Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 02-05-1990 (2)
. it 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 -. .0 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. OUNTY 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. 2 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. y,_ 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. AX 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 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. 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 Wilihoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall , to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Wilihoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to approve the Capital Improvement Plan for 1990-1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6 IX. REPORTS A. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE STANDARDS 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 Wil1hoit 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 DEVELOPMEN 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 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 siz . and no more than five two-acre lots may be created as Part of any development application. except as permitted under subsection 0 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 (REVISED) 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. pURHAM 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 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 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 leer 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 Addle 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. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk ORANGE COUNTY -" BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. 11. 6 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. 4 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. k 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._.B 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 . 2 N.• 0 0 •{ .4 O 0 (A • E x * *a * C * v1 a 4* a► c 00 1 a 0 0) O $' CO 0 r1 N E a - 0 W E O Ul o m 1-1 HLyr H v► *4 *4 c C.) w w Ui -+ -4 0 A j a C cn Ui o a z L=1 H *4 4* 44 C O UI Ui A m tT to -+ W 0 A Ul N 1-1 0 Ul b * H fR fR tR C �] N N N 01 lel a UI to Ui W Lit Sti O t71 O y UI T Q1 H m W m r N U1 O O 0 1•j N a * a x *4 44 t* C Ln m LTV W A CO OM - H O o Ln a O Ui O * a a *4 4* 40 C C rn to vl r W O o m m y O U1 t71 H 0 44 a 2 * a L71 to A iu En co -1. b N b 7. C * a 711 iA 4* fA C K m A U1 -a Ot UI o A U1 co to O Lfl U1 tD 0 • * a a+ 4* v+ C W N m co to .+ Ln a to to CO U1 to * a &1 4* 4* C A A Ul A A UI O A U1 O o UI O * a -EA 44 44 C Ul T J to CO A N UI N O -+ 0 0 0 •- �IhwYr-.- � � 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. 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 HILL # 8965313 John� i Spransy c/o A.C. Williams 3410 E. Oak Drive Durham, NC 27712 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: • =WP 3 ACCT # 65006 TRACT # 1007 MAP 13A..3 BILL # 8834002 Steve M. Lakey & Barbara J. 7105 New Sharon Church Rd. Rougemont, NC 27572 COMMENT: A 1986 custom trailer (VIN 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 1 Dominion Bank P.O. Box 12904 Roanoke, VA 24029 [ ] 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 • RECORDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: • • ACCT # 87001929 5 TRACT # MAP BILL # 8750918 C ] Stanley B. Hughes Rt 2, Box 247 Hurdle Mills, NC 27541 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 Garnishment 8.00 Fee $34.13 • RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: DATE: • • ACCT # 12n?19 6 TRACT # MAP BILL # 891344 [ ] Creative Credit Services P.O. Box 310 Barrington, IL 60011 L 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 7.28. .31 A BILL # 8922846 C ] Charles H. Horne, Jr. Rt 7, Box 152 Durham, NC 27707 C ] COMMENT: Incorrect rate code used in billing. Should have been rate code 08, not rate code 22. REFi 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 # 8917884 • [ a Timothy B. Eldred & Gwen 8. Eddred 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: 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. RED: 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 #r 78092 TRACT # 713985 MAP 7.25A.A.30 BILL # 8912753 [ a Arthur K. Chansky 114 Kirkwood Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 C 3 COMMENT: 1988 Mercedes 190E listed by both the lessee and lessor. Should have been listed by leasing company. G.S. 105-381(a)(1)b. An illegal tax. ACTION REQUESTED: Refund 1989 tax overpayment Valuation $22,750 GO $161.53 I,L 33.16 G2 129.68 CH 40.38 $364.75 .RECOMMENDATION: Approve ORDER: • DATE: ORANGE COUNTY 1 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 x 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 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A enda ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. �/-E SUBJECT: CORRECTION eTOn HEaDECEMBER 1, 1987 1990 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 DECECOUNTY MBER o�987 MxMNUM IONERS MINUTES MM 7 . ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE C Beverly Whitehead made the presentation. The Board of p 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 maintains animals six cannot(6 lto stray nineteen f nd which and 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 domesticated esticated livestock, each of which ais excluding�f'four month domestx 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 . opposition to the Several citizens spoke in o pP 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 he owned and fifteen dogs and cannot afford to pay $15 . 00 per recomcendation on the made the letter from Tony Laws which recommendation. He m theted that of the allowed as asked that it hunting dogs alter the intent of the exempted from the Ordinance. Commissioner Halkiotis expressed concern that if the fee for registering dogs is too f high $15.0�o far each of the first registered. He proposed three unneutered or unspayed animals in a household with the fee for each additional animal set at $5. 00 with tno l limit. used by Commissioner Carey P recommendation the Board of Health that led the ample opportunity for citize n input. The Board of Health expressed 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 auestions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No._NL__E ACTION 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. 1. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date FEBRUARY 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # VTA 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. 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 • 3 • DRAFT: 11/7/89 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Triangle I 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 resident; 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 set-vice and allow for NCDOT to spend up to S5 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 " d' " , Fast , Comfortable Mass Transit For The Research Triangle Area ri \''l ? Lm PERSOw *�•�' COLIATY I t .. r ORANGE COUN]y DURHAM COUNTY •'x,, r�' 41111' r r..l. L ® Stem C 1 (,\ .. 1 s 1 t r• f •' W. . ill. {i/ ® lesson t J.• a If' ti.r,.. _ e'• '.....,. /PP' Creedmoor / e Hflltborough f l ':1 rr Fr •• -.---- " I 't' 1) 0 ' 1••••dd I... .: 4.... / • .. ........ __..4141k 0 , , %IL r_l I irKr ( • ' ' N , 7 rte• /•./ � • w� �'. Lei.I` Wake For_i I L•1.r •• • ■ r J/ •. -47.4--:.--,4 ."-it `-'2' �Wi xi _ Chapel••1- f •".>>•r ` . ••4 I. 1 :c/ ..Carrb.ra l„ Hill 1• • Irk` ` (.....,,\,....., �'' far r v= R.alti=h 1 _.,7 . ` el. 1 40 -. Raleigh -II. Y•f _ . " ` ...r..` f ' X{r.._a' •It-.." r• � J i r • � � ': Y '~ C a r y /.. .. y:...;. \\1/4 I • , 1 • proposed by : SAVE THE WATER, INC . Post Office Sox 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 Poet 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. Q. Box 15795, Durham, North Carolina 27704 to the adequacy of the draft study for two major reasons . First , circulated the Draft EIS was not properly or legally 1502. 19 o int Cc) • citizens which is a violation of Federal Regulation That regulation requires free and wide access to the environmental study for everyone who wants to participate in the leg required 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 most 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 quest , that the Draft EIS be reprepared to include a complete ,proposal objective and substantial treatment of our enclosed prof for the Triangle Express as a viable and attractive alternativer- to the environmentally damaging outer loop g Y in our wat sheds . And , we request that the new Draft EIS be widely and tfreely distributed to everyone on your mailing list for the projec 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 =ass transit as an alternative when the studies are prepared in the future . We believe that as we enter the 1990s , mass transit is an idea whose time has come for the Triangle area. Instead of polluting our drinking water supplies and spending $ 750 ,000 ,000 on new super highways in our ecologically sensitive watersheds , why not build a modern , state of the art , mass transit system that 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 7 Hay we hear from you on this important matter ? Thank you for your cooperation. Please include these comments in the EIS . Sincerely, A.1.-J.0A---e.-- m Clark President M.-. . . oru . .. • PAGE 4 THE CHAPEL HILL HERALD . WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1989 • Editorial - .. ' ' a • le� Express' .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. While Clark maybe optimistic in saying that automobile commuting and eventually makes even loop roads won't be needed if the rail system were more roads.necessary. . 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$750 million that would go into that mass transit, in the long run, is the best the loop roads.The proposed system would use 50 answer. miles of existing railway roadbed,some of which is abondoned.The system would have 3.6 stations, We urge the state to take a long,hard look at including one each in Chapel Hill and southern the"Triangle Express." • V ptC y C I V =Y a�C C : v..) ' • � t lc. dl •••• Zv 0 R _ ^n flhnI a 7 N r�- & G . Cd _ C C C' r w p ea v •^ V t.0.0'C ry -. r = e".4 " ,°- -le r e M u �-cA w a E d od no � ry n.. V MI* Cet c or... 0 - C..wn I W y... a ; c.. Q V1 G lC 'C7 a ej G_C C 0 VJ ea a� 2= .. � v a 0 0 .0.=. • r� L∎5= eov°tea 0,°c IJ= cU • PM4 EMI( If . .xeecL-e deiI�4 pee PM* g h d 4 V G R y O Opp CZ IP V i- V �' d VJ' v r r Cayrs rJ V Y_�- IN-�-c .Y 4 V r+ 4.•p H v ea C .. p_ a. C�.a fi-.�' C r.^..� r 3 0 c : c-: 40 ..a . E.. aac ., c.,to v O q E V V r p C I-.5 V b a 3� y., eC H p= qC b-..., ipOa r d y pw p 3 3 d=,e.1:'N�•,� e = C G� t.d C b 0 3 O O C • P ,.... .E w V ead -tee e.o===+ 6 ra c ea .— 1' N N' G C O— H F.w E. y ~ U rJ : d d t h 6 7 ` O C G•C G W a u ' C •G L7. u C c.� se I p E . A a --.. cc— rr al al c ',' V d d =E+ q O. Trrr Cw L� IA � I 8p E L !i N !l ?.G �' C p G i:. rj N.E a�h r II, .4 0 b i 1.1 Ci e.....— c-^ =••■■ le se t„. a..'. Pl* W ea 0� W _ 3 l �_/ u ra r •Cto)V E V d N `X 7 a~ • -_. y: .; yr 1 V r e�- co ep C. O O -I I Ek.is i? 3 0 i— •:rr , b • W .a.i- a*Lc a r 0 *= v ea 'f C C a v 7�2=iii 167. es��. V I. C 7•.y H n•wr p-0� w MI in 6 pot4 V s .7 V V r ? ..' C N r to Pm :iy ;- �1 q N saE« ca L:::A-a-a GI _Sit. G l 1: g ri ti / • C lkol ii,1 ...4/ .7.....,t7f,..: -. g / tip i . n_' E _ 0.- ran 11) 5rro B ''�• �` in a N7 _-• `":: a -4 • c , m ' .* )00 at hi e7 O IA A w ' r gr w 0. w -6 c L m E Ps I 5N c c O° c - ma Ax 6 ..r y Ga Crn e c M C=r co co E 8 �� X11 OOC —_o .52H s m a a B .^ 4C Nn,_u, g IR Q? H i7� ED A o =a3,9 c r 3- N IA 2re 0. N V� • ! 0220=G 0 • am /u 1 �nie'iQUiui :aaav) G/ i I I 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 IC Raleigh and Durham are exam- To attract commuters, the sys- ining proposals to build Outer tern might have communication Loops around their northern bor- cars with cellular phones and fax dcrs. The Northern Wake Ex- cars that would operate from pressway would cost 5414 million 6 a.m.to 6 p.m. during the week. to`SS433 million,while the Durham Under Mr.Clark's proposal,the Outer Loop would cost about 5350 are funded million. Both projects rail system would be funded with ts state transportation money and in a multibillion-dollar highway support from local governments, program approved this year by the General Assembly. Operating costs would come from 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, Mr. 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 callysensitive areas we have,"he the early 1990s. The only new said. track that would have to be built would be between Durham and As 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 come But a spokesman for the Depart- close to Falls Lake, I'.aleigh's ment of Transportation said Fri- main 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. Sughroe, special assis- highway planners say the roads taut 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? ,ar 0 Charlotte Should Follow Raleiggh-Durham Group s Lead G41/4& to hie 08: RVEl't.. A Raleigh-Durham conservation built more quickly than the outer group has conceived a mass transit loops and would cost only about $300 • plan that goes to the heart of the million to build, as opposed to £750 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 Tne 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 gle. 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 • a - ..'sue" - � —.`�: - --111-::::4:.7 .*_ti-r- S'2�a�j i_1 � Express yourself parks. further and further out; until MR. SPECTATOR: conceivably the whole region is one big Concerning the Triangle Express proposal sprawl, from Henderson to Fayetteville. to build a trolley line linking the region: I Property values nearly doubled all along the think it's the best idea I've heard in all the Poniard lix�even before l he trolleys the years I've lived here. The Triangle running. follow If we Express, for the desperately needs some son of transit system: density it wIf w has needed one. in fact. for years now. density to appear— Transportation planners lard others) who We nerd the Triangle Express trolleys. scoff at Triangle Express remind me of the We need progressive,visionary transportation and Victorian ecologist who. seeing a giraffe for planners who aren't politicians tn�► the the first time. exclaimed "There is no such equally pro r�� their vision,with the animal!" "Transponttion," to them. means strength to cars, and "planning" is making more roads development into corridors transit can serve. for cars to run on. Alternatives are beyond We don'1 aced to follow the same old"more their blirrdered comprehension. They should roads"pattern of past years— it's ruined our visit Portland. Oregon, whose recently built downtowns. polluted our air. decimated our trolley line is so popular that it had to double farms and forests with urban sprawl. We've is r,!.arity, even on weekends. The been on that wrong for a never road—a. too Department of Transportation, no less. says long. It's high that the line has eliminated 15 million auto K. N.C. Smith trips a year, and is urging Portland to build MoniPurer i, more. am. The Portland line probably isn't recouping its cost: neither would Triangle Express. Neither will the Outer Loop, the Southern Parkway. or the widening of 1.40 and 1.85. Consider mass transit Incidentally, the cost of the Outer Loop (serving only Raleigh)would be 5700 million: The concept of efficient. affordable the cost of Triangle Express (serving the mass transit concept the efficient. Triangle l . is fordable whole region)—5275 million.Thais a savings According to the Federal Highway immeasurable million ing oar tcl der air. less Administration, areas with populations rbn pry savings r cleaner air. less under 1 million that are experiencing urban sprawl and a safer watershed. rapid growth can expect congestion These same experts say that we haven't increases of more than 1,000 percent the density to support mass transit. implying that if we wait 20 or 30 years. enough over the next 20 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 os examples of I doubt it. The growth will probably follow what accommodating ree automobile the same pattern as before:more roads.more has done. In'these ngret 90 automobile le of followed outer-outer loops sub bs, al widenings: 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 enited States is used to accommo- date the automobile. Policies have long postured auto de- pendence at the expense of cost- et fective. environmentally sound alter- natives. It's time to reconsider these • policies. JODY SITZ Chapel Hill 12' ' , 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 the Rail has many benefits DOT said,"Well 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 S450 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 S350 million. Since both are' noying trend in media,chose to title the planned to be built in or near the Raleigh Sept.V article"Environmentalists pro- and Durham watersheds. this suggests pose Triangle rail system." that approximately 1800 million is being_ spent very unwisely. This system would provide numerous benefits in addition to the environmental Mayor Avery Upchurch and his sup- 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 . S9 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 . :• • I - 13 Letters To The Editor • v a real n � °Support 'Triangle mss' t o that the scope of the rail system to the point I was appalled to read your editorial of where it will not be able to attract rider- Oct 3 attacking the proposed—Triangle Fit- ship.Thus.I recommend full and unequivo- press rail system by dubbing it .an- cal support of the—Triangle Fh:press"by all other idea to pull the rug from under Due cozens and legslators who care about the ham's economic future." long-term future of the Triangle metropoll- There are absolutely no data to justify tan area. • ELLS COVEY this opinion.In fact all of the available data D lead to just the opposite conclusion.Look- ing ahead,not only at the next decade.but at the next century.Durham's economic hi- ture will depend on the development of of- fident,attrac ve and safe alternatives to automobile>ransporation. The'Triangle Depress"sounds as If it could be the first step in this direction.For every person who uses the rail system there will be one less car on the highways, one less pa.-king space used and a little less Licht rail works pollution in the air.Good public transporta- bon would greatly increase economic and Once"again our good friends at the. soda!opportunity for young,poor and state Department of Transportation hand.i cipped°ins' have plundered the truth. In what has I stroney support the proposal by Jim become a familiar and discordant re- Clark.president m Save the Water,to de- train, they tell us that the Triangle is Leigh Gary and Cho Durham,mere inappropriate for light-rail application. 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 CDultural Residential for the purpose of A riC .g d. required. assigning a buffer, if one is q 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 me dmentsrto°beeadvertised the for the proposed amen Public Hearing to be held on February 26, 1990. Best moved approval of the Planning Staff's MOTION: 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 Q n 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 3- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. VIZ-A 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: HEALTH DIRECTOR'S OFFICE X 311 Distinguished Service Award Certificate. 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 TresneCC - ForunfaiCingdedication,dependability andfLeJ fiility, as weir as a willingness to listen, For professional.commitment to focal initiatives that have proven to have valuable statewide application, For the level opm nt of eeceCCent, weft-documented, easy to use,affordable software for focal hearth depart- ments, For unselfishly working as a computer an6 Cyst, pro- grammer avid instructor for a public health computer Package that has been recognized as a model for the entire.public health reporting system in North Caro- - Czna, For these andothersignifccant contributions to public health, the North Caro Una Public gfeaCth Association presents the 198.9 Distinguished Service Award io Anne PresneCC. 1 ' ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No V ff-Al ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: 1990-95 Capital Improvement Plan Public Hearing DEPARTMENT Budget PUBLIC HEARING YES_S_ 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. 1 0J � 2 (*range (inuntg 'cllnuls '4714EIGIC6 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. 0. 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 6 October, 1986 The following guidelines are intended as a tool for developing preliminary cost estimates in planning new school construction and additions. They are for initial 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 geographic regions due to such variables as availability of contractors and labor, terrain, 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 $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 o 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 1/29/8) PROJECT DETAIL (Category, Tineframe, Location, Cost) 7 Replacement of Temporary Facilities 1987-90 Cameron Park Renovation/Addition 1. Remodel art roan into 2 special program roans (AG and Chapter I) 30,000 2. Convert music roam to foreign language $ 3. Remodel media center to become: a. Computer lab, b. Music roan, c. Multi-purpose teaching roam 4. Construction of new space for (a) media 650,000 center, (b) speech and language, (c) art room and (d) storage (10,250 sq. feet) 5. Air Condition: 5th Wing 10,000 Original & 1st Addition 190,000 Electrical Service 35,000 Window Remodeling 100,000 Sub-total $ 1;015,000 Inflation (10%) 101,50Q 'Total 1,116,500 1990-93 -0- Category 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 Architect & Related Fees (7%) 294,000 Water/Sewer 250,000 Inflation (5%) 210,000 Contingency (3%) 126,000 $ 5,716,000 -0- 1990-93 Category Total $ 5,716,000 Page 20 8 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 ana 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 7 Elementary School - Grades K-6 . Avg. Daily Membership 510 SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS 9 CATEGORY ADM BEP 1986 NEW 5TD5 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 Sifted 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. X25% 11,430 16,162 Total 57,151 00,811 Construction Cost/Sq. Foot $72 $72 Percent Cost Increase Total Cost, Less Site $4,114,882 $5,818,374 41.4% 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 ��rr W.T. Doggett, AIA DOGGETT ARCHITECTS, INC. WTD :jdd cc: Dr. Dan Lunsford, Superintendent Board of Education Members File 8802-DD1 • FY 1989 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT REQUEST FORM ii 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: Lapd 4Gquisition 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- t W M" -,. c' o O o O o a0c O n O O Q O 12 a O in O Q O erg a a a a O en M Q 0 O N en d' CO c+'1 N .--1 w CO v 0 es 4 r� • "'Sc W «A« O 0 P1 C 0 a . O Y. 0 IPli ID I 0 N 0 P w )« 0 W 0 O X a C 1 a S O C) «. 4 2 g r cD C3 0 CI w «` O C] Q Q O W O O 0 0 C w O 0 CD O O Co N db 3. ft C Q O q e �"q n +--I 1--5 C C O O O CD O C C oQ W a r4 O O W M 1.0 O O 03 o '-.5 GO _ N n.1 N U N Lfl L rd . +-I C or d' �j Co Cs CU cc ac a u 40 Q o• 0 E m A Q r„y Qt CU u � a . ^a 0 CO CO 3 N M CU z W W .� N . h a N us N N CO CO W O 2 y )a 4 '4 N en C N c Yryr L ~ X or 0 C N C W y fa w s- oo•4 rd w ,- 4 x �;i q 3 a. « C .. Y a ` u co W i u • F IAA •C 1 «■ Q. .r .J ti w .r ~ 7 so • 0 4 5� 7 q O W } y a.W 4 ~ 0 K N Z • 13 • o n o QQ. --I F I,.• 0. 10117J0000000 n O O O O O. CO O O M� 0 0 0• I^ W ti ti Iry I ti O O 1. IA IA p 0 °+ 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 O M Q M 0 1H IAA h `4 0 n 11'1 O O N O O pp y� V1 CC d O N N' co IA A `0 u7 N IA d O G /+ Al �t M w O M N N 0.1 4 N 2 In O O. 0 0 0 0 0 O en a a ° o ° ap 03 N U o ° 4 ° Al .0 II 0 g 0 O N 0. in :C' O p� W C. O O O KI 1.4.41. I,I ,tiFti •430g Q M I+i +T M 0. I v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 7- O tO M 2 W + M In O O N V Q ▪ 4 ._ I Ill ill In °I- n O G 0 O 0 O co A 7- 0 0 0 CO'0 W A 0 / O 0 I1 +- CO Q in▪ or, d d I- 7 O • 0.1 LI W O. M ° N N AO IA O C t o d N N _ N N V a CO CO I- a W sC d 0 O °N O y N O CI F. O. O Ok O CO sr ry CO V/ C IA I- $ C . 0 'Q O O O A .• CC 0 0. 03 0 ° M O .3.1...... r: M p W rT n O. O A I Q O.C CO • W N .-• M N to co N Er h. CLI an CO IA M co o a.c a a r 0 2 • v w a w in O O d a a fti in L _ 1 O L. C d O W ..4"..--5 -II ;el E C Lu 0. ` L O, I- O~ d te a _ d Y Y C i C) 2 2 L 3 C I N }. i l O C E 'p N Al N rN+ 4 W ":" ti 0 I-_1 W V ▪ In 7 Igi a W O y tld C C O .0 O"Q u i 4 V C ,W L 0 zL a CC •O O C h U O Cb) C C > • M y 2 v q . is CW i 2 V N i O 41 m = X W m W ~0 N ..H pp 'W V• 2 I0 .0 x w a a 0 0 H 4 H q ML Part II - Discretionary Funding Request 11+ 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, 1986, 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, $37,000 + is encumbered and additional work is planned for the next another $37, $313,000. seven months to utilize the balance of the $313, 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. • L _ MONK P 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 1990 Action Agenda Item # -A 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 Lake Watershed TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To provide a report outlining the applicability of recommended impervious surface standards for University Lake Watershed. BACKGROUND: In October, 1989, the Board of Commissioners adopted interim development standards for University Lake watershed. The standards were based generally on the recommendations contained in the Final Report- University 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 more flexibility to property owners. 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 . The Planning Director will present his findings as related to the above mentioned concerns. 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 4 and l3 ) . 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 4% 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 C.,) . 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 by a 4% 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 25) . [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 tS 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 G) . 3. Lots fronting on a public road, and having larger 6 dwellings and longer driveways were less likely to comply (see Attachment G) . 4 . Typical and square lots were more likely to comply than wide and narrow lots (see Attachments G , and T) . 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 K) . 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 B or C private road, and having smaller dwellings and shorter driveways were more likely to comply (see Attachment Z- ) . 3 . Lots fronting on a public road, and having larger dwellings and longer driveways were less likely to comply (see Attachment L ) . 4. Typical and square lots were more likely to comply than wide and narrow lots (see Attachments M , 14, Of and P ) . 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 AR) . 6 . The average required minimum lot size for all lot configurations was 2 . 35 acres while the average 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 4) . 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 T 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 road 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 #lb above may be needed to address the occasional situation in which someone cannot meet the standards. lEMEMEM ` T . - LL o - ,_ •w . �~ ,hCi•,\ P OP . . -. - - ..-... . .. • T. ova - tom- w zo m tes • �- _ 1 11 _ _ • ;fir r - -w �•r,r,F - •a' V" c�- ;;T:7-,;,:-.::.:1:,...::---,:774:,.:-....`„,-.7-710'; :-;-e'f O in _ a.) (U j - - a f�. 1 1 `-: :-� ' '- :�: • " ' - 4'- "•';'`..".. .a, . - Q. Q. - ..3,!.-‘; 1 : �'::: - ---=r �a� ; .. _ .5-0t) r _•-•: -...- -: ,ter I �•�74.•• - .•• #,'-"/":4` L' --.Y_'' i+;4 -•.a i ?-� y Fes'+-. �•• .±Y.�. l .F•'i - - ,mow'„n,-•r',"s". _ J.—. ;•'•-1{7 4'Y�"V 3`�-rL2'' `:1/� • a �� { ''�`mss a3 t.T:;• •e- •t:. .� `yea 0 :7 _.. 1 r= ;�_-'. . _ _ Vii'• _:- •ti^ - _ _- _ f . =x- n on in -,� 93 -. _:a Crl 3� ..'"7-... • .. -. . ATTACHMENT A 1. •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 (SqFt): 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 Imperviou= 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 9.6.% 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 rea. (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. I ATTACHMENT B I,3 V N., - I N �1 Na . u. 0 tr,N. \ ► �sD' s n 1. L ' in Z b1 CI w a� CO to 4- ,-e,.p r--"7 M a : -. m.. ATTACHMENT B 1' 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) (SgEt) (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 a ea. (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 16 REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 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 REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 17 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 (can'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. • lomMEMM 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 29 5 295 Wide 417 209 ATTACHMENT E 211 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 % R •uired Lot Lot --- --------------- Impery Impery Minimum Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width Area Area Surface Lo. Size (Acres) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) (Ft) (Ft) (SgEt) (SqFt) ( cres) 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 60---~ 10 1000 209 11 2299 5299 6.08% 2.0 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 11 2299 5799 6.66% 2.2 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 11 2299 6299 7.23% 2.4 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 11 2299 6799 7.80% 2.6 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 11 2299 7299 8.38% 2.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 11 2299 7799 8.95% 3.0 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 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 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 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 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 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 - tot 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. 21 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00 Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Typical Depertaent 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 N3 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. 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 (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 W3 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 m 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) (Acr=s) 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 60 10 1000 209 6 1254 4254 4.88% .6 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 110 10 1500 209 6 1254 4754 5.46% .8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 160 10 2000 209 6 1254 5254 6.03% ..0 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 210 10 2500 209 6 1254 5754 6.60% '.2 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 260 10 3000 209 6 1254 6254 7.18% •.4 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 310 10 3500 209 6 1254 6754 7.75% :.6 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% ".8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% '.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6, 1254 7254 8.33% '.8 2.00 87120, 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% '.8' 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% '.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% '.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% -.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% -.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% -.8 2.00 87120, 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% -.8 2.00 87120 2000 0 2000 360 10 4000 209 6 1254 7254 8.33% -.8 AVERAGES 6.60% -.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 ` SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 2.00 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE T ieal Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - yP Road Class - C Private Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2000 Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies PROJECT DATA: 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) ---(SqFt) (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. • ATTACTTTtENT F 2 4 FIVE-ACRE LOTS COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS BY ROAD CLASS FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data 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 57.14X 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% B Private 1500 42 32 76.19% 10 23.81X . - B Private 2000 42 28 66.67% 14 , 33.33% .. _ =- B Private 2500 .. 42 24 57.14X 18 42.86% TOTALS 168 119 70.83X 49 29`17X 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 78.57X 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 A.TTACHMFNT 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 58.82% 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) - 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 -:.:`-x:32 B Private 2500 ' 17 : - - - 9 - 52.94% 8 47.06% 3.90% 4.9 TOTALS - 68 42 - 61.76% 26 38.24% 3.56% 4.5 CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) -- = C Private:°-=-•• 1000 17 13 76.47% 4 23.53% 3.06% 3.8 C Private 1500 _ 17 12 70.59% S 29.41% 3.29% 4.1 C'Private 2000 17 11 64.71% 6 35.29% 3.52% 4.4 �._. 0 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 . GRAND TOTALS... - ...... .... .. .. 272 _ 160 - 58.82% - 112.. - ' - ... 41.18% • - 3.67% 4.6 2 . 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 (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 12 7 58.33% 5 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) A Private 1000 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% 3.92% 4.9 A Private 1500 12 7 58.33% 5 41.67% 4.15% 5.2 A Private 2000 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% 4.38% 5.5 . A Private 2500 12 5 41.67% 7 58.33% 4.60% 5.8 TOTALS 48 26 54.17% 22 45.83% 4.26% 5.4 - CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) N _ ____ . __ �--__--....................� ------ N_-�� B Private '1000 12 83.33% 2 16.67% 3.46% 4.6 B Private 1500 12 9 75.00% 3 25.00% 3.69% 4.6 B Private 2000 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% 3.92% 4.9 B Private " 2500 12 - 7 58.33% 5 41.67%, 4.15% 5.2 TOTALS 48 34 70.83% 14 29.17%29.17% 3.81% 4.8 CLASS C, PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) C Private 1000--� rN12 11 91.67% 1 8.33% 3.16% 3.9 ----- C Private 1500 12 10 83.33% 2 16.67% 3.39% 4.2 C.Private 2000 12 9 ' 75.00% 3 25.00% 3.62% 4.5 C Private '2500 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% 3.85% 4.8 TOTALS N---� 48 38 79.17% -r__`---N-10 -_ +_--20 83% 3.51% 4.4 GRAND TOTALS 192 120 62.50% 72 ---37.50% ' 4.03% 5.1 27 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 25.00% 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 8 PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) B Private 1000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% 3.43% 4.3 ._ 8 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% 3.00% 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 ATTACHMENT J 28 FIVE-ACRE LOTS COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIIES 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 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 AT!'ACH*RENT K IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS TEMPLATE SCENARIO SUMMARY: Lot Area (Acres) - 5.00 Version 1/3/90 Print Lot Configuration - Narrow Department of Planning & Inspections - Orange County NC Road Class - Public PROJECT DATA: Dwelling Area (SqFt) - 2500 Dwelling Setback (Ft) - Varies Utility Structures - No Lot Width (Ft): 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: Length Width Area Driveway Width (Ft): 10 (Ft) (Ft) (SqFt) Max Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 4.00% Bldg #1 0 0 0 Max Impervious Surface Area (SqFt): 8712 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 X Required Lot Lot - Impery Size Size Dwelling Utility Total Length Width Area Frontage 1/2 Width 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 165 11 1815 5315 2.44% 3.1 5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 110 10 1500 165 11 1815 5815 2.67X 3.3 5.00. 217800 2500 0 2500 160 10 2000 165 11 1815 6315 2.90% 3.6 5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 210 10 2500 165 11 1815 6815 3.13% 3.9 5.00 217800 2500 0 2500 260 10 3000 165 11 1815 7315 3.36% 4.2 5.00. 217800 2500 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 560 10 6000 165 11 1815 10315 4.74% 5.9 5.00 217800 2500 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 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 5.88% 7.4 5.00 217800 2500 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. AT?'ACIx■'!FPTT L 3• TWO-ACRE LOTS COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS BY ROAD CLASS FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) Road Duelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width) Public 1000 r-----26 6 �-�23.08% 20 76.92% Public 1500 26 4 15.38% 22 84.62% Public 2000 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% Public 2500 26 1 3.85% 25 96.15% TOTALS 104 _-- 13 12.50% 91 87.50% • CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width) A Private 1000 26N�__--- 10 38.46% 16 61.54% A Private 1500 26 7 26.92% 19 73.08% A Private 2000 26 4 15.38% 22 84.62% A Private 2500 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% M TOTALS 104 "------23 22.12% 81 77.88% CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) -_ �w BPrivate 1000 26 14 53.SSX -_ 12 46.15% B Private 1500 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% B Private 2000 26 6 23.08% 20 76.92% ' B Private 2500 26 3 11.54% 23 - 88.E 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% C Private 1500 26 16 61.54% 10 38.46% C Private 2000 26 12 46.15% 14 53.85% C Private 2500 26 8 30.77% 18 69.23% TOTALS 104 54 51.92% 50 48.08% . GRAND TOTALS 416 123 29.57% 293 70.43% 31 ATTACHMENT N 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) 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 �»� py--� T p-00% 4 100.00% 7.09% 2.4 Public 1500 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 50.00X 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 _ 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 3 75,00X �� ~ 1_ - 25.00% � 6.35% ' - 2.1 B Private 1500 - 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 �T2500�- 4 0 25.00% 3 75.00% 8.07% 2.7 TOTALS 16 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 7.21%7.21% ____ 2.4 CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) » ----w C Private 1000 4 4 100.00X 0 0.00% 6.05% -~ „2.0 C Private 1500' 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 6.62% 2.2 C Private 2000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 7.20% 2.4 C Private 2500 4 - 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 7.77% 2.6 TOTALS -»_- ---N 16 13 81.25% 18.75% 6.91% '- 2.3 GRAND TOTALS 64 22 34.38% 42 65.63% 7.43% �___w 2.5 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 ~-----9000 r-r -----4--------__O 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 B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) B Private 1000 4____��_ 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 5.46% 1.8 , B Private 1500 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 6.03% 2.0 -- B 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-----�---- N- 16 -b---_--- 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 r-64 22 34.38% 42 65.63% 6.68% 2.2 . $ ATTACHMENT 0 - 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 0.00% 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 44, 34 ATTACIPIPINT P 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% --------N 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) -_ - ----� w 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 9 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 -7-: CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8 Ft Width) _;,-_ „ _ -�-- -�----�--w --- • - 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 GRAND TOTALS 64 22 ' 34.38% 42 65.63% 7.36% 2.5 • 35 _ ATTACHMP'NT 0 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): 670 -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 M3 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 NN 11 1430 4930 5.66% 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. a ATTACHMENT R. 36 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. Ar,ITACHMF1TT S SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA 37 University Lake Watershed, 1988 Floor Dwelling Area Midpoint Units in Percent Cumulative Range of Range Range Distribution Distribution (SqFt) (SqFt) 1000-1500 1250 10 20. 0% 20. 0% 1500-2000 1750 11 22. 0% 42. 0% 2000-2500 2250 17 34. 0% 76. 0% 2500-3000 2750 3 6. 0% 82. 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 University Lolls Waterehed, 19118 35% / !_ 30% 25% e 4i 20% I 15X. V/Al #1J I 117 A illirMillf, 4 Q. ,ur Air A A. sx V/AIYIYA M .:A El or r r 1250 1750 2350 2750 3250 Fangs Midpoints(Square Feet SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION, BY FLOOR AREA 38 University Lake Watershed, 1989 Floor Dwelling Area Midpoint Units in Percent Cumulative Range of Range Range Distribution Distribution (SqFt) (SqFt) 1000-1500 1250 3 14. 3% 14. 3% 1500-2000 1750 4 19. 0% 33. 3% 2000-2500 2250 8 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 Uriuersity Lola Miaterphed, 1989 40% • - 36% 30% rr 7 or a z Y a. 'MAMMA. WA mr- • Am A. r All" ax 1250 1750 2250 2750 3250 F1br.g Midpeints (squire.Feet) t 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. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5„ 1990 Action Agenda Item # X SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS - INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (ZONING ORDINANCE -- ARTICLE 6 . 15 .2 ) (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - SECTION IV-C-2) DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes _X_No 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 f 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 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. hi or c) 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. • • '5 PRpPOS=D .AGREEM£:,i - University Watershed Lake �: ed a Protection 10/13/89 1 . Goal . This agreement is designed to achieve the following shared goals: protection of the public health and safety, assurance cf minimal decradation, and prevention cf future deterioration L in water quality in connection with the University Lake water supply. 2. Basic Stzpcv. 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, #3, and r4 below. Other requirements will includeSaemaximum 4% impervious surface, use of individual septic tank sy ocated on site, and publicly-controlled monitoring and inspection of septic systems. Structural uctural � ,?s would not be rea •ired: • 3. a �- r 1 �-ar"n12t V will be provided, x.�including An option .ioricluster development an overall density of 1 DU/5 acres, a minimum lot Size of 1 acre, a maximum 4% impervious surface, use cf individual septic tanks located on-site and private wells, use cf on-site structural -stormwater aM?s only if needed on a particular site in order to' control pollutant slug loadings, and publicly-controlled inspection and maintenance of any such BY:Ps. subdivision.set-asides will be restricted to prohibit future �sion. 4. Zziztinc T Less t October 2, ms's than 5 Wires. Lots of record as of , 1989. that are less than 5 acres in size could be developed by landowners at the current lot sizes, but such of record could not be further subdivided.' . Structural EM?s would not be required. A maximum of cpprc::�?r.,a rely 12% impervious - - lowed less than 2 acres; 6% impervious would' be allowed on lots of between mpe_ ' ous surface would be allowed on lots 2 and 5 acres; and a. 4% impervious surface reruir amen t would apply to lance= lots. . 5. S tens `o Add=-ec ?o = l o Fa±-Aehit'ar• ., _ r a- x eems•-cn r'f Smarm.?�'t,t mbey of T f+- t lots cam. record as. of October `"�� �C-e re -s- Existing • lots October 2, 1989. coul d be .subd{vided to create up to 5 lots 'ow no less than• 2 - remaining�, � acres in sire, while the - �a_n_ng and could be developed DU/5 acres with 5-acre minimum densities cf no more than 1 i a- imum lot sizs. % impervious surface would be allowed for those'lots,cfcbetween 2 • and 5 acres in size. A 4% impervious surface requirement would to ar Cots. S e of - ~ 1n the event any landowner: is successful in gaining 2`ial COCr: order ruling that `-e Lcre, h d re^L1ctC�S rere resulted in a ;a=u a tcry taking, 2 the jur: G•"' i C:.S who� are : -!•( 6 pat the joint planning agreement will share associated pa-ties to �.th costs in an equitable fashion. c. Cyr teC; e! fcr 7,dd essin P^t *:'= cane The joint planning jurisd±c pions will develop strategies for dealing with any special hardships that night rata arise for farmers in order to further the public purpose cf protecting farmland. • d. ,ate �}�P 9-n a `i 1 r 0W .SP. 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. A ternati v Treatment end D4 snosal systeml, The County Board of Health will not perrni;, community alternatiVe treatment tmen and disposal systems within the current critical area of University Lake watershed. Until April 30, 1991 no alternatives treatment and disposal systems will be allowed in the balance c_ 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 Board of Health over sight. a 4 4. 4e t -}din r-b I ;ve tV Lake �. AL" X 1 .b'�1 �tv U � C �'. Watershed. OAS will be requested to conduct a study of the advisability of making public water services available within the Lake watershed, and will be 'asked to report to the University L- e r joint planning j urisdictions by 30, lcgl o n its fi^di n=s and recommendations. B. Ab4 1 i tv r pu 1 i n Cn:ve~^ y,,! t y �- - Lal.% 1,a.te.M1he.d. Public sewer will not be extended into the Uri ver si ty Lake watershed except to address a public health hazard or upon agreement by all joint planning jurisdictions. • 9• Aeirlitionel Rovu1e to-' ?eoui.-Amer =c, Additional regulatory pi-divisions will be developed by staffs i n the y . i following areas: control of cluster and standard lo.. p1 aceme:. to minimize water-quality impacts; control of siting of structures on 'indiv" d ual lots; Setbacks of septic tanks from 'streams;' stream buffer requirements; controls on further sub^:vision .of land included in open space set-asides in clustered developments; location and character of driveways and c they believe roads; and such other =egul atcry requirements as appropriate. Staff recommendations will be prepared and ^ submitted to coverning boards by approximately 10. Sou P-+.�' of ✓ossi h1 a Use c+.:. Tr G _ s r ?i ohtsi. The County, in consultation with the .towns, will cC`dud a study cf the possible use of transferable development ^�+ _ for purposes of watershed protection. Such a study could C e • included as part cf continuing work on prcte:ticfl of the County' s rural character, Cr such other context as the County believed ap_ropriate and feasible. C ': 7 • 11 . ? r eC`. ini n'- P� znni n nc_Pem .n_t. The staffs will review the Orange County Joint Planning agreement within the net sir, 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. Machaai sms fc Ongoin Coonttallan. 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 OW) 5A. • 13. ?er{radio 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 �SOCC 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 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 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 . 41 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 surface 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 greater 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 pevelopment Standards proved 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 p Standards - The following interim development standards shall apply: a) Basic Recuirements: 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 � l 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 Lots (21 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. 12 d) Wastewater 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 2 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 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. Na of Standards -- The following interim development standards shall apply: a) 3e-- sic Revuirements: 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. ***********. ******************************************* ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BDCC REVIEW: • - J_6; ''':''...•:!!!!!:!7!1....12..• �0• n ta O 6 r �a:w • O ; — = r regLwr t w 5i,° a�.4 4 �� ..:-Iii si u., 0 Y "�" : 4 • l = 1 ! • 6 'Q Q f P� 1i :.� : ` : 2� . . V1z • r g X >a ~ r I •• 0• ,,,, `•'ou ra rr y � . .. L :i y'� , . rr ,• I �L x •• • ,,T fir.-4 �w• �,•-I: i .....7. + I .n. • C s. .0. .% .. . • ....4111.. . Pa I : iir .61 ... 7 di • •• 0 • :• ., . i .......k *ii- - , .:-. •• ,0;,..: .4....-.' • • -1"I- - w'm• .-... (;), -.. ! '• .i.•.;:--: N. „... L . . ... „... ./7•;: ,.• •ks % 1 '. �t; r r r / \ •• .•�� •..• ' � �� 1•.. 1 Y\ r•4411 • ::(• • • .......' „/4. /%/P.1...:. :::..„ :" .... C5 Iti..:. :It/ I Eli Q)" '.: 1...f:'� l'' *b:»on:n' rr••:y"4-••: ���• ..1 'nom f��- �� cv UT:{ �w eg u. ... .. .. .. ;:k it .. .!,r- f -..... i!i• •'tom ••I- •1 '- ' /: r , t: rw • u Y: s t1s. ; '. ,,,.c r '- •, tw r • -• • - . . r:' •• - : `T. • te z t K■• .v'..„•,-• ,.,. ■•■• .!• 1;.:-.0.7 I. - • . . 1•\ . - IMMI 4 • 17 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS OF FIVE-ACRE PARCELS SOLD IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED JANUARY, 1988 TO JULY, 1989 (2) (3) (4) Total Existing Proposed (1) (1) (1) Structure Driveway Street Impervious Impervious Impervious Map ID Map Size Size Area . Area Area Area Surface Surface Number Reference (Acres) (Sq.Ft.) (Sq.Ft.) (Sq.Ft.) (Sq.Ft.) (Sq.Ft.) Ratio Ratio Difference 1 7.118..2A 5.62 244807 1568 4160 2640 8368 3.42% 4.00% 0.58% 2 7.117..60 5.72 249163 Undv Undv 4770 4770 1.91% 4.00% - 2.09% 3 7.117..64 5.00 217800 3543 1840 4680 10063 4.62% 4.00% -0.62% 4 7.117..65 5.08 221285 Undv Undv 3330 3330 1.50% 4.00% 2.50% 5 7.117..67 5.00 217800 4544 3600 641 8785 4.03% 4.00% -0.03% 6 7.117..59 5.52 240451 3252 1400 9720 14372 5.98% 4.00% -1.98% 7 6.21..17 5.03 219107 Undv Undv 1634 1634 0.75% 4.00% 3.25% 8 6.29..10 5.17 225205 1834 960 8800 11594 5.15% 4.00% -1.15% 9 6.36..4c 4.61 200812 Undv Undv 6206 6206 3.09% 4.00% 0.91% 10. - 6.21..7J 4.75 206910 842 4400 2772 8014 3.87% 4.00% 0.13% SUMMARY - UNDEVELOPED LOTS (WV) Total 20.44 890366 Undv Undv 15940 15940 1.79% 4.00% 2.21% Average 5.11 222592 Undv Undv 3985 3985 1.79% 4.00% 2.21% 3U MMARY - DEVELOPED LOTS _. _ Total. 31.06 1352974 _ 15583 16360 29Z53 61196 4.52% 4.00% -0.52% Average' 5.18 225496 2597 2727 4876 10199 4.52% 4.00% -0.522% source: (1) Orange County Land Records System. (2) Orange County Land Records System and Building Permit Records. - Structures include variety of situations, ranging from dwellings w/decks only to dwellings w/decks, garages, and sheds. (3) Orange County Aerial Photographs, and Building and Improvements Permit Data. Driveways considered to be eight feet in width. (4) Orange County Aerial Photographs and Subdivision Plats. Street area determined by public or private classification, property frontage, and one-half of surface area. Public roads considered to be 22 feet in width, Class A Private Roads 18 feet in width, Class 8 12 feet in width, and Class C eight feet in width. - • [J'N'''—'--- 1 1 1 ii l i 01 1 LOCATION MAP 18 r444+rr `P7 1(. . FIVE—ACRE PARCELS Dodson �' r` CrOSSrvads� s UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED R.) J.I I ; • r ~, — I r / WF 1 1175 .) .• 1 a IB9E•F ~J/ I 1 t/ \ 1 x z eb \ y '�Q ADEN 1842— P 3 , 1 �� 5T. _, .`. I , ' HAOKGEAN rGr � Tyro r i 1105 b III/ '_4L-- •-a' •'� • 7'1 9 'c.nos — /,\ `� '�+ te ,1 .r�ri' 1_�.....•l / •ate 71.. t <A* 1 Tip :. ,. Ti _ w ,/ \ 108.� �r N .�ar k'°°s •v: t , � r r e►�,ii nn x :. White Cross `1 l' "°°° = .< .: a ...r.. , �'•. �\ �~ \ / TAY f K u " CI 1 \ii 44.4 44 fid ! all 6. w + ivy! . ` r O . , ti ® ■005 .. r , Cr all \. •"""�' /1/4. r ,. , ,o ,003 V --q , ,004 i r �� ILK C. ~: �'A;..s c� g 4«"�"* ft, ,..,1 1005 n ` ; 2 w g �o. r,.aw 4" ` 7 .r tie+ /e� ..�. t 1 ,a w G�eK ---11 •Y '/ �j ~� ; 3 Ne,•le Tic =< 2004 y ! ..' Iii......„. �3p ( � a WILDS €—._r _ .` R41 �. RD g ► .y�`►x c ( t* • s:S ) D v qC 7t: _a y I.... /. r��.��r�.� 7 CCU w 7 WL • . � • r+ee S' 1 Chatham Count~`�. \ R .eu� = �� rr�w.r~w r Heritvpe Hills 1`- r rrR t�r■- _ _1 r2-►s _` F Pt,eNu►uG be.nr fl MINUTE5 • 19 1. Obtain approval from the County Attorney of the septic easement agreements, restrictive covenants, and road maintenance agreement. 2. Add a note or label to dedicate the 10' x 70' sight triangles on Dodsons Crossroads. Best expressed concern with septic easements under driveways and the possible need for repair of such. Crudup responded that the repair and upkeep of the septic easement was the responsibility of the grantee and not the grantor. The easement agreements address that fact. MOTION: Best moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hamilton. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 abstained (Cantrell - due to conflict of interest) . AGENDA ITEM #9 : • MATTERS HEARD AT 11/27/89 PUBLIC HEARING {› a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 6. 15.2 Interim Development Standards (Consider concurrently with Item #b(1) Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Section IV-C-2 Interim Development Standards) Presentation by Marvin Collins. (A copy of the abstract and proposed amendments are attachments to these minutes on pages ) . • (Impervious surface information & characteristics as prepared by Collins an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . Collins reviewed each amendment after which he reviewed and explained the impervious surface information and examples. This information was compiled by using building permit information, land records data, and improvements permit information. Collins noted that after working through the scenarios, staff found that a 4% impervious surface ratio is not unrealistic but that there are going to be hardship situations but there are methods of dealing with them. One could be 20 working with the individual in regard to the design of the lot and another could be petitioning the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Another method could create a special exception. This could be a case where the applicant is at or near the 4% and design standards could be created by which the water from the additional floor area could be infiltrated. If that is accomplished the applicant could be granted the additional floor area that is needed. He continued that design standards could be set up in order not to require Board of Adjustment approval for special exceptions. This could not be handled through the amendments that went to public hearing in November, 1989, but the three staffs could incorporate them into the watershed standards that are to be presented at public hearing in February 1990 . Eddleman noted that he was in favor of some methods of flexibility but was concerned that the problem may be worse than even this review has shown. Collins responded that was somewhat the idea behind performance standards or Board of Adjustment approval for special exceptions. Eidenier asked why not change the ratio to 5% and then only one of the examples would have need of approval for a special exception. Collins responded that had been considered, but the 4% . would comply with the recommendation by Camp, Dresser, McKee. Ways could be found to deal with the hardships and still abide by the recommendations made by the consultant. He continued that those that exceed the 4% were the larger buildings and one method of addressing that issue would be to go up (add a story) rather than out. Waddell asked why a larger lot size required a lower impervious surface ratio. Collins responded that the larger the lot size, the lower the density and less impervious surface; therefore, less runoff. Waddell continued expressing concern that the ratio was not the same for the larger lot sizes. Collins responded that the amount of land covered with impervious surface and the amount of water that is actually infiltrated into the soil. Camp, Dresser, McKee had a computer model that would project water quality levels would be in University Lake Watershed with the different scenarios. The goal was to retain the current water quality. In • 21 order to achieve that goal, according to the computer model, required a five-acre minimum lot size and a 4% impervious surface ratio. Waddell expressed concern that perhaps the computer model was incorrect. Collins responded that the watershed Work Group, in its many • discussions, had not questioned, but had accepted the computer model itself. Eddleman expressed concern with the number of homes which might already be non-complying. Yuhasz stated that he felt it was more likely two-thirds were out of compliance and only one- third in compliance. Eidenier expressed concern with the number that would become special exceptions and would require Board of Adjustment approval for a variance. Collins reviewed again some of the lots on the chart he had prepared noting those on cul-de-sacs and those with long road frontage. In a new subdivision, the division of the road frontage equally for all lots would address some situations where the impervious ratio is exceeded. This is an example where the design of the development itself determines in great measure whether or not they will comply. Eidenier expressed concern again with the redesigning of lots when perhaps increasing the percentage by one point might alleviate the problem. Eddleman expressed the concern that private roads, with washed crushed stone were not really impervious surfaces. Collins responded that in the early 1980' s when the impervious ratio issue first began, there was considerable discussion as to whether an unpaved road was an impervious surface. He noted that most of the information available, because of the impaction on an unpaved road, was just as impervious as a paved road. He noted that perhaps the intent in leaving it out of the ordinance was a means of addressing hardships. Best stated that the Transportation Consultant and the committee has included compaction standards in the Private Road Standards because the transportation engineer believes that unpaved roads are just as impervious as paved roads. • 22 Collins noted that one implication of the impervious ratio issue is that developers will probably be creating smaller developments in order to, have a lower classification of road so that lots will be more easily sold for building homes. Best noted that one thing that the Transportation Committee is working on is to change standards to give greater leeway to larger developments so that they can stay within the design guidelines. Best continued that he felt that the ultimate question is whether the Board accepts Camp, Dresser, McKee's report that protection of the watersheds is the ultimate goal. If it is the ultimate goal and the recommendation is accepted at 4%, then design standards must be changed and development patterns must be altered in order to maintain the 4%. There will be hardships that must be addressed. The ultimate concern is the protection of the watersheds so that the existing quality of water be maintained for the entire County. Eidenier again expressed concern for the citizens who would be affected by the one-third of the lots which would not be in compliance. Eddleman stated that he is not against watershed protection but felt that some flexibility is definitely needed to address hardships. He noted that it seemed the, 4% was a real challenge to deal with and felt that perhaps more work was needed to provide that flexibility. Collins suggested that perhaps he could take some of the concerns and suggestions discussed at this meeting and elaborate on them for presentation at the Long Range Planning Board meeting on January 9, 1990. MOTION: Eddleman moved to postpone consideration until the Long Range meeting on January 9, 1990. Seconded by Best. VOTE: Unanimous. (2) Article 7 . 14 .4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Presentation by Marvin Collins. 23 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 24 " COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS AND FIVE-ACRE LOTS ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data Total Lots Number Compliance Percent Compliance (SgFt) Road Dwelling Two-Acre Five-Acre Two-Acre Five-Acre Two-Acre Five-Acre Class Area . Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots Public 1000 26 42 6 . 21 23.08% 50.00% Public 1500 26 42 4 18 15.38% 42.86% Public 2000 26 42 2 15 7.69% 35.71% Public 2500 26 42 1 12 3.85% 28.57% A Private 1000 26 42 10 27 38.46% 64.29% A Private 1500 26 42 7' 23 26.92% 54.76% A Private 2000 26 . 42 4 19 15.38% 45.24% A Private 2500 , 26 42 2 16 7.69% 38.10% B Private 1000 26 42 14 35 53.85% 83.33% B Private 1500 26 42 10 32 38.46% 76.19% B Private 2000 26 42 6 28 23.08% 66.67% B Private 2500 26 42 3 24 11.54% 57.14% C Private 1000 26 42, 18 37 69.23% 88.10% C Private 1500 26 42 16 35 - 61.54% 83.33% C Private 2000 26 42 12 33 46.15% 78.57% C Private 2500 26 42 8 30 30.77% 71.43% TOTALS 416 672 123 405 29.57% 60.27% • ■ _ 25 COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR FIVE-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent N Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance C Private 1000 42 37 88.10% 5 11.90% 8 Private 1000 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67% C Private 1500 42 35 83.33% C Private 2000 7 . 3 42 33 78.57% 21 9 21,443%% B Private 1500 42 32 76.19% 10 23.81% C Private 2500 42 30 71.43% 12 . 28.57% B Private 2000 . 42 28 66.67% A Private 1000 14 33.33% 27 64.29% 15 35.71% 8 Private 2500 42 24 57.14% A Private 1500 18 42.86X 23 54.761 19 45.24% Public 1000 42 21 50.00% A Private 2000 21 50.00% 19 45.24% 23 54.76% Public 1500 42 18 42.86% A Private 2500 24 57.14% 16 38.10% 26 61.90% Public 2000 - 42 15 35.71% 27 64.29% Public 2500 42 12 28.57% 30 71.43% TOTALS 672 40560.27% 267 39.73% • ...m►. • 26 FIVE-ACRE LOTS COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS BY DWELLING SIZE FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SgFt) Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance 1000 SO FT DWELLINGS . Public 1000 42 21 50.00% 21 50.00% A Private 1000 42 27 64.29% 15 35.71% B Private 1000 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67% C Private 1000 42 37 88.10% 5 11.90% TOTALS 168 120 71.43% 43 28.57% 1500 SQ FT DWELLINGS Public 1500 42 18 42.86% 24 57.14% A Private 1500 42 23 54.76% 19 45.24% B Private 1500 42 32 76.19% 10 23.81% C Private 1500 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67% TOTALS 168 108 64.29% 60 35.71% • 2000 SQ FT DWELLINGS . Public 2000 42 15 35.71% 27 64.29% A Private 2000 42 19 45.24% 23 54.76% B Private 2000 42 28 66.67% 14 _ 33.33% C Private 2000 •. 42 33 78.57% 9 21.43% TOTALS 168 • 95 56.55% - 73 43.45% 2500 SQ FT DWELLINGS Public 2500 42 12 28.57% 30 71.43% A Private 2500 42 16 _ 38.10% 26 61.90% B Private • 2500 42 24 57.14% 18 42.86% C Private 2500 42 30 71.43% 12 28.57% TOTALS 168 82 48.81% 86 51.19% GRAND TOTALS 672 405 60.27% 267 39.73% 27 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 N� „ 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 --NN--- 60.71% CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width) »� A Private 1000 42 27 64.29% - 15 µ`-�----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 8 PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) .�-�-�------`-_�_� �___ B Private 1000 42 35 83.33% 7 16.67% B Private 1500 42 32 76.19% 10 23.81% 8 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% `R ____ r- TOTALS . 168 135 80.36% 33 19.64% GRAND TOTALS 672 405 60.27% 267--»_»_.. 39.73% r p • 2 8 COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS, FOR FIVE-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) Lot Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Shape Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Square 8 Private 1000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide 8 Private 1500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 1500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Square C Private 1500 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide B Private 1000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 2500 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 2000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 1000 5 5 100.00% 0 0.00% Square C Private 1000 8 • 8 100.00% 0 0.00% Square C Private - 2000 8 8 100.00% 0 0.00% Typical C Private 1000 12 11 91.67% 1 8.33% Square C Private 2500 8 7 87.50% 1 12.50% Square B Private 1500 8 7 87.50% 1 12.50% Typical C Private 1500 12 10 83.33% 2 16.67% Typical B Private 1000 12 10 83.33% 2 16.67% Wide B Private 2000 5 4 80.00% 1 20.00% Narrow C Private 1000 17 13 76.47% 4 23.53% Typical C Private 2000 12 9 75.00% 3 25.00% Square B Private 2000 8 6 75.00% 2 25.00% Typical B Private 1500 12 9 75.00% 3 25.00% Square A Private 1000 8 6 75.00% 2 25.00% Narrow C Private 1500 17 12 70.59% 5 29.41% Narrow B Private 1000 17 12 70.59% 5 29.41% Typical C Private 2500 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% Typical A Private 1000 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% Typical B Private 2000 12 8 66.67% 4 33.33% Narrow B Private 1500 17 11 64.71% 6 35.29% Narrow A Private 1000 17 11 64.71% 6 35.29% Narrow C Private 2000 17 11 64.71% - 6 35.29% Square A Private 1500 8 5 _ 62.50% 3 37.50% Square B Private 2500 8 5 62.50% 3 37.50% Wide B Private 2500 - 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% Narrow C Private 2500 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% Narrow A Private 1500 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% Narrow B Private 2000 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% Narrow Public 1000 17 10 58.82% 7 41.18% Typical B Private 2500 12 7 58.33% 5 41.67% Typical Public 1000 12 7 58.33% 5 41.67% Typical A Private 1500 12 7 58.33% 5 41.67% Narrow A Private 2000 17 9 52.94% 8 47.06% Narrow B Private 2500 17 9 52.94% 8 47.06% 2a COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR FIVE-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE (CONTINUED) ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS ----- ~ Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) Lot Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Shape Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Narrow Public 1500 17 9 52.94% _. 8 47.06% Square Public 1000 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% Typical Public 1500 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% Square A Private 2000 8 4 50.00% 4 50.00% Typical A Private 2000 12 6 50.00% 6 50.00% Narrow Public 2000 17 8 47.06% 9 52.94% Narrow A Private 2500 17 8 47.06% ' 9 52.94X Typical A Private 2500 12 5 41.67% 7 58.33% Typical Public 2000 12 5 41.67X 7 58.33% Narrow Public ' 2500 17 7 41.18% 10 58.82% Wide A Private 1000 5 2 40.00% 3 60.00% Square A Private 2500 8 . 3 37.50% 5 62.50% Square Public 1500 8 3 37.50% 5 62.50% Typical Public 2500 12 4 33.33% 8 66.67% Square Public 2000 8 2 25.00% 6 75.00% Wide A Private 1500 5 1 20.00% 4 80.00% Square . Public 2500 8 1 12.50% 7 87.50% Wide Public 1500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% Wide Public 1000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% Wide A Private 2500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% Wide A Private 2000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% Wide Public 2500 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% Wide Public 2000 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% TOTALS 672 405 60.27% - 267 �, 39.73% • 30 COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance C Private 1000 26 18 69.23% 8 30.77% C Private 1500 26 16 61.54% 10 38.46% 8 Private 1000 26 14 53.85% 12 46.15% C Private 2000 26 12 46.15% 14 53.85% 8 Private 1500 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% A Private 1000 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% C Private 2500 26 8 30.77% 18 69.23% A Private 1500 26 7 26.92% 19 73.08% B Private 2000 26 6 23.08% 20 76.92% Public'' -• 1000 26 6 23.08% 20 76.92% A Private 2000 26 4 15.38% 22 84.62% Public 1500 26 4 15.38% 22 84.62% 8 Private 2500 26 3 11.54% 23 88.46% Public 2000 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% . A Private 2500 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% Public 2500 26 1 3.85% 25 96.15% TOTALS«M'-_- 416 123 29.57% 293 70.43% TYO-ACRE LOTS 31 COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS BY DWELLING SIZE FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS - -. -` - __-- -_-__ Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) `��"- Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance omP Non-compliance Non-compliance 1000 SQ FT DWELLINGS ------.---_- ----.--w--=--- - Public 1000 26 6 23.08% .9w A Private 1000 20 76.92% 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% B Private 1000 26 _. 14 53.85% 12 46.15% C Private 1000 26 18 69.23% 8 30.77x TOTALS 104 - 48 46.15% 56 s3.a. 5Z -` ----------------- 5x 1500 SC FT DWELLINGS Public 1500 26 4 15.38% --~~_ -------�� A Private 1500 22 26 • 7 26.92% i9 73.08% B Private 1500 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% C Private 1500 26 --- 16 61.54% 10 38.46% TOTALS 104 . 37 35.SSX~~ ~� 67 - 64.42% 2000 SC FT DWELLINGS Publ i c _--"""-`---'-----`---"•'_-----_--"'- 2000 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% A Private 2000 26 - 4 15.38% B Private 2000 22 84.62%84.62%26 - 6 23.081 20 76.92% C Private 2000 26 • .12 46115% 14 53.85% TOTALS 104 24 23.08X so .-- 76.92% 2500 SQ FT DWELLINGS -� - --.., Public 2500 26 1 3.85X--- -- A Private 2500 25 96.15% 26 2 7.69% 24 92.31% B Private 2500 26 3 . 11.54% C Private 2500 23 88.46% 26 •. 8 30.77% 18 69.23% TOTALS 104 14 13.46% �_______ 90 86.54% GRAND TOTALS -' � `�-'---"" 416 123 29.57% 293 70.43% 32 TWO-ACRE LOTS COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS BY ROAD CLASS FOR ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SciFt) Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance PUBLIC ROAD (22 Ft Width) -------------------------------- - Public 1000 26 6 23.08% 20 76.92% 1500 26 4 15.38% 22 24 92.31% Public 2000 26 2 7.69% 96.15% Public 2500 26 1 3.85% 25 -------------- --104--��_�3------ 12.50% 91 87.50% TOTALS -------- CLASS A PRIVATE ROAD (18 Ft Width) �N-- -_�_w A Private -----9000------ 26 10 38.46% 16 61.54% 73.084 A Private 1500 26 7 26.92% ' 19 22 84.62% 4 15.38% A Private 2000 26 92.�1X A Private 2500 26 2 7.69% 24 _�--_-- TOTALS 104 23 22.12% 81 77:88% _ter_ -....��� --_-_• --------.._��__-�---------���.-- CLASS B PRIVATE ROAD (12 Ft Width) ----r-- 8 Private 1000 26 -.^_- 14 53.85% 12 46:15% 16 61.54X B Private 1500 26 10 38.46% 20 76.92% 6 23.08% B Private 2000 26 88,46% B Private 2500 26 3 11.54% 23 _-TOTALS 104 33 31.73% 71 68.27% CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD (8.Ft Width) C Private 18 69.23% 8 30.77% 1000 26 10 38.46% C Private 1500 26 16 61.54% 12 46.15% C Private 2000 26 14 53.85%69.23% ClPrivate 2500 26 8 30.77% 18 TOTALS 104 54 51.92% 50 48.08% -----_---- ----416 123 29.57% 293 70.43% GRAND TOTALS 33 - COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE ALL LOT CONFIGURATIONS Project Data Compliance Data (SqFt) Lot Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Shape Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance Square C Private 1500 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% Square C Private 1000 4 4 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 1500 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% Wide C Private 1000 3 3 100.00% 0 0.00% Square C Private 2000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% Square B Private 1000 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% Typical C Private 1000 7 5 71.43% 2 28.57% Wide B Private 1000 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% Wide C Private 2000 3 2 66.67% 1 33.33% Typical ' C Private 1500 7 4 57.14% 3 42.86X Typical 8 Private 1000 7 4 57.14% 3 42.86% Narrow C Private 1000 12 6 50.00% 4 33.33% Square B Private 1500 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% Square A Private 1000 4 2 50.00% 2 50.00% Square C Private 2500 4 2 50.002 2 50.00% Typical A Private 1000 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% Typical B Private 1500 7 3 42.86% 4 , 57.14% Typical C Private 2000 7 3 42.86% 4 57.14% Narrow B Private 1000 12 5 41.67% 5 41.67% Narrow C Private 1500 12 5 41.67% 5 41.67% Narrow A Private 1000 12 5 41.67% 6 50.00% Wide C Private 2500 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% Narrow B Private 1500 12 4 33.33% 6 50.00% Narrow Public 1000 12 4 33.33% 7 58.33% Narrow. A Private 1500 12 4 33.33% 7 58.33% Narrow C Private 2000 12 4 33.33% 6 50.00%' Wide B Private 1500 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% Typical A Private 1500 7 2 28.57% 5 71.43% Typical Public 1000 7 2 28.57% 5 71.43% Typical 8 Private 2000 7 - 2 28.57% 5 71.43% Typical C Private . 2500 7 2 28.57% 5 71.43% Square B Private 2000 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% Narrow B Private 2000 12 3 25.00% 7 58.33% Square A Private 1500 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% Narrow Public 1500 12 3 25.00% 8 66.67% Narrow A Private 2000 12 3 25.00% 8 66.67% Narrow C Private 2500 12 3 25.00% 7 58.33% Narrow B Private 2500 12 2 16.67% 8 66.67% Narrow Public 2000 12 2 16:67% 9 75.00% Narrow A Private 2500 12 2 16.67% 9 75.00% Typical A Private 2000 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 34 COMPARISON OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SCENARIOS FOR TWO-ACRE LOTS BY ORDER OF COMPLIANCE (CONTINUED) ONFIGURATIONS --- Project Data Compliance Data (SgFt) . Road Dwelling Total Number Percent Number Percent Class Area Items Compliance Compliance Non-compliance Non-compliance B Private 2500 7 1 14:29% 6 85.71% Public 1500 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% Public 2500 12 1 8.33% 10 83.33% Public 1000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% A Private 2000 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% A Private 2500 3 ' 0 0.00% 3 100.00% A Private 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 • 100.00% Public 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% Public 1000 3 . 0 0.00% 3 100.00% Public 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% Public 2000 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% B Private 2000 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% A Private 1000 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% B Private 2500 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% B Private 2500 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% Public 1500 . 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% _. Public 1500 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% A Private 2500 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% A Private 1500 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% Public 2500 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% A Private 2000 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% Public 2500 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% Public 2000 7 0 0.00% 7 100.00% . 416 . 123 29.57% 293 70.43% - D 0 IA 11; If flag Yuhasz asked if a fla lot had been considered 35 for this case since it seemed the soil constraints would meet conditions that allow flag lots. Scearbo responded no. She continued that it was not discovered until the plat was submitted that the well was in the right-of-way. Best asked why this request was brought to the Planning Board since a Class C private road less than 500' does not have to be inspected prior to recordation of the final plat. Scearbo responded because the legal right-of-way is still required to be 50' and a Road Maintenance Agreement is also required. Yuhasz stated that he would like Staff to " consider a flag lot as an option rather than the additional complication of a Road Maintenance Agreement and road signs. After discussion between Best and Yuhasz regarding driveways onto the Class C private road, Yuhasz noted that a condition could be added to that both driveways access the private road near the lot line. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the partial width right- of-way and suggested that Staff review the request and if a flag lot is appropriate, that the owner be notified of that alternative. Seconded by Lewis. Jacobs noted the discussion from the December 18, 1989 minutes between Collins and Yuhasz that listed those situations in which flag lots are appropriate. From that discussion, he indicated he felt a flag lot would be appropriate in this case. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT 11127/89 PUBLIC HEARING 101 a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 6. 15.2 Interim Development Standards b. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV-C-2 Interim Development Standards Presentation by Marvin Collins. 3(0 The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing in November 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, Collins 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, Collins 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 %) 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 would comply 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 such as dry wells. , raising the impervious surface limits, and design standards to insure compliance. Collins presented several options that would provide relief from the inability to comply with • • . w recommended impervious surface ratios. They 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; 3-7 5. Establish design standards which assure compliance (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 . Eidenier asked if there are many developers seeking subdivisions or buildings which would not be in compliance. Collins responded that the W.T Durham Estates Subdivision is the only one which could be developed if the interim standards were adopted. Jacobs asked if the Board could approve "averaging" as an interim standard and present the others at the February public hearing. Collins responded that this is an option. Collins noted that the minimum lot size permitted under "averaging" should be one acre because that was the limit proposed for clustering. Best noted that "averaging" would still place the small developer at a disadvantage. Collins agreed. Best continued, asking what is to be done to help the small developer. Collins responded that either option could be used to allow for the division of existing lots of record. A maximum of five two-acre lots would be permitted by subsection (c) and any division from the same parcel above that number must average at least one unit per five acres. MOTION: Eddleman moved approval with lot size averaging and with maximum of five two-acre lots permitted. Seconded by Best. Discussion continued on lot size averaging and the changes that should be made in the text of the proposed revisions. It was noted that the motion as made had no reference to impervious surface. The motion was withdrawn by the first and second. MOTION: Best moved to amend Section 3(a) to say that there will be five-acre averaging permitted, with a minimum lot size of two acres and with, a maximum of five two-acre lots permitted in a subdivision. Seconded by Jacobs. ihr 39 VOTE: 9 in favor. 2 opposed (Eddleman, Waddell - Both indicated reluctance to enact something which would have to be revised again in a short period of time. ) Lewis stated that he voted in favor of the motion because he felt it was better that what was proposed, but did agree that the problem still exists. This motion would make 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 averaainq j, permitted pjovided the overall residential density for any development application shall not exceed on dwelling unit per five acres, no lot shall be less than two acres in size, and no Trio e than dive two-acre lots may be created as part of any development application, except as permitted, under subsection. hal or 21 below.. An identical change would be made to Section IV- C-2 a.3.a) of the Subdivision Regulations. (W. T. Durham Estates was considered at this point in the agenda. ) Durham Estates ( 10 Lots -- Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. 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 out of a 60 acre tract. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) , and Protected Watershed (PW-II) . It is located in the University Lake Watershed and 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, a public road (Creekstone Drive) in Laurel Springs subdivision and a proposed private Class B road 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 j O R A N G E COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date February 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # )(- I3 SUBJECT: SYKES GLEN, PHASE 3 - PRELIMINARY PLAN (REVISED) ACTION BY: March 13, 1990 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crudup Extension 574 Vicinity Map Preliminary Plan Certification _ TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 • Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider a revision to the preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3. BACKGROUND: 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 . y- 2 +, 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 Jonathon Sykes. " 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 chosen 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 instead 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 1. The other 5 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 1, label the 30' drainage easement which crosses lots 8 and 7 . 2. Revise sheet 1 to include the square footage of the open space and label it as "Property of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, Homeowners Association, Inc. " RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the revised preliminary plan of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, as per the Planning Board's recommendation. J :,., .....-----Kg- •• 3 o 5 () s qLr PA 3 L /I!._t•C „ � zo�li�G : AZ/pvUIr( ec- k)d PPLi CANT:M 1 r-1 M4R—Ti�1 *t+K.. „ «•5eq U: 1" ,der : t aK RR Rab C ' ..em Q I O 4./111 K. PA!C ® P!r .m PH i q.1. K .t •. l t sy .vt 9 at e 44. V- 6 •0 - le tt. • + / - O NC b � '0. taw r CI _F--- 1 4 • • PI a ly Q -: 4:A r d - )L------....'"fs SQ.:. .03 , e.) ,---E--;) .....j. i . -plASE 3 .. _ _ /AO , __ _ •^ter _ e ` - - 1_1_ r � _ i macp 1_ • - =5 _ _ 45,41, _ N arr.c • ` O :-... o- P4tAs t - - -. -- - - ,, Ilk _. _ _ � - - - 0 O t. ittif .Ma K. 2.4 I '411%111"—'"?1:41"lir° (214%iiii-+••• Nomm.Alit 0. la Ili 4 Z ��.� o -- 0 t� r'itK. • 0 \ Q •�� .«....5.., r . • ... 460 �.. ` - �grfi.m. � 1FmK - L. 14 y •, 1 o 0 ` , 4 SYKES GLEN PHASE III - PRELIMINARY PLAN 11/85 ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFICATION AND APPROVALS = PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF ASSIGNMENT: Emil Crudup SKETCH PLAN: Received 7/20/88 Reviewed 7/21/88 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received 2/14/89 Reviewed 2/16/89 REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT: Received Reviewed NCDOT: DATE: 3/9/89 CERTIFICATION: E.M. Cowan, District Engineer SCHOOL BOARD (Orange/Chapel Hill-Carrboro) : DATE: 2/23/89 CERTIFICATION: UTILITIES (OWASA/Hillsborough/Mebane/Orange Alamance/Durham) : DATE: CERTIFICATION: OTHER: Recreation Advisory Council (Date) Carrboro Fire Department (Date) Chapel Hill _ (Date) Carrboro (Date) Hillsborough (Date) Durham (Date) Other - S & E W. Faircloth r /3 31/89 (Date) - Health T Konsler 3 1 89 (Date) - S & W Conservation G. Hughes ,3/27189 (Date) PLANNING BOARD: Date: 4 - 11 - et Approval Approval with Condition(s) AK Denial BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Date: Approval. Approval with Condition(s) KX Denial 5 AMEMill00 (2) Sykes Glen - Phase 3 (22 Lots - Bingham Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. This item is 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 preliminary plan was approved for twenty-two (22 ) lots to be serve 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 right-of-way and Property of Jonathan Sykes. 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 entranceway landscaping and signage. Restrictive covenants have been prepared which include provisions for an assessment to be used for maintenance of the common area. Since the conditions of approval specifically required combination with lot 16, creating open D 6 space instead must be approved 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 is not to be combined with lot 1 . The other conditions have all been met on the final plat which is to be presented later in this meeting. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plan of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, with the following conditions: 1 . On sheet 1, label the 30' drainage easement which crosses lots 8 and 7 . 2 . Revise sheet 1 to include the square footage of the open space and label it as "Property of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, Homeowners Association, Inc. " MOTION: Burklin moved acceptance of the Planning Staff recommendation. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Final Plats (22 Lots) (1) Sykes Glen - Phase 3 (22 Lots - Bingham Township) Presentation by Emily Crudup. Since the Planning Board has recommended approval of the revised preliminary plan for Sykes Glen, Phase 3, the preliminary application will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners on February 5, 1990 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the final plat of Sykes Glen, Phase 3, provided the preliminary plan is approved by the Board of County Commissioners to designate the area north of the entrance as common space and not part of lot 16 . Best asked why Staff was asking for preliminary and final approval at the same time. Crudup responded that the applicant desired to make the strip common open space rather than a part of Lot 16. If the Board of Commissioners did not approve this, then the final plat would be , redrawn and submitted by the applicant with the strip as part of Lot 16. Burklin asked why the change could not be made at the final plat stage. Crudup responded that the change must be handled as a revision to the preliminary plat since a specific condition was attached to the preliminary plat and already approved by the Board of Commissioners . MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. 8 • • • I I S19-551: 3 . c ^I , Approval of the proposed revision to the ~ m z Preliminary Plan would alloy, the hatched. --1 � m 0 area to he deeded to the Homeowner' s �� , O Association instead of being part of i 0! Lot 16 . N ,,, I6 (f) 1 m a "OPEN SPACE" y4 i z • TO BE DEEDED TO ,:) moo) 331 /aCF. i 0 SYKES GLEN HOME h. Q m V\114‘.0• OWNER'S ASSOC. ti� Q \ . -lc:o 7D.77 C2 CD ss r C3 g 7 •• 62 ;„:c� 30.77 - !. 2p• O/" C6 1 D m — w 6662 . E Q w o ' C5 O O 6S,62 - t, co II C4 C o Cr m \10 3 • tD M U 2.42 ACRES vr N 0 . in a 2.02 ACRES N w � N M W N w N m Q 2 M o Y 0. Q z N 66. 37. 22 .. 337.8s - 1 u JOSEPH R. FALLON I Z & VIRGINIA FALLON I D. B. 506 PG. 151 STING «, R/W in N -..".") C 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 51 1990 Action Agenda Item # )(=C SUBJECT: DURHAM ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: March 22, 1990 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 348 Application Vicinity Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Private Road Justification Hillsborough - 732-8181 Staff Evaluation of Private Durham - 688-7331 Road Justification Mebane - 227-2031 Agency Comments Chapel Hill - 967-9251 Preliminary Plan Resolution of Approval Draft 1/16/90 Planning Board Minutes PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates subdivision. BACKGROUND: 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 proposed Class B private road 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. 2 f. Agency Comments - The Orange County Health Department has 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 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 and approved prior to road construction. - Carrboro recommended that all septic and well areas be field located on each lot and shown on plans . The location of septic areas for each lot has been shown on a copy of the plat. Well areas will be located at the house construction stage of development. Carrboro 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 area offered for dedication as public open space/recreation exceeds the acreage required. About 1/2 acre is required to be dedicated. The area offered for dedication contains 2 . 6 acres . Applicability of Interim Development Standards 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: D. Parkland 1 . The applicant shall dedicate and deed to Orange County 2 . 6 acres of parkland 3 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 aboved 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 is to be condsidered by the Commissioners as a separate agenda item. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval per the Planning Board recommendation. • APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) MAJOR S U B D I Y I S I O N ORANGE COUNTY DATE: /009 SUBDIVISION NAME: /RA/4M E.57-4 re cLe a I V/0/0^/ LOCATION: -- 1;/42/LAW ILOAO OWNER/DEVELOPER: 1N• / • Dt R,/AIry( ADDRESS: / ? 1? PA<,v✓e// Cr. TELEPHONE NO.: - akaPC(. 141/ / /►/!'_ a 7511 AGENT/CONTACT: (' L L•E/rl Y/V ,5'ciR veyes TELEPHONE NO.: 739 - c36433 /ay Al. Q./ituRTO"/ .67. - /J•'// ,so,edu 1.1 /AIL, c27o)78 //77,�'� A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Township 7 �"A 'L �/l Orange County Tax Map. /C2 Block - Lot(s) Al J Zoning District(s): Al- u F-e x 7Z � - Total Number of Acres: (OO• 490 _4 _ Phases: _ /, Minimum Lot S'ze 3•b 9 H C. Total Number of Lots: /() Average Lot Size: ���C Number/Type of Structures: (existing) a/ DcCT f3 u:L .O,A< (proposed) a 19C . "! Lineal Feet in Streets: i 0 O 'G, Acres in Open Space _ Community _ Individual water Supply: Public (specify) 1// Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community School District: 0//:40E C. del/ Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: 171.' prone areas Critical Areas: .5A-F / A pron p stream/drainageways historic sites watershed (specify) other (explain) B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1"=20') and must contain the following information: ••• subdivision name —' . zoning of tract and adjacent properties ✓';iii !i 1 ,.�»:� name a address of caner(s) � : Z, building setback lines by notation or typical lot : name B address of subdivider •W layout Fs' "::?' location and width of existing and proposed (if inner than'owner) -- utilities, roads, etc.) a easements (drainage, yi name of surveyor, engineer, " •_ landscape architect or architect, i'i existing, proposed and adjoining rights-of-way L) including dimensions and street names and state m U address, registration k and seal Q -ti / road numbers. Lineal feet of road centerlines and J (title) Preliminary Plan -`-' y Mn proximate acreage of new, street rights-of-way .i 0 `��: scale, north arrrow. '""` '•= including type, ti s. ✓ ?`: date (including revision dates) existing and proposed utilities, CO p .:, sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes a �, township, tax map-block-lot 4 - existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, ..y � _ �i- references � > :: N Parent Parcel ioentifica:ion z including sizes and grades O d• eed book and paned of property location and width of alleys, sidewalks, bike lanes, • ^O ' ' transit systems, and bus stops .y .� W— ''''`''i' to be subdivided :::• U ✓ f' typical street cross-sections and intersection iiii ?'ii b• oundary described with bearings �- v U) ><: and distances details including aesign and ..idth of travelway and . total acreage of the tract and snoulders .::: g acreage of lots, including and i+ :; horizontal alignment and general curve Bata (public excluding area within rights-of-way •= E roads) (:leas° cc=mieme reverse side) control corner _ N /4'A centerline radius on all proposed streets proposed lot lines with dimensions permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, _� '✓ lot & block numbers `<'' >=> historic landmarks pnasing lines adjoining lot layout names cf adjoining property topography at ten foot (10) intervals owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat •'" 0 _ ::•''q water bodies, streams, f looduay and ; book g "• page number, and perimeter lot numbers. Ab -'`` floodplains / :i':' ` landscaping and buffer requiremer-requirement::stream buffers y am. "1711 township, corporate and extra-territorial planning cj =i=✓`=` location and size of parcels dedicated jurisdiction lines which cross the property D re for public use, recreational use or l& location and size of lots of restricted development /! _......... reserved in common, with purpose noted potential and notation on plat regarding same ' `;:; • .'M• impervious surface data (if located in /' stormwater detention• and/or retention sites and water supply atershed) y `' undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if vicinity map showing general location located in water supply watershed) . ..:: of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State road number and name C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regu.ations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the forecoing application is complete and accurate. I understand that a 5105.00 fee (subdivisions of 1-5 lots), $210.00 fee (subdivisions of 6-9 lots), 5315.00 fee (subdivisions of 10-25 lots) or a $420.00 fee (subdivisions of 26 lots c- more) is due at the time of application. A 55.00 per lot fee is due at the time the final plat is presented for recordation. A'PLICANT'S -"NATURE OWNER'S SIGNATURE 112 .t /71/9 DATE DA__ FEES: Amount . 4/;20. DG Date Paid 2-/7-6g Receipt p /705-41 DUkiiAM ESTATES _ _ _ i ' ] 411=.... i- OWNER: W.T. DURHAM - 7� l - 6 ZONING: RB AND PW2 • `e��� I ' C' s I LUP: RURAL BUFFER �` ,eoa4 1 • • c., .PROTECTED WATERSHED II I �Z�0 ,, _ „- .,,,....,,,__.....-,-„. ... :,-. ..„.,.... ... - - „,,, -....-. _•,..,..-__ _„.•,.• -... . ".--. ..,7"..• _ FU • • id,•-*- _.,.- -rF_ J ,tom• ��� • I4 �C �.�y ... 56.77 AC- 1 112 .4 _..s , -7,..,...•••:,,,..- , t.25. ' a .. .• ,. :y;;. . Q. yi_ •• 7 . 1 . . . ... . . . . p •...„:„.„. -_,....,, „.„.. ....._ .-'1'7 '..-...r-_P` - ,.C. ' i.-t... 'n':.:',..;-:-.-. . 17it IID 4744 -r�?,r.,r=• L16aC l J - : r . ,=. •.,.r-• 1.2 C•2.5 � `" 6752 976 SC ..c..---•-_,..._.- --v, '••sue:_ ,� �.0 �". 4772... 402 1. -1 •-- ..." `'.•r4...•" , c•^'mss. - ►'rte; "�^=y f�fr:`_ .- .._ti , r .s9-- ��• ,FrI 7-4"..:- y ��`•%- %J' sT..�� , /.. .... CRS 3 B-93 AC• _ -"•7 ._• . • .; •,,......4.M.-6",:7 Via._ •,:y . {� . ` - ...,.-- -.-0..,;-•• I:S. r- wk...1;"' / _• . • :cam. �,• ti Tom: / CT ► I j _, :� 1 •• •.• •, 0�'r1 PHA \ �"- 128 5.fi8 A: - _ - I 48� 9,...2)),1 4,,.-----c9 D - • . 9:3 \ . . - • O '1• Prr2 9967 • \ SG. 1100 \ • • � LAUREL /$ -RINGS ', \ . 1551 / 7 • P•4'3 ' Y —. '7.'. L r, __ _ . _ - . 51).1,,. 7 shepard design associates land planners • landscape designers August 28, 1989 Mr. Eddie Kirk,Planner ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 306- F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: DURHAM ESTATES SUBDIVISION PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION Dear Eddie: A private road is proposed for the Durham Estates Subdivision which will serve Lots 1 - 4 located on the±22 acres north of Dairy land Road(SR 1112). This request is justified for environmental as well as'rural character'considerations,and are listed as follows: 1. The 60 acre parcel is located adjacent to Morgan Creek and an un-named Branch. As an important watershed,a private road within it will minimize the amount of impervious surface and minimize the land disturbance area required for its construction. Therefore, erosion and the level of storm water management devices shall be kept to a minimum. 2. The lots served by the private road are S acres or greater in size. This design ensures preservation of the rural character in the area,and provides a natural visual barrier between the proposed homes and Dairyland Road. - 3. The economic viability of the five acre design depends on the use of a private road - designed with minimal length. The only reason that the proposed design works from an economic standpoint, is due to the extensive amount of existing public road frontage running through and contiguous with the parcel (SR 1112 and Lumley Drive)�r(i the use of a private road to serve the four(4)lots proposed on the t22 acres north of Dairyland Road. Thank you for your consideration of these factors in this matter. • Sincerely, CiCzttEfitta?Ctiqh17 G. Gregory Shepard SHEPARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES cc: Mr. W. T. Durham Mr. Mark O'Neal telephone (919) 929-6069.424 waterside drive•carrboro, north caroling 27510 GFLAT RIVER, RED MOUNTAIN ROAD • ROUTE 3 • BOX ZERO • ROUGEMONT • NC • 27572 • 9197--5585 PROPERTIES 8 October 6, 1989 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department Hillsborough, NC Dear Eddie: To supplement the private road justification submitted by Greg Shepard for Durham Estates, please consider the following additional justifications: 1. The lots and private road have been designed to protect the University Lake watershed and its PWII classification. 2. Larger than required setbacks are proposed. The setbacks are proposed to be 60 feet in front and 40 feet for side and rear lot lines. Architectural variances of up to 25% may be granted if design constraints dictate. 3. Every effort is being made to preserve the scenic views on the property by buffering both creeks and carefully designing lot lines and the private road to minimize disturbance to the trees and creeks. This is a sound design and I hope you can and will support it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /7—/ Mark .O'Neal /cas cc: Bill Durham Greg Shepard ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 306F REVERE ROAD 9 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 STAFF EVALUATION OF PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION SUBDIVISION: Durham Estates - Major Subdivision Concept Plan DATE: October 6, 1989 The standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to public and private roads are listed below. The Planning Staff comment regarding each is provided in italics . IV-E-3-d-1 . Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1 . The subdivision roads, if constructed to State standards, would be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirement; or (The state requirements to accept maintenance on a road is two houses per tenth of a mile with a minimum of 4 on a cul-de-sac. with the road configuration and number of lots proposed, the subdivision would meet the density requirement to be accepted by the state. ) 2 . The subdivision streets extend existing streets which are public; or (The subdivision streets do not extend existing public streets. ) 3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or (The subdivision is not located in a designated Urban or Transition Area. ) 4. A proposed street is designated as an arterial or collector street on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. (The proposed street is not designated as an arterial or collector. The State maintained road that the private road will connect to is a collector road. ) Provided, however, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board 10 and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision are such that a private road is justified. (The road is located in an area that is experiencing some residential development. The 4 lots proposed to be served are larger residential lots. Its location, in University Lake Watershed, is in an area where a private road would reduce the amount of impervious surface and allow more infiltration of stormwater. ) In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the , following design features will be considered: 1 . The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County •through : a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines greater than required by ordinance provisions; Lot sizes proposed on the concept plan are greater than five acres as required by the interim development standards except lot #10. The average • lot size is 5. 38 acres. Setbacks are not indicated on the plan. b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads and/or maintain a wooded or forested character; (The area north of Dairyland Road is wooded. The . private road justification indicates there will be a natural visual barrier between the proposed homes and Dairyland Road. Provisions for tree protection should be included in restrictive covenants. ) c. The 'maintenance of scenic views, including • vistas of open farmland and/or forested hills and mountains; and/or (The applicant indicates the design ensures preservation of the rural character in the area. Provisions for tr e.e protection should be included to insure this. ) d. The clustering of dwelling units to presorva •wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites; (Clustering of dwelling units is not proposed. ) 11 2 . The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements; (The proposed private road would be approximately 700 feet long and serve 4 lots. This road would meet the minimum density required by the State. ) 3 . Restrictive covenants are proposed which prevent further subdivision of the property and the same shall be made a condition of approval, thus maintaining project density; (Restrictive covenants to prevent further subdivision have not been indicated by the applicant. ) 4. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication; and/or (The applicant has proposed the dedication of 2. 6 acres of open space/recreation area along Morgan Creek. ) 5 . Larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. (The property is in a designated protected watershed on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The design features including the large acreage . lots and the private road would reduce the amount of impervious surface and allow more infiltration of storm water runoff. ) EVALUATION SUMMARY: Staff finds that the design, with the number and size of the lots, dedicated open space, and location in the watershed justify a private road. Orange Water and Sewer Authority 12 400 Jones Ferry Road OWASA P.Q. Box 366 loprCarrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 December 4, 1989 Mr. Eddie Kirk�l�nniner II Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: SUBJECT: COURTESY REVIEW OF W.T. DURHAM ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL OWASA staff appreciate the opportunity to review the revised Durham Estates Subdivision proposal. This project has been substantLo�lSizesanhatlefrom beenthe increased,discussed "remote letter of August 10, 1989. onsite systems. The drainfield" wastewater systems have been replaced by proposal now appears to conform aoethe majortrecommendai ons of OWASA' s Camp Dresser & McKee University Lake W I have no further comments. Yours very truly, l Edward A. Holland, AICP Research and Planning Administrator eah cc: Everett Billingsley An Equal Opportunity Employer F p C14 r�71" : 13 je STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham . North Carolina 27253-0766 JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR December 11 . 1989 JAMES E. HARRINGTON GEORGE E.WELLS, P.E. SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR ORANGE COUNTY Mr . Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough , N . C . 27278 Subject : W. T . Durham Estates ( private ) off SR 1104 (Dairyland Road ) Dear Mr . Kirk : This is to advise that the subject preliminary plan has been approved by this office . It is understood that this subdivision will now be "private" and not "public" as previously submitted . A driveway permit for this entrance must be obtained from this office . If you have any questions , please do not hesitate to contact this office . • Yours very truly , E . M. Cowan DISTRICT ENGINEER EMC/SPI/pi An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 14 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSROROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V g.11", MEMORANDUM TO: Eddie Kirk, Current Planning FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor SUBJECT: Durham Estates Subdivision DATE: November 27, 1989 This subdivision meets the stormwater management requirements of the Ordinance by having large lots, stream buffers, impervious surface limits, and retaining a buffer of vegetation around the perimeter of each lot to filter and absorb runoff. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before construction of the new road begins. / SOL &WATER , 5 CCN5E1V .AT C ' . Orange Soil and Water Conservation District 306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • Phone: 919-732-9361 • Ext. 451 November 30, 1989 TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Gail M. Hughes,�5oi1 Conservationist RE: Durham Estates; W. T. Durham Attached is a copy of the original review. The soil types and limitations would not change, therefore, the original review is correct according to the Orange County Soil Survey. If you have any additional questions please feel free to call . Enclosure SOIL &WATER CONSERVATION Orange Soil and Water Conservation District 306 Revere Road • P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 • Phone: 919-732-9361 • Ext. 451 TO: Eddie Kirk, Planner FROM: Gail Hughe�S, Soil Conservationist RE: Major Cluster Subdivision (Preliminary) W-r D uY"M DATE: June 27, 1989 According to the Orange County Soil Survey, the following soils are located on the property and have the following limitations: Georgeville B - 2-6% slope - septic tank absorption field moderate due to slope and percolation; building site development - slight. Herndon C (6-10%) and Georgeville C (6-10%) slope - septic tank absorption field moderate due to slow percolation and steep slope; building site development moderate due to clayey soil and steep slope. Tatum D - 8-15% slope - septic tank absorption field - severe due to shallow rock depth; building site development moderate due to low soil strength and shallow rock depth. Chewacla 0-2% slope (found along stream edges) - septic tank absorption field severe limitation due to wetness and potential flooding. Building site development - severe limitation due to wetness and potential flooding. Please call if you need additional information. GH:jw ( 2 '471(1/44-17-1{---#* a 17 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date February 1 1990 Name of Subdivision Durham Estates Subdivision Owner/Applicant W.T. Durham The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Preliminary Plat of Durham Estates Subdivision containing 10 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. A. Roads 1. British Lane shall be constructed to Class B private road standards. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure for future improvement/construction of British Lane to the standards specified above. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution. 2 . The private road shall be contained within the right-of-way indicated on the final plat. 3. A Private Road Maintenance Agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the final plat. B. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping. 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the preliminary plan dated October 30, 1989, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. A Type D Land Use Buffer shall be provided along the Duke 18 Power transmission line along the north side of the subdivision. The buffer shall be 50 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e. The existence of the buffer shall be noted on the plat. 4 . A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Dairyland Road (SR 1112 ) . The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e. The existence of the buffer shall be noted on the plat. C. Drainage 1 . The 100-year floodplain of Morgan Creek shall be labeled on the Final Plat. 2 . Impervious surface data, as required by Article 6 .23.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. A stream buffer shall be provided along Morgan Creek. The width of the buffer shall be stated on the face of the plat. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland 1. The applicant shall dedicate 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 parkland area 30 feet wide along Morgan Creek extending from the 2. 6 acres described above to Dairyland Road (SR 1112) . E. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain. a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: a. Morgan Creek b. Intermittent Stream c. Utility Lines , 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: r - Proposed 50 ' private right-of-way on British Lane 19 - 50' drainage easement along the branch on the east side of lots 3, 4 and 5 - Existing powerline easements 4 . A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5. Receive final approval of easement agreements, restrictive covenants, and private road maintenance agreement documents from the County Attorney. F. Certifications 1 . A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance signed by the property owner(s) shall be notarized on the face of the plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board 1, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. ^ ' i 14 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Orange County Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 7 . 14.4 Density Bonus for Affordable Housing (NEW) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1990 DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT To add Article allow a rtuniitiesffor Planned lowor Developments P moderate income households . ORIGIN AND HISTORY: The Report of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Task Force, completed September, 1987, included a recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase incentives for new construction of low- and moderate-income housing. The proposed density bonus represents one tool which may be used to achieve that goal. This amendment was first introduced at the public hearing on August 28, 1989 . A revision to exclude applicability in Watersupply Watersheds was presented at the public hearing. on November 27 . No portion of the amendment has been adopted to date. The attached proposals includes the revisions (underlined) to the original proposal presented at the August hearing. - Most of the changes resulted from further discussion with the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) . Changes were made to distinguish between ownership and rental of units, and to include general provisions to be included in the agreement that guarantees occupancy by qualifying households. Added to the original proposal is a restriction on applicability in Water Supply Watersheds. A density bonus would not be approved if the project were located in a Water Supply Watershed (as designated in the Comprehensive Plan) , unless that area were also designated as Transition Area. This portion of the amendment was presented separately for public hearing on November 27 . r CURRENT SITUATION OR PROBLEM: 15 Regional Median Income is used by HUD and other agencies in determining eligibility for various programs. Figures are published for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) throughout the country. Orange County is included in the Raleigh-Durham MSA. HCD defines Moderate Income as 50% to 100% of median income. Low Income is defined as 30% to 50 % of median income. Very-low income is defined as <30% of median income. Median income is adjusted for family size. References to median income assume a family of 4, unless otherwise stated. As a rule of thumb (used by HUD) , a family can afford to spend up to 25% of its gross income on housing, and can afford to buy a home at a price of roughly 2 1/2 times its annual income. The attached letter from HUD shows the results of a 1/4/90 run of the Housing Affordability Model for Orange County. Results indicate that only 22% of families in Orange County can afford to buy a home at the average price of $143,577 . A family earning 80% of median income could afford to pay only $66,500 for a home. As income decreases, the availability of homes in an affordable price range decreases. For low-income households (30-50% regional median income) , affordable rent is a more realistic goal because home ownership may not be feasible. According to U.S. Census figures for 1980, 35% of the 16, 618 renter-occupied units in Orange County were occupied by low-moderate income households. Eighty-four percent of those households paid more than 25% of their income for housing costs . For those families, resources available for other basic needs such as food, health care, child care, and clothing are limited. Decent housing within an affordable price range is not available for many of these families . PROPOSED SOLUTION: The supply of affordable housing may increase if an incentive is offered to developers. One such incentive is a density bonus which would allow the creation of additional dwelling units if units were sold or rented to families earning low or moderate incomes . The incentive for a developer to use the provisions is greatest where land values are high, most typically in urbanized areas. In Orange County, the density bonus is most likely to be used by non-profit organizations already intending to develop affordable housing, or by developers/landowners with suitable land of lesser value to donate in exchange for a density increase. 16 To implement the density bonus provisions, a new Article 7 . 14 .4 is proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance. 7.14.4 Affordable Housing 7 . 14.4. 1 An increase in density may be permitted for Planned Developments which provide on-site or off-site housing opportunities for low or moderate income households. A contract shall be approved by the County Attorney and the Department of Housing and Community Development as a condition of permit approval guaranteeing that the reserved units will be occupied purchased by or rented to qualifying households, and shall be binding for a period of not less than 15 years . Applicability 1 . A density bonus may not be approved for a Planned Development project located on land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Water Supply Watershed, except land that is also designated as Transition Area. 2 . A 25% density bonus for duplex or multi- family units may be approved if: a. A minimum of 40% of the units are to be rented occupied to families earning less than 60% of the median area income adjusted for family size, OR • b. A minimum of 20% of the units are to be rented occupied to families earning less than 50% of the median area income adjusted for family size. • 3 . A 25% density bonus for single-family_ residential development may be approved if the greater of two (2) units or all of the bonus units are to be sold to families earning_ less than 80% of regional median income 4. A 25% density bonus for single-family residential development may be approved if land with suitable soils or access to public water and sewer is donated to Orange County for the purpose of the development of affordable housing. The donated land shall 17 contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop of the greater of two (2) units or the total number of the bonus units, in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located, or with minimum lot size of 40, 000 square feet in unzoned areas. 5 . A 50% density bonus may be approved if at least 20% of the units are to be occupied by low income families (earning < 50% of median area income) and the remaining 80% of units are occupied by moderate income families ( <80% of median area income) . This bonus shall not apply to lands which have been donated to Orange County in exchange for a density bonus pursuant to (3 . ) above. 6 . Median Income shall be consistent with that used for Orange County by the U. S. Department of Housina and Urban Development Findings The following findings shall be made in support of the density increase: 1. The social benefit to be derived from the increase in the amount of affordable housing justifies the increase in permitted lots or units . 2 . The location of the affordable units does not represent an undue concentration of low- income housing. 7 . 14 .4.2 The contractual agreement with Orange County shall be administered by the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development, (HCD1 and shall include the following provisions: 1 . All sales and rental transactions shall be a roved b HCD to assure com liance wit eligibility criteria. 2 . Appreciation of the property shall be limited to assure that the units remain affordable in the event of sale during the 15- year term of the contract. 4. Home ownership counseling shall be provide hy HCD to all new homeowners. 18 EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION: , 1 . An application for a Planned Development is submitted on a 10-acre tract in an R-3 residential district. The developer intends to develop multi-family units. Current zoning would allow a maximum of 29 units. The developer wishes to obtain an increase in density, and is willing to set aside units for low or moderate income households. The number of units in the proposed development could be increased from 29 to 36 if : (figures based on income as of 1/4/90) a) 14 units (40%) are rented to families earning less than $22, 670 ( 60% of median area income) , or b) 7 units (20%) are rented to families earning less than $18, 891 (50% of median area income) . Prior to Final Approval of the Planned Development, the developer would enter into an agreement with Orange County through HCD. The agreement would assure that the units were occupied by qualifying households for at least 15 years . All changes in occupancy would be approved by HCD to assure that eligibility criteria were met. Families would not be required to move if income increased above qualifying levels after tenancy began. The developer may also qualify for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit if the units are reserved for a period of at least 30 years. 2 . An application for a Planned Development is submitted in an R-1 Rural Residential District. A single-family residential development is proposed. Zoning would allow a maximum of 109 lots . The number of lots could be increased to 136 if 27 of the lots are sold to families earning no more than $32,240. Sale to qualifying households would again be guaranteed through a contractual agreement with Orange County through the Department of Housing and Community Development. The family could continue to own the home if its income increased. If the home was sold prior to the 15-year term of the contract, however, the buyer would have to meet the eligibility criteria. This would in effect place a limit on appreciation. The home could be sold at market value 15 years after the original sale. 3. The developer of the 100 acres described in (2) above does not wish to restrict the sale of any units to qualifying households. He does, however, own 25 acres in another part of the county. The soils are suitable for septic disposal, there is accessibility to a public road. and the property is found by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to be suitable for the 19 future development of affordable housing. The developer donates the 25 acres to the county and receives approval of 136 lots . The County assumes ownership of the 25 acres which may then be developed for affordable housing by either the County itself or a non-profit housing corporation. The value of the land will not be a factor in the ultimate cost of the units . COMMENTS ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Ordinance Review committee reviewed the proposed amendment on December 20, 1989 . Information on the various levels of income was requested this information is incorporated in the foregoing report. Eligibility criteria pertaining to length of residency or employment in Orange County were also discussed, and staff was asked to determine the criteria used by other agencies in similar programs. ( It was found that most programs involving housing receive some federal funding, and therefor can include no residency criteria. ) PLANNING BOARD: On January 16, the Planning Board recommended that the amendment be advertised for public hearing. Questions pertaining to taxation, limits on housing appreciation during the 15-year term of the contract, and residency criteria were raised. 20 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION III-D-1-b PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES (MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: x Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC BEARING DATE: February 26, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide adequate time for staff review of major subdivision Concept Plans . IMPACTS/ISSUES: The Subdivision Regulations require that Concept Plans for major subdivisions be presented to the Planning Board within 45 days of acceptance of the application. In order to comply with this time limit, it is often necessary to present a Concept Plan to the Planning Board less than two weeks after it is submitted. About 2 weeks is needed to prepare, copy, and distribute the agenda abstract. Time available for the actual review of the proposal and development of a staff recommendation is inadequate. It is proposed that a 30-day period be allowed for staff review, and that the Concept Plan be submitted to the Planning Board at its first meeting after that period. This would at a minimum allow 2 weeks for review of the project, and two weeks for preparation and distribution of the agenda abstract. The maximum amount of time between acceptance of the application and submittal to the Planning Board would be about 60 days. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: III-D-1-b. P.annina Department Review Procedures Upon receipt of the Concept Plan, the Planning Department shall review the proposal for general compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, if applicable. The 21 Planning Department shall also consider the general suitability of the land for development to avoid unnecessary expense in the redesign of acceptable subdivision proposals. The Planning Department shall review the proposal for compatibility with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and, in particular, determine if proposed sites for schools and other public/private facilities are to be reserved and/or provided. The Planning Department shall review the proposed Concept Plan during the 30-day period following acceptance of the application. A written analysis and recommendation shall be submitted to the Planning Board at its first regular meeting_ following the 30-dam review period - Cenccpt Ilan or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant. thc I`ianning G . - - - writtoe analyaio of thc Ge.neept rlee and its If the Planning Department fails to prepare a report to the Planning Board within the specified time period, or extension thereof, the Concept Plan is recommended without conditions. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 12/20/89 The Ordinance Review Committee acknowledged the problem with the existing time limits and recommended approval of the amendment. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 22 • PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section IV-B-8-e-3 Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers • Section IV-B-8-g Waiver of Land Use Buffer Requirements ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: __X__ Staff Planning Board BOCC . Public Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High_X Middle Low Comment: Minor Amendments Expected Public Hearing Date: February 26, 1990 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Section IV-B-8 of the Subdivision Regulations to (1) clarify the interpretation of the Schedule of Land Use Buffers as it relates to unzoned land, and (2) to extend the waiver provisions to apply to all landscape requirements. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Section IV-B-8-e-3 contains the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers together with instructions on how to interpret the table. Buffers between subdivisions and adjacent land are determined by the principal use within the subdivision and the adjacent ' zoning or land use. In the unzoned town- ships, however, undeveloped land is current- ly assumed to be residential for the purpose of determining if a buffer is required. Since the Subdivision Regulations require a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size for lots served by on-site sewage disposal and water systems, it -is appropriate to consider unzoned land AR or R-1 for the purpose of determining buffers in proposed subdivi- sions. 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 . r 23 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE BUFFERS The type of Land Use Buffer required between a proposed subdivision and adjacent streets, land uses and/or zoning designations shall be specified in the following table. The type of buffer required is determined by the existing and/or proposed principal use(s) in the subdivision for which approval is requested. To determine which type of buffer is required adjacent to an existing and/or proposed land use, identify the existing and/or proposed principal use(s) in the subdivision, then identify the adjacent existing zoning district(s) and/or land uses. In the unzoned townships, undeveloped land shall be _ considered rccidcntial AR. At the intersection of the two columns is a letter which indicates the type of Land Use Buffer required. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-B-8-g WAIVER Q LAND USE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS There may be cases where the topography of a site, or the size of a parcel, or the presence of existing structures, gardens or active farmland in the buffer area would make the strict adherence to this ordinance serve no useful purpose. In those cases, the Planning Director is empowered to waive the requirements for screening provided that the request is submitted in writing stating the reason for such request, and the spirit and intent of this ordinance is adhered to. In all such cases the applicant for waiver must submit a written application to the Planning Director setting forth the facts relied upon to support the application. The Planning Director, or his designee, shall file in his office and deliver to the applicant a written decision on the application which decision shall contain a statement of the facts relied upon by the Planning Director to either deny or approve the application for waiver. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: (Substantive changes only are underlined. ) IV-B-8--g WAIVER OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS In some cases, the strict adherence to this section of the ordinance would serve no useful purpose, such as when: 24 1) the topography of a site and/or the size of a proposed lot j sufficient to serve the purpose of a buffer; 2) existing structures, utilities, gardens or active farmland are located in the buffer or setback areas; or 3 an existi - re idece o st_ ucture with established lawn areas and/or plant beds. is contained within a proposed subdivision lot. When a proposed lot includes one or more of the conditions listed above, the Planning Director is empowered to waive the requirements for screening or additional landscaping provided that the request is submitted in writing stating the reason for such request, and the spirit and intent of this ordinance is adhered to. Although the, buffer plantinq, requirements, may. be waive in certa' ca es th dimensional aspect of the Land Use Buffer remains in effect. The width and location of a required, Land Use Buffer shall be indicated on the artroved final plat and cannot be reduced or altered without approval , from the Planning Director in the case of minor, subdivi- sions, or the Board of County Commissioners in the case of major subdivisions. In all such cases the applicant for waiver must submit a written application to the Planning Director setting forth the facts relied upon to support the application. The Planning Director, or his designee, shall file in his office and deliver to the applicant a written decision on the application which decision shall contain a statement of the facts relied upon by the Planning Director to either deny or approve the application for waiver. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 12-20-89 Comments: The committee recommended that in the text of the amendment, "AR" should be specified instead of "AR or R-1. " The proposed amendment was revised to reflect the Committee's suggestion. PLANNING BOARD: BOCC: II 12 25 Lewis stated that he voted in favor of the motion because he felt it was better that what was proposed, but did agree that the problem still exists . This motion would make 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 on 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 1 below. This would also make an identical change for Section IV-C-2 a.3 .a) of the Subdivision Regulations. (W. T. Durham Estates was considered at this point in the agenda. ) • Durham Estates ( 10 Lots Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. 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 out of a 60 acre tract. The property is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) , and Protected Watershed (PW-II) . It is located in the University Lake Watershed and 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, a public road (Creekstone Drive) in Laurel Springs subdivision and a proposed private Class B road 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 ff11ifl 26 - 3, 300 vehicles per day. 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. Based on recently adopted interim development standards in the University Lake Watershed, lot #10 would be required to be 5 acres in size. This can be accomplished by obtaining additional acreage on the south side of Dairyland Road to connect to lot 10 . The interim standards will be in effect for six (6) months (until April 2, 1990) or until permanent standards are adopted, whichever comes first. On January 16, 1990 the Orange County Planning Board will consider proposed revisions to the interim development standards . These revisions include a provision for an average lot size of five (5) acres. If approved by the Planning Board, these revisions will be scheduled to go to the Board of Commissioners on February 5, 1990 . Provided these revisions are in place before the Board of Commissioners consider the preliminary for Durham Estates, lot number 10 can remain 3 . 6 acres in size. All applicable agency comments have been received. The Orange County Health Department has located a suitable area on each lot for a septic tank and drain field. OWASA has indicated that the proposal now appears to conform to the major recommendations of the Camp, Dresser & McKee University Lake Watershed Protection Study. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has approved the preliminary plan. The Orange County Erosion Control Officer has indicated the subdivision meets the G] I]; If 27 stormwater management requirements. An erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before construction of the road begins. Carrboro recommends that all septic and well areas be field located on each lot and shown on plans. The Health Department has located septic areas on each lot. Well areas will be located at the house construction stage of development. They also recommend 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. Mary Anne Black with the Recreation and Parks Department has indicated that the area to be deeded as public open space/recreation meets or exceeds the acreage required. The County Attorney has indicated that Lot 10 does not comply with the interim development standards which requires all lots in a subdivision of greater than 5 lots be at least 5 acres in size. The Planning Staff recommends that the Preliminary Plan for the Durham Estates be approved through the attached Resolution of Approval (page of these minutes) . Jacobs asked questions regarding the concerns expressed by the Town of Carrboro Staff. Kirk responded that the erosion control concerns have been addressed. The concern regarding slopes has been alleviated by the change from three houses in that area to just one. In response to a question from Best regarding the concept plan which was approved in October, Kirk noted that the plan with fewer houses is the one which was approved. Best expressed concern that the Staff recommendation did not include the wording regarding averaging. Kirk noted that would be added to the recommendation as made by the Planning Board. MOTION: Best moved approval with the recommendation stating that the Resolution of Approval indicate "after the Board of Commissioners 28 approve the interim standards for averaging. " Seconded by Burklin. Mark O'Neal, developer, noted that the intent of Section B 2 of the Resolution of Approval was to apply to Phase 2 which is a portion of the Private Road. He noted there will be horses on the property and that he felt the landowners would prefer to cut down some of the scrub pine and plant permanent pastures . He continued asking that a 6% impervious ratio be considered rather than a 4% . Scearbo stated that a more appropriate means to address the concern expressed by Best would be to state that the recommendation is approved of the Resolution provided that the interim standards are adopted, rather than include that condition in the Resolution. The Resolution is the actual document that the Board of Commissioners adopts . Best accepted this recommendation. Jacobs asked if B-2 (the provision for protection of existing trees referenced by Mr. O'Neal) wasn't a standard statement and the property owners, once they purchased the property, could do what they wanted to with the trees . Scearbo responded that in the Declarations Document recorded with the plat, it specifies that there are landscape standards. That doesn't mean that the property owner cannot cut down some trees . It means that he is required to meet the minimum landscape standards . Yuhasz commented that the specific ordinance reference should be included that sets out • the minimum standards. The motion was restated to approve the Resolution given the adoption by the Board of Commissioners of the change in standards that the Planning Board previously recommended and change B 2 of the Resolution to read: Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan consistent with the minimum requirements of Section IV-B-8 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently m 29 with the Final Plat. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #11: MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR 2/26/90 PUBLIC HEARING a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments ( 1) Natural Areas Element b. Environmental Impact Ordinance c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 2 . 3. 3.2 - Board of Adjustment Administration Presentation by Eddie Kirk. This agenda item is to receive information on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law. The proposed amendment provides a reference to the portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318.9 et seq) . This portion of the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a public body may hold an executive session and exclude the public. G.S. 143 . 318 . 11, the° section (2) Article 7 . 14.4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1 ) Section IV-B-8 - Land Use Buffers (2) Section III-D-1-b - Planning Department Review Procedures 1 ` ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 15, 1990 Action Agenda Item # x-T) SUBJECT: TRIPP'S TRAILER COURT PARTIAL WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes xNo ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Extension 347 Subdivision Plat Tax Map Health Improvements Permit TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 1/16/89 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 (Draft) Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a request by Victor Tripp for a reduction in right-of-way width from 50 feet to 25 feet. BACKGROUND: On July 14, 1989, Planning Staff approved a Minor Subdivision Concept Plan for 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. - Orange Grove Mobile Home Court is located to the south, and there are no options for access. - Shifting a portion of the right-of-way onto the adjacent property to the north would conflict with the 30-foot powerline easement located there. - The only areas suitable for septic disposal are located along the southern portion of the property, eliminating the option of locating the right-of-way on the southern boundary. 2 - The property to the west has been developed (Meadowcrest Estates) and its existing road system provides access to Orange Grove Road. It is not likely that the proposed road would ever be extended to serve additional lots . 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. Staff discussed the possibility of a flag lot with the applicant. Although Lot 2 (with existing mobile home) has frontage on Orange Grove Road, access onto Nightmare Lane is preferable to the applicant as well as to staff. Also, the driveway of the lot to the north is near its southern boundary, and additional access points would create several driveways in close proximity. For these reasons, staff finds that approval of a partial width right-of-way is preferable to a flag lot. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of a partial width right-of-way of 25 feet for Nightmare Lane. • . ----. '04 /er , `• 3;,-;---_,„, --4., . ...,, ,4A.,.. ,c; -3.,...›.■,„ j. . A.N. •4., ct. , - ----- - -• 0 i , . • , A ':N. -hco-4 -'-i*.a4,-■.79S, 1:- .L. 4 1 ,. Z.; f• 'O.' ''''.1....,(a... 4::,..: _... = A Al/ • 1 S ;4.ft,1...-. .. , - . ir■„; .., - i '. "; A -4.1. ...• ! • f - ,, •--...___ . • J a /-.11' , 0 l W if ive -„ ' . . :.■ ) - 9 r-•\,1 lr.."91 VI 4 '`) . • 43 -• T C:1 • re r (.1 --ws 4'•erg - .3 : . : ,VC-<7) L Z _._ -cg • ---,, - . . ' •--... .... rir •z . .. Ii 4 I ' I = A • ,. 4t- t ■• 1 .' A ti it •l'.)_ 0 ,0,.St.N., , . . . Y -* 4 a' ; .1.4 1 0 •- . • o el . Z° : _ e 4 ... - - ---. -- .-. = •ti --- • - ___... . • o 0 i - Ail '3 - i • , -. •• _ -L r• .,d. r 7 a „ . , • - 4 • , * .1. \: - • ..'- 9, :T-• A %I ' ..",... . ,-,.,...„. • I 1 A V ki - ,... ' c) J e : • :1.._ :- r • •4 A 1 1.i •.e° 4 - .t/ - ; • - ,' Nt ., .. J S 1. -...--...-- 1 4 - - ' - -• r N , ' 3 '- i A• - , '': -' • :''' . 1. • 4 J N. -. .• C .0 !. . 1 ' I? A' 7 • .• .: . - r 4 . A " 0 ,.....‘_ _ 0 - •• • ) •' ''' k::..)' Net yr) c4 4 " U..0 : . ',.;,-Arin■ ,.., 0 . • rn 0 tr) In . a .4 ' . .., CD 4 .! , ' .Q i '• IA ':•'4 . til ■ 'i f• • 'V — 1 - - • 4 ai • . IC i I '-• -• il "...•••A'•4 .0T 1 .. ... i 6 61 . .1'. /2 1 i ft c .-*V • z I .. .-a ci- _ __ . ,It .S0 - 7 - - I 1 . : .,..g . 114 ...A. . .71*-14V3 )....",'....4 •011—.... .1"' 1 i i, i '..) ' ''''' s s • 7z,1 1 1 1 1 . o I ".• • ! --- 8 Zitsrces-= , -) ., . . :.vr2:ki V't r•1 1 et II ' I..; t . .ta•••...s , ..s 9 i ,4 •. J - "-. Q._ , . ......0. . )4,.. 0: - a 4, ... - . ,'''' ;0.. 1 . 0 hr•;‘,,,.. , t I ; 1/---'%,/. _.,,,I r 1 --r ozr • i: .1. L. I - _F-••-■ 2. ) 1 . • - • • • $ 7 e 0- -4c. , - ;4 , t I z I ! 1 4 1 1 a L. 4... 1 11. It' .. I.- 0. ..;AA i t -, s • ■ g. .1 : _ ""): •t t : 1 , e ,!...10 Z • 1 \J' , 3 %.)! .• r... ',.. „. 0 a • - - A • .. _ o .5 ...9• • 4 !A 11 loc.3 ! . ii .eui 1 ,.. . N.; . . .1 .g e _ w l • 1 ,a+ s 2 ..:‘,..4 3 ..r. i• f a i : 4 I2. (...) ...--- --- i 1 r -> . 1 4 I 1145 - z i ; --". w. .... , i 4 • /m / .r. Li 0 a O\.1 DU _ in COQ i' r 4 0..1 0 IT "...ft....ft..... ® . O ' i • I �`` as In 3a I Nb��� c O t]Al . _ . 0 co. I \ a...ft:ft.-Z.'''. 0 : . .0 IS . 00 I 1 CO r • Fri_ I 1ci [V CO Q ` Q. _ 1r1 \ N• , . s • 1 a ` N- 41 (\J _` N. - - L \ 1 ■ I 1 ! "�""" - r-v�..—..�,, .c— ./tom / .,,,/'� `J -,. / uhMrgt5L La.li vrw i if HEALTh DcI Mtr I litchi 1 ENCE NUMBER DATE PIN MAP REFERENCE • 9606S SOIL ANALYSIS 07. 1. 66 9749-19-4622 6. 22. . 14 - . ' ` 5`''`-,-.nw• + ESTEE:, ....- - OWNER ,. .. I CK LOUISE M B I CK LOUISE M PT,. 10 300 SWIFT AVE JRHAM NC 27705 1 J e•t-"y` APT 10 300 SWIFT AVE „I • 942-4147- DURHAM NC 27705 SITES TO PURCHASE TO SUB-DIVIDE 4. 96 ACRES ' ' c.. w ION/DIRECTIONS: . /S 1006 - ORANGE GROVE ROAD . RECEIPT: TURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:: 029179 -- rep BY PLANNER PLANNER ` DATE CLERK c.• LOPE TEXTURE e5_ _ STRUCTURE _p?_ _- DEPTH -, .ter .: . HOR !7 IN. DRAIN 105 . EX. DRAIN $ • -.,PERMEAB el5IPS NERALL., 7. f•Z - rM,ARKS: ..51 5_ Qk`1l3_/ 1� ' Llt. !-r nr.a, ,► L-II �t?v__p P aQ4. _ 11 1 T .,,.... .Jry_L,J1 / . . . .... . ..- u r..` A )1.1..�) . . e,.Ab3s.cE-yr,r rr ([4 T'..4 i. . ■. . .. • .. .1.. 0 ' ' - . ' :,,; :• -, • ..'.. .-... ,,. ... - . vf,1,1,,?c (k . • to Ate . Ui + • -. -. ,.• _ _ .. _ • 1+ O X74 _ ' , 14 . 5 . .., �, ATE - '.. �, SANITARIAN V jr2 y mw 1111. V 6 the final plat stage. Crudup responded that the change must be handled as a revision to the preliminary plat since a specific condition was attached to the preliminary plat and already approved by the Board of Commissioners . MOTION: Eddleman moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. c. Partial Width Rights-of-Way (1) Tripps Trailer Court Presentation by Mary Scearbo. This item is 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, Planning Staff approved a Concept Plan for Tripp' s Trailer Court property. The subdivision is located on the west side of Orange Grove Road, midway between Teer Road and NC 54. The total lot size is 4.33 acres. The lot frontage is 144 feet. A Class ,C private road about 450' in length is proposed along the northern boundary of the property. An existing well, which will serve both lots, is located about 25' from the property line within Lot 2. A mobile home is located on Lot 2. Reduction of the right-of-way from 50' to 25 ' 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. Orange Grove Mobile Home Court is located to the south, and there are no options for access. Shifting the right-of-way onto the adjacent property to the north would conflict with the 30 ' powerline easement located there. The only areas suitable for septic disposal are located along the southern portion of the property, eliminating the option of locating the right-of-way on the southern boundary. The property to the west has been developed (Meadowcrest] Estates) and its existing road system provided access to Orange Grove Road. It if 7 7 is not likely that the proposed road would ever be extended to serve additional lots . Planning Staff recommends approval of a partial width right-of-way of 25' for Nightmare Lane. Yuhasz asked if a flag lot had been considered for this case since it seemed the soil constraints would meet conditions that allow flag lots. Scearbo responded no. She continued that it was not discovered until the plat was submitted that the well was in the right-of-way. Best asked why this request was brought to the Planning Board since a Class C private road less than 500' does not have to be inspected prior to recordation of the final plat. Scearbo responded because the legal right-of-way is still required to be 50' and a Road Maintenance Agreement is also required. Yuhasz stated that he would like Staff to consider a flag lot as an option rather than the additional complication of a Road Maintenance Agreement and road signs. After discussion between Best and Yuhasz regarding driveways onto the Class C private road, Yuhasz noted that a condition could be added to that both driveways access the private road near the lot line. MOTION: Yuhasz moved approval of the partial width right- of-way and suggested that Staff review the request and if a flag lot is appropriate, that the owner be notified of that alternative. Seconded by Lewis. Jacobs noted the discussion from the December 18, 1989 minutes between Collins and Yuhasz that listed those situations in which flag lots are appropriate. From that discussion, he indicated he felt a flag lot would be appropriate in this case. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT 11/27/89 PUBLIC HEARING a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 6. 15.2 Interim Development Standards 1 l ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5, 1990 Action Agenda Item # )16-E SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program Contract DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No Personnel ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Executive Summary Proposal Addie Wright Turner Human Affairs International Personnel Director 2 . Existing medical coverage from current benefit providers TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough -732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill-967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To provide an Employee Assistance Program to Orange County employees, dependents and retirees through contract with Human Affairs International. The primary purposes of the EAP will be 1 ) to enhance existing health and safety programs to 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 we move into the 1990 's . BACKGROUND: Research on existing EAP's have shown employers will get a return on 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. The current health providers benefit provisions are attached to document present mental health coverage for our existing policies . RECOMMENDATION: Approve contract with Human Affairs International for period beginning February 6, 1990 through June 30, 1990 . The Personnel Department currently has funds available for this contract period. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL for an EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM for ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Submitted by Thomas S. Griggs, Ph.D. HUMAN AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL, INC December 27 , 1989 rrir STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 1 Human Affairs International (HAI ) will provide an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to Orange County employees, dependents, and retirees at all U. S . locations. The primary purposes of the EAP are 1 ) to enhance existing health and safety programs to 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 we move into the 1990s. II . COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES HAI will serve employees through face to face counseling in offices in Chapel Hill , Durham, and Raleigh. Employees will make appointments to be seen at HAI offices by calling a local number from the location most convenient to them. HAI services will include the following: * 24 hour a day emergency service * face to face assessment and counseling (( -3 SC55LC(n5) * referral to community resources as needed * coverage for any personal problem * follow-up on all cases III . SPECIAL PROGRAMS HAI offers unique services to support the EAP. Included are seminars, trainings and programs for the following: * Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 To insure Orange County's compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, HAI has complete programs to meet all requirements of the Act, including extensive supervisory and senior management trainings. * Post-Shoot Program This option for the Sheriff 's Department provides a procedure for the de-briefing of individual deputies and their family members during the administrative period following the use of deadly force on the job. If modeled after the Town of Chapel Hill ' s program, expect 3 mandatory counseling sessions minimum and a maximum electable of 9 sessions. * Critical Incident Stress Debriefings We have experience both in training organizations to prepare for traumatic events in the workplace and in responding to tragedies when they occur. These interventions are designed to lessen the common occurrence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and retain valuable employees who are reacting to abnormal circumstances. * Financial Counseling Program This is an extended service provided by an HAI associate who has a chemical dependency/counseling background and who is now a full-time chartered financial planner and consultant . Mr. Wayne Stellar is particularly committed to consumer' s rights and provides both individual counseling and educational workshops. * Marital Enrichment Classes • HAI has found that the most frequent concerns raised by EAP participants require relationship skill-building. To meet this need more effectively HAI has pioneered a six week seminar for couples who wish to enhance their relationships. Clients are screened in individual EAP sessions prior to admittance to the classes. /4" * Educational Seminars The staff at HAI are available to provide on-site classes in such topics as Parenting Teens, Couples Communication, Stress Management , and many more. Seminars are offered in part to promote EAP program use and will be designed to meet particular needs identified by Orange County. * Human Resource Trainings Additional trainings are available on a contractual basis to meet specific training needs of the County. Basic Training for First-time Supervisors, Communications Skills for Managers, Managing the Angry Public, Time and Stress Management trainings are samples of HAI offerings. These can be customized as needed. * Management Consultation Consultation, including organizational and staff development for County management or selected departments, is available to address specific problems or transitions facing County personnel . Such consultation is provided on a negotiated case by case basis and involves organizational assessment and systemic interventions such as the re-design of job descriptions or communication pathways. IV. STATISTICAL RECORDS AND REPORTS Over the past 17 years HAI has refined MIS procedures to track the key variables that prove the existence of a vigorous EAP and monitor the effectiveness of cost containment strategies. We will work with Orange County' s personnel director to produce the preferred management reports. Comprehensive reports can be provided quarterly or semi-annually at Orange County' s preference. A sample report is included in the appendix. V. MANAGED MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM The EAP as currently designed does assume responsibility for assisting clients in selecting high quality and cost effective services. For a more comprehensive approach to health care cost containment HAI recommends Orange County consider using the EAP as an in-person gatekeeper for mental health and chemical dependency benefits under our Managed Care Program. Differential coverage can be built into Orange County' s benefit plan design to intent employees to utilize a managed system of care. HAI offers Orange County the capability for a smooth transition to either a complete Managed Care Program or a specific combination of the program's five components to target identified problem areas. The components, along with the key measure of cost containment are: COMPONENT KEY MEASURE A. EAP as Gatekeeper Admissions B. Pre-certification Admissions C. Preferred Provider Networks Provider Charges Provider Cooperation D. Case Management Length of Stay E. Claims Coordination Approriate Payment Smooth Administration r► VI . ADVANTAGES OF HUMAN AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL * FAMILIARITY WITH MUNICIPALITY GOVERNANCE Currently serving the Towns of Cary and Chapel Hill * LOCAL STAFF AND ADMINISTRATION Relationships with local resources; responsiveness * FAMILY THERAPY/BRIEF PSYCHOTHERAPY ORIENTATION Counseling and relief , even during the assessment * 16 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS HAI knows risk management , legal process, confidentiality * CAPABILITY TO TRANSITION TO MANAGED CARE PROGRAM Step by step management of escalating health care costs * EXTENSIVE COMPUTERIZED RECORDING AND REPORTING Accountability through detailed management information * SUPERIOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION Internal supervision, peer reviews, follow-up, and surveys .J� 2 .0 FINANCIAL INFORMATION } HAI ' s rate quotation is valid for a 12 month term, provided a written contract for a program is concluded within three months of the proposal date. Type of EAP Rate Assessment and Referral model (1-3) sessions $ 1 . 51 per employee Includes initial assessment of presenting per month problem, brief counseling, and referral as needed Price quotes include: - Coverage for all employees, dependents and retirees - 24 hour-a-day emergency service - Offices in Chapel Hill , Durham and Raleigh - Internal clinical supervision - Computerized recording and reporting, quarterly and annually r•. - Total of 8 hours supervisory trainings, employee orientations - Employee brochures, supervisory manuals, wallet cards, and posters - Marital Enrichment classes (client co-pay) - Programmatic consultation - Executive briefings Fees for Additional Services: • Training Sessions as needed $ 95.00 per staff/hr Health Education Seminars $ 95 .00 per staff/hr Critical .Incident Stress Debriefings $150.00 per staff/hr Management Consultation (non-EAP) $150.00 per staff/hr Post-Shoot Program $250. 00 set-up fee $ 75 . 00 per hour Extended Financial Counseling Option as negotiated 4 9to 0 .m 0 0 0 0 c. o -< 0 w0 a * 3 5• o = 3 tri o � a 3 0 0 � a c ro• >r• • •• o �� R \1 0 o D) ° cmow+ CD ^. 00 o• 3cn - • 0• a. a, 94 0C '< ,.,� cw \1//V c * x.o 3 R a) C1 C m CG ° Cn 0" -` C a a. 0 0 N 0 y 7 °`C ?0 " 00 0 •O C c3D C � � CD Via , ro wca w c m � � cro � o s3 °7m w ro ,a)-, ro. c � p � O CD C CD w .0 0 9 W Ei CD 0.0. Cp .CD x ' 3 d .1 ro w w CD CD ac 33 •ro ro _'II H � � � 0 3 o R ■ CS a .0 0- x Ca 0 0. .`0 2•C Ca D C .0 CD CD S 6 CD "a CD w a a-` m w 0 0 CD CD 0 O w 3 0 CD N -I O $0.=ad 0 ro y f0D j 0'y cm a) 0 5U) z 3 w -, 9Cp•g N (DOO G p! .r. ro ° SI50 O .a-a b9 CD,c 0 m j m 3' N c CD F3- �•G�C x C S C� N _C x h w • c'sz, c al v, !v •ro d rn •ro cr-•w > roc m 'C a n ro co ,.c O . �: y co tD CD u) C7 =ma .•. woo . w N ocac5 x = 3 ro ao. • do_ 00 3cti Sac 3._.o 9• o m Z' c , 4?••a a Cp A n o -a m a m •O. 3 y g co-�,. .0 ' O O CD .Cn a0 3; �. CCDCD x =.03 0 0 CA- C.0 .Di -o C•C•? co g 5= `C 3 { n (��D m O C7 0 W. w r CL4 Ete 03 0 0 C. 3 y ro 0 CD 0 0 3 w• o.a 0. , c 0 o°) 0 n o w S CD °: 3 O o cmo, a O a 7 ro O O . ro a., . O 0 — o d C.)C1 CD a C1 a 00- "a CT C N CD 3 0 to R o u) . w 3 C"C"O w w 0 w ro cD `.� r Vi ate) FO 9, -o 0 C0 0 0 0. 003 03 C?0 R a0 - � � C? { p CD n R a O 0 CD 7 CD`C CD cn-a) 7 CD '.c c • (D ao co N CT CD cD ' x CD a N '0 d 0 0 al C 0 N ::0: D v CD (D ? N Q 0• v ID CD w 0 CA '0 'CC r*'O CD CD t00 H N w a. .war CD . 3, O CD C 0• CD 0 Qroro_o o_ 0 7.0 C x ca x of - CDx ow roro3 Rcc * ° 0 ?. a 3a) -a C 41 =•p •C 0 0 -' 3 0 CO m .� a 0 x m'° CD •.c t 0 co (n ro in a C' � N O O Cn _ ro � �aa z-0 - 0 . co C � CpN C' N y 0 S ro w O R Oro ro c C') CD a_m C1 v) n a+ 0 4 O N roN ro w 0 C w �. N n ? N u iii cro • -I @ro @o m ;° -°-o0 Ca_03CDcrop wCDCC 00 CN yN CO n _°a a 3 ° n a a" co C,D 'ro `� CD 0 0 Cn m X CD 0 CD a, a`CC] o r,`C-.. Q c N R 0 CD O. CD a' N w m 0" 0 C) 0 0 y'w v 4p d �C � � C7n �'�• N .N. Q- -C14 CD 0-t 0•0 C) Cn O - CD C CD c CD ,.CD' to D) 0 D if; cD z" I1 0, Z • co 0.' CU Q o Q. C1 —1 3 . 0 0 • • QM 0. R 0 CC 0 CO •••"0 0 0 m _4 6) w CO B CD (D co w 0 CD .. N 0 DD) _ C1 D 0 fQ c 50 0 00 0 ro 3' 0•j @ CD 0.-4 o J• CD 0 (C x CD -e 'C7 - 0•Cp cn w(n CD y =° 0 N w:c C 0) a m • - = w = v, a. _( z c 0 ?� 7 Cn O CD -p C . CD a CCDD 0 Q-^`• CCDD 0•C C 0 CD 4 3 7- .- w ro • 9 a) 7 ?; 0 N co a. a, ^` 7 C1 CD CD o- 3 co O 0 C) 7 CD O N w O. CD -9 03 O. N'aa ro 3, Po 0 N w O w o o a) - 0 `2 � c� w N � 3v) $ N m 0' w CD 3 �m CD < 0-OR LC O N w C C CD Dal CD 3 x D •. 3 0 ~ CD al o C x. 3 0 0 0 c w o �- 0) a D CD o D) 5- d O w 0 a row« 3 a CCDC_ CD 00e- 0 O CO 7 0 O fA a* O 3 w o Cn 0• —' "` n 0 ?CD Qi a w C w N. ° ° om °) a 0 -03 o 3 . CD ro ' w 0 o Si D� CO- N CT b • • . . . • . . . . . . p m ro � amd • • 9.� .. o coo C p.m 5 gro ° " `� .g m m y e+ m z co m 0 g Ii li [U moleth d.z 'e o - g O g o . n ro 00:00, g1 c 0 c.* m -4 o 0 y� IH1, �▪ = aA m S Z'B °8-0 m a .a alma ' F m g i. g' ?' R. E P-.ct,.0 20 n•� o m• `x .085 . 8me 5ro `.; 0 m 4 M B m raq 8 CD C�" ro 0 m ccoommm ' ° n, 1 m o 5' °' m k m m m A � ro � m ° co rog o p zro c m . tii m 3 g 0 c8 tv 0.n r z z z z z z [z o o ° ca .o o µ 61 8 ,ti o c o 0 0 ' �g o ' C 00 ° O ° 0 ] o p p0 cn cn 'ti o Mori M e~ p •n . Ln �. e b. 0 7x 7 a- x 7 � � g g � � a 4 00 SD CD 8 PPPP 4.0%. 0 � � ao8a w 8 8 ro69 '� 1Q � aQw `� e " O m CD CD CD CD °qro a ro m m p ro m m m m m O /, m m m1 roo 0 , c 1 R 4 0.gL3 t4 P.M y CO r m M CA o• m s 5m t i ...? C. d x �CO cn P n 8 CD 8 CD0; g ro ° �LI 8 O m ro m ° ti � 0WO Mti g CD m 0� .m ,, R.�o 0- 2 hem m �� m x a ro � CD CD ° cD U1h a • 0 ro• d .° m G CO al m -. ap m 8 4" 5 gW ` at a ' 8E .mb•�b a.8 m ,./ g.z CD 4 .;t;g. 5 ?i, f� y "! 0 P m m' CD 0 g 541 mm g4Z44 8zzbtPor ° 8158 1g z b � ,1 F a' �� CD 8 b8 g 5 0 8 008 9ethm 100 a m.0 g m,pC'ffi b ro7.15`E1'P a1 al` A g F- Qgs'4R- `1 § 634 8 a. 8 n P. m " b w• ° 4 0 *5 § `• b b V' m. g 0 "W c 1 - g3 1 � s g o9) fa,(9 (9 G m ,O A 5 a ", m m (C g5.- Gui crexgistute. le(ox- Personal Care Plan of North Carolina Inc. Summary of Benefits Services Benefits Physician Services Office visits (including family planning, well-baby care and routine office visits) - During normal office hours $10 copayment - After normal office hours $15 copayment 1 Home visits $10 copayment Referral consultation with specialists Pays 100% Surgical and obstetrical services Pays 100% Laboratory procedures and X-ray examinations Pays 100% Inpatient care Pays 100% Short-term rehabilitation services (60 day period) Pays 100% Mental Health Services Outpatient care (up to 20 visits per calendar year) Pays 50% Inpatient care (up to 30 days per calendar year) Pays 80% Care for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Conditions $12,000 lifetime maximum for inpatient and outpatient care, with unlimited detoxification days Medical care (up to 20 visits per calendar year) Pays 100% 1 Detoxification (no limit on number of days) Pays 100% Inpatient care (up to 30 days per calendar year) Pays 100% Inpatient Hospital Services General surgical and medical care Pays 100% Intensive and cardiac care Pays 100% Semiprivate room and board Pays 100% Skilled nursing facility care (100 days per calendar year) Pays 100% Outpatient Hospital Services 1 X-ray, laboratory and diagnostic tests Pays 100°%° 1 Surgery Pays 100% Emergency care $25 copayment (waived if hospitalized) • Other Services Ambulance services Pays 100% Private duty nursing Pays 100% Durable medical equipment Pays 100% Home Health Agency services Pays 100% Blood and blood plasma Pays 100% 1 Prescription Drugs $6 copayment per prescription or refill, includes oral contraceptives, diaphragms This is a summary and is not the insurance contract, and only the actual certificate provisions will apply. You may request a copy of the certificate or handbook from your group administrator. For more information about the Personal Care Plan, call 1-800-222-9718. Your policy is renewable at the option of the insurer. 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February . 1990 Action Agenda Item # X F SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - FEBRUARY 26, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Legal Notice Planning Director-Ext. 346 Proposed Ordinance Amendments TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion for the regularly scheduled quarterly public hearing on February 26, 1990. BACKGROUND: 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. Items proposed for consideration at the February 26, 1990 public hearing include the following: 1. Assignment of House & Building Numbers a. Rural Route 2 - Durham b. Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough 2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 2 .3 . 3.2 - Board of Adjustment Administration b. Article 7 . 14 .4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing momm 4 .r■ 2 3. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Section III-D-1-b - Planning Department Review Procedures (Major Concept Plans) b. Section IV-B-8-e/g - Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers/Waiver of Buffer Requirements At its January 16, 1990 meeting, the Planning Board recommended that the proposed ordinance amendments be presented for citizen comment at the February 26, 1990 public hearing. Approval of the notice will permit advertisement on February 14 and 21, 1990 as required by the N.C. General Statutes . RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Notice of Public Hearing for February 26, 1990 . ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD 3 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 ` �i4 .. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL POSTAL SERVICE ROUTES AND ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Articles 6, 18, 240, 323, and 343; Article 20., Sections 20.5 and 20. 6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New) , 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 26, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS The postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house numbers are as follows: 1. Rural Route 2 - Durham Route 2 Durham encompasses an area beginning at the Durham County line on Ebenezer Church Road, thence south along Pleasant Green Road to US Highway 70, thence east to the Durham County line. The area includes the following subdivisions: Country Lane Estates, Pleasant Green Estates, Meadow. Estates, Brigadoon, and Meadows of Eno. The following roads are also included: Knight Drive, Deerwood Lane, Cole Mill Road, Jones Homestead Road, Cabe Ford Road, Willett Road, Laurel Ridge Road, Linden Road, and US Highway 70. 2. Rural Route 5 - Hillsborough Route 5 Hillsborough includes an area beginning at Old NC Highway 86 (Churton Street) , east along Old US Highway 70 East, south on NC Highway 86, then along Old NC Highway 10 east to the Southern Railway crossing, then north on Lawrence Road, east along Old US Highway 70 East to Seven Springs Road, returning westward along US Highway 70 East, south on Lawrence Road, and west on Old US Highway 70 East to Old NC it Highway 86 (Churton Street) . Included in Route 5 are Joppa Oaks, Byrdsville, Strayhorn Hills, Colonial Hills Mobile Home park, Colonial Hills Subdivision, and Piney Grove and Valley Forge Roads. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1 . Amend ARTICLE 2 .3. 3.2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION to include a specific reference that Board of Adjustment meetings are subject to the North Carolina Open Meetings Law. 2 . Add ARTICLE 7 . 14.4 DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING to provide incentives for the development of housing for low and moderate-income households. The proposed amendment would allow a density increase of up to 25% if a percentage of the units or lots were purchased by or rented to qualifying households or if off-site land were dedicated to the County for the purpose of developing affordable units or lots. A 50% density increase could be approved if all of the lots or units were reserved for qualifying households . The proposed amendment would, however, restrict density bonuses to projects located outside of a Water Supply Watershed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan. The only exception would be projects located in Transition Areas in a watershed. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows: 1. Amend SECTION III-D-1-b PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES to clarify the procedure for approving concept plans for major subdivisions. Following acceptance of an application, the Planning Staff would have 30 days to review a concept plan. A staff recommendation must then be submitted to the Planning Board at its first regular meeting following the 30-day review period. 2. Amend SECTION IV-B-8-e-3 SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED LAND USE BUFFERS to clarify how buffer requirements will be interpreted in unzoned townships; i.e. , unzoned land requiring a minimum lot size of 40, 000 square feet will be considered Agricultural Residential (AR) or Residential-1 (R-1) for the purpose of determining buffer requirements in a subdivision. In addition, SECTION IV-B-8-e-g WAIVER OF LAND USE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS is proposed for amendment to clarify the 5 purpose of the buffer waiver provisions and expand the number of situations in which a waiver may be requested; i.e. , existing structures with established lawn areas and areas in which utilities are located. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence presented at the public hearing will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8: 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough) , 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro) . Please ask for Extension 350 or 359 . You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: February 14, 1990 February 21, 1990 /it .. , . /. V•V/, •. .., . J... ,.., _ ... ,.. .\: , , ...,.. , ,.. , ii,, ,„ I - r L . '110r \\3k\. " -ige ,t nt I . . lair; k t . . R . ,,,„ _ . 71.4c--- : • _ • ('.--h. ` ''��' - .h i�• \IV \..o,g,A,W&,‘" NV •iii. • ii\.„ \.v SPAy? kval • I - , .. :,. 4p ksrloi. )1,11:, Pitab\ISK 1 t • " 6 f 11111k. I 1 , . N.k - r...,. ,. ,\„,,,,,! ,„ • . . ,. ... , .,, ,,,., , ,,i,,,,....,,,,,,A,_, 7,0‘,0„,..,‘ ,..„ . . , ;,.... .". _,........ „ .. I\( - ..,_.= • 9--\ - - / ' -‘. .\._ . A \ \ , letii: . \ : "=_..11.....1.:-in.i "" i Ciia 0.• 1, d 1 ._ • .... Axis ' - ' lsbo u `' :- : _• � 1:~�'' �� :Vii' •�' r ■ , \, :::. ...._ , •••••,..,:ox v,I.,t Iiii i"1:n ':. .*: . f7F4"...Z. `-.7 ".1.1 .y....f , ... • _ �• ..` ` •• .'am+ •— � M- ` t. •• r. . , , •..2114.>4 ft b a . , ,.. .,,.. , s . ,.,,,, , ,..„. . .....,.. v .. . a ... -.. _.,,,.=. I. .7., / a... ' ". " I. all \\*4' 1:01‘1;. . L ' . L ULjr-'= th .1"., VI r t ...aye,.. .,.. .r .1.. .f■..i.\I , _ �. �,;. � .. _ % . k t �� % in ties 0 r 1 1--- • --1 i Dorl rin s 0 Wit` N. a . ' . � -,, r S �� 1 art t •-• - Ilk tr RKI 0 3; '-' i \ - ..„ ,•,-.: : ,,......_ • cf i'a -, oict ,,,,-7i.: 14:0 ,„ - ...if 4v i' '.---1' . IN,\ _\ \*,,,, 1 kNViavki - 1‘",„‘ ::,.. ...-1,4ister .2_ • . '. 471;- \ 'RR 4 , s \e,wa_, tt-,%v .-.,- , "~ . . .gN1,4% mplete � a ' , -:: =' RR 5, •Hillsborough � , • ' r `� . RR 2 Durham �� C"-`gig. �\ 3 - r I -/ .... ' ... . •C T ., A .1 j. -1 C O Y .+ T T I r 153A-236 CH. 153A. COUNTIES § 153A-240 7 cil, set the duties of any person appointed or designated as a fire prevention inspector. A fire prevention inspector shall not make electrical inspection-- unless he is qualified to do so under G.S. 153A-351. (1965, c. 626; 1969, c. 1061. s. 3; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) §§ 153A-236 to 153A-238: Reserved for future codification purposes. ARTICLE 12. Roads and Bridges. § 153A-239. Public road defined. In this Article "public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thoroughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, without regard to whether it is open for travel. (1973, c. 822, s. 1.) Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319. § 153A-240. Naming roads and assigning street numbers in unincorporated areas. A county may by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county and not within a city,and may assign or reassign street numbers for list on such a road. In naming or renaming a public road, a county may not (1) Change the name, if any, given to the road by the Board of Transports. tion, unless the Board of Transportation agrees; • (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Transpor s. tion, but may give the road a name in addition to its number, or (3) Give the road a name that is deceptively similar to the name of any other public road in the vicinity. A county shall not name or rename a road or assign or reassign street numbers on a road until it has held a public hearing on the rn .tter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commissioners shall cause notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county courthouse, in at least two public places in the township or townships where the road is located, and shall publish a' notice of such • hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation published in the county. After naming or renaming a public road, or assigning or reassigning street numbers on a public road, a county shall cause notice of its action to lx given to the local postmaster with jurisdiction over the road, to the Board of Transportation, and to any city within five miles of the road. This section does not repeal or modify Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, which pertains to naming streets in Kannapolis. (1.957, c. 1068; 1973,c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s. 1; 1981, cc. 112, 518.) Local Modification. — Brunswick: 1979. been substituted for "State Highway Comm 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Cabarrus: 1981, c. 568, sion" and for "Commission" in this section amending 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1319; Forsyth: enacted by Session Laws 1973, c. 822. 1981, c. 558; Guilford: 1979. c. 283. Effect of Amendments. --- The first 19:: Editor's Note.—Pursuant to Session Laws amendment substituted "at the County Cour.- 1973,c.507,s.5,"Board of Transportation"has house, in at least two public places in tL 78 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8 306F REVERE ROAD • HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 � Dear Resident: . '' In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date eighteen postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Hillsborough Rural Route 5 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 26, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 5 served by the Hillsborough Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 . Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 21278 �ti11 Dear Resident: • • In April, 1987, the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a House Numbering Ordinance which authorizes the conversion of rural routes and box numbers for all Orange County addresses. To date eighteen postal routes have been converted to street addresses. Additionally, all new homes and businesses on single lots and all new subdivisions have been assigned street addresses adhering to the county-wide system. All addresses are computer-maintained and are now being used to support the vital functions (voter registration, tax records, 911 emergency) as well as mail delivery by the appointed postal service areas. Within the next two years, all of Orange County will have street addresses and rural routes and box numbers will be a thing of the past. Durham Rural Route 2 is now being proposed for conversion to house numbers. On Monday, February 26, 1990, a Public Hearing will be held before the Orange County Board of Commissioners to consider the proposed assignment of house numbers to residences and buildings on Rural Route 2 served by the Durham Post Office. The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. If approved, the house numbers will replace the old system of rural routes and box numbers. This change will improve mail delivery and allow 911 emergency calls faster access to addresses. Residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. The proposed NEW ADDRESS which reflects the physical location of your residence at tax map reference is as follows: OLD. ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS If you wish to speak in regard to this proposal, please attend the Public Hearing. We ask, however, that you confine your comments to specific concerns regarding the assigned house number or street address. If you require additional information about the general process of route conversion or assigned house numbers, please contact one of the Planning Department staff members below. Don Powell (Extension 345) or Miriam Coleman (Extension 575) Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Phone: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Chapel Hill 967-9251 Durham 688-7331 • Sincerely, Marvin E. Collins Planning Director CO r r\CPC() 4'- ....‘ rti tan'N.\ O.* ....._ . --t 1 1 ca 1111141111.11 1= gy.421 •••• he e.5 • le = (1111) 111. 1 01 NIP> ....../ _ = CI:112 • 1..... 1 I J CD C4 O ( 1' d = = CM CC _ I W ti CC !� .L.:Zi.) / rz • tr4 q ra Or"1mr1 .... r1 ,4 O ".. r, •'• a r © N .0 "y 1 1 1 1 • •- <+ 0 GI Cn N r ..� w • � 'i sr • � o n7 N • C 3r .. z ro its a1 Va t• N • 00 5 a aN .T .. e �. a .a a z a' w L-,-....-.-,-,1 _,,r.�•t. a • ~. 14 0 W m 3a Z ` n L'3O W 0 Srr 3 ~ ?• E 3r 0 0.7 0 !. ; ,. u Z < rr O ry `) •o 0 1a3 Q1 W ..�H 0 og 4 Ei _ � L.)� O .• - • - • w Z 22 1•4 - g r.". 0 y ^ ,-1 E a m 0 , mam0 -i 0..0 .-t 4 q = 4 -, es 34 . 1 4 • • • • . h . 0in 303r3 -•1m0a13'1 01 -y Oy 4CO > 404 . .004 J. •-1 r. O .-• C0s0 ra-4 .-400 U3 0 0 . 0 .4 ?,-4 O C 3 .W 0 -1 .1.1 O • •..I. 4 .; w 3 O O '0 = Z 03 0 C �1 >1 ' '0 3 C O 0 L.1 = C ?•r U •-t C 14 • .y . W 1"1 0 '0 . . 0440 •••1 w W +.0 ID 3 d = � • Omra 015. m '>S •,y � . OOmtn 3m 3.t � ' Et .0 '0 .4 ..1 w V1 3.1 .•1 m .4 '0 •1 u • .0 0 ID 0 m 0 3 C O 1 A 3 fa 134 044 C 0 .0 0 .0 e5 DA ro w .4 O 3 0 0 H 1+. -Ci C'1 N E -4 " 0 W y. le .0.0 14 .` ?•r.4 C i.1.. O -41 O 03, m 11 01 . -u 4.1 m 01 O 01 0 0- 3 . 4 -i US m m .J 4.1 0 ? -dr0 ? - c 0 •, o ?y O 1,1 .J -.1 3 4 • 01-1 rti Or 74 •O - -a EI .• . + c m 1 H 3i 4 C 0 10 in .i 3a i..1 •-1 E 3 -4 .: E W �,• .0 -1 .0 -4 • 0 .J 4.1 0 b 0"O O m 3 R 3 co C 0 = 3 0+ m mac a C n1m a 'CI ' 1mm m . 0 .� co- - _ a1 . • co = 14 '000 0E 0 C 4. . 001 4.1 m A .1.) 4 -I O- 14 w .0 0 O 0 E 0 • 10 3 r•1 m 0.'0 •1 0 N b U 4 1ti 0C ° 'Dai.1Z0Ce1 4 C A .. 0 a1 .a0O x .40 = 4 " 0 a b -i m 0.4 O ^0 U '0 p -0 E 0 d : y •3 `� 41�11 'O 0 M 0) V1 - In H = to E •.1 .u1 0 C. 0 +1 fA s,1 ,� Z-' 3•• 14 34 .N 0 • 1t 0 In la 1 • . 0.1 Q rC = m =. r1 0 0 0 • to ui m W 0 := 0034E .JOUra03t � v1 -4 .0 .00 00 QUO..) OxxO O 2:•••4 w ? 4 0 NNm art ••i re Z 3 •C E4 /4 .1 •4 34 Z0Usr 01 01 0 a 3 0 0 44 0 at w • y �C 0 13 0 -a 0 '0 0 0 '0 W • 03 • O m br 0 0 O O w .0 m 0 • c00 • 0 • •-1 • 3 0 .4 0 • .•0 • .0 .>~ 'O w oc.a 4UOa 'OCU .Cm4) 3a0 aroa 4 ?, a3 40E � 4 ofEro 4UU4 . . 'i N en r 11 4) 0 b 4) • . 4-1 4--1 '0 CO I r1 tv r7 0 1 E i .-1 3 m 'O O .4-I 4) 4) • �4 b1 S y+ 4.) 04) 41C1omto ---- - ri .CaMm00 .0O .>~ m0 �) > 4) - 000 • O 0 ••i O S-1 m 0 0 m •41 4-1 U C7 4-1 U C»' 4-1 .- 4-1 1-� •r1-r1 CO 1.1•44 •O T. 0 •al 4) 0 a E 4-1--1 b - N $ H m.•i ..W m m t; a-1 4) 10 .0 0 kJ 1 CV 4-1 = >4 4-1 10 .0 •.1 t0 1.1 ri U O C7 mm mEH v o 1� ow • CO >4 em4•Iri -p '043 pC W cO m •.i 0 al m m C.1 W° r-3 CO IA .P.. r1 � -- 04,4 0P4 0 my C 0 r4 • M 10 * 0 a 4 4- . 1 cra .a .a OC fA 10 "'1 m O.G•'i $.4 10 •4-1 A.m Z 0 4 to m m m °° C 14 0 14 � C '.4.4 co C 0 0 4-t m m isl .4 o 0 '4 m G 'o m a m 0 O 0 .,0,� O•'� 3 '0 a 0 1...1 ri Mi �+ "� +� 1, i �, co Eaca •-• a, 3 mOtoo m '0U a 1m1O �4td0014 a �_ try �1r10E � 4,4 TS ; am . IN `O m •g 4-1 c - co �` co 10.1 H "" H � 1•� � E •1 •4 m .. u m 4. 00 coa0coco 4 � ~ 0d0 >4414m oo 10.0mo •0A ' ?,W 0 m co r-1r.i N 4-1 t� m 0 • m A 01 � O Ia a 01 C a U v 0 . euail Rd M 14 .4-1 Z 0 � m 0 0 m i 10.4-1 m. 0 0 >4 "Ci.0 •0 � ror�i •-1 .- 0 - - .0 0 H E m V go � 044 .0,� � a1U � E10WEI0i .-4 m0 •.i•rl••iO � 31~ 1+ Rl O 1m+ m 43 0•> b1 3 44i 0 0 - - . 0 m A -r1 >4'� 0 3 0 43 � E Ei m '-1m01••i0mmm01 - - E ,� .0.0 +1 4) m0 t4 tg 7 01m 'O••i •.i ..1 .1:1.4-1 0 t~ O U 0 0 O aO 0 O C4 . 00114) .01. > t0 'Em - : 30044 -•iam0 01 CI) m0 •r1a mV! . 0 0 44.14.1 .0 0 0 4) 140m mm OZ4) .CO ,0000H•.1E0 .. E4-1 .41-1 . H U W ao4-1tnTJ 14 a0 10 ; ; ZAU1-1••i 3 1.) +1U4-1 C0 "0 tO +.1E••1 04j • . ■1 0 CO 44 4-1 4) O 14 to 41 0 4.1 14 11 .54 .. E c0 14 • - . � 01 .W 4) 0 0 01-10%.4.0 .0000 U ..) 0 4) 0 0- C O O m. 414.1 03 4.4 O o m 11 0 .0' tr -4 •.1 44 N U r-i 4 4a•- 01 1+ • - 1 - m .) m .� 1r'.ommE� o � � +�) CO 1 = ___1 ' = 1a m O 0.3 m ° 344 4) C 3 m .al 1 `.3 - 4� . '0 3 0 Ill XI •Ci, O - o +J. N O' • › O.G � 1 c. 1--1 171 y p� � 4) m O C ,� � � 41 X10 .; 1 � o�d 86 il c�� rI m vCE14). m-.EE '0q.� b1O'30E4 + �r���O 1 q . •�+ 4) •.i b 10 >,1 0 4) mri 4) m C `� m N. , E H 11.1 y 1. N t0 . U-E 0 A .� a) a0 -0 m 4i $ W 4) C >% I I e, 4 41 4.3 q O 3: 011.3 m to U 4. 4-' U ,E a'? «Cim0E •«Ci00 "ia11♦ H «Ci f0 \ aD •• '0••4 m 0 I-' C1 td 1-1 0 4) .- r' c+ . mm 43 0114mCr1-.14.� m '0O JA m . l m +1••iOO •-1U ?••i•.imaom04.1E04) U0 ' ' .00 .033S4140000a4 ••41010000 . 4Z = . E4 H 43 E-1 ..•0..i E 04.0 10 •0 .0•-1 4.1 C 0 +L.-1 .-1 •b1 CO m CO m m >,0 4) 4-1 m '0 .0 4-1 O 04.4 i 0 W.0 0 .0 .0 r■ 4.1 0 .0 0 «4 0 11 4-1 44 -1 10 \ I • 1 4.1 0 4) m v Q +. 0 - .0 E ��n 4.) ECrto .6+ m moo 04 U m N a m x 1 m y d E 0 0 Q`bC •A) - 0 C U U «i •-1 • x a ° a"'1 00 � � � V aolca Umi 1.r C .0 U 1+ 10 O O E 44 •--1 4) � C0 .0> m1d. .J Oma � Cq / . 1q U 'O 1+ m 4) m 4) m , m s -.i m m 0 0 .0 ao 1. > .0 . co 1n3ca .0 � 1�. 0 E +oEV4j mU ill .Ia m .ri m .� m m N M g 50 00000 C • 4) U 3 m O o C c1p•r1 .0 O m 0 O , 0 0 + m `••1 Z 4) OI m co -•4 U •r1 m .r4 m.-1 >,11 4) 1-t . 4-11.. -- )4 !: 80 .•1 m0comco.-1ri11v0O , 0 -pi ..1O40 aol0bm m0m •p0V : - m 4-1 a 14 41 1+.•4 0 m 41 .,.4 > td .J ••i . 0 14 . (NW 0 1J E'0 0 b ,~rl -4 o 1a' r****,- ... -O O C.• m r Sa 4 O 1+ O 'O O O•-1 m C O m . ___ ___ _ air-. xa«iaA0amvoUrd �+ U3oaU .� r%.""` 12 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 2 .3.3.2 ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle x_Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 26, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend Section 2.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law. IMPACTS/ISSUES: The proposed amendment provides a reference to the portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318. 9 et seq) . This portion of the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a public body may hold an executive session and exclude the public. The proposed amendment reflects an existing state law, and is not a substantive change to the Ordinance, It will, however, provide for a specific reference to the General Statutes in the event that the appropriateness or legality of an executive session is questioned. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 2 .3 .3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and the Board shall be given as required by Chapter 143 Article 33-C of the North Carolina Statutes G.S. 143 318. 11ET.SEQ. , as amended. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 2.3 .3.2 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings 13 Law, North Carolina General Statutes G.S. 143. 318 .9 et seq. The Board shall give public notice of its meetings also as provided in the Open Meetings Law. Notice shall be given to Board of Adjustment members as provided in the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Board. ****************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: 12/20/89 The Ordinance Review Committee recommended approval and commented that the amendment only makes provisions of State statutes more clear, and does not inc lude any substantive change. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: DMUU U 14 The focus of all of the changes has been to narrow the applicability of the ordinance to 10 focus in on large, physically impacting projects . c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 2 . 3 . 3 .2 - Board of Adjustment Administration Presentation by Eddie Kirk. This agenda item is to receive information on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to reference that the Board of Adjustment meeting is subject to the Open Meetings Law. The proposed amendment provides a reference to the portion of the General Statutes pertaining to Open Meeting Laws (G.S. 143-318.9 et seq) . This portion of the General Statutes includes the purposes for which a public body may hold an executive session and exclude the public. A copy of the section of the Open Meeting Laws pertaining to executive sessions (G.S. 143.318.11) , is an attachment to these minutes on page . The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be advertised for public hearing on February 26, 1990. MOTION: Best moved to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Abrams. VOTE: 8 in favor (Yuhasz, Jacobs, Burklin out of the during this vote) . (2) Article 7. 14.4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Presentation by Mary Scearbo. This amendment was first introduced at the public hearing on August 28, 1989. The Planning Board considered the amendment on October 16, 1989, and recommended approval. Before the amendment was presented to the Board of Commissioners for a final decision, questions arose as to how the bonus provisions would apply if family income increased after a reserve unit was purchased or rented,, or if a home appreciated to a non- affordable level and the owners wanted to sell. r IS Discussion with the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) about these questions resulted in several changes to the original proposal. The changes are significant enough to warrant a second public hearing. Scearbo summarized the changes. A copy of the Staff report of the proposed amendment with changes underlined is an attachment to these minutes on pages The Planning Staff recommends that the proposed amendment be advertised for public hearing on February 26, 1990. MOTION: Best moved to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation. Seconded by Yuhasz . Waddell expressed concern that the equity question has not been answered for the homeowner to allow for possible decreases in median income and possible increased value of the house. VOTE: 8 in favor. 3 opposed (Abrams, Burklin, Waddell) . Best suggested that a member of the Tax Supervisor's Staff be present at the public hearing to answer questions regarding tax valuation of such dwellings. d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV-B-8 - Land Use Buffers (Section IV-B-8-e-3 Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers & Section IV-B-8-g Waiver of Land Use Buffer Requirements Presentation by Emily Crudup. Section IV-B-8-e-3 contains the Schedule of Required Land Use Buffers together with instructions on how to interpret the buffer table. Buffers between subdivisions and adjacent land are determined by the principal use within the subdivision and the adjacent zoning or land use. In the unzoned townships, however, undeveloped land is currently assumed to be residential for the purpose of determining if a buffer is required. The proposed amendment will refer to undeveloped land in unzoned townships as a CO E3 Q Tr IG Agricultural Residential for the purpose of 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 Stencil 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 MME 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February . 1990 Action Agenda Item # )(-G SUBJECT: ADVERTISEMENT - FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Work Schedule Planning Director - Extension 346 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251/968-4501 PURPOSE: 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. BACKGROUND: A Joint Planning public hearing was proposed for February 28, 1990 as part of the work schedule developed by the University Lake Watershed Work Group (see attachment) . Though recommended as part of the work schedule, the public hearing date has not been formally set. 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. 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. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that February 28, 1990 be set as the date for a Joint Planning public hearing to consider proposed protection measures for University Lake watershed. The notice of public hearing to be advertised in the 4 y4 2 newspapers, the notice to be mailed to individual property owners, and the proposed land use plan/ordinance amendments will be distributed to the Board of Commissioners by 12 : 00 noon on Monday, February 5, 1990 . r 3 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 4 REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 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. r UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL (con't) -- _ -- - Page 3 REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 5 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 08, 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 w UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION PROPOSAL (con't) Page 4 REVISED DECEMBER 01, 1989 6 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. • r ORANGE COUNTY l BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5, 1989 Action A enda Item # SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - ARTICLE 20. 7 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION VII-D-4 (ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Proposed Amendments ext. 347 Letter from County Attorney 8/28/89 Public Hearing Minutes 10/16/89 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 1/9/90 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill -- 967-9251 PURPOSE: 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 Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: 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 . The amendment was presented for public hearing on August 28, 1989 and provided for the public hearing to remain open from the date of the public hearing until the time of final decision. The Board of Commissioners expressed concern with allowing verbal testimony to be introduced at the Planning Board meeting. Additional opportunities for verbal comments could result in repetition of comments made at the 2 public hearing and would be a disincentive for attending the Joint Board of Commissioners/Planning Board public hearing. It was suggested that any new information be in writing and used by the Planning Board in making a recommendation and by the Board of Commissioners in making the final decision. Similar comments were offered by the Town of Carrboro through the courtesy review procedure established in the Joint Planning Agreement (letter attached) . 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 be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making its decision unless that information was available to the Planning Board at the time of its recommendation. The Planning Board recommended approval of the revised amendment at its January 9, 1990 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendment per the Planning Board recommendation. 3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION VII-D-4 ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC HEARING ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public max_ Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x_High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 22, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To establish guidelines by which information received after the advertised date of a public hearing may be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Evidence received at a public hearing becomes part of the public record and is considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Evidence received outside of the public hearing may not be considered. Unless a hearing is specifically held open by the Board of Commissioners, new information 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 new information to be considered as follows: 1. New information must be presented in writing, and made available to the Planning Board prior to its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. 2 . Verbal presentations to the Planning Board may be limited to a summary or explanation of material previously submitted in writing. 3. The Board of Commissioners will receive all written comments prior to making its decision, and may hear presentations made in explanation of those comments. 4. Information which was not available to the Planning Board when its recommendation was made may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making its decision unless; - the Joint public hearing is readvertised, or - the item is referred back to the Planning Board. • The proposal presented for public hearing on August 22 4 specified only that the public hearing would remain open between the advertised public hearing and the final decision by the Board of Commissioners. The revisions address concerns with a lack of restriction as to when and how information would be received during that period. The revisions assure that both the recommendation of the Planning Board and the decision of the Board of Commissioners will be based on the same information, while allowing for additional relevant information to be incorporated into the process. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: VII-D-4 Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall be referred to the Planning Board for its consideration and recommendation. Evidence not presented at the joint public hearing (hereinafter called "new evidence" ). may be submitted in writing at or prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is made. _'he Planning Board may consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose 21 presentina information also submitted in writing._ The recommendation. of the Planning Board will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. In making its decision, the Board 21 Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the joint public hearing, and any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. The Planning Board shall submit its recommendations, including the reasons for its determination, to the Board of Commissioners within seventy-five (75) days after such amendments have been referred to the Planning Board. Failure to submit a recommendation within the specified period shall constitute a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered hy the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the ioint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence, and the item j, readvertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. *********************************** PLANNING aofAthpr The Board recommended approval eP oposedamendment nJanuary 9, 1990. r PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: ARTICLE 20.7 ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public x Other: County Attorney STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 28, 1989 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To establish guidelines by which information received after the advertised date of a public hearing may be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Evidence received at a public hearing becomes part of the public record and is considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Evidence received outside of the public hearing may not be considered. Unless a hearing is specifically held open by the Board of Commissioners, new information 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 new information to be considered as follows: 1. New information must be presented in writing, and made available to the Planning Board prior to its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. 2. Verbal presentations to the Planning Board may be limited to a summary or explanation of material previously submitted in writing. 3. The Board of Commissioners will receive all written comments prior to making its decision, and may hear presentations made in explanation of those comments. 4. Information which was not available to the Planning Board when its recommendation was made may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making its MA 6 decision unless; - the Joint public hearing is readvertised, or - the item is referred back to the Planning Board. The proposal presented for public hearing on August 28, 1989 specified only that the public hearing would remain open between the advertised public hearing and the final decision by the Board of Commissioners. The revisions address concerns with a lack of restriction as to when and how information would be received during that period. The revisions assure that both the recommendation of the Planning Board and the decision of the Board of Commissioners will be based on the same information, while allowing for additional relevant information to be incorporated into the process . EXISTING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 20 .7 Plannina Board Action on the Amendment Application Action Subsequent to the Date of Public Hearing Following the date of the public hearing, all proposed amendments shall he referred to the Planning Board for its consideration and recommendation. Evidence not presented at the 'vint public hearing ,(hereinafter called "next evidence l may be submitted in writing at or prior to the Planning Board meeting at which the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is made. The Plannin g Board may consider oral evidence only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing.. The Planning Board shall within thirty sixty days after the date of the public hearing prepare and submit for the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the any application submitted ty the public. Said time limit may, be extended upon request of the applicant. Amendments initiated by Orange County_ shall not be subject to t_ima limitations, other than those specified by the Board of County_ Commissioners during the huhlia hearing p rocess Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. 20.8 Board of County Commissioners Receives Recommendation of klgnnIng Planning Board The Board of County Commissioners shall not 7 consider enactment of the proposed amendment until thirty sixty days after the first date of the public hearing or until the Planning Board makes this recommendation, whichever comes first. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the loint public hearing, and Any new evidence which was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. New evidence which was not presented in writing to the Planning Board may not be considered by the Board of Commissioners in making a decision unless the joint public hearing is reopened to receive said evidence and the item is readvertised and/or referred back to the Planning Board for recommendation. ********************************** PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendment on January 9, 1990. COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ, DICKERSON, BERNHOLZ, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8 P.O. DRAWER 1529 129 E. TRYON ST. HILLSBOROUGH;N.C. 27278 919.732-2196 919-942-8000 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE July 6, 1989 SUITE 300.THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 27514 919.929-7151 ALONZO B.COLEMAN, JR. STEVEN A. BERNHOLZ DONALD R. DICKERSON ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E.GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE C. NICHOLAS HERMAN Mr. Marvin Collins KIM K.STEFFAN Director NATHANIEL E.CLEMENT MARILYN E.TOMEI Orange County Planning Department JOE L.WEBSTER TERRY C, HARN 306E Revere Road JANET B. DUTTON Hillsborough, North Carolina 27 Of Counsel BONNER D. SAWYER Re: Public Hearing Procedure 11902.19721 Dear Marvin: I 've made the point of late that the County's planning public hearing process ought to remain open through the time when the Planning Board's recommendation is received by the Board of County Commissioners. Please review the Zoning Ordinance to see if any amendments are necessary in order to implement this practice. Also, enclosed is the original application file from Envirotek concerning the New Hope Road I-40 site owned by Nello Teer. This should be processed per my letter to Wayne Phears concerning this matter. Very truly yours, r�fre . Gledhill GEG/lsg Enclosure 8/28/89 a Public Hearing Minutes 1 d. Affordable Housing 2 (1) Article 7.14.4 - Density Bonus for Affordable Housing In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the 34 proposal to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing to low and 5 moderate income families. The Report of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Task Force, 6 completed September, 1987, included a recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance to 7 increase incentives for new construction of low and moderate-income housing. The 6 proposed amendment represents one tool which may be used to achieve that goal. It is 9 proposed that a density increase of up to 50% be permitted if a percentage of the lots ,0 or units are reserved for occupancy by, or sale to households which qualify as being in the low or moderate income bracket. The proposed provisions are most likely to be 2 utilized by non-profit organizations already intending to develop affordable housing, or 3 by developers/ landowners with suitable land of lesser value to donate in exchange for a 4 density increase. A more comprehensive and effective approach to the long-range 5 affordability of housing involves other major growth .management issues being studied or 6 discussed at this time, including watershed issues, the rural character, water and sewer 7 extensions, and environmental impact. 8 9 4114 e. Public Hearing Procedures (1) Article 20.6 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof 21 In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on the _2 p-oposed amendment to the public hearing regulations to require that once opened, any 23 public hearing remain open until a final decision is made by the Board of County 24 Commissioners. The testimony received at a Public Hearing is on record as information ,5 considered by the Hearing Body in rendering its decision. Testimony received outside of 26 the Public Hearing may not be considered. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to 27 assure that all information received prior to the decison of the Board of County 28 Commissioners can be considered. If approved, the amendment would deem a public hearing 29 as open, from the initial hearing date until the time of the final decision. I 30 .. . 31 PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN JACOBS,. indicated that he had concerns about the Public 32 Hearing procedures. Specifically, the notion of how the Public Hearing is left open. 1 33 Be stated that it seemed to him that the process is becoming more difficult and the 34 Planning Board is making less informed and effective recommendations. They have 35 already entertained, in Public Hearing, all the pertinent information that the Planning 36 Board is to consider and they do not need to rehash everything that has happen before. 37 They make a recommendation based on all the information.the Board of Commissioners will 38 receive so that it adheres as closely as possible to the materials the Commissioners 39 will see. -. The changes that are proposed will negate a lot of the efficiency of the 40 process unless it is specified that the Public Hearing will remain open only to hear new "- 41 information.-- He asked that if the Public Hearing is left open for new information that 42 one of the stipulations be that the Commissioners would.determine whether the 43 information was significant enough to refer it back to the Planning Board. 44 -. .45 COMMISSIONER MARSHAL[.. indicated that her understanding was that written information 46 could be accepted up until the time a decision is made but that verbal communication 47 could only be received up to the last Planning Board meeting. She indicated that she 48 was in agreement with that procedure. Also, citizens sometimes felt that they did not ' ! 49 need to go through the process if the Commissioners will accept information up until the 50 last moment. 51 I 72 CHAIRMAN CAREY indicated that he agreed with Commissioner Marshall. He stated that 53 he felt it should be limited after the Public Hearing to either written information or I: 54 limit it altogether or keep it open altogether. seeping it open for new information and 55 MMMIMIL 10 ..� • 1 making a judgment about what's significant enough to be referred back to the Planning 2 Board doesn't work. Obviously, it will be referred back on one occasion and not on 3 others and the citizens will have difficulty understanding why one thing was referred 4 and another was not. 5 6 COUNTY ATTORNEY GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, stated that a possible solution would be to 7 leave the Public Hearing open solely for the purpose of hearing the Planning Board's 8 recommendation. He indicated that the concern which caused him to write the letter was 9 that in reviewing the Planning Board's meeting minutes it became apparent that 10 information was coifing into the Public Hearing process that was not a part of the Public 1 Hearing, either through staff reports or otherwise. All of that should occur before the 2 public hearing is closed because it is pertinent, valuable information. However, 3 deciding how to get it into the process is the problem. Leaving the Public Hearing open 4 until all that is left is a decision is one way of getting this information into the 5 process. Limiting the last round of the Public Hear mg is a way of accomplishing that 6 by stating that nothing will be heard at that point except the Planning Board's 7 recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation could contain whatever information 8 had come to it outside of the Public Hearing. 9 o .LINK 'suggested that the statement be made that the "Public Hearing is held open 1 until the Commissioner's -receive the Planning Board's recommendation. 2 3 CHAIRMAN CAREY stated that when it is held open for the Planning Board's' 4 recommendation it must be advertised as a Public Hearing.' - 5 6 GLEDHI tate thattif the meeting was adjourned until no new information was . 7 expected than it is not necessary*.to readvertise. .= 9 YUHAS2, Planning Board STEVE member, stated that he hoped that any information 0 coming before the Planning Board would be written and not verbal because the meetings l are barely able.to cover all: pertinent information as it is:.-: If more verbal comments 2 Y• .. .: . Fere included. the would not be able' to complete the meetings s in one -evening.' GLEDHILL stated comments, and in particular ted that. it�_is. .of written co 4 -- the., ar - - . _. . area , . 5 technical i or motion, th:. .. . . .. • here. n . yea y_ 7 indicated-that he . that the Commiyssio .. _... : ... �...,. _>,�. g• in=.the_ PlanninghBoardgs�re .� �,� nays CHAIRMAN CASEY indicated�_th N ; • 9 to close. the hearin and entertai ' �,. commendation:_ :_°T u_ . ' . . . r. . : or 3 Not-Residential Development 1 In s. . ., =rv_this item..was presented t 2 proposal to receive citizen � ��ent`on the 3 ro osal to provide. -•r. area ratio- {FAR) requirements for + • esidential uses - 3 permitted in residential - , 'ng districts which are con- ' - ent with the actual floor areas of existing facilities. .ntroling the inter -- y of a land use or the degree to which a property is used is one o .nnines : s.-_ Residential land use regulations - 5 almost always deal with density. In n. , idential districts, intensity is most often 7 controlled through the use of stan. - tha egulate the hulk of a building. Floor 3 area ratios (FARs) , in conjunc with height -'tations, are the principal standards a used in the Orange Count ' • ing Ordinance to contro • ilding volume. Floor area ratio is defined as the m. ' m floor area permitted for each - :re foot of land area. In recent years, - orange County School Board has submitted ti.. equests for a variance of FAR to permit an existing school to expand or a new school to ■, uilt. The ' inability of the School Board to comply with the FAR requirements wit •ut purchasing sizable land tracts has raised the question as to whether or not the ratios are too low, 10/1.6/89 P_lannina Board. Minutes 11 agreement with the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development, and should be binding for at least 15 years . The proposed provisions are most likely to be utilized by non-profit organizations already intending to develop affordable housing, or by developers/landowners with suitable land of lesser value to donate in exchange for a density increase. A more comprehensive and effective approach to the long-range affordability of housing involves other growth management issues being studied or discussed at this time, including watershed issues, the rural character, water and sewer extensions . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed density bonus provisions including the addition of a minimum period of 15 years for contractural agreements. Also, as recommended by the Town of Carrboro, application of a 50% density increase when at "least" 20% of the units are for low-income households and the remainder for moderate income households. There was considerable discussion regarding density bonuses in watersheds and the possible "trade-off" of watershed protection for affordable housing. It seemed to be the feeling that affordable housing and density bonuses should apply county-wide. MOTION: Jacobs moved approval of the provision for density bonuses and recommend that the issue of its applicability in watersheds and other areas of restricted development potential be referred to public hearing November 27, 1989. Seconded by Eidenier. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Eddleman - stated that he felt there are engineering and environmental reasons why density in watersheds should not be beyond a certain point and felt density bonuses in a watershed was a defect in the proposal. (4) Article 20. 6 - Public Hearing/Notice Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to consider an amendment to the MEMMENEmmommor mmmm 12 public hearing regulations to require that once opened, any public hearing remain open until a final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners. The testimony received at a public hearing is on record as information considered by the hearing body in rendering its decision. Testimony received outside of the public hearing may not be considered. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to assure that all information received prior to the decision of the Board of County Commissioners can be considered.ed. Ifaappr red the amendment would deem a public open, from the initial hearing date until the time of final decision. The Board of Commissioners expressed concern with allowing verbal testimony to be introduced at the Planning Board meeting., Additional opportunities for verbal comments could result in repetition of comments made at the public hearing, and would be a disincentive for attending the Joint Board of Commissioners/Planning Board public hearing. New information or other comments should only be accepted in writing and used by the Planning Board in making a recommendation and by the Board of Commissioners in making the final decision. Similar comments were offered by the Town of Carrboro through the courtesy review procedure established in the Joint Planning Agreement. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment, with changes to allow the introduction of written testimony only after the initial date of the public hearing. MOTION: Jacobs moved approval with the public hearing to remain open for written comment through the Planning Board meeting. Seconded by Eddleman. Yuhasz stated he felt this would be appropriate and the Planning Board would have all the information prior to making its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Best indicated he did not understand the r 13 reason for this change. Collins responded that this was an attempt to allow written comment from citizens who were not able to attend the public hearing, since there have been many occasions when mail arrived the day after the public hearing. VOTE: Unanimous (Cantrell left the meeting prior to this vote. ) (5) Article 5. 1.2 - Schedule for Non-Residential Development Presentation by Marvin Collins. Thi- is an amendment which would cha- •e the FAR loor Area Ratio) standards f• non- resid- ,tial development, primaril in the RB, AR, R-1 =nd R-2 zoning districts In recent ears, the Orange C• my School Board has s- •mitted two req sts for a variance of to permit = existing school to expand or = ew schoo o be built. The inability of th- School -oard to comply with the FAR requirem- ,ts w. bout purchasing sizable land tract •s raised the question as to whether or no the ratios are too low, particularly in r- .i• -ntial zoning districts which permit non . esi• tial uses. A comparison • FARs for elected non- residential -es typical' ound in residential areas indicated -pecific problem areas for -chools as well as -otential problems or community center- -nd volunteer fire d- .artments. Prob -ms may also be present for rches, si e such facilities in rural area- include cemeteries which increases the land area, permitting compliance with the FAR requirements. If the land area in cemeteries was subtracted, it is expected that the existing floor areas would equal or exceed the FAR requirements. The proposed amendment would increase the FAR requirements in the RB, AR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts to 0.088 for individual lots and 1 . 000 for planned developments. The FAR requirements are the same as currently required for the R-3 district and are more in keeping with the actual floor area of EL 14 hearing August 28, 1989 . Collins continued that Carrboro had sugge ed ch- , •ing the language so that it would n• be appl • able in the Joint Planning and T--nsition Areas . He noted that he did not fee hat was necessa since Carrboro has subdi Sion administra 'on oibetGO Transition n• eas . The County that this i Ordinance doe- of impact on C rboro' s Transition Area- Collins noted that - •e P ning Staff recommendation is app • -1 of the proposed amendment. MOTION: Best moved approva as rec• ended by the Planning Staff . econded by -urklin. VOTE: . 8 in favor. 1 opposed. hasz - felt that the conditions would be ' • •ossible or at least ver .ifficult to meet wit' the Town of Hillsborough. Jacob- noted the a,reefor concern orderly felt devela�sent imp- tant to prep a - extension of water and sewer. tlimall°m"1"114 (2) Section VII-D Amendment Procedures Collins noted that this amendment was the same as that for the Zoning Ordinance in regard to public hearing. If the Planning Board followed its previous recommendation, it would be that written comment only be received after the initial date of the public hearing. MOTION: Best moved approval that written comment only be received after the initial date of the public hearing. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: Unanimous. Adjournment time was reached. MOTION: Burklin moved extension of the meeting to consider the Matters Heard at the Joint Planning Public Hearing, Hillsborough Cooperative Planning and the TAC, appointments. Seconded by el VOTE: Unanimous . AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT 9/14/89 JPA PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. X1 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE Ext. 505 TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To maintain membership at effective levels on commissioner's appointed boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The following recommendations are presented for the Board's consideration. ARTS COMMISSION: Reappoint members Katherine Nelson and William Hannah for three-year terms ending February 19, 1993. Member Linda Smith Fields did not wish to be reappointed and the Arts Commission Board is reviewing resumes on hand. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: Two members of the board would like to be reappointed. Jean Hamilton has completed an unexpired term and Dan Eddleman has completed one full term. The Planning Board is reviewing resumes of candidates on file to fill the "At Large" vacancy. Members serve three year terms which will come to an end February 1, 1993 . RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action A ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item No. Meeting Date: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: MINUTES DEPARTMENT: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : UNDER SEPARATE COVER INFORMATION CONTACT: BEVERLY BLYTHE TELEPHONE NUMBER- Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-4501 Mebane - 227-2031 Durham - 688-7331 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted for consideration: January 6, 1990 - Annual Goal Setting Retreat January 8, 1990 - Regular Meeting BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. RECOMMENDATION(S) : As the Board decides. "de- 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 • PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED PROTECTION STRATEGIES Listed below are proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. If adopted, the amendments would implement the strategies for watershed protection identified in the Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study dated March, 1989, and the basic strategies identified in the proposed 13-point agreement prepared by the Joint Watershed Work Group and dated October, 1989. Two options are presented for consideration. Option #1 is based on the land use control strategy recommended by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM) , the consultants who prepared the University Lake Watershed, Study, and the Joint Watershed Work Group. The most basic provisions of Option #1 include a minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres and a maximum density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres for any development. Rather than requiring a four percent (4%) impervious surface limitation as recommended by CDM, a more workable six percent (6%) ratio is proposed. Option #2 is based on the structural best management practice approach recommended by CDM. The provisions of O tion #2 are similar to Option #1 except that a minimum lot size of tw() and a maximum density of one (1) unit per two (2) acres is allowed. A twelve percent (12%) impervious surface limitation is proposed in lieu of the six percent (6%) limit recommended by CDM. Both Option #1 and Option #2 are being presented at a special Joint Planning public hearing on February 28, 1990. Upon completion of the public hearing, and following receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may adopt Option #1, Option #2 or some combination of the two. A. Amend Article 4 . 2 .27 Protected Watershed II (PW-II ) District by rewriting subsection b) 1 . to read as follows : 1 . This district will be applied to the zoned portions of Cane Creek and the Upper Eno watersheds as designated on the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment does not apply the provisions of the PW-II district to any additional watershed areas. Rather, it deletes an existing reference to "University Lake" watershed, thus removing University Lake from the requirements of the PW-II district. ] B. Amend Article 4.2 . 28 Water Quality Critical Area ,(WQCA) District by rewriting subsection b) 1 . to read as follows : 1. This district will be applied to the zoned portions of Cane Creek and the Upper Eno watersheds as designated on the Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment does • 4 -ppiligir •rovisions of the WQCA district to any additional watershed area . Rather, i deletes an • existing reference to "University Lake" watershed, thus removing University Lake from the requirements of the WQCA district. ] C. Amend Article 4 .2 . 30 Major Transportation Corridor _(MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 4 .2 . 31 . [The proposed amendment provides space for a new Article 4.2. 30 establishing the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ] D. Amend Article 4 by adding a new Article 4 .2 . 30 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to read as follows : a. Intent The purpose of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to prevent significant future water quality deterioration in University Lake, a reservoir supplying drinking water to the people of southeastern Orange County. Based on a study entitled Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study and dated March, 1989 , the lake already exhibits some water quality deterioration. Unless additional protective actions are taken, University Lake is vulnerable to additional pollution from eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) , toxicants, and sedimentation. OPTION Al The intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of regulations involving land use management practices which protect the watershed by reducing the pollution generated by future development. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, land use management practices control the amount and location of such surfaces . OPTION 1_1 The intent of the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is to apply a set of regulations involving the use of structural devices which protect the watershed by preventing substantial portions of the. pollution generated by future development from reaching University Lake. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, structural devices such as stormwater detention ponds trap pollution near the point of origin. b. Application Criteria The University Lake Watershed (ULW) District is established as a district which overlays other zoning districts established in this ordinance. The new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with those • regulations applicable to the underlying zoning districts as well as the requirements of the ULW district. Where the regulations of the ULW district differ from those of the underlying districts or from other development standards contained in this ordinance, the more restrictive shall apply. 1 . This district will be applied to all land located within the University Lake Watershed as designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. [The proposed amendment creates a new overlay zoning district - the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District - and sets forth the reasons for establishing the district. An overlay district is proposed to provide consistency with the overlay approach used for other watersheds and with the Rural Buffer concepts embodied in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement. ] E. Amend Article 6 . 15 . 2 Interim Development Standards Approved by deleting subsection a, which sets forth temporary development standards for University Lake watershed. [The proposed amendment deletes any reference to the temporary development standards which are now applicable in the watershed and due to expire April 2, 1990. ] F. Amend Article 6 . 25 Extra Requirements for the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 6 .26 . [The proposed amendment provides space for a new Article establishing development standards applicable within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ] G. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6 . 25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed ,(ULW) District to read as follows : OPTION Al 6 . 25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, significant water quality deterioration may be prevented by land use controls which reduce the pollution from future development. For this reason, the new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with the following development standards : 6 .25 . 1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated The minimum required lot size for any use in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall be five (5 ) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 . 25 .2 or Article 6 . 25 . 3 . In addition, no residential development shall exceed a density of one ( 1 ) dwelling unit per five (5 ) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 .25 . 2 . 6.25 .2 Existing Lots of Record Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 can be subdivided to create up to five (5) lots of not less than two (2 ) acres in size; provided, however, the remaining land shall be developed with a minimum lot size of at least five (5) acres for each lot and at a density not to exceed one ( 1 ) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land area. Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 that are less than five (5 ) acres in size and which cannot be further subdivided can be developed by the owner at the current lot size. 6 .25 . 3 Cluster Alternative Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum lot size for each lot in the development is not less than one ( 1) acre, and the overall density of the development, including the land area saved by lot size reductions, does not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres . All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be reserved as permanent open space. If cluster open space is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to approved legal arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation. Such arrangements may include, but not be limited to, the conveyance of the open space to a homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall record a declaration of covenants and restrictions which prohibits further subdivision of the open space as well as its use for development purposes . If needed to control pollution loadings resulting from the runoff from impervious surfaces in a cluster development, on-site wet detention basins or ponds may be required. Where required, the design of such facilities shall be based on the criteria set forth in the Final Report = University Lake Water Study dated March, 1989 . Provision shall also be made for the public inspection and maintenance of such facilities . 6 .25 . 4 Impervious Surface Regulated An impervious surface is a surface composed of any material which impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces shall include both paved and unpaved surfaces, limitation of six percent ( 6%) shall apply to the entire tract to be developed. For an existing lot of record to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 .25 .2, the full range of impervious surface ratios specified in Table 6 .25 . 4 is applicable. Where a property owner can clearly demonstrate the inability to use his/her property because of the application of the impervious surface limitations specified in Table 6 . 25 . 4, a modification of the impervious surface ratios may be requested in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (Special Uses ) of this ordinance. 6 .25 .5 Stream Buffers Required The effective use of buffer zones along streams can increase the overall factor of safety associated with a watershed protection plan. By preventing development from encroaching on streams, buffer zones can help minimize stream channel erosion downstream of development. If properly situated and kept in undisturbed natural vegetation, buffer zones will receive sheetflow runoff; i. e. , runoff which flows slowly in a spread out pattern rather than being concentrated in a swale, from adjoining development and achieve reductions in pollution discharges . Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, an area of land or buffer zone along perennial and intermittent streams shall be required to remain in its natural state, unless the area is subject to serious erosion, .in which case an erosion resistant vegetative cover shall be established and maintained. Perennial streams are those streams shown in solid blue on the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County. Intermittent streams are those streams shown by broken blue lines on the same maps . 6 . 25 .5 . 1 Calculation of Buffer Zone Width Width; i. e. , distance from the stream bank to the edge of the buffer, is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a buffer zone. An equally important determinant in pollutant removal in a buffer zone is travel time; i. e. , the greater the time allowed for runoff to travel through a buffer, the greater the opportunities for pollutant removal through sedimentation, filtration, absorption, and seepage into the soil profile. Monitoring studies of highway runoff have shown that pollutant removal in grass swales is at a maximum after a 15-minute travel time. Based on this standard, Table Stream buffer zones can be used as part of the required lot area or lot size established as part of these development standards . 6 .25 .5 . 3 Existing Vegetation in Buffer Zones Existing forested areas and other vegetation in a healthy condition cannot be removed from or disturbed in a stream buffer zone. Diseased and/or dead vegetation may be removed but should be replaced with vegetation resulting a comparable stormwater runoff velocity and quantity. 6 . 25 .5 . 4 Permitted Uses Within Buffer Zones Not withstanding any other provisions of this Article, no impervious surface shall be located in or closer than twenty (20) feet to the nearest edge of a designated buffer zone, except that the Zoning Officer may authorize the crossing of a designated buffer zone and the presence of impervious surface therein by or for: a. A public or private street where the crossing is perpendicular to the stream and is justified in that: 1 . Without such a crossing, over fifty percent (50%) of the land area would be without access and therefore undevelopable; or 2 . A crossing is necessary to comply with policies related to public safety, such as in provisions for dual access for police and fire protection; or 3 . It allows a design that would clearly result in less damage to the watershed than would result if the property were developed without such a crossing. b. Above ground and buried utility lines for the distribution of electricity, telephone, and cable .television service where: 1 . It is practicably unavoidable if the subject property and upstream property is to be served or potentially served by a public service, and an alternate design would result in greater damage to the watershed; and 2 . The system, as a whole, emphasizes placement outside designated buffer zones; and 3 . To the extent practical, the direction of the TABLE 6.25.4 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. line crossing is perpendicular to the stream. 6.25 . 6 Placement of Streets , Driveways, and Buildings Streets, driveways, and buildings or other impervious structures shall be located, to the extent reasonably possible, so as to take full advantage of the absorptive capacity of the soils on which they are to be situated and to avoid the following environmentally sensitive areas : a. Stream buffer zones as required by Article 6 .25. 5 above; b. Floodplains as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor or by alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey and which are not part of a required stream buffer zone; c. Wetland areas as defined by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; d. Land with slopes greater than fifteen percent ( 15%) ; and e. Natural areas as identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, N.C. To avoid the creation of lots that will be difficult to build upon in a manner that complies with the standards set forth in this Article, the preliminary and final plats for the subdivision of land shall show proposed building envelopes and approximate driveway locations for all lots within such subdivisions . Thereafter, no zoning compliance permit may be issued for the construction of buildings or driveways outside the areas so designated on the final plat unless the Zoning Officer makes a written finding that the proposed location complies with the provisions of this Article.. 6 .25 . 7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Required Every principal use and every lot within a subdivision shall be served by a water supply and sewage disposal system that is adequate to accommodate the needs of such use or subdivision lot and that complies with all applicable regulations of the Orange County Health Department. Not withstanding the above provisions, no water supply or sewage treatment system other than an individual well or on-site septic system or an individual on-site alternative disposal system approved by the Orange County Health Department shall be allowed in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. No new septic tanks and their nitrification fields shall be located within a designated stream buffer zone or within one hundred (100 ) feet of a perennial or intermittent stream as shown on the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County, whichever is the greater distance. In addition, no public water distribution or sewage collection system shall be allowed in the ULW District except to address a public health hazard as determined by the Orange County Health Department. OPTION #2 6 . 25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District Within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District, significant water quality deterioration may be avoided by preventing substantial portions of the pollution generated by future development from reaching University Lake. Since a major source of toxicants and nutrients are impervious surfaces such as roads, roof tops, and driveways, structural devices such as stormwater detention ponds can trap pollution near the point of origin. For this reason, the new use of any land or any new structure within the ULW district shall comply with the following development standards : 6 .25 . 1 Minimum Lot Size Regulated The minimum required lot size for any use in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District shall be two (2 ) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 .25.2 or Article 6 .25 . 3 . In addition, no residential development shall exceed a density of one ( 1) dwelling unit per two (2 ) acres except as may be permitted in Article 6 . 25 . 2 . 6. 25 .2 Existing Lots of Record Existing lots of record as of October 2, 1989 that are less than two (2 ) acres in size can be developed by the owner at the current lot size. 6 .25. 3 Cluster Alternative Cluster developments are permitted, provided the minimum lot size for each lot in the development is not less than one ( 1) acre, and the overall density of the development, including the land area saved by lot size including, but not limited to, streets and parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and structures which cover the land. In order to promote the infiltration of stormwater runoff into the soil and to minimize direct and immediate runoff into streams and University Lake reservoir, impervious surface ratios shall be required as provided in the Table of Impervious Surface Ratios for University Lake Watershed - Section 6 .25 .4 . Impervious surface calculations for an individual lot shall be cumulative, including the original construction and any subsequent additions thereto. The calculation of impervious surface coverage for an individual lot shall also include one-half of the street surface on which the lot fronts or abuts; provided, however, the impervious surface calculation will not include the surface of any existing street unless the upgrading of the street to a greater width is required as part of a development application. In such cases, only the additional width shall be included in calculating the impervious surface coverage. It is the intent of this section that the impervious surface limitations specified herein shall apply to the entire tract to be developed. Therefore, if the subdivision involves the creation of any street or other impervious surface outside the boundaries of the lots so created, then the total impervious surface allocation may be determined as follows : a. The .total area of permissible impervious surface for the entire subdivision shall be calculated, applying the percentage limitations set forth in Table 6 . 25 . 4 . b. From the total area calculated pursuant to a. above, there shall be subtracted the impervious surface area within streets and other areas outside of the individual lot boundaries . c. Following the calculation set forth in b. above, the remaining permissible impervious surface shall be allocated equally to each lot by the subdivider or as may be approved by the Zoning Officer. The allocation shall be indicated on the face of the final subdivision plat, and any purchaser of such lot shall be bound by such allocation. For conventional subdivisions to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 .25 . 1 and cluster subdivisions to be developed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 . 25 . 3, an impervious surface 6.25. 5 was derived to provide a sliding scale for buffer zone widths based on slope and vegetative cover. TABLE 6 .25 .5 REQUIRED BUFFER ZONE WIDTHS ALONG PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS IN UNIVERSITY LAKE WATERSHED Type of Groundcover Grass Woods Slope (Ft) (Ft) 2% to 4 . 9% 100 50 5% to 6 . 9% 150 100 7% to 9 . 9% 150 100 10% to 14 . 9% 200 100 15% or greater 250 150 The required stream buffer zone shall start at the stream bank and be measured away from the stream for a distance depending upon the slope and the vegetative cover near the stream. The slope shall be calculated by measuring a distance of 250 feet from the stream bank, determining the rise in elevation in that distance, and dividing the rise in elevation by the distance of 250 feet. Based on the resulting slope calculation and the type of vegetative cover near the stream, the applicable buffer zone width may be determined from Table 6 .25 .5 . Slope shall be determined from the USGS quadrangle maps for Orange County, by on-site measurements or by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor. The required stream buffer zone shall not be limited to one calculation but shall be based on calculations made at points where topographical and ground cover conditions change based on an analysis of the site. In addition to the buffer zone resulting from the above calculations, a stream buffer shall include any portion of a floodplain as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, by special survey by a registered engineer or surveyor or by alluvial soils as designated in the Orange County Soils Survey. 6.25 .5 . 2 Buffer Zones Included As Part Of Minimum Lot Size } reductions, does not exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per two (2 ) acres. All land area saved by lot size reductions shall be reserved as permanent open space. If cluster open space is not dedicated for public use, it shall be subject to approved legal arrangements sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation. Such arrangements may include, but not be limited to, the conveyance of the open space to a homeowners association, provided the subdivider shall record a declaration of covenants and restrictions which prohibits further subdivision of the open space as well as its use for development purposes . 6 .25 . 4 Stormwater Detention Devices Required On-site wet detention basins or ponds shall be required to control pollution loadings resulting from the runoff from impervious surfaces . The design of such facilities shall be based on the criteria set forth in the Final Report -University Lake Water Study dated March, 1989 . Provision shall also be made for the public inspection and maintenance of such facilities . 6 .25 .4 Impervious Surface Regulated (Same as for Option #1 except that Table 6.25.4 is revised to reflect the lower minimum lot size requirements and higher impervious surface limits of twelve percent. ) 6 .25.5 Stream Buffers Required (Same as for Option #1 . ) 6 .25. 6 Placement of Streets Driveways , and Buildings (Same as for Option #1 . ) 6 .25 . 7 Water Supply/Sewage Disposal Facilities Required (Same as for Option #l. ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY/CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Sections 240, 323 and 343; Article 20, Sections 20 . 5 and 20 . 6, and Articles 2 .2 . 12 and 2 .2 . 13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance; Section VIII of the Subdivision Regulations; and Article 2 of a Joint Planning Agreement between Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro; notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at the -- - •• - • - - •ol on Sheldon Street in Carrboro, N.C. :.n February = , • • I a _ 7 : 30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all in ere -• izens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items : JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN AND TEXT The proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Text are as follows : 1. Amend Section II .B. Water Resources by deleting an existing reference to the Water Quality Critical Area of University Lake Watershed and the minimum lot size of two (2 ) acres required therein. 2 . Amend Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principals and Section VI . Future Land Use - Joint Planning Area to include the description of a new land use category designated University Lake Watershed District rather than the current designation of Water Quality Critical Area. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT The proposed amendment to the Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement is as follows : r. 1 1 . Amend Section 1 .2 Definitions by revising the definition of "Rural Buffer" to include reference to a new overlay district designated University Lake Watershed District rather than the current designation of Water Quality Critical Area. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is as follows : 1 . Amend Section 2 . 3 Water Resources to include a summary of the findings and recommendations contained in the Final Report - University Lake Watershed Study as prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee and dated October, 1989 . ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas is as follows : 1 . Z-1-90 University Lake Watershed (ULW) District Currently, all property within the boundaries of University Lake Watershed are designated as and subject to the requirements of one of two overlay zoning districts-the Protected Watershed II (PW-II) District or the Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District. The proposed amendment would remove these designations from the property and replace it with a new overlay zoning district designation - the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows : 1 . Amend Article 4 . 2 . 27 Protected Watershed II (PW-II ) District and Article 4 . 2 .28 Water Quality Critical Area (WQCA) District by deleting existing references to University Lake watershed, thus eliminating that watershed from the requirements of the PW-II and WQCA overlay zoning districts . 2 . Amend Article 4 .2 . 30 Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 4 . 2 . 31, thus providing space for a new Article 4 .2 . 30 which establishes the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. 3 . Amend Article 4 by adding a new article 4 . 2 . 30 which establishes a new overlay zoning district entitled the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District for the purpose of preventing significant water quality deterioration in University Lake. This goal may be achieved through either of two separate options or by some combination of the two. The two options include the application of a set of land use controls to reduce pollution and the installation of stormwater detention ponds to trap pollution. 4 . Amend Article 6 . 15 . 2 Interim Development Standards Approved by deleting the temporary development standards now applicable within University Lake watershed. 5 . Amend Article 6 .25 Extra Requirements for the Major. Transportation Corridor ,(MTC) District by renumbering the Article to 6 .26, thus providing space for a new Article 6 .25 which sets forth the development standards applicable within the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. 6 . Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6 . 25 Development Standards for the University Lake Watershed (ULW). District. Two separate options are proposed, including a set of land use controls which establish a minimum required lot size of five (5) acres and a density of no more than one ( 1 ) unit per five (5) acres . Compliance with impervious surface standards for roads, driveways, and structures is required as well as the provision of stream buffer zones . The second option requires the installation of on-site stormwater detention ponds but permits minimum lot sizes of two (2 ) acres . Either of the options or some combination of the two may be selected for implementation in the watershed. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations are as follows : 1 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments, subsection c, to permit cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District to reduce minimum required lot areas from five (5 ) acres to not less than one ( 1) acre. 2 . Amend Section IV-B-10 Cluster Developments, subsection b, to require that cluster developments in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District comply with the development standards set forth in Article 6 . 25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 3 . Amend Section IV-C Interim Development Standards by deleting subsection Iv-C-2 .a. which sets forth temporary development standards for University Lake watershed. 4 . Amend Section V-C Preliminary Plat, subsection 6, by requiring that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites be shown on a preliminary subdivision plat as required by Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 5 . Amend Section V-D Final Plat, subsection 5-d, by requiring that impervious surface data, stream buffers, and stormwater detention and/or retention sites be shown on a final subdivision plat as required by Article 6 .25 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, evidence and comments presented will be examined by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department in the Planning & Agricultural Building at 306-F Revere Road in Hillsborough. Office hours are from 8 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday-Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough) , 688-7331 (Durham) or 967-9251 (Chapel Hill) . Please ask for Extension 350 or 359 . You will be directed to a staff person who will answer your question. Marvin Collins Planning Director Publish: February 14, 1990 February 21, 1990 1 • I a Cr) / 4 o r r-I ssy g CD imT 0 0 3 P o awl r ,„ i 1 Al • 4 1 0 . 0 -4,- 0,1 • u rlos114.4 ca C 0 ea IIIII 914 Emil/ <4 m A . ► • • •� 0 ACb iZi flm° W ° ......... al CI 0 /A 4 1 i i i i 02 O 47 m dl 01 0 40 41, 49 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 oo oo oo L) cri id d vi vie CO CV 0 CV W E`~ CV co Li 0 E-4 rn a) t °� fi -� o o 14 o .•-1 a) rn H U CZ U rn C.) •� 0 > .o tti U U] U ,.,.a 0 OD Il W a) 0 0 u 0 0 0 � ›mi 0 mil 1 o as E- o rd Z 0 $-1 0 0 ` ' a,a, o , C..) o - 0 U 0 U) 0 Z 03 w E-1 o 0 0 0 0 Z o o o 0 o W 0 0 0 in 0 w w 6 w w o o co a) 0 P. CO CV 00 w w H� a %-.4 03 W ° 0 0? w 4 $... .{.a 0 a) 5 a) � -0 G• 0 �3 0 0 g .� 1--4 a) P. Z 49 0 as ; — .2 o V) A '0 ;..1 - I-4 710 CD a) H CI; ° rn Z.4.) 0 0 cp 5 0 as .o 0 u 0 , 0 co s... 0. 1-4 Tri rd ;9 0 a) 1=1 0 ° ci.) • :5 .r4 0 0 44-1 0 Q, W 0 5 z EN4 o 0 0 0 0 Z o o 0 0 0 W 0 uC 0 0 0 w w w w w CV 0 0 N w — �w Cr 44c W c,03 b U� 0 •--4 v3 ri i `-' .2 as ai "1-4 r > 0 4 0 0 a3 > r A ° a °' 1-4 rn o - 0 0 ....) 0 5 po iv 0 z 0 .- 'd 04 L w — 1.4 0 W b 0 I-4 i:4 c-) ''' r-05 5 -P 5 o Po a) 0 0 4 Q, 0 t24 rx rn o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 00 0 w w N co cv w Ni CV co co O E� O OW W O w d4 4t4 m .I-) . Up 0) a) 0 m-4.6 5 a) C..) OR E2 0 0 t "4.) C4)0 ai4 E-4 0 v al 0 Lit° ;ti 0 0 0 v ' 4 0 5 °w w 0 0 o 0 o c0 Y Y cQ co 0 C/D 0 CO 0 LO a) 0 as .O ~ ›. V a as 5 0 0.4 ai $ .� o — as ° 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rip v o 0 ° co 124 a o 0 ° o p1 4 co Z 1=14 ill 0 "r73 E-0 rn 5 '5 4=0 o rx al al CD 0 U ri W 0 5 cci 44-1 al oS w w a1 o o o o o 0 U ) w w 41 0 0 W 0 � _ o w C:4 ,1 0 0 0 En 0 W o g o a) 0 A 4-7 o al 11 -it .c a) 7T's o A 3 +.) o 23 o gE-1 .,-.1 W •0 o E- 04 a .4t4 C.) f4 rid 0 MI a f //1/ p?----5-1-‘70 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, 19• = . Moses Carey, Chairman 7 Orange County Board of C- ssioners �'Y t l.:' •gib` :R': ,rfy.. _ Y 4Y RU -r e 11LL1 C7Ji�tl�l itQn LYJ. - :timING DATE April 5, 1983 • Subject: South'Orange Fire District . • 1 fi tment: County Manager I I Public Hearing: yes x no I • Atttachrnent(g) : Infornetiol Contact: Yes County Manager's Office phone Number: 732-8181 ext 501 PURPOSE: For the Board to consider approving a contract between Orange County and the Town of Carrboro for fire protection to the South Orange Fire District. • - NEED: The County contracts with the Town of Carrboro to provide fire protection to the South Orange Fire District. Upon expiration June 30, 1982, of the previous contract, a new agreement was negotiated to establish the cost participation that would be shared between residents within the incorporated and unincorporated areas served. It is believed that the terms are the most equitable that can be worked out in arriving.at an annual budget. linen the agreed upon call rate percentage was applied to this year's budget no tax rate change was necessary in funding the budget. With growth in the base for that district the same rate is expected for 1983-84. TRACT: The term of the new contract is open ended!ts effective date is July 1 , 1982 and shall run until" either party cancels, upon written notice, not less than 90 days prior to the end of the last fiscal year • RECOMMENDATION(S): Approval. 031 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT ORANGE COUNTY This agreement is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 1982, by and between Orange County (hereinafter, "the County") and the Town of Carrboro (hereinafter, "the Town") . WHEREAS, the County has established the South Orange Fire District and wishes to have fire protection services pro-- vided to the residents and property owners within this district by the Carrboro Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the Town has provided fire protection to the South Orange Fire District in past years and wishes to continue to provide such services at a fair rate of compensa- .tion in the future; and WHEREAS, the County and the Town are authorized to enter this agreement by Article 3A of Chapter 69 of the North Carolina General Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town and the County hereby agree as follows: 1. The, Town shall, to the best of its ability, furnish such fire fighting equipment and personnel as the Town deems necessary for the purpose of providing fire protection to pro- perty and persons located within the South Orange Fire District, as the boundaries of such district are now constituted or may hereafter be amended. In accordance with G. S. 69-25.8, in providing such fire protection services, the Town shall be sub- ject to the same immunities it enjoys in the operation of a fire department within its corporate limits. 032 2. The Town's obligation to respond to calls in accordance with this agreement shall be secondary and subordinate to the Town's duty to furnish protec- tion to the residents and property owners of the Town. _ - 3. In consideration of the services described in Section 1, the County shall pay the Town annually the amount determined as follows: a. Determine the South Orange Fire District's share of common fire protection expenses (the 'fire district percentagd'). This shall be equal to the average of the following two percentages: 1. The percentage derived by dividing the assessed valuation of the real and personal property within the fire district by the total assessed valuation of all real and personal property within the Town of Carrboro and the fire district. The assessed valuation figures used in this calculation shall be those used by the County and the Town in budgeting for the upcoming fiscal year 2. The percentage derived by dividing the number of fire calls within the fire district for the prior three years by the number of calls within the To and the fire district for the prior three years. b. Add together the fire district percentage of 1. The total budget for the fire department as shown in the an- nual town budget, except that for purposes of this calcula- tion only one half of the personnel cost of the Inspector's position shall be included in the budget; plus 2. The budgeted figure for debt service on the Town's fire station; plus 3. A S50,000 general fund contribution amortized over forty years. -2- 033 c. To the sum derived in b., add the cost of amortizing over fifteen years the capital cost(''38,462)of the pumper and tanker acquired by the Town in order to provide service to the fire district. 4. The Town shall submit to the County by May 15th of each year the figure derived according to.the procedures set forth in paragraph three so that the County can use this figure in setting the fire district tax rate. If the Town's budget is not finally approved by the Board of Aldermen in sufficient time to meet this dealine, the Town may use the town manager's recommended budget as a basis for making the calculation required under paragraph three. 5. The sum provided for herein shall be paid by the County to the Town in four quarterly installments, one each being due on July 1, October 1, January 1 and March 1. 6. This contract shall be effective July 1, 1982 and may be cancelled by either party upon written notice to the other not less than 90 days prior to the end of the last fiscal year for which fire services are to be provided herein. This contract is entered into the day and year first above written. TOWN OF CARRBORO BY: ATTEST: Richard F. Hunter, Town Manager Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BY: Richard E. Whitted, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioner ATTEST: Paulette Pridgen-Pond, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners -3- FILE COPY 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. K. 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: r`c t,L.L 1 � ' '� _ 34 `��c; Execytive Director, PPOC Date - , _w___ j-:‘--()It_a_t ( - -' - , I( ( Presid ntr% PPOC Date n,i, k_t 8. 4 'titi� ,t44., Q/.2,9 qo Director, OCHD Date > ,....,,,,ee -.- ---_„.,c___.--- 2.- Z /-?e, Finance Director, OCHD Date (This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. ) 0 /A(/-4-- al/tV71,_ /2 / -1d Chair of the Board of Co ssioners Date OCHD 17 • RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date February 5,_ 1990 Name of Subdivision _ __ Durham Estates. Subdivision Owner/Applicant W.T. Durham The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the Preliminary Plat of Durham Estates Subdivision containing 10 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. A. Roads 1. British Lane shall be constructed to Class B private road standards. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure for future improvement/construction of British Lane to the standards specified above. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution. 2. The private road shall be contained within the right-of-way indicated on the final plat. 3. A Private Road Maintenance Agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the final plat. B. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping. 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the preliminary plan dated October 30, 1989, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2 . Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. A Type D Land Use Buffer shall be provided along the Duke 18 Power transmission line along the north side of the subdivision. The buffer shall be 50 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e. The existence of the buffer shall be noted on the plat. 4 . A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Dairyland Road (SR 1112 ) . The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e. The existence of the buffer shall be noted on the plat. C. Drainage 1 . The 100-year floodplain of Morgan Creek shall be labeled on the Final Plat. 2 . Impervious surface data, as required by Article 6. 23.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3 . A stream buffer shall be provided along Morgan Creek. The width of the buffer shall be stated on the face of the plat. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. D. Parkland . 1. The applicant shall dedicate 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 parkland area 30 feet wide along Morgan Creek extending from the 2 . 6 acres described above to Dairyland Road (SR 1112) . E. Miscellaneous 1 . The Final Plat shall contain. a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section v-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2 . The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: a. Morgan Creek b. :Intermittent Stream c. Utility Lines 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: - Proposed 50' private right-of-way on British Lane 19 - 50' drainage easement along the branch on the east side of lots 3, 4 and 5 111, - Existing powerline easements 4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way. Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5 . Receive final approval of easement agreements, restrictive covenants, and private road maintenance agreement documents from the County Attorney. F. Certifications 1 . A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance signed by the property owner(s) shall be notarized on the face of the plat. 3. The Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. Aoe i nature of A•= 't erk/ .o the =oar • X, ,/ accept the above listed conditions of subdivision a=•'"; and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.