16 meeting. The Durham Estates Subdivision
consists of ten lots with an average density of one
unit per 5.38 acres. (See attached sketch) . The
smallest lot proposed is a 3 .59 acre tract separated
from the main portion of the subdivision by a public
road right-of-way. All other lots exceed five acres in
size.
The current standards require each lot to be at least
five acres in size. The proposed standards would allow
the subdivision to be approved, provided all other non-
watershed standards were met. (See Article 6 . 15 .2 and
Section IV-C-2, subsection a. 3 .c) . )
The proposed amendments were presented at public
hearing on November 27, 1989 . While many comments were
received, those persons in opposition focused almost
exclusively on the five-acre minimum lot size
requirement adopted on October 2, 1989 .
A specific concern raised at the hearing involved the
applicability of the proposed four percent impervious
surface ratio in conjunction with the five-acre minimum
lot size. The same concern was voiced about the six
percent ratio as applied to two-acre lots .
At the December 12, 1989 Planning Board meeting, the
Planning Director presented preliminary information
regarding the proposed impervious surface ratios and
the ability of citizens to comply with same. The
Planning Board asked that additional information be
developed to address the potential hardships resulting
from the inability of citizens to comply with the
proposed ratios.
At the January 9, 1990 Planning Board meeting, the
Planning Director presented a more in-depth analysis of
lot-by-lot development scenarios using the four percent
and six percent ratios. He indicated that compliance
i
3
with the four percent ratio was feasible ( 60 percent
compliance) but would require significant education and
design initiatives . The proposed six percent ratio was
of greater concern, since it only 30 percent of the lot
scenarios indicated compliance with the standard.
The Planning Board delayed action on the proposed
standards and asked for specific solutions to the
impervious surface ratio dilemma. In particular, the
Planning Board requested options concerning technical
solutions using dry wells, etc. , raising the impervious
surface limits, and design standards which would insure
compliance.
At the Planning Board meeting of January 16, 1990, the
Planning Director presented various options for the
Board's consideration. The options provided relief from
the inability to comply with recommended impervious
surface ratios and included the following:
1 . Accept the CDM recommended standards;
2 . Increase the impervious surface ceiling;
3 . Discount unpaved road surfaces;
4 . Discount all unpaved surfaces, such as roads,
driveways, and sidewalks;
5 . Establish design standards which assure compliance
such as a maximum permitted driveway length;
6. Increase the minimum required lot size requirement;
and
7 . Require compliance with a four percent impervious
surface ratio and a density standard of one unit per
five acres but permit a minimum lot size of two
acres.
Following consideration of the various options, the
Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the
proposed revisions to the revised interim development
standards with the following change to Article 6 . 15 .2
a. 3.a) of the Zoning Ordinance:
a) Basic Requirements : In the University Lake water
supply watershed, lot size averaging is permitted
provided the overall residential density for any
development application shall not exceed one
dwelling unit per five acres, no lot shall be less
than two acres in size, and no more than five two-
acre lots may be created as part of any development
application, except as permitted under subsection
b or cl below.
An identical change was recommended for Section IV-C-2
a. 3 .a) of the Subdivision Regulations.
While still recognizing the difficulty of complying
4
with recommended impervious limits, the Planning Board
felt that "averaging" provided the greatest flexibility
for property owners until permanent standards were
developed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed
amendments per the Planning Board recommendation.
s -
.5
•
PROPOSED .AGREEME;:T - University Lake Watershed Protection
10/13/89 = cticn
agreement 1 . Gaa This a t i t
� l is designed to achieve the
F
following shared goals: protection of the public health and
safety, assurance of minimal decradation, and prevention cf
future deterioration in water quality in connection with the
University Lake water supply. -
•
2. Panic Stret ov. The minimum lot size in residential
districts within the University Lake watershed will be 5 acres,
and the residential density will be 1 DU/5 acres, except as
specified in r2, 413, and r4 below. Other requirements will
includes a ximum 4$ impervious surface, uSe of individual septic
tank sy ma ocated on site, and publicly-controlled monitoring
. and inspection of septic systems. Structural BMPs would not be
required:
•
3. atlfit *' 1 j-A... L
v
will be provided, including - An option .for cluster development
9 an overall density of 1 DU/5 acres, a
minimum lot size of 1 acre, a maximum d
cf individual Septic tanks located �ti�mp°=�'i impervious surface, use
cf an-site structural stormwate�e�►.•on-si;e a�3 private wells, use
BMPs only if needed on a
particular site in order to' control pollutant slug loadings, and
publicly-controlled inspection and maintenance of any such ?MPs.
Open space set-asides will be restricted to prohibit future
subdivision.
4. ='s:{s�-;nc T Less �- x�
October 2, 1929 that`zre less han.5 ... ree. Lots of record as cf
�, p by landowners at A n 5 acres in sire could be
developed t the current'on M 1Gt sizes, but such
existing lots of record could not be further subdivided.' ..
Structural BMPs would not be required. A maximum of •
approxi ma rely 12% impervious surface -
--v_o�.s surface would be allowed on lots
less than 2 acres; 6% impervious
of betwYe.'1 surface would be allowed on lots
2 and 5 acres; and a. 4% impervious surface requirement
would amply to larger lots.
. S. $ °� arr+c}14
- r1
a. r.ea cn Sm= ?r m1-a- cr Tkr -aC-e Lcts.c r. record
�q
as. of October 2, 1989_ could be .subdivided to
crecreate up to 5 lots of no less -
a=-e up land could be e s han`2 acres in size, while the
DU/5 acres with y- --o minimum d -iti more than developed a.. densities of no mo, 1
im-m2e�iors surface would , of Sites. A maximum' of
d 5 acres fbe allowed for those lots cf between 2
and 5 acres
, in_ i size. A 4% impervious surface re_ui rement would
-arse-y lots.
b. is la-e
v the e any landowne- is su:cess f_
ul in gaining z`_nalca�_t order ruling that the watershed r°gula tics described here resulted in a _e. 0 a tcry
taking,•�r she ,] ,._ur e•rr, ^t:.0^$ who are
-.4. 6
pa joint planning agreement will share associated
pa-ties to the jo�r.�- -
costs in an equitable fashion.
Pe.c=.- The joint planning jurisdictions will develop
.
strategies for dealing with any special hardships that might
arise for farmers in order to further the public purpose c_
protecting farmland. •
d. Watershed Prntect;on Funl. OWASA will be requested
to create a watershed protection fund to acquire rights in
* particularly sensitive land, or take other appropriate steps to
encourage preservation of water quality within the county.
6. x.1 t-rna."vo a 4 c_ .e- S ' rr The County
Board of health will not permit community alternative treatment
and disposal systems within the current critical area of the
University Lake watershed. Until April 30, 1981 no alternative
treatment and disposal systems will be allowed in the balance of
the University Lake watershed. The joint planning jurisdictions
will investigate potential standards for expanding the current
crticial area. Individual on-site alternative disposal systems
will be allowed under Hoard of Health oversight.
Ay ii .b{lxty .4 Pub 4c 1' 4er WY-1-1;n �-h- tr;ve_city Lake
7. •
Vstershed. OWASA will be requested to conduct a study of the
advisability of making public water services available within the
Lake watershed,shed, and will be asked to report to the
University ogl ;
joint planning jurisdictions by April 30, l on its s d?nd:.ncs
and recommendations.
B. Ava l Rb 1 i tv r aV . r+ g=we" l'i'e. in i-11- "n ve=s4 tv Letee
=er i-,e - Public sewer will not be extended into the University�
Lake watershed Except to address a public health hazard cr upon
:
t
agree g n,. ' y all joint planning jurisdictions.
agreement
9. Aeirli tional Paou1 alc-`sr Pscu r menS. Additional •
y �isions will be developed by staffs in the
regulatory Y�D1
following areas: control cf cluster and standard l of 'placsme::t
to minimize water--quality impacts; control of siting of
struot r es on individual lots; setbacks of septic tanks from
• • 'stream5;' Stream buffer requirements; controls on further
sub~iyi sion •of land included in open space set-asides in
Y location and character of drive:'ays and
clustered developments; '_ ieve
roads; and such other reg..latory requirements as they be'-
^p-
appropriate. Staff recommendations will be prepared and
ars.`or - w.+,+ 4 )Vrv.lG:lI3Cr T 15, ..9`rQ•
submitted to Govern;ng boards by a p c}:_mate_
10. $Y r.V ax Possible too C- T=Ens-e~ral° 7�;�e� ..•,.n��
will c^^^uc
Fi ohts. The County, consultation with the towns, will s co=S
• ble use of transferable development -
for purposes noftwatershed protection. Such a study could be
e=�LS'' s
:':eluded as part of continuing work on protec ticn of he
rural character, or such other content as the County believes
appropriate and feasible.
•
Cr 7
11 . s ' r; ac~ o. �r,,nt P err nc :+c_Pem .nom. The
staffs will review the Orange County Joint Planning agreement
within the next sip, months to determine whether any modification
is needed as a result of the watershed protection measures
described here, and how the agreement reached regarding
University Lake watershed protection can be incorporated into the
joint planning agreement.
12. mechanisms f r Oncoina Cnoaecatian. In connection with
their review of the joint planning agreement, the staffs will
recommend an appropriate mechanism for ongoing cooperative work
among themselves and between the respective governing boards and
OWASA.
•
13. ?e n^{c Review. watershed regulations and other
policies described herein will be reviewed in connection with the
next periodic .review of the Orange County Joint Planning
Agreement, or within 10 years, whichever comes first.
•
•
•
•
•
8
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Regulations
REFERENCE: 6 . 15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved
IV-C-2. Interim Development Standards Approved
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X Staff _X_-Planning Board
�BOCC X_Public
Other:
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _XHigh Middle Low
Comment:
EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1989
PURPOSE OF. AMENDMENT: To provide more flexibility in the
. administration and application of the interim development
standards adopted for the University Lake water supply
watershed.
•
IMPACTS/ISSUES: In March, 1989, the Final Report - University_
Lake Watershed Study was issued by Camp, Dresser & McKee
(CDM) . Following the release of the Final Resort, the Town of
Carrboro adopted a moratorium on development within that
portion of its planning and zoning jurisdiction in
University Lake watershed, pending a decision on water
quality protection strategies.
Orange County subsequently adopted interim development
standards for the watershed for a six-month period, including
a five-acre minimum lot size where more than five lots are
created. OWASA also continued its moratorium on water and
sewer extensions into the watershed.
In addition to the above actions, the governing boards of
Orange County, Chapel. Hill, and Carrboro adopted resolutions,
,. requesting- that the Joint Chatham-Orange Work Group review
. the study and provide .recommended watershed protection
strategies to its constituent jurisdictions. In October, the
Work Group completed a proposed agreement on University Lake
watershed protection and asked that it be circulated to the
respective governing boards for comment and adoption. The
proposed agreement included several provisions which, if
implemented, would provide greater flexibility in the interim
development standards by addressing potential hardships
r
• .0 9
experienced by landowners in the watershed. (See #2, #3, #4,
and #5a of the attached agreement. )
An example of the flexibility needed in the standards was
presented to the Planning Board at its October 16 meeting.
The W.T. Durham Subdivision consisted of ten lots with an
average density of one unit per 5.38 acres. The smallest lot
proposed was a 3. 6 acre tract separated from the main portion
of the subdivision by a public road right-of-way. The interim
standards required each lot to be at least five acres in
size.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that an
amendment to the interim standards be presented at the
November 27 public hearing which would allow lot size
averaging in the watershed. The proposed provisions of the
watershed agreement address the concerns expressed by the
Planning Board. (See attached 10-16-89 Planning Board minutes
for discussion. )
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Zoning Ordinance
6.15.2 Interim Development Standards Approved
The following interim development standards have
been enacted and shall remain in full force and
effect until the termination date specified herein.
. Thereafter, the standards are void and of no
effect.
a. University Lake Water Supply Watershed
" 3. Nature of Standards - The following
interim development standards shall
apply:
a) In the University Lake water supply
- watershed, .no community alternative
wastewater treatment systems shall
- - . . be permitted. .A .community
alternative system is any system
serving more than one wastewater
source, and neither owned nor
operated by a public entity; and
designed to convey effluent to
sur=ace waters or to the land
surface via direct discharge, spray
irrigation, or overland, flow. No
10
single or multiple user system will
be permitted where effluent disposal
occurs on a separate lot from the
source of wastewater generation.
b) No more than five new lots may be
created through any development
application where the size of any
lot is less than five acres. Where
the minimum size of all lots is
greeter than five acres, there is no
restriction on the number of new
lots which may be created.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Zoning Ordinance
6.15.2 Interim pevtl opment Standards Approved
. The following interim development standards have
. been enacted and shall remain in full force and
effect until the termination date specified herein.
Thereafter, the standards are void and of no
effect.
a. University Lake Water Supply Watershed
3. Nature 21 Standards - The following
interim development standards shall
apply:
a) Basic Requirements: In the
University Lake water supply
watershed, the minimum required lot
_.. size shall be five acres, and the
overall residential density for any
development application shall not
exceed one dwelling unit per five
. acres, except as provided below. In
addition, the impervious surface
. . . . . ':.. ratio for • eac . development shall not
exceed four percent. Structural
best management practices, such as
wet detention basins, are not
required except as may be required
below.
b) Cluster Alternative: Cluster
developments are permitted
11
subject to the following development
standards:
1) The overall density of any
development application shall not
exceed one dwelling unit per five
acres;
2) The minimum lot size of any lot
shall be one acre;
3) The impervious surface ratio for
the entire development shall not
exceed four percent;
4) The use of on-site structural
best management practices will be
required if needed to provide
pollution control; and
5) Open space reservations shall be
restricted to prohibit future
subdivision.
c) Existing L,ats Qf Record: Lots of
record as of October 2, 1989 that are
less than five acres in size may be
developed by landowners at their
current lot sizes.
Any lot of record as of October 2,
1989 may also be subdivided to create
up to five lots of no less than two
acres in size, while the remaining
land may be developed at densities of
no more than one dwelling unit per
five acres.
. For lots that are less than two acres
• • . in- size, the maximum impervious •
•
surface shall be twelve percent; six
percent shall be required on lots
between two and five acres in size;
and a four percent impervious surface
recuirement shall apply to lots five
acres and greater in size.
•
12
d) Wastewate Treatment Systems:
No community alternative wastewater
treatment systems shall be
permitted. A community alternative
system is any system serving more
than one wastewater source, and
' neither owned nor operated by a
public entity; and designed to
convey effluent to surface waters or
to the land surface via direct
discharge, spray irrigation, or
overland flow. No single or multiple
user system will be permitted where
effluent disposal occurs on a
separate lot from the source of
wastewater generation.
EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Subdivision Regulations
IV-C-2. Interim Development Standards Approved
The following interim development standards have
been enacted and shall remain in full force and
effect until the termination date specified herein.
Thereafter, the standards are void and of no
effect.
•
a. University Lake Water Supply Watershed
3. Nature c4. Standards - The following
interim development standards shall
apply:
a) In the University Lake water supply
watershed, no community alternative
wastewater treatment systems shall
be permitted. A community
alternative system is any system
serving more•than one wastewater
source, and neither owned nor
operated by a public entity; and
designed, to convey effluent to
surface waters or to the land
surface via direct discharge, spray
irrigation, or overland flow. No
single or multiple user system will
be permitted where effluent disposal
1.3
occurs on a separate lot from the
source of wastewater generation.
b) No more than five new lots may be
created through any development
application where the size of any
lot is less than five acres. Where
the minimum size of all lots is
greater than five acres, there is no
restriction on the number of new
lots which may be created.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Subdivision Regulations
IV-C-2. Interim Development Standards Approved
The following interim development standards have
been enacted and shall remain in full force and
effect until the termination date specified herein.
Thereafter, the standards are void and of no
effect.
a. University Lake Water Supply Watershed
3. Nature clf Standards - The following
interim development standards shall
apply:
a) Basic Requirements: In the
University Lake water supply
watershed, the minimum required lot
size shall be five acres, and the
overall residential density for any
development application shall not
exceed one dwelling unit per five
acres, except as provided below. In
addition, the impervious surface
ratio for eac development shall not
exceed four percent. Structural
.-.best management practices, such as
.wet detention basins, are not
required except as may be required
below.
b) Cluster Alternative: Cluster
developments are permitted
subject to the following development
standards:
•
14
1) The overall density of any
development application shall not
exceed one dwelling unit per five
acres;
2) The minimum lot size of any lot
shall be one acre;
3) The impervious surface ratio for
the entire development shall not
exceed four percent;
4) The use of on-site structural
best management practices will be
required if needed to provide
pollution control; and
5) Open space reservations shall be
restricted to prohibit future
subdivision.
c) Existing Lots of. Record: Lots of
record as of October 2, 1989 that are
less than five acres in size may be
developed by landowners at their
current lot sizes.
Any lot of record as of. October 2,
1989 may also be subdivided to create
up to five lots of no less than two
acres in size, while the remaining
land may be developed at densities of
no more than one dwelling unit per
five acres.
For lots that are less than two acres
in size, the maximum impervious
surface. shall be twelve percent; six
percent shall be required on lots
between two and five acres in size;
and a four, percent impervious surface
requirement shall apply to lots five
acres and greater in size.
d) Wastewater Treatment Systems:
No community alternative wastewater
treatment systems shall be
15
permitted. A community alternative
system is any system serving more
than one wastewater source, and
neither owned nor operated by a
public entity; and designed to
convey effluent to surface waters or
to the land surface via direct
discharge, spray irrigation, or
overland flow. No single or multiple
user system will be permitted where
effluent disposal occurs on a
separate lot from the source of
wastewater generation.
*********************t*********************************
ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE:
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW:
BOCC REVIEW:
•
x.fa�e. �� r ].6
•
c± `.''.eS: ; ,...r....._r-r-teen O� — i g ' � '
t - S .! `e88z:: S i
fff��r 7-4.*
- .i
-_ 'E r Y - K + f--•ice. M Q = III?eR •; W i ® p al
- l Y f w T • G p S• -w.•nr- Y: w
• 4 r :` c.er a ZZLLPI.t r •
y S 4 Y r•
•
•
•
:z«big. II1a;.! .a.? r ' 4 * �' i .r " %
1.
5•y ii''.
•
E.' y Q•
? , • .- • • .. • .. i• -�•d • ii � . rnw
tD
0 1= 000 ♦ .: :1`•• 'y. ^ I {r.-
.. - C � ' O
w i ;. •:•: ± % tI I r.w ' ..,•= = g ,. g .2..:.. .. • • ' .. . .. LI I ,,.; 1170 I
t tea_. 4 r • w • • r4: •• g▪ . W • : ' r I II : . . `'' I L E_ ` •
• , ' '•.r ' - •Z • ':rt•r. yr• _ ^. ,;�• • �•• !• 1-� _ � :• \
. • . . I ,— g i. • . ..• r ti� •' • • .: .' ' �— .S
r_ p ..\:r .,r • t r• r i•' i
• ti - t ::•*. p �°e )1:...7 ♦ `•
. :.... . .. .• - ••.. ......— •••.............. . \....: dux, , .....‹- .
- . 4Lp a 74....
• - -; r•r f,• • - ..!. ••�- •i. - ; -.J. rfy -.
r�F• �- n•w �• •-•• err• • i r- u_g '
. 7/jc !
- / ! i `t! ( :7.1..,•
-.'�• Sri� II,..
r r t •� \•a�4Q, S �
' •,.., r -� .tea s
73.`i. -.•, O • •'t .t •.•1-.'rte (�,��r ,� u .1:7—
• u ,` c-°:ii i pF•
wY•. ■ t 7 it•1•.l0• /-J w 2 - i G 4` . t >t•
•y:4�r:: r i7v / ;: Ks•
•
•
�:- , $• h. 1'• e
—
.▪ -.• ••r 7'.�.. r '•X,^ r- •It : J . .c : t I : -
c S <r
C
•