Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-28-1991- _..ORANGE COUNTY ROARB OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 1991 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 966 -4501. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN B. 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 any fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a geniune commitment to this public charge is observed. PAGE C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 005 1. Assignment of House & Building Numbers a. Rural Route 2 - Timberlake Subdivision b. Rural Route 8 - Stoneridge /Sedgefield Subdivisions 015 2. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments 021 a. Z -1 =-91 James R. Sparrow 043 b. Z -2 -91 W.E. Blackwood 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 073 a. Large Day Care Homes (1) Article 22 - Definitions (2)� Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (3) Article 6.27 - Application of Dimensional Requirements (4) Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures S. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments v 089 a. Section III -D -2 -f Administrative Approval /Expired Subdivision Plats D. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION NO SOONER THAN ITS MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1991. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER THE ITEMS FOR DECISION NO SOONER THAN AUGUST 5, 1991. R - APPROVED JUNE 25, 1991 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 1991 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on May 28, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman, Verla Insko, Alice Gordon, Don Willhoit (arrive at 7:40). COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Cameron, Mary Scearbo, Eddie Kirk, Miriam Coleman, and Beth McFarland, Clerk to the Board Beverly Bl the and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. X PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Eidenier, Chair, Joan Jobsis, Clint Burklin, Larry Reid, Virginia Boland (left at 8:00), Daniel Eddleman, William Waddell, Jean Hamilton, and Amanda Carol Cantrell (arrived at 8:10) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Deloris Ramsey A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Carey opened the meeting and explained the procedure which would be followed. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge. C. ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. Assignment of House A. Rural Route 2 B. Rural Route 8 Subdivisions and Building Numbers - Timberlake Subdivision - Stoneridge and Sedgefield This item was presented by Marvin Collins. In suuuuaLy this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to a portion of Timberlake Rural Route 2 extending from Person County, and the Stoneridge /Sedgefield Community bordering Whitfield Rd. Permanent street addresses are now being proposed for a small portion of Timberlake Rural Route 2, extending from Person County into northern Orange County. Approximately 35 residents along portions of five roads are affected: Bacon Road, Sawyer Road, Gray Road, Berry Road and NC 157 West. Additionally, the Stoneridge/ 2 Sedgefield Community, bordering both sides of Whitfield Road is being proposed for address changes which will make those addresses consistent with the numbering system approved for the entire county. Approximately 240 residents along 23 subdivision roads will be affected. These residents are located within the old Rural Route 8 postal jurisdiction served by the Chapel Hill post office. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND /OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. W. Pierce, a Sedgefield resident, spoke in opposition to the renumbering proposal. He indicated that Sedgefield already has street names and house numbers. He feels there is no benefit to the Sedgefield residents and it would cost him in excess of $1000.00 to make the necessary changes in letterhead, license, checks, etc. Mr. Donald Fox, a Sedgefield resident, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. Rick Pratt, a Stoneridge resident, indicated that he also opposed this plan to renumber. He indicated that he is the GIS coordinator at the RTP, and in his expert opinion, it is not necessary to make these changes in order to protect the integrity of the system. Ms. Maryann Bassett, a resident of Stoneridge, spoke in opposition to this proposal. Mr. Tom Hurtgen, a resident of Stoneridge, spoke in opposition to this renumbering proposal. Commissioner Carey indicated that the Board of Commissioners has reconsidered this proposal on several occasions. Each time the Board has decided to proceed with this project. In response to a question from Commissioner Insko, Collins indicated that none of the homes in question have rural route numbers. He also indicated that the proposed house numbers can be no larger than 4 digits. He mentioned that the County is trying to be consistent in this renumbering project. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to approve the proposed house and building numbers for Rural Route 2, Timberlake Subdivision, followed by notification to the Timberlake Postmaster, and the N. C. Department of Transportation, as required by G.S. 153A -240. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer Sedgefield Subdivisions to staff returned no sooner than June 25, VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3 Rural Route 81 Stoneridge and for further fact finding, to be 1991 2. NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN This presentation was made by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. On September 1, 1987, Mayor Gulley of Durham met with the Mayor of Chapel Hill and the Chairs of the Orange County and Durham County Boards of Commissioners to discuss a cooperative project involving open space preservation along New Hope Creek. The scope of the project was defined to include land along New Hope Creek between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. During the following fifteen months, staff members from each jurisdiction's planning department met to work out alternatives for project implementation. In December of 1988, the elected officials again met to review the open space plan proposal and agreed to send a resolution to the governing body of each jurisdiction, seeking endorsement of the project. The Resolution was adopted by the four jurisdictions during the spring of 1989. Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects and Land Planners, was hired as the consultant later that Year. Since October 1989, an appointed Advisory Committee representing each of the four jurisdictions met with the consultant and planning staff members to produce the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. The Plan includes recommendations for acquiring critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation, purchase in fee simple, or purchase of development rights. Some of the wildlife corridors should remain in private ownership. The Orange County portions of the Corridor include: a. Wildlife Corridors, including the 100 -year floodplain. b. Wildlife Protection Area, including the 100 -year floodplain between Erwin Road and the Durham County line. C. Unpaved nature trails d. Bike /pedestrian trails. Mr. Coulter, Coulter Associates, presented the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan using a slide presentation. He indicated that the plan has been divided into 10 geographic components. A copy of this master plan is incorporated herein by reference and may be found in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. COMMENTS AND /OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD 4 Planning Board Chair Betty Eidenier indicated that Jean Hamilton attended all meetings of this committee. She has represented the Planning Board very well and has kept them informed at each step of the way. She also mentioned that the Transportation Committee of the Planning Board is interested in alternatives to automobile transportation, in particular, bicycle lanes. The Planning Board is very much in favor of the recommendation for the bicycle trail that would go from 751 to NC 10 along Mount Herman Church Road at Pleasant Green Rd. to the Eno River State Park. She mentioned that DOT has indicated that adding the extra two (2) feet for the bicycle lanes is quite expensive and that they need some direction from the Commissioners in order to spend the extra money. Commissioner Carey indicated that a preliminary phase in this process includes exploring non - economic and non - regulatory means for acquiring land in this corridor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Don Fox commended the planning that has gone into this proposed wildlife corridor. He pointed out that Site #5 for the landfill is at the headwaters of the entire corridor system. He stated that the Landfill Site Search Committee needs to remember that as they proceed with their search. Mr. Pearson Stewart, Chairman, New Hope Creek Corridor Advisory Committee, pointed out that the original charge by the four governing Boards included investigating a corridor between the Eno River State Park and Jordon Reservoir. The area from Jordon Lake to Duke Forest was an easy problem to solve. However, north of Duke Forest, crossing I -85 to the Eno River State Park is very difficult to accomplish. They were not able to come up with a corridor north of Duke Forrest because it was not possible to find a way to get across I -85. They were able to suggest a system of wildlife corridors, to remain in private ownership, for wildlife purposes, north of Duke Forest. Orange County is being asked to solve the problem of the different aims of private ownership and wildlife access in the same area. The Board of Commissioners is being asked to make a recommendation as to how that can be done. A recommendation has not been made to establish a new organization for the four - County area. He indicated that he believes that each unit of government can solve these problems with the structure they already have in place. Commissioner Willhoit stated that finding a way to extend this corridor north of Duke Forest is a goal that he would like to see accomplished. An additional purpose is served by the corridor in assuring that the urban areas of Hillsborough and Durham will not be able to grow together. If that area is set aside as a buffer between the urban centers, then something could be done when development requests come in for that area. 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to ask the Planning Board and staff to consider designating an urban buffer that would connect the Eno State Park with the Corridor Plan. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS A. Z -1 -91 James R. Sparrow This item was presented by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. The subject property is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 approximately 900 feet east of the Morrow Mill Road intersection. It is 2.94 acres in size and known as lot 27A on tax map 26 of Bingham Township. The current zoning is Neighborhood Commercial and Agricultural Residential. The applicant is requesting a designation of Local Commercial. The purpose of an LC -1 district is to allow limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the rural and neighborhood level with convenience goods and personal services. The surrounding land on the north and west is zoned AR, but undeveloped; to the south and east are commercial uses. The area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as the BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. Currently, there is no other LC -1 zoning within the activity node. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND /OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENT Mr. Greg Shepard, Shepard Design Associates, indicated that he was representing Mr. Sparrow on this petition. He mentioned that in 1989 1.92 acres of this 2.92 acre tract was zoned NC -2. At that point a total of 5 acres in this activity node were zoned NC2. He stated that DOT has done a feasibility study for widening NC54. Their feasibility study indicates that they would have to purchase all of the buildable area on this tract. He stated that they feel they have met the four criteria in the zoning ordinance which need to be satisfied in order to propose such a rezoning. Commissioner Gordon stated that the Durham /Chapel Hill TAC deleted the proposed widening of NC54. Because of that it is very unlikely that NC54 will be widened. B. Z -2091 W.E. Blackwood This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of C7 receiving public comments concerning a rezoning request submitted by Thomas J. Whisnant for W. E. Blackwood. The property in question is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 between White Cross Road (SR 1952) and Dodsons Crossroads South (SR 1102). The property contains 3.00 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 9 of Tax Map 30 and part of Lot 13 of Tax Map 30B in Bingham Township. The property fronts on NC Highway 54 for a distance of 532 feet and has a depth of 414 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Rural Residential and LC- 1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning designation on 2.35 acres of the property is LC -1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning on the remaining 0.65 acres is NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial- - 2. The property is located within the BH -2 Rural Community Activity Node as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the LC -1 and NC -2 zones may be applied to no more than 5.0 acres each within an activity node of rural population density. At present there is 4.35 acres zoned NC- 2 and 4.65 acres zoned LC -1 at this node. This proposed rezoning would therefore complete the allotment of LC -1 and NC -2 zoned property at this node THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND /OR PLANNING BOARD THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Thomas Whisnent indicated that this property, as it is currently zoned, has no area for Mr. Blackwood's proposed future use of this property. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer both of these items to the Planning Board, to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Large Day Care Homes This item was presented by Eddie Kirk for the purpose of receiving public comments concerning proposed revisions to existing zoning Ordinance provisions applicable to day care centers. Day care facilities are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. A day -care arrangement which provides care for more than 5 children on a regular basis as defined by the NC Child Day Care Commission is considered a Day Care and must receive approval of a Class B Special Use Permit from the Board of Adjustment. Recently, Child Care Networks contacted the Planning Department about a new category of child care arrangement approved and licensed by the N.C. Child Day Care Commission. The new category is a "large day care home" and is termed a "home" because 7 it is located in a family residence. A large day care home may have up to 15 children, depending on their ages. Child Care Networks requested that large day care homes be permitted as a use by right. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND /OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon indicated that she had several questions for the County Attorney and that she would like to hold the Public Hearing open until the next Board meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Eddleman, Mr. Kirk indicated that in a worst case situation, the Planning Staff estimates that an additional 20 trips per day would be generated. The small day care center is a permitted use which is not regulated by County zoning. Therefore, they do not have statistics on traffic generated by a small day care home. Amy Rabb, Child Care Networks, spoke in support of this request. She indicated that this request would decrease the amount of red tape which is currently required to increase the number of children in a child care home. However, the regulations are still in place to assure that the children are not going to receive a lower quality of care or be placed in an unsafe environment. She indicated that there is a great need for homes of this size in Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to hold the Public Hearing open until the June 3, 1991 Board of Commissioners meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS A. Administrative Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats This item was presented by Mary Scearbo. In summary, this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow staff re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats. Under current procedures, the Board of Commissioners may approve a revised phasing plan for an expired Preliminary Plat. If a revision is not approved, the expired portion of the Preliminary Plan must be re- submitted as if it were a new project. In many cases, the re- submitted Preliminary Plan is identical to the original plat. If there have been no major changes in subdivision, zoning, or other regulations which affect the proposal, then the Preliminary Plat is generally re- approved with little or no change. Major design considerations and other issues were addressed and resolved prior to the original approval. In many cases, the approval process for the "new" subdivision is oriented largely toward process, rather than substance. This amendment is proposed to allow staff to re- 8 approve expired Preliminary Plats which meet certain criteria. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD THE MEETING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Mel Rashkis spoke in favor of this amendment. He stated that he feels that this would save the Board of Commissioners, and the developers, time and money. Commissioner Willhoit asked if there could be changes in the surrounding area that would make the outcome of the development different than what was initially approved. Scearbo indicated that in each case the staff would review the terms of the original approval. If anything major had changed, it would automatically be brought back to the Board of Commissioners. The regulations in effect at the time of the reapplication would be adhered to. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board no sooner than August 5th. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on June 3, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk L ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 1991 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request- if you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 966 -4501. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN B. 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 any fellow citizens. At any time should any member. of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a geniune commitment to this public charge is observed. C. PUB IC HEARING ITEMS PAGE 005 1. Assignment of House & Building Numbers a. Rural Route 2 - Timberlake Subdivision b. Rural Route 8 - Stoneridge /Sedgefield Subdivisions 015 2. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments ozl a• Z1~ 91 James R. Sparrow 043 b. Z -2 -91 W.E. Blackwood 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 073 a• Larg, (1) (2) (3) (4) 9 Day Care Homes VArticle 22 - Definitions Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table Article 6.27 - Application of Dimensional Requirements Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures 089 S. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Section III -D -2 -f Administrative Approval /Expired Subdivision Plats D. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION NO SOONER THAN ITS MEETING OF JUNE 17, 1991. THE HOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER THE ITEMS FOR DECISION NO SOONER THAN AUGUST 5, 1991. a ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD - HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 (01 001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE NUMBERS TO RURAL POSTAL ROUTES, ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND ON A PROPOSED OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEW.HOPE CREEK CORRIDOR _ Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Article 18, Sections 323 and 343, and Article 12, Section 240; Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, and Articles 2,2,12 and 2.2.13 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 Tuesday, May 28, 1991, 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 & BUILDING NUMBERS The postal service routes proposed for a change from existing rural box numbers to a system of permanently assigned house and building numbers are as follows: 1. Rural Route 2 - Timberlake Subdivision This partial route affects approximately 35 residents adjacent to the Person County line and involves the following roads:. Bacon, Berry, Gray, Sawyer, and N.C. 157 West. 2. Rural Route 8 - Stoneridge and Sedgefield Subdivisions This partial route affects approximately 240 residents on 23 separate roads in the two subdivisions. The area is located east of Turkey Farm Road and along the north and south side of Whitfield Road. NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN In 1989, the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, Durham, and Durham County recognized the value of an open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, lands along New Hope 0 4w ,1 Creek, and U.S. Corps of Engineers, land at Lake Jordan. The four jurisdictions contracted with Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects & Land Planners, to prepare a master plan for the corridor. Prepared with the assistance of a multi- jurisdictional Advisory Committee, the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan was presented to elected officials of the four jurisdictions on April 30, 1991. The Plan includes recommendations far acquiring critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation, purchase in fee simple or purchase of development rights. The Plan also recommends a scenic road designation along N.C. Highway 751. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas Are as follows: 1. Z -1 -91 James R. Sparrow The property in question is located on the north side of N.C. Highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The property contains 2.94 acres and is specifically described as Lot 27A of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 54 for a distance of 300 feet and has a depth of 350 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is AR - Agricultural Residential and NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -2. The proposed zoning designation is LC -1 Local Commercial -1. 2. Z -2 -91 W.E. Blackwood The property in question is located on the north side of N.C. Highway 54 between White Cross Road (SR 1952) and Dodsons Cross Road South (SR 1102). The property contains 3.00 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 9 of Tax Map 30 and part of Lot 13 of Tax Map 30B in Bingham Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 54 for a distance of 532 feet and has a depth of 414 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Rural Residential and LC -1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning designation on 2.35 acres of the property is LC -1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning on the remalnzng 0.65 acres is NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is as follows: 1. Large Day Care, Homes Under the proposal, Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to provide a definition for "large day care home" -' generally six to 15 children. Article 4 would be amended to add large day care homes as a permitted use in all zoning districts where single - family homes are permitted. Article 6 would be amended to require site plan approval for large day care homes and provide standards for evaluating the site plan. Article 14 would be amended to permit a day care operator or citizen to prepare their own site plan for a large day care home. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. Administrative Approval of Expired Subdivision Plats Under the proposal, Section III -D -2 -f would be added to allow the Planning Director to re- approve an expired subdivision` plat, provided the design and conditions of approval were in compliance with zoning and subdivision regulations existing at the time of the request. The subdivision would still be subject to agency review, and the request for re- approval must be made within one year of the expiration of the plat. Section III -D -2 -g would be amended to permit only one such re- approval. Subsequent requests for re- approval must be presented to the Board of Commissioners for consideration. 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 received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the 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 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your`gU- tstions . Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: May 15, 1991 May 22, 1991 003 004 005 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Icy 28, 1991 Action Agenda Item # c 1 SUBJECT: ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE AND BUILDING NUMBERS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X—yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Powell G.S. 153A -240 - Location Map Notification Letter TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Legal Notice Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Brochure Durham - 688--7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to a portion of Timberlake rural route 2 extending from Person County, and the Stoneridge /Sedgefield Community bordering Whitfield Rd. BACKGROUND: As part of the fine - tuning process of the house - numbering project which was completed in February, permanent street addresses are now being proposed for a small portion of Timberlake rural route 2, extending from Person County into northern Orange County. Approximately 35 residents along portions of five roads are affected: Bacon Road, Sawyer Road, Gray Road, Berry Road and NC 157 West. Additionally, the Stoneridge /Sedgefield Community, bordering both sides of Whitfield Road, is being proposed for address changes which will make those addresses consistent with the numbering system approved for the entire county. This is of particular importance for 911 service •: and for GIS (Geographic Information System) considerations. Approximately 240 residents along 23 subdivision roads will be affected. These residents are located within the old rural route 8 postal jurisdiction served by the Chapel Hill post office. General Statute 153A -240 requires that a Public Hearing be held on,, the proposed house and building numbers to be assigned. Notices have been sent to all affected residents and posted in two other places within the proposed areas. rUi�o A Planning Board recommendation is not required on the proposed house and building numbers, and the Commissioners may approve the assigned numbers following the conclusion of the hearing. RECOMMENDA- TION: Approval of the proposed house and building numbers, followed by notification of the Timberlake Postmaster, the Chapel Hill Postmaster, and the N.C. Department of Transportation , as required by G.S. 153A -240. Local Moditic +boar — Brurr•riek: 1979. 2nd 1319: G6wru& 1981. a b6g, an wIldit►9 1979, - tad Seri., r- 1319; Avert 1983. a 98; Brunswick: 1983. r- 98; Cabarr --_ 1983. c 98: New Hanover. i 1953, e. 98: SLahes: 1963, e. 299; Surry: 1983, a 299. § 153A -240. Naming roads and assign- ing street numbers in unin- corporated areas. A county mayy by ordinance name or rename any public road within the county f and not within a- city, and may assign or reassign street numbers for use on such a road. In naming or renaming a public i road, a county may not g (1) thenroad by the Board of T ans- ppoonation, unless the Board of ansportation agrees; (2) Change the number assigned to the road by the Board of Trans- portation, 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 vicin- ity. 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 matter. At least 10 days before the day of the hearing, the board of commis - pplace and subject matter of the hearing to be prominently posted at the county courtr house, in at least two public places in the towaship 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 n to the cause notice of its action to be gi ve 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 RTICLE 12. Chapter 945 of the Session Laws of 1953, A which pertains to naming streets in Roads and Bridges. Kaanapolls- (1957• c. 1068; 1973, c. 507, 9- 5; c. 822, s.1 ;1961, cc. 112, 518.) 1153A -739. Public road de5ned- In this Article - public road" or "road" means any road, street, highway, thor- oughfare, or other way of passage that has been irrevocably dedicated to the public or in which the ppl�hlic has acquired rights by prescription, �v1"iho$t regard to whether It 1s open for travel. (1973. r- M. s. 1.) a LDW Mcdweatioa — Brunswick. 1979,1979 5esc 1319: Cab== 1981. r 568. amardin8 2nd Sesser a 1319: Farsyth: 1981. r- 558; Guilford: 1979. c 283: Avers'- 1963, r- 98: br aaswi&- 1983, a 98; ^.._.barn = 1983. a 98: New Hanover. 1983, F 98: Swker 1993. a 299; Sorrs~ 1963. c 299. Editor's Note- ' P rm=t tc Semen Lams 1973. e 50. s. 5, 'Board of 1Vaasporuti0n' has bem subauurwd for -State Higbway G ce as for ISO 008 :4. _. r GROVE TWi? . . . . LITTLE O �� C.D R LAvI 3Tet1 I j \ CHEEKS HIL SBOROUGH NO TWP. I TWP. G rh�y y F I 1... ,� I I Mebane Hillsb qh I �- 70 ORANGE ROV.. TWP. CHAP H t. T P. I i I Y Wr -4 1 I y o �.,p 90 F F� �t f� Carrb�a f G � d ' :: =r�' Pel _ : }X. ego c,ler.E s o Ra • `--- -� SCALE: 1'- 3 Miles ORANGE COUNTY ozi- 0.0 4_ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 011. 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 •' are•`'' 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, and standardizes the house numbering sequence for all Orange County addresses. The project has been very successful in building the framework for support of vital county functions such as voter registration, 911 emergency service, Geographic Information Service (GIS) coordination, as well as improving mail delivery to a permanent street address. Fine tuning of the house numbering project continues with the following: Timberlake partial rural route 2 and the stoneridge /Sedgefield Community are now being proposed for a change to house numbers consistent with the County -wide system. On Tuesday, May 28, 1991, 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 in these two areas; Timberlake partial route 2 in northern Little River Township, and the stoneridge /Sedgefield Community, served by the Chapel Hill Post Office (old Rural Route 8). The hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom of the New County Courthouse in Hillsborough. if approved, residents will be required to display their new number on their mailbox with numerals at least one (1) inch high. This should be done within 30 days after official notification has been received from the Planning Department. 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. Miriam Coleman ( Extensiop 2576) or Beth McFarland (Extension 2578) 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 012 :u 013 ,o y N � x a� If [7 00 N 00 00 N l- • Q w ��' N Ch �4c C •� C a� ,"n' aG +�-� L E � cd c� �" N •d � �a -0 U Q U C Lia V 'le'1 r4 .5 cC Vl Q �. Q to .w ,of 9'. CO a o o C4 1.4 CA Cd t, ry ry 01.4 y w as .f0 a C C � c C a7 mu GA Q b0 p V2 ca cm V .v N C7 ; ed �•. y ri c E C C ,.. 0� � o •N � � 3 ° c cq H 0"07 y �-� y w cc C7 3 ''o � U '3 y,.:,E 3 0�,�•� ��'� y C. EU y 14. Cd a� a. CJ G �a�oE = E E-4 Q cc a v10 0Vo ' N _ 4 `- o Q Vi y a� •H .L. .� •a V 7ti i M ti >oR.�3�3 •C cu co cc Co � C •� d.% �I.~+ 1.. ii y �MN WI • N � FBI �.+ � "�. N � � C-0 � tv rid ua1 � 0 Ln ,.n . Ei 0 coo cNO o GA Q b0 p V2 ca cm V .v N C7 ; ed �•. y ri c E C C ,.. 0� � o •N � � 3 ° c cq H 0"07 y �-� y w cc C7 3 ''o � U '3 y,.:,E 3 0�,�•� ��'� y C. EU y 14. Cd a� a. CJ G �a�oE = E E-4 Q cc a v10 0Vo Al 4 `- o Q Vi y a� •H .L. .� •a V 7ti o N an .r b .cn o y >oR.�3�3 •C cu •� d.% �I.~+ 1.. ii y �MN WI • N � FBI �.+ � "�. �/ , Q Q ' C/1 i.. � tv c � r- CA ton Ei H cc a U w C V 000 O e-'d U1 Cq Aik _ y a 1 � _ � 8b 1 Old 86 � U O R A N G G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date Mav 28 -, 1991 Action Agenda Item # c 2 SUBJECT: NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X —Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Technical Appendices (Both under separate cover) Master Plan Map 015- INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 --7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1987, Mayor Gulley of Durham met with the Mayor of Chapel Hill and the Chairs of the Orange County and Durham County Boards of Commissioners to discuss a cooperative project involving open space preservation along New Hope Creek. The scope of the project was defined to include land along New Hope Creek between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. During the following fifteen months, staff members from each jurisdiction's planning department met to work out alternatives for project implementation. In December of 1988, the elected officials again met to review the open space plan proposal and agreed to send a resolution to the governing body of each jurisdiction, seeking endorsement of the project. The Resolution (page 17, Technical Appendices) was adopted br the four jurisdictions during the spring of the following year. Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects and Land Planners, were hired as the consultant later that year. Ken Coulter will present the Master Plan at the public hearing. Since October 1989, an appointed Advisory Committee representing each of the four jurisdictions met with the consultant and planning staff members to produce 016 _the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan. The Plan includes recommendations for acquiring critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational or recreational value. Acquisition could be through donation, purchase in fee simple, or purchase of development rights. Some of the wildlife corridors should remain in private ownership. The orange County portions of the Corridor are I. wildlife Corridors, including the 100 -year floodplain; a. New Hope Creek Wildlife Corridor - beginning at the point the creek crosses Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) extending through Duke Forest to Erwin Road (SR 1737); also includes a portion of the floodplain along Old Field Creek between the Oosting Natural Area and New Hope Creek; b. Piney Mountain Creek Wildlife Corridor - extending through the Couch Tract of Duke For south along Piney Mountain Creek across Mt. Sinai Road to New Hope Creek; c. Rhodes Creek Wildlife Corridor - beginning south of Cornwallis Road extending northeast to Eno River State Park; 2. Wildlife Protection Area, including the 100 - year floodplain between Erwin Road and the Durham County line; 3. Unpaved nature trails; and a. Within Duke Forest on existing roads and trails; b. Across Cornwallis Road (SR 1716) connecting the Couch Tract and the Durham Division of Duke Forest; and c. Along Sunrise Road crossing I -40 to the �= Korstian Division access point of Whitfield Road; 4. Bike /pedestrian trails. a. In conjunction with a Scenic Road designa- tion along NC 751 and any future extension; and z b. Following Old NC 10 to Mt. Hermon Church Road, across US Highway 70 to Pleasant Green Road to reach Eno River State Park. One of the implementation recommendations made by the Advisory Committee is that a permanent Advisory Committee be established to oversee progress of the Master Plan, make budget recommendations relating to the corridor, review development proposals affecting the corridor, and encourage citizen involvement in the corridor project. The permanent Advisory Committee could be made up of members of existing open space/ planning groups supplemented by corridor property owners and other interested citizens. It would report to the four governing bodies with jurisdiction over the corridor. In August of 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated New Hope Creek as an "Important Regiortal Wetland." Preservation of the corridor will serve aesthetic, environmental, educational, recreational, as well as growth management purposes to benefit not only Orange and Durham Counties, but the entire Triangle region. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the following steps be taken toward implementation of the New Hope Corridor open Space Master Plan: 1. Incorporate the Plan as an element of the Comprehensive Plan for Orange County; and 2. Direct the Planning Staff to coordinate with the Chapel Hill Planning Staff and propose appropri- ate amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, including recommendations from the New Hope Corridor Master Plan. Both Items 1 and 2 can be included Joint Planning Area Public Hearing Chapel Hill and Carrboro in October as part of the with the Towns of 1991. I �F 01S -u - . r,rL. EI��I TAT[ ►RAE) Ll ~a ERR Dr. \ �E es r�r, �p `�.. • -. OVK( FOREST .� . r0 j ° 7 W.\ wkO�yP '•MJnr�� ¢ j O fr ~�,:• .. � W J Pty �r . � ' �O � • ��itn�ie Kam/ a ! c "' r I 5•ee,0 On�0 •\ -••wu u..- p ID 4� I -�� CHAPEL HILL." c r ... L LEGEND. DUKE PDRIIT '100 TSAR fLOOO ►LAIN- PROPOSlD OPEN SPACE VILDLIPE PIIOTSCTIOR AREA AACHORMIA1L AOilis S -1 140nw Kra A..... Area ' ■ -i YL Y.AA� M.... Arm. [-A Dry Ce.tt Aw... Ar.A at 1-AO A Nru AA. S -S DawY Crest PRfe M4060 l-S A "ob Pam Awwa A—i 6 -7. 4/rtrom • VPY IMNvia Area r *aw MM. ' • D O G p O O G PRoroaeD a1X9 AND IEDSZ?R1AN TRAIL TO Ura;;004) PRO►ODts RAR[ TRAIL l E- o' DUKE UHIV.' (' DURHAM'1'- C wed, / �y COMP9 Of E491 }, } WM1DLII! CORt1 O� p hh IJORDAN "1199"01A NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN MAP CITY OF DURHAM. X.C. ST- CITY OF CHAPEL HILL. X.C. DURHAM T COUNTY 4I•�. 001"06:0V RY Rta- COULTER ASOCIATES - Landscaps Architects - Land Planners Durham, N.C. 4� 021 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 28 1991 Action Agenda Item # C 3-(a SUBJECT: Z -1 -91 JAMES R. SPARROW - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: �X_Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Application Vicinity Map Agency Comments Staff Memorandum Staff Findings Certificate of Mailing INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension-2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 approximately 900 feet east of the Morrow Mill Road intersection. It is 2.94 acres in size and known as lot 27A on tax map 26 of Bingham Township. The current zoning is Neighborhood Commercial and Agricultural Residential. The applicant is requesting a designation of Local Commercial. The purpose of an LC--1 district is to allow limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the rural and neighborhood level with convenience goods and personal services. The surrounding land on the north and west is zoned AR but undeveloped; to the south and east are commercial uses. The area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as the BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. Currently, there is no other LC -1 zoning within the activity node. e The Orange County Sheriff, Emergency Medical Services, and the Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Company have each stated that necessary services can be provided to the property in question. The Planning Staff has made positive findings for all-' applicable standards of evaluation. Refer to pages 17- 20 of the attachments. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment from Agricultural - Residential and Neighborhood Commercial -2 to Local Commercial -1. a ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 0?13 Date: March 6, 1991 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 3 1.° D The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located on the North side of ZXRXI ' ( Highway 54___ Street /Road) between S.R.# 1958 and S,R.f 10_ 06 — It is known as Lots] 27A 0 Block -- of Orange County Tax Map 26 – Bin2ham Township. It has a frontage of ±300 feet and a depth of _±3—feet, and contains 128,066 square feet or 2.94 acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AR and NC -2_ _ t0 — 3 -- The foLLowing information has been _attached .in__. support of the application for changing the Zoning At Las f* – required on all appLications]. `as. A fully dimensioned `map F at a arils of not Less than one I1) inch equals one— hundred 1100) feat nor wars then one I1) inch equal& twenty - 1201 feat'" showing -- hs land whlah it proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the land proposed to be razonad. •c. A statement of Justification addressing one or acre at' the following: I1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinenca, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons has the proposed ■mandment will correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety end gmneral welfare. 0I31 The Wenner in which the proposed amendment will carry Out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or per% thereof. 0I41 All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant affare in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agsncias la.g. fire, police, rescue end utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the devslapmen%. d. A list of all individuals, firms at corporations owning properly edjoinigg ._ar wi.thin five hundred (SOO) fast of the property soug9ht for rezoning is attached. The list is current as of 1— FL<CS PP. 00 -- -I- certify that a L L information furnished in this epplicaticn to the bast of say knowledge. is accurate Appii cant( s]: James R. Sparrow&. Sr.- AGENT: G. Gregory She and Address: post Office Box C SHEPARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES Carrboro NC 2,7510 _ _ 424 Watexsi Drive Phone: 929- 557 C rrboro 1 01 '04 4446 3 0 * 14 2.8 AC D .mW Z-1-91 Q I TFI L IAl�47F� 5P�C14C.lST %)AHE.S 5PARIeoyj- c- uZzMArr zONiAJq : Ar, 4 A!C -Z PR.OPOSEp: /or—AL, COMMERCIAL —) $A 19.18 A C 3446 48 68.366 AG s t _ 7 136 6 ' •3534 ' I 4.16 AC. Is ' •3203 4.16 AC. . s ••y - t I � 6.05 AC. 6 A 4 17 ! ' 4'1 e 1.96 11 A AC:'' 3649 2504 sA 13 2 ��� . � ~ •�- :.:. - - , ti " -�Y� •_# . • .:'::� � 124 2 1.23,AC SEEM: 26t Al 524AC �C�4 14,A 14 6s,4y , - 1 (.7951 , . 3' Ac. - �74,3a, �`�� � 3671 4.22 Fl . - �'� - ' �:_ .••cos ��::�� -��- :_- �.:��- -tea .,.::..�...• PROPERTIES �. _;::.;•�.'� WITHIN 500 FEET TAX REFERENCE: 6.26..27A 1 , s ...,•.�3. �:.a SCALE: V= 400' lorl ' 3 • 42.89 At ss D m Y s s� W « his n Oc 1 r. s ! u s • cry 3 � s0 M I I AP, I� I �rp o . \iii. • s ;• 16. all is 1. - J��i CA i ,.g 0 # R � � [ir rs W� N lw is Iris l t ri;,L r�J1111� 1 ��S��E 0 �1 S w� �x I ■ co K z Q o� Z 4 O 0 # R � � [ir rs W� N lw is Iris l t ri;,L r�J1111� 1 ��S��E 0 �1 S w� �x I ■ 026 CHANGE OF ZONING APPLICATION JAMES R. SPARROW, SR. PROPERTY ORANGE COUNTY - B I NGHAM TOWNSHIP TAX REFERENCE 6.26..27A W- Il Being LOT ONE, Lula Wilson Crawford Estate as referenced in Plat Book 31, Page 192, Orange County Registry, lying in Bingham Township, Orange County, North Carolina, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of North Carolina Highway 54, the southeast corner of Lot One; Thence with the center of said NC Highway 54 N 78 -30 -30 W, 294.59' to a point, the southwest corner of Lot One and a common corner of Lot Two; Thence with the western line of Lot One N 02 -08 -59 E, 400.16' to a point, the northwest corner of Lot One and a common corner of Lot Two; Thence with the northern line of Lot One S 83 -15 -50 E, 330.80' to a point, the northeast corner of Lot One and a common corner of Lot Two; Thence wittl the eastern line of Lot One S 07 -27 -00 W, 423.33' to the point and place of beginning, and containing 2.94 acres more or less. i 7 "n wzLz T* "4:r - -' rs.i_�.; .:x.��q. , j.: :yJi tiyi, -�.. :�G_ _tc-,..•��r ='�a� s:.:�.. �- �'w D - shepard design associates land planners • landscape designers CHANGE OF ZONING APPLICATION JAMES R. SPARROW, SR. PROPERTY ORANGE COUNTY - BINGHAM TOWNSHIP TAX REFERENCE 6.26..27A Prepared: 02 -14 -91 STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION The Orange County Land Use Plan provides that commercial activities are appropriate within certain identified activity nodes and generally inappropriate outside these nodes. The subject property is located in Bingham Township and is within an activity node identified as the BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity. Node. This node is centered at the intersection of NC Highway 54 and SR 1958 ( Morrow Mill Road) and it's quarter -mile radius extends beyond the subject property, thereby encompassing it within the node. The attached change of zoning application specifically requests that 2.94 acres are zoned Light Commercial -1 (LC -1). The property is presently zoned as follows: 1.92 Acres Neighborhood Commercial -2 (NC -2) 1,02AM Agricultural /Residential (AR) 2.94 Acres 2.0 CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS When the subject property was originally zoned Agricultural /Residential (AR) for both agricultural and residential uses, the general area was situated in a geographic area where development trends had not been sufficiently established. With regard to agricultural zoning, there has been a statewide decline in the amount of land under agricultural uses particularly for small parcels. The subject property is not suitable for farming. With regard to residential zoning, the present commercial use of the parcels immediately south of the subject property ( tax reference 6.26..28 & 28A) and the parcel immediately east of the subject property Qp(yeference 6.26..6D) render the subject property undesirable for residential development. The existing commercial uses in the general area are beginning to establish a development trend for other commercial uses. Commercial development in this activity node is consistent with the vision of the Orange County Land Use plan. 3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE PLAN The purpose of the LC -,l zoning district, as stated in the Orange County Zoning Ordinance,is to provide appropriately located sites for commercial uses designed to serve a population at telephone (919) 929 - 6069.424 waterside drive - carrboro, north caroling 27510 (I'ts the neighborhood -and rural level. The property sought to be zoned LC -1 will comply with the criteriafor-establishment of this zoning district as set forth in Section 428 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance: 1. The subject property is located within an activity node identified as the BH- i Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, 2. The list of permitted uses from the Zoning Ordinance's Table of Permitted Uses are those which are designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level and would generally not serve commuters or a majority of persons outside the surrounding rural area, These permitted uses, in addition to the performance and design standards of the Ordinance, will insure that no adverse impacts will occur either beyond the immediate space occupied by a building for certain uses or beyond the property boundaries for some other uses. 3. The lot size and configuration is appropriate for the method of water supply and sewage disposal systems necessary for development of the property. 4. The 2.94 acres sought to be zoned LC -1 would be the only property zoned LC -1 in this Rural Neighborhood Activity Node, The Orange County Zoning Ordinance will allow a maximum of five (5.0) acres of land to be zoned LC -1 in an activity node where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition Area. S. The subject property has approximately 300 feet of frontage on the north side of NC Highway 54 which is designated as an arterial on the adopted Land Use P ]an. This amount of frontage, in addition to the existing horizontal and vertical alignment of NC Highway 54 at this location, will provide safe and direct access from the subject property to this arterial. 4.0 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS Water individual supply and n iInndividuaall subsurface sewage provided isposal system on-site Orange of an Health Department completed an initial soil analysis of the subject property on May 13, 1988 and a subsequent soil analysis on February 8, 1989 and found it to be suitable for installation of a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system. The Light Commercial -1 (LC -1) zoning district generally permits uses which are low to medium traffic generators. The volume of traffic generated by development of this property will have no significant impact upon the existing traffic load on NC Highway 54; and existing levels of service on NC 54 will be maintained. The Orange County Sheriffs Department, in a letter dated February 14, 1991, has indicated that they will prom*oJow enforcement services to the subject property without any additional personnel required to serve the general area. The Orange Grove Volunteer Fire Department, in a letter dated February 28, 1991, has confirmed that the subject property is within the Orange Grove Fire District and indicated their ability to provide fire protection for the property. The Orange County Emergency Management Division of Emergency Medical Services, in a letter dated February i'9, 1991, has indicated their ability to provide emergency medical services to the subject property. CHANGE OF ZONING APPLICATION JAMES R. SPARROW, SR. PROPERTY ORANGE COUNTY — BINGHAM TOWNSHIP TAX REFERENCE 6.26..27A LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEEL PA 6.26 ..5 6.26 ..6 6.26 ..6A _ .. 6.26 ..6C 6.26 ..6D 6.26 ..13 ' 6.26 ..14A 6.26 ..17 . 6.26 ..27 6.26 ..28 6.26 ..28A DWNER and ADDREIja Buck Mountain Development Company Partnership, 608 Airport Road, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Tessie Mae Kirby, c/o Norman Lee Kirby, 4717 Highway 54 West, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 Tessie Mae Kirby, 4717 Highway 54 West, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 Tessie Mae Kirby, c/o Brenda Lula Kirby, Route 1 Box 153, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Tessie Mae Kirby, 4717 Highway 54 West, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 Raymond Henry Kirby, 4703 Highway 54 West, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27516 Louise Crawford Durham, Post Office Box 100, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Ernest W. & Faye Crawford, 2132 Crescent Drive, Graham, N.C. 27253 Leslie A.& Jean Walton, 6616 Hunters Lane, Durham, N.C. 27713 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc., P. 0. Box 1500, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 P & S Sporting Gaols, Inc., P. 0. Box 1500, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 6.26C.1 Madeline C. Curl, 416 Bonaparte Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 - 6.26C..2 = Madeline C. Curl, 416 Bonaparte Drive, Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 - `['�?"��'eF''- 15:w�'�ttj].i -sue. .:n�.:.:�.d�- .1' "f:. �''"L•'.�. -- . , - . - . -_. ?.F �• ,-. �L -.;.._ . s..i � ... _ .__ _ ;��•'."tr � .. ��`- �pFi`,' �. �!its�= .•�}C1�1F.ti::i_�.:�•i'r - _ = G1: 1 s+.�i.�..r - -� -_ •4 ' -wwf� k�- n .�r•:�a:��:s:»."f�_:,':'w..« - Y.�•L:si'rL�.a^� - pr..—_.• 4�.__ .:.J...:�.i��i••�_.�,,�.�. -.-.� - {.nz"!.. •f. .. .�� ��3:: �'r w. �vY. �f�.: s: v." ie. �{" �: s+ f= 1LW` t•` t�aRlti.:: ��•: �. F$: E+`- f}!` te�aC ::".'xr:a�:�,}'GC1Y= "- ..�.�,� si•���.ix"'- 1..�- .-^- ^�� ? - � �t':- �c�lrmaar�wr�+ rwlii' �•: i�`•.• i�sfntir�a5 := �!�c- �-= ^xk«":'.�i�F�>t.. f� f� "ax i�+;�i_ - _ - °�.f milt ppgg}}'^ :x'N�s" f ,._Lri F,: �`i : i : i,F r :- ` 4 •.cerl:_11 ^':1.!` �•'a.�• . rc ' r 1 1;... - ii.� =r; - _.. � - - i- •'r~Yr_ - 7"- •��«- ..':ri::..,i'. _ :,= ,�.i. ::rr.:v.�. -'�.. :- l.:r':�*1r.. ��.4- �:Li' -• •.!-�! -as . -J_ [rte:'. �4ir •d:+.�:1 y., Yi .a'r+vr•- 4t- - -- ..".• }:..t'• - - - �`._�:.- .1_•�•. - C•: ♦'_ _ - .. l.: � �� ^_ -- . - d� .��- _ w- i!�xs.., -} �����,v..`C•�� ...i� ..r...y:.: _ - -_ = ate,: %f:.� - - -•S;�.F- - _ -- - ;:1:...•. - - _ i?r;�, wtxii� i}�i..]`_ =�i•4 �%1:. ;�F' :%3` - ..Fa.i:to;�J,��:.. � 4s.� Vii:- •..,,._r � ... ..._ ....: - �] ,.r.. -_ - -- =y:i -:.f.': "TY+i:K r- tx.^±. -�e= -:i•.- �. �,,.:i +�.�: v- iii {:.:� =t-'iY : +•.•.ry Y:.a::., �.::•..i. ,y: ;:' .�:�P2.�r •�- - -J +�: ��i =.i_'. -.tar . "•.ia F it " ?� y� ..� -.va.. - - - - - _ - i• _ - - - - -a L':,G. ' �' .��" . F'it� 'srr,�w;. kr «�lif. i,�'•- ... .,. .e {�: �......_ti:�- . - - -.Y =: �. .;:�.�_ � - f. ^'tY':._ _ ' Key _ — - �;� .�••'-i ',: Sri: .•i�� :1i:,:.'ts. .:-+Y: w•.Yr Ta....a + }Tr.y.., �.x -w :; � ....... .. .. :: i'1:�: �=:�. -..- . -'. _ - .. - - .- _ ....�J: -'.. •.. - _- -':F- x+11:% +7... 5, r.i� -i!. �` }_ l•_ ..i, ', Y., n. /! rl•: i.:.a _•- -_... Y• -�' -- -_• _ - .R'-:. �,� -. "... i. .- . r rrY -ii. ��ii_i -th_ ��� �iw.�.��::�,.il c�:a.i•i��-.. :.a•y'� _. � i�. -, _ ... .. . - -- - � - ... ... r. � - � .71•.: . `l. _..i., - . ().13 OFFICE PHONE HILLSBOROUGH 792.2431 CHAPEL HILL 942-63M T LINDY PENDERGRASS Sheriff of Orange County HILI.SDOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: LINDY PENDERGRASS, SHERIFF DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1991 REF: SERVICE OF LAND PARCEL RES. PIJONE 9299.SM5 QID Z -ZO D D o� 7.;7 7-� r-,r~ J -7-g' , �J THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CAN PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE REZONING OF 2.94 ACRES OF LAND REZONED FOR LIGHT COMMERCIAL LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 54 APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET EAST OF THE TAR HEEL FOOD MART WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF N.C. HWY 54 AND STATE ROAD 1958 (MORROW MILL ROAD). OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL•PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT TO PROVIDE THIS ROUTINE SERVICE. LP /jc CC: G GREGORY SHEPARD k C EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 9181 929-8109 7324161 ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: G. GREGORY SHEPARD SHEPARD DESIGN ASSOCIATES 424 WATERSIDE DRIVE CARRBORO, NC 27510 FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RE: FIRE AND RESCUE COVERAGE DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1991 Communications Emergency Medical S Mces Fire Marshal r c r'i nv LJ�Jr `- 3 7 t-( i G -- In response to your request, Orange County Emergency Medical Services and Orange Grove Fire Department will continue to provide emergency medical and fire service for the north side of NC Highway 54 and approximately 1,000 feet east Morrow Mill Road. a o3. i ORANGE GROVE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY 6600 ORANGE GROVE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27276 PjE4CqEA,V,,E 1] M- W 0 :11A MEMORANDUM Q5- -9 FG J TO: Orange County Planning Department FROM: David Sykes, Fire Chief RE: Fire Protection DATE: February 26, 1991 This letter is in response to a letter which we received from Shepard Design Associates regarding property in our district. It is our understanding that you need verification from us that we will provide fire protection for this property. As we have stated, the property, which is located on highway 54 west, is in our district. We will continue to provide fire protection for this area just as we have since our department was organized. I believe the preceeding information is what you are asking for from the fire department. If this is not sufficient or you have any other questions, you may call the station at (919) — 967 - 5858. . . M E M O R A N D U M TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Z -1 -91 JAMES R. SPARROW GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: James R. Sparrow, Sr. P.O. Box C Carrboro, NC 27510 Location: North side of NC Highway 54 approximately 900 feet east of Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958). Lot size: 2.94 acres Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use: North - Undeveloped land zoned AR. East - Zoned NC -2 South - NC Highway 54 and wholesale mail- -order distribution zoned GC -4 West - Undeveloped land zoned AR Comprehensive ,Vlj.m Land Use Designation: Agricultural Residential within the Adam and Eve Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Zoning: The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial and Agricultural Residential. 6- 3:3 034 MEMORANDUM Z -1 -91 JAMES-- R. SPARROW APRIL 1, 1 -99 PAGE 2 The intent of the Local Commercial -I (LC -1) District is provided in Article 4.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent .1 The purpose of the Local Commercial -I (LC -1) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the "immediate space occupied by the building. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node, a Rural Commercial Activity Node or a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but 5 acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition area. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial -v (EC -5) or planned developments. 5. All sites designated LC-1 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 035 MEMORANDUM Z -1 -91 JAMES R. SPARROW APRIL 1, 1941, PAGE 3 The following is a list of permitted uses in LC -1: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H3 Two- Family dwelling H5 Dwelling; Mobile Home H6 Family Care Home H8 Rehabilitative Care Facility Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P14 Public & Non - Profit Parks P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S4 Assembly Facility Less than 300 S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips /Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A.Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise• -& Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond The Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Designed To Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premise Other Than Employees of the Principle Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips /Day) C) All Operations Within A Fully Enclosed Building & No Storage Or Display of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building 036 MEMORANDUM Z -1 -91 JAMES.R. SPARROW APRIL 1, 1 -91 PAGE 4 The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub- stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) I 7 � a W y Q y Z Z W C7 H zao❑ �FtU 3 aoc� aaax s Q 0 z z o N W N Q1 43 Q1 4 II � ^� = ro .r cn O E � kl O 0 d z a zl 0 ro I-, a N z m V w z N •^I w ro cd• U b •b b Q7 y .,j O� 'd 7 47 ., zEH Q wa w 0 O a h w z ro - U N N .. O• C O a, c Uz" E-4 CZ. O m O C N rn N C --I b �. 41 w E N a C7 ra .+ C 7 z ++ O ro 4a 04 +� z �c I z " � y U N z z �ce zo a. o ow z w .. 4 a z z C4 z a0 0 0 O C4 [:. N N E:, r-4 U ti4 w E. ww a a G4 4 p u E E O O cn .a E 0•4 N O N a U a •v z a W O 4 4 .c Ea a ] ❑ �a a G' O t0 II a S CLE z� O S4 == O W w O E• 3 Co 1r W N O �o CA E O aw w w d U .• z cn v� ❑x wa a 7 _ A 4 d z cn E p ►. cn v: r-i .7 E U L w a E C �Q to V x wE� I I E+cn o c A N C O W W G vwiu E E aw cc o Cr. ❑ Lz. ir] E ctU3z v7ME0 t7 cn " E z u 4 " Z M Q z "=)" wwo 0 0 0 z z z N W N Q1 43 Q1 m II 0 0 0 z. Z. z C N O O c+'I ••i m II � = ro .r U �C kl kl 0 d zl 0 ro ro V U +� N •^I w N 0 E (a b •b b Q7 y .,j O� 'd 7 47 0 -, > w 0 O O a ro yNj U N N .. O• C O a, c N .0 4-) y y O •-I O C N O N C --I b •^'I O O 41 w E N a O 04 ++ O ro 4a 04 +� Q y o U tia � y U N N00 -4 0 a. o 0 CL, 0 0 0 z. Z. z C37 N N N y m a� a• + r6 �C kl kl zl V a a� m w N 0 E 0 cu 0 O to 0 +a yNj U N N .. O• C O G .0 4-) y y C W to U O C N O N C --I b •^'I O O N -M 0 ca E N C 0 U 0 7 E E •.i N .4 3 E O O N O ++ O ro 4a 04 s, Q y o U .0-4 u C •••I O • c>Nw -I-- O N00 -4 0 0� E - . 0 CL, -,4 04 w , a ti4 °) w a .0 co Q) ,4 • ° �l o a �, U ti4 U -4 •--4 G. CO w w N w 1.4 N O N a U a •v a .c a en A, a C%4 M cm G1 4-1 m G' O t0 II S CLE G1 O S4 == O W 0-0 O E• 3 Co 1r N O, a 1 4 N O N U C37 038 II %, o n z z a7 0 O O z z w a) a) 4J O w L1 E a a 0 O W w ••4 E2G+ti +) O A • -1 0 (a v v +.) a E 7, Oro7+-0 U w 0 N ro w bxw(a mn7mw U C1JW � >1 N�,GUro e,rom�m 1a A C awa�OC� N .-I LI ty O� w Ql 7• x w w ro C �Uwro G O •-4 •'• -4 a �4-) 3 -+ C: 3 N 7 -1 1J C w C •rl G 4) E! 104 C •d C Ql a a ro w Ia a7 O •• o ci mba N w O 4) O a 04 •o+)o ow0b N M O 1a u w U u ad •a a .c awi •� o a ro w •.-1 U -W C ro C ••i I ---4.-4 O a7 � U G 3 (U r+A W N w E 0 O -W 1 3 O+ O w44 0a +•-I0 0 roo .�ww �w ma�ro•.� i w •ow >u� m a� W >4Jww a)09wa04 �c w +) 0 4) 0 04,-1 ,xx o a) C -1 0 ro C 3 •-1 a7 aJ w to •a a m s O w r1 3 74 a m 4 4 0-4 4J 0 04-1 r. -W w Cl) y Gab w o•-10 - +•a0(D0 �•.� (a0 w3a ]+WwaA b� U O c a o 0�w Q U w aJ aJ O 04 JJ m �J w a� w -H oa -I(0 Ca. �JGmaa3 on aroma a) 41 ro�b-1 a U w w E Q U N O Q J.1 w 0 tw •,I aj O 0444 a b O O A C w co U 4-4-4 0 *4 Oro O A E al a) ro ro 04 0• —4 w O G �J b a C .N 04 w W w= •••1 al • O O U•-I ca en 0 q N> w -4 co --I z .44,ms 0a(aWw C w al Q+ al ­410 >q4 4) G w C 7, to w a+ ro m r1 -IAA m to 0 �6) G w ro a •.i aJ 4J -4 ro w MCC U •••I ••i a 0 •-•1 a •.•I M O O U •••1 C -4 -4 > ,4 O w >O C >1 w C •. I .0 O. O M r4 ro N -4 a y = a -4 0b w G w 0 E O G ro •.� •••I o Ga •O A •-•I O •-•1 a-1 (D w 1-4 b ()cow a)L.) 01a a�w�wasaa� = O C C =-M 0 $4 0 0 4 O w 0 0� E-E U CO W E-E U -J O, U LL E• W •••1 144 +J 3 4-) O O z z w a) a) 4J O w L1 E a a 0 O W w ••4 E2G+ti +) O A • -1 0 (a v v +.) a E 7, Oro7+-0 U w 0 N ro w bxw(a mn7mw U C1JW � >1 N�,GUro e,rom�m 1a A C awa�OC� N .-I LI ty O� w Ql 7• x w w ro C �Uwro G O •-4 •'• -4 a �4-) 3 -+ C: 3 N 7 -1 1J C w C •rl G 4) E! 104 C •d C Ql a a ro w Ia a7 O •• o ci mba N w O 4) O a 04 •o+)o ow0b N M O 1a u wa wm Q� F� z v, ca o aw C 7 W C%3 zu&. r+zE+U zaza azaaa awa a w vi O O •„-y z z 0 � U O w co E � •-+ m w 3 �owtD 4-1 _4 C � a� ?' Q C b U O A O m z � a N A 1J U 0 �z 4 4 u v C O Q V44 an o ww� ero ad � .�� 04 m W W �a�61 >9 > wa wm Q� F� z v, ca o aw C 7 W C%3 zu&. r+zE+U zaza azaaa awa a w vi O O z z N N O Ol >4 ?' SCI kl G •„-y m cD O � U O w co E � •-+ m w 3 a 4-1 _4 C � ro O C b U O A O m . .,j Z) 'O N A 1J U 0 �z w ID v C O Q V44 ro U ^� ero ad � .�� oro�� 'd m w •.� w �a�61 >9 > mi,y UC0)vw-W 44tN E•w C. 0 y 4) m w w O CO o-0 �roG,+�+ai aw C w " p, w O w 7 G O�' m 0,0 4 dl •,� 44 ,H G 7 (1) ow-4 3 G 0= E z a o 0 0 0 3+) O O z z N N O Ol >4 ?' SCI kl r 3 :.) G O ...4 4! ..q r0 Gu Nbro�wuz N •-I 9% 4.4 (D to 44tN E•w 00ro 007 awiuviro G a�iroCrocG�7. w 0) ro• U C W O Ol w w C w " p, w O w 7 0) 7 G 1J 7r 01 w G •.Ud O) C C O) r+ w w (V m a •.� w o ro �+ a s w- 4 o o• 4 1 U ro C i m 0 0 w (a• -i .U(D g3wro C, s A> O O +� 0 y� 0 Ol 0) C ro U E ••a -+ O N U O 3 0) C C q m +� = C b w O+ w w U yU(1)o -+mm uw-1 w-W w d,d(1)o U N. r-4 I�r . 4) N.,.0 C 3 G�C� +� dA cv�ro r • 3 O o-0 O obRt 41 a+w N 9= ro•� (2,.c -4 rr m ro+� WE (D U v �•4 yU...4 ro 41 � G y �! C •• U 0! 41 •-1 0) O 4 ,4 O O O N 0)•-+ O ro U ro-� ro m•4 N 0 01 0•.4 U 01 O a 'o U 04zU m S-i O a ro+� 3 U o a -4 w a� U•-4 U ro C.c 3 U01m•- �w•- �Ua+4t40 o --' +J -4 .. 41 -4 C,m C4 m w w-. A w w d) C•••4 U. N 0 0 0 V ,. O �t U a 0 b 0 0 bw44w r 3 :.) 0, 10 O O O z z z m N m 0 0 w >• >4 >4 � m m L4 C A A r 1 A a) al 0 as U O z = 7 ay 0 •-1 a) 0 n) •-1 3 0 -1 01 CO •.•I 4J O m O CL 4.) •-4 a g O A m •1.1 10 •d •.•1 •O (1) 0 C, • 4 C. -0 ro � d• G C 0- 0 U m .a O to (a a) • m d N N 4) N N CL -W U C O O �+ a m oom 0 3 U >! t01 EE- r, 0 4 1 Q •••I N r+ CO 'C O • 0 o a) m am 0 n10 r= E-4 m•.1U U (a m U 4-1 a) 4J tam a O ro � -+ LW 4-) b C4.1 ti4 m a)A 0 (1) a) r1 a) C W O •r1 O• a) •••1 a.) 4) to 7 a) m )-1 y S O a) E 1n %>,0 C C 0 a) 1C w 10 0 04 0 -4 U N —1 O C -4 CL N b a7 N • a) ••4 10 N a .� a) •r1 (1) 7 3 m N O N a) N C a O a) ••4 N 1d 0+a+ a 0 0 w = 14 in -4 CC 4)r+a) a7 �1 V • N w z a, U U 4-3 .0 U a) O 30 (D a) CL ­4 (a 04J0Q4J H N ct f N k) 0 ..-1 r.4 C Ob a)+) 7 -1 mwr md•• -I E C a) 9,•ri a) O 1 C2. Ln •r1 CO w m .•+ 4.) CP w U 0 -4 U C U a 1•+ .11 Co O �3 � t0, o acid b �+ C, m C1 w m O v •+4 m m a) c a� C,0 0 w -1 Nrn x c •N rn41 ro � 0 trw aPZ w • 10 0 r•-i w1-4 E•1 N m CL U -W 1••1 N E N E-1 x 10 CL z z z (a N m (1) a) Ol '+ kl )+I kl s y -4 r 1 A a) 1w N 1 a) .--1 1 N L1 9 1d •,I W 0, a +3 10 c 1-1 C 4 a) v m N ] O w a) m a•) C 4 O 0 0 U N 41 c O CL 4.) •-4 a g O A m •1.1 10 •d •.•1 •O 0 0 -0 I. a) q 1J C •.i .0 0 as w ••-1 G G w3 -1p ►ma7O3•� +.3 • -1ti4 tP 0 •••I CL a) x 0 ►4 m 0 r'1 m b +) m a) •14 W o,aoi owa e a m oom ON 4004 w o -4 3 n= U to O 3 O Lc •••I N r+ CO 'C O • 0 o a) m am 0 n10 r= E-4 m•.1U U 14.0 O CO N 1n O r .+ al N W b N •0 11 as c b LW 4-) b C4.1 ti4 m a)A 0 (1) a) r1 a) C W O •r1 O• a) •••1 a.) 4) to 7 a) m )-1 y S O a) E 1n %>,0 C C 0 a) 1C w 10 0 04 N A 1 3 r>4.0 C 11 .0 41 4-) O b1 •4 ••4 • m m w U 'O (a -4 a7 G C a) E 7,•"1 ).1 m m ^1 (1) (v 0 m-W CL E a a) a) •- •••1 N +) C 0 r1 b A •-+ C y0) CL toO UK010m1Oa) -4 CC 4)r+a) a7 amOa 0 E+)kay0.4)•.1.c$4 .,c0•.4Ox.i a aaum zlelo0 loaa4J 04J0Q4J H s ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 a' fE_ L CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Emily Cameron, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 8, 1991, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the request for rezoning of a 2.94 acre parcel in Bingham Townshia from Agricultural Residential and Neighborhood Commercial -2 to Local Commercial -1 to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 8th day of May, 1991. Z&-44 CA-M4&eld EMILY CAMERON ZONING OFFICER -4 041 042 -4. - . [) 4 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 Action Agenda Item # C 3(b) SUBJECT: Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC BEARING —x—yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Application for Rezoning Statement of Justification Agency Comments Area Proposed for Rezone Staff Memorandum Staff Findings Certificate of Mailing INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning a rezoning request submitted by Thomas J. Whisnant for W.E. Blackwood. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located on the north side of NC Highway 54 between White Cross Road (SR 1952) and Dodsons Crossroads South (SR 1102). The property contains 3.00 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 9 of Tax Map 30 and part of Lot 13 of Tax Map 30B in Bingham Township. The property fronts on NC Highway 54 for a distance of 532 feet and has a depth of 414 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Rural Residential and LC -1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning designation on 2.35 acres of the property is LC -1 Local Commercial -1. The proposed zoning on the remaining 0.65 acres is NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -2. The, p,roperty is located within the BH -2 Rural Community Activity Node as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the LC -1 and NC -2 zones may be applied to no more than 5.0 acres each within an activity node of rural population density. At present there is 4.35 acres zoned NC -2 and 4.65 acres':zoned LC -1 at this node. This proposed rezoning would therefore complete the allotment of LC -1 and NC -2 zoned property at this node. 011.1 Letters have been submitted from the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Orange County EMS, and Orange -qrove Fire Department indicating that services can be provided. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has indicated they have reviewed the rezoning proposal and recommend approval. If proposed plans change, a new driveway permit must be applied for. The latest traffic information on NC 54 indicated 8200 trips per day in 1988. The applicant has indicated there are suitable soils for a septic disposal system on the northernmost part of the property proposed to be zoned LC -1. This information has been confirmed in the attached letter from the Health Department. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT 0 4 J - Date: q -q( TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIDNERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is located on the ,rA side of S.R.# t/Wy 5 ( Al. ( . J Street /Road) between S.R.# and S.R, #�. It is known as Lp t(s) 1? Block 0 of Orange County Tax Map �— k", b1M Township. It has a frontage of feat and a dep h of .047 0 feet, and contains _ y3J,04d_ _ square feet or l� acres . 3. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from LC,-2 v- _L C z"NC 3. The following information has been attached in. support of the epplication for changing the Zoning Atlas (* — required on ell applicatione). •e. A fully dimensioned asp at a scats Of not lass than ins (11 inch (1) inch @quota •quota one— hundred (i W fast nor more then one feet- $havin'g, -the land which is proposed to be twenty- 1207 rezoned. eb. A local description of the land proposed to be rezoned. — me. A statement of Justification addressing one or ■ors of the following: - (1) The alleged error 1" the Zoning ordinance, If any, which would be corrected by the proposed sm@ndmant with a dstailad 2xplanstion of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment rill correct the error. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the county generally, which make the proposed amendment ra@sonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general walfers. T •(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment ■Ill carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. ■(41 ALL other circumstances, factors end reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service soencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utllitiss agencies) assuring services provision capability to the developsant. d. A list of @LL individuals, firma or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) Taal of the property Sought' for rezoning is attached. I The list is current as Of (Dote) I certify that all information to the best jDf._ my -- knowledge. Ap?li cant (s) Address: BO °� G /Svc/ H' /j'• <• AU/( Phone• furnish' ed� in this application is accurate 046 r - ` W 4.1 U .ui a r co - v V a -,4 4 PO O a : _ C 7, ~ r( � w ` I ro F a Qa cn w 41 a v (U a cc a a /. $4 y H a Q) u N ` 1, E-4 Q wW in w cli lid A p u z z w a v � .• a 00 ti v � ti '' x 1. ti c G w E aai N 4-1 V a E �� CQ v E y 60 r c Cd 3 ro ro c V ( Q a •O ro O W C ca .a P. w V u 00 � 44 a b 1 N U1 O to a 40 `J i, �0 m • • N7 Q r-1 r+, N b U Q N - % O p cc ro ~ z N is co cc ri R. d l VJ LJ 4.4 G b x ca b a u u rl u W a r� o E H A d u C • r r ,ell i I STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION Background: This property was originally purchased by Everett Blackwood as a site on which to build a small community shopping facility. To this end he made application for the rezoning of two acres of this property from R -1 to LC -1 to enable this use. This change in zoning was approved on March 24, 1987. He felt that with the residential growth in this area that the facility which he envisioned would be very beneficial to the White Cross Community. The nearest shopping facilities are six miles to the East, in Carrboro. Commercially zoning this property also compliments the Orange County Land Use - Plan for Bingham Township. Grading on the site has already been done and is complete at this time. Mr. Blackwood obtained the proper erosion control plan approval and grading permits on May 15, 1989. He thought that when these were secured that he was ready to build, and that securing the building permits was a matter of filing the applications and paying the required fees. It was at this point that he got several pieces of very bad advice. First, from his builder who assured him that from conversations that he had with Orange County that obtaining these permits would be easy, this builder then sold four buildings to Mr. Blackwood. When it was discovered that this was a much more involved process, Mr. Blackwood then hired a planner to help. This planner, gave him more bad advice. He told him to start on the construction of the project, and that he would secure the needed permits. This only served to create a bigger mess for Mr. Blackwood. In the meantime, stop -work orders were issued for this project and remain in effect. We have met with Marvin Collins and members of the Orange County Planning staff about the problems with this property, and discussed Mr. Blackwood's plans for the property. U. It has been determined that for Mr. Blackwood to proceed on any plans for this property, he will need to rezone the back portion of his residential property to allow for the installation of a septic system. 0e C 4 Z Current planning repair area must septic site for therefore cannot zoned LC. After Planning Staff, commercial node, zoning left. and zoning requires that the septic area and be suitably zoned for commercial use. The this property is currently zoned R -1, and be used to service the property which is consulting with members of the Orange County it was determined that there is , in this .35 acres of LC zoning and .65 acres of NC Both the .35 acres of LC zoning and the .65 acres of NC zoning are, in and of themselves, too small to be used as individual lots. Therefore, the only way to effectively use this remaining zoning is to add it to an existing commercially zoned lot, as we are proposing in this request. As the property is currently zoned, there is no way to build on it and have it conform to current zoning requirements. There are no suitable soils on the commercially zoned portion of this lot. The only way to use this lot is for us to rezone the property'and add the zoning which we are requesting to this lot. This application is made to the County of Orange to change the zoning of a portion of Mr. Blackwood's property from its ~) existing R -1 to LC and NC zoning. The reason that two types of zoning are requested is that there is not sufficient zoning left of a single type zoning designation to facilitate this request. Approval of this request will allow Mr. Blackwood to make an appropriate use of this property and conform to all other Orange County Planning and zoning requirements. 049 THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS REQUEST WITH THE GOALS OF ORANGE COUNTY'S LAND USE PLANS A. Consistency with current zoning B. Consistency with the Land Use Plan A. CONSISTENCY WITH CURRENT ZONING This property is located in the center of the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, as designated by the Orange County Land Use Plan. This property was zoned LC -1 on March 24, 1987. The intent of this zoning action was to make the front portion of Mr.. - Blackwood's ten acre parcel useable for commercial activities. As stated in the ordinance, the intent of LC -1 zoning is; of . to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and �- personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building." From 4.2.8 (A). The site proposed for the project is in between two parcels of property already zoned Local Commercial (LC). To the front of the property is N.C. 54 and to the rear of the property is a large area, 7.5 acres of R -1 property which buffers this project from the rear. No adverse impacts are anticipated, because only area where the proposed project comes in contact with non - commercial property is at the rear, and this area is owned by the applicant. It is felt that the proposed use is the use which most conforms with its zoning, Orange County Land Use Plans and is the most complimentary of adjoining properties. The future proposed use of the property is for the retail sale of both convenience and durable goods. Under the ordinances permitted use table ( Sec. 4.3 ) these uses are permitted as specified in a LC -1 district by uses S42 for convenience goods. No adverse impacts beyond the immediate property is anticipated beyond this property by the proposed rezoning. G5© B. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND USE PLAN We believe that the proposed rezoning of this property is consistent with and supportive of the Land Use Plan. It will not contribute to the potential of strip development and is entirely consistent with the organizing concepts of the Land Use Plan for Bingham Township, particularly item 5, which states: "....development should take place in compact clusters focused on designated activity nodes separate from agricultural areas...." We anticipate no negative impacts on water supply watersheds and believe that this planned development request is one that "...least disrupts current residents and land use patterns and most enhances the public benefits gained by all residents of the county." (p 3.11 -2 of Land Use Plan) The property is located in the center of the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, designated by the Orange County Land Use Plan. Due to the proximity of the proposed site to major roads, no adverse impact on traffic is expected. VJ� r) DESCRIPTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD This property is located at the intersection of Highway 54 West and White Cross Road, ( S.R. 1952 ). The property is in the center of one of Orange County's designated rural activity nodes. Growth in this area is expected to continue over the coming years. According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, traffic count on Highway 54 is about eight thousand, four- hundred cars per day, 1989 count . The subject property lies outside of the OWASA University Lake watershed critical area. It is also outside of the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed. No adverse environmental impacts are expected as a result of the approval of this rezoning. DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND The subject property consists of a total of approximately 10.0 acres. The North side of the property fronts on N.C. Highway 54. Two acres of this property are currently zoned Local Commercial One, (L.C.1). The commercial portion of the property is gently sloping towards the East. There is a stand of trees remaining in the center of the property. The rear portion of the property is zoned.R -1. The topography of the R -1 portion property is gently rolling. The dominant trees on the residential portion of the property are mature hardwoods. Site improvements at the property include grading work, clearing and erosion control devises. Towards the end of 1988, a portion of the commercial property was cleared and graded. The erosion control plan was put in place under the direction of Orange County Erosion Control. The improvements made for this purpose included seeding, installation of an irrigation ditch and installation of a sediment control trap at the rear portion of the property. The commercial portion property has been graded and is fairly level. The Western side of the property is very flat and would require little additional grading. The property has good drainage towards the rear of the property. � -7 EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Emergency medical care will be provided to this site by the Orange County Rescue Squad. A letter is attached from them addressing proving these emergency care services. Law Enforcement will be provided to this site by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. A letter from the department is also included in this petition. Copies of letters sent by the applicant to these agencies and their responses are included on the next few pages. G5 LI N DY PEN DERG RASS Sheriff of Orange County ThomaA S. WhiAnant Weaver Sticeet Reatt -y 116 East Main StAeet Cannbono, N. C. 27510 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732 -2431 Chapel Hill 942 -6300 Residence Phone: 929 -5535 Aprie 9, 1991 Re: Pnov.i.dLng Law Enborcement Senv.icea Pon Pnopo .6ed Commerciat Buitdingz On Highway 54 at White Croaa Dear M. Wh snant: Aa neque6ted in 1929, thi,6 DepaAtnent wilt be able to pnov.i.de .Law enb orcement b eAv.ice.6 bon the propoz ed bu,itdingb ad de a cr ib ed in .letter ob ApAiZ 8, 1991. CommenaiaZ Buitd ngA ob thi,6 nature wilt requite aecu& ty check.& on a negu.ean ba iz. Th i z project atone w.i.P Z not .impact manpower on ca.P.Q S bon 4 env.ice, however, this combined with other such projects dou nequixe add it ionat manpower to maintain cument .s ery ice teveC. Pteaze contact th.iA pepaAtnent bon any azzistance that we might be able to provide. Cj' L ' Pendergjuu.6 SHERIFF OF ORANGE COUNTY LP /rb -U. n ORANGE COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH - NORTH CAROLINA 27278 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 9181 929 -8109 MEMORANDUM 732 -8161 TO: MR. EDDIE KIRK ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P. 0. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 FROM: ORANGE COUNTY EMS ORANGE GROVE FIRE DEPARTMEN P. 0. BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 RE: FIRE AND RESCUE COVERAGE DATE: APRIL 8, 1991 OJ) Communications Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal In response to your request, Orange County Emergency Medical ' Services and Orange Grove Fire Department will continue to provide emergency medical and fire services to the property of W. E. Blackwood, located on Highway 54W. Should you need any further information, please call us at 929 -8109 or 732 -8161. 1 � 1' r 056 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 306C Revere Road ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION P.O. Box 8181. 304 Revere Road Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 HILLSBOROUGH (919) 732 -8181 �u D,ut0 ; (Range County Shdth (L epantment Daniel B. Reimer, MPH, Director CHAPEL HILL (919) 967.9251 TO: EDDIE KIRK FROM: TOM KONSLER I-r/_ DATE: APRIL 23, 1991 °°Iv al b. 40'lh tac °\`�s MEBANE (919) 227.2032 PERSONAL HEALTH DIVISION DENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 8181, 300 W. Tryon St. Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 RE: REQUEST FOR AGENCY REVIEW 91/04/17 — V Ew BLACKw00D REZONING Today I reviewed the .65 acre parcel owned by Everett Blackwood as shown on a plat dated 4/15/91 and submitted by Dale Faulkner. While there were no corner pins located, the boundaries of the tract were flagged on the property. The .65 acre tract does include an area of soils provisionally suitable for the installation of a ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal system. Improvement permit issuance would be pending final survey, proposed waste flow of the facility to be built, and no disturbance of the approved area. Also, the 2 acre tract has been evaluated and found to be unsuitable for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system. If you have any questions, please give me a' call. cc: Tom Whisnant SOUTHERN ORANGE OFFICE: Carr MITI Mall, Suite 225, 100 N. Greensboro St. Carrboro, N.C. 27510, (919) 968.2022 DURHAM (919) 688 -7333 JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY ORANGE COUNTY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 0 ; WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR.. P.E- STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR Graham. North Carolina 27253 -0766 April 19. 1991 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Subject: Everett Blackwood Rezoning (North side of NC 54, east of White Cross Rd. -SR 1952) Dear Mr. Kirk: We have reviewed the rezoning plan and approve it. Attached you will find a copy of the plans that were submitted with the driveway permit. Since Mr. Blackwood proposes a change in these plans, he will need to apply for another driveway permit. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. EMC /JRH /jrh attachment Yours very truly, Wr E. M. Cowan, P. E. DISTRICT ENGINEER An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer e l - 056 1 �1 f - 4 b � n Ul 0 IN � �5 � r 1 C,. o• • r\ 19 n � � t IN bi 1 c Zee � m � 4 � 3 n � 1 . V � d r � 7J 26 C7q• 6 • 3951 53.46 AC. SEE MAP 30A . 162 (WESTBROOK ESTATES)I W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING LC -1 /R1 - 1C -1 2.35 ACRES (1) /,LC-I/Rl - NC -2 .65 ACRES (2) () 51) . 3 7A 3362 5� SCALE = 1' '= 400' 4. WCITE ` 2989 — ..727 AC. (2) N C.'� _ R /CT ^ 86 AC.CAL I. B 75 1' 2419 S4287.. 5354 . ? 33 o °w 20 .93 AC.CAL. - I I s88 AC. 7B I -- . 4.0 1075 I v I 6908 7M I�1m ,,SEE MAP 306 16 5636 10.01 AC � - "'.+- ` -_ °.' _ ='_( MRS. BENNIE DURHAM) 9.44 AC. 24 2693 3.5 AC. ZIA _•5193' " - - '_- ...._ G. _ - _ - _- _ _ . _ •• _- . - : •ham ZIB Ca ra \ as - - /'� r 71C 1 n� AC • � � - 1 A col LLJ cn .t,, '•• • •Q t. LLJ 0- Uj Is P. -t, ~,- w U; ? =: jai•. : ;; �, " .,. , � J -•.� ti � r ,,. �.�4' `'ms's.•, '. � III,. N '� • � ''' `� -. �::'.!��: '"" - •� _ RA GF co Ln 1 �;� �• s con co Ln CD r �' ,.i'. • ...i "D••;.'�4'i •~ a �.1:• '/:�U � • .� • r_ . ; .�• r� J .,f. C/) on It 1�!� � i�� _ - t T� `�_ yy�r �. , ? ti� � �.J • f 11, br .k'I�\ '- �.. `•'-, hft•µ i \ti' � ,.; ._ )• l •' •;•' �,:A:.: � 0'1' •';, +:;5•; •S. '•:a ;j. x. •¢'! r.' .lVyj:yr' °)9 r•Sv - -•yf• : :' -• , •. •` t t: „� ,,ti.rR. ,t••Z�5�yt•�?i.�.'� of ° � •� • � � r`••'rt. y:.:: r. i,.'�i •+Lf.: 'Cy��.. •'r,' $ Ito., rx�:• t° r;'•'+!_..��^'+y�.�. �j . ,'_'•' ,,rye•` 11:iyS �f, 'i•,. •r..' i,. _ •� . .:. . d "' i .;, r; •• •t•- z� ia•i!t� °• :. 't ,jam•. c .; . -+ ~' - ,.�' e. a.y.�ay �7.,� hk �'•�'4i{�•. �` ti:;' •.L`- ,•J'•V �� •,q I; •.. -- •� \ •tip,. :,� .•fa '," •r ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD - . HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 Ii �r 1 J) I D1 a TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING E.NERAL• INFO n N Applicant: W.E. Blackwood Route 4, Box 208 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Location: North side of NC 54 just east of White Cross Road (SR 1952). Lot size: 10.04 acres in total lot, 2.35 acres requested to be rezoned from R -1 and LC -1 to LC -1, and .65 acre to be rezoned from R -1 and LC -1 to NC -2. Existing Land Use: There are no existing buildings on the property. Surrounding Land Use: North - Residential land zoned R -1. -U. -- . East - Vacant commercial land zoned LC -1. South - NC 54, Feed Store zoned NC -2, and a corner store zoned NC -2 at the southeast corner of the intersection with White Cross Road. West - Property zoned LC -1 and the Old School zoned NC -2. U6 MEMORANDUM - Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 2 Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Residential and Rural Community Activity Node Zoning: The property is presently zoned Rural Residential (R -1) and Local Commercial. (LC -1). The intent of the Local Commercial -I (LC -1) District is provided in Article 4.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Local Commercial. -I (LC -1) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node, a Rural Commercial Activity Node or a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water sdWy and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but 5 acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition area. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Exisong Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments. MEMORANDUM - ,- Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 3 5. All sites designated LC -1 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The following is a list of permitted uses in LC -1: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H3 Two-Family dwelling - H5 Dwelling; Mobile Home H6 Family Care Home H8 Rehabilitative Care Facility Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P14 Public & Non - Profit Parks P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S4 Assembly Facility Less than 300 S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. 0 s:1, MEMORANDUM - Z-2-91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 4 B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips /Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial -II (NC -2) District is provided in Article 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the neighborhood Commercial -II (NC -2) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the lot boundaries of the use. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Eoc4ted within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrqunding neighborhood. MEMoRANDUM - Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 5 3. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned NC -2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments. 5. All sites designated NC -2 shall have direct access. to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The following is a list of permitted uses in NC -2: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H3 Two-Family dwelling H4 Multiple family H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P13 Military Installations P14 Public & Non - Profit Parks P15 Parking as a principal use P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and San"_ Sewer Pumping Stations S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S13 Greenhouses (no on premises sales) S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales) S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries 065 06 MEMORANDUM - Z -2 -91 W.E. BLACKWOOD REZONING APRIL 24, 1991 PAGE 6 S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building. S29 Offices & Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Lot Boundaries S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S38 Research Facility S39 Restaurants: Carry Out S41 Restaurants: General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond the Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200 -300 Trips /Day) The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P3 Buildings; Porkable_ P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: z -2-91 Y.E. BLACK}IOOi) BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIAL SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ("Yes" indicates Compliance: `Mail indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING STAFF PLANNING FINDINGS BASED BOARD ON SUBMITTED RECOMMENDED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements The application must comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected property at scale of not less than 111=1001 nor more than 1 1' =20' 20.3.2 b) Legal description of property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. 20.3.2 e) Maurer in which proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. _x—Yes No x_Yes No Site plan provided at scale of 1" =501 Description provided with application Yes No Not applicable. _x —Yes No The property immediately east has been rezoned Local Commercial. The property immediately west is also zoned Local Commercial. Across Hwy. 54 there are two lots zoned NC-2. With this location, the property is better suited for commercial purposes. x--Yes No The property is located in the ON-2 Rural Community Activity Node. The purpose of this node is to provide small scale cm o rcial uses serving the population in the surrounding area. The proposed zones are consistent with this type of node. C6 7 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 066 ARTICLE 4 --DI—STRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT, AND APPLICATION_ CRITERIA "Yes" indicates Compliance, "No" indicates Non -c Hance PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Local Commercial -1 and Neighborhood Commercial -2 designation. The criteria for these districts are set forth in Articles 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 as follows: (a) Located within areas „.�Yes No The property is located in a Rural designated by the adopted Community Activity Node Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. (b) Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. (c) Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. _x—Yes No The applicant indicates that there are plans to build. Permitted uses would only be those uses allowed in the proposed zoned. _x—Yes No The Orange County Health Department has informed the planning staff that there are suitable soils on the back portion of this property for a ground -4. absorption sewage treatment and disposal system. Improvement permit issuance would be pending final survey, proposed waste flow of the facility to be built, and no disturbance of the approved area. a PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 4.--DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION CRITERIA Continued Ordinance Requirements (d) Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 and NC -2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas. (e) All sites designated LC -1 and NC -2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS BASED ON SUBMITTED APPLICATION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS _x—Yes No The request to rezone this property would not exceed the maxium of 5 acres of land zoned LC -1 and NC-2 at this node. It would, however, complete this allotment for both zones. x—Yes No This Property has direct access to NC 54 which is designated as an arterial in the adopted plan. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED FINDINGS Yes No Yes No U 6 :). G7U �. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 24� bTil CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Eddie Kirk, Zoning officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 8, 1991, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the request for rezoning by W.E. Blackwood, located on the north side of NC 54 between White Cross Road (SR 1952) and Dodsons Crossroads South (SR 1102) in Bingham Townshi to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 8th day of May-1991. 2!i/� F A�i EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER _. I 01 . 1 072 OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 Action Agenda Item # C 4 SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (Large Day Care Homes) 073 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ,x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment County Attorney Comments INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk - ext. 2582 TELPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment concerning proposed revisions to existing Zoning ordinance provisions applicable to day care centers. BACKGROUND: Day care facilities are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. A day -care arrangement which provides care for more than 5 children on a regular basis as defined by the NC Child Day Care Commission is considered a Day Care and must receive approval of a Class B Special Use Permit from the Board of Adjustment. 4.-- Recently, Child Care Networks contacted the Planning Department about a new category of child care arrangement approved and licensed by the N.C. Child Day Care Commission. The new category is a "large day care home" and is termed a "home" because it is located in a family residence. A large day care home may,have up to 15 children, depending on their ages. Child Care Networks requested that large day care homes be permitted as a use by right. The attached amendment proposes that large day care homes be permitted by right, provided that specific development standards which address the potential impacts are met. The standards are incorporated into a new Article 6.27 and are almost identical to those applicable to larger facilities. The principal - difference is that large homes would be subject to administrative (staff) approval rather than that of a quasi - judicial board. The County Attorney has indicated in his letters dated May 10 and May 17 concern with three items in the proposal. His first concern is that the wording in 6.27.2 a) is vague and should be written to describe the dangers that are of concern. This section reads as follows: The large day care home is to be located in an area which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the children." This wording is the same wording that is presently in section 8.8.16.2 a) of the special use section for day care facilities in the zoning ordinance. If this wording needs to be amended, an amendment could be considered at a later time that would amend both of these sections at one time. Secondly, he indicated a concern about permitting large day care homes on private roads. The Planning Board has revised section 6.27.2 c) to require upgrading of a private road based on the number of homes currently served by the road and the projected traffic to be generated by the large day care home. The County Attorney is concerned about the amount of traffic that will be generated by the large day care home . Also, if there is an existing road maintenance agreement on the road, other residents may be required to pay more to maintain the road up to a set standard. The Planning Staff agrees that this would be inequitable for other lot owners and recommends that large day care homes only be allowed on public roads. If an applicant wanted to place a large day care home on a private road, a special use permit would have to be applied for. This would give the Board of Adjustment a chance to review the proposal. Thirdly the County Attorney has indicated his concern with the lack of public input in this process. Also, if this amendment is approved, the general conditions in the ordinance which speak to the public health, safety and welfare, the value of contiguous property, and compliance with the general- plan will automatically be made. The planning staff has considered these issues, and feels that they are addressed through the recommended standards. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment with large day care homes being allowed on public roads. 076 07"t 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 22 - Definitions (Large Day Care Home) Article 4 - Permitted Use Table Article 6 - Application of Dimensional Requirements Article 14 - Site Plan Approval Procedures ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —X —Staff Planning Board �BOCC Public —X —Other: C91-11d Care Networks STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X High Middle Low - Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1991 PURPOSE: To revise existing Zoning Ordinance provisions applicable to day care centers to be consistent with State licensing requirements. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Day care facilities are currently permitted in residential zoning districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. In commercial and office zoning districts, such facilities are permitted by right. Recently, Child Care Networks contacted the Planning Department about a new category of child care arrangement approved and licensed by the N.C. Child Day Care Commission. The new category is a "large day care home" and is termed a "home" because it is usually located in a family residence. A large day care home may have from six to 15 children, but the actual number depends upon the ages :>. of children. Child Care Networks requested that the current ordinance provisions be amended to allow large day care homes but without the necessity of obtaining a Class B Special Use Permit. The amendments presented below are proposed in response to Child Care Networks' request. Staff commentary regarding specific provisions is provided in italics. 078 EXISTING PROviSIONS: See attached provisions. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: The proposed amendments are as follows: ARTICLE 22. DEFINITIONS Proposed changes /new provisions are highlighted in bold. Day Care - Any child care arrangement under which a child less than 13 years of age receives care away from his own home by persons other than his parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters who are not minors, and guardians or full -time custodians. Day Care Facility - Any day care center or child care arrangement that provides day care for more than five (5) children, not including the operator's school age children, under the age of 13, on a regular basis of at least once per week for more than four (4) hours but less than 24 hours per day, and those operating fewer than four (4) hours per day that provide care for more children per adult care giver than would be permitted in an AA State licensed center, regardless of the time of day and regardless of whether the same children attend regularly. The following facilities are not included: public schools; non - public schools whether or not accredited by the State Department of Public Instruction, which regularly and exclusively provides a course of grade school instruction to children who are of public school age; summer camps having children in full -time residence; Bible schools conducted for no more than three (3) weeks during vacation periods; and cooperative arrangements among parents who care only for their own children in an arrangement as a matter of convenience rather than to enable any participating parent to be employed. Day Care Home, Large - A Day Care Facility, which provides day care for more than five (S) but fewer than sixteen (16) children, within a residence. ARTICLE 4. PERMITTED USE TABLE Proposed changes /new provisions are highlighted in bold. Amend Table 4.3 - Permitted Use Table by revising the wording for H1 -Day Care Facility to_read as follows: H1 Day Care Facility, other than Large Day Care Home Add a new permitted use, Hia - Day Care Home, Large, to Table 0 t 4.3 - Permitted Use Table. Large day care homes would be permitted by right in all zoning districts in which single - family dwellings are permitted. These would include: Rural Buffer Agricultural - Residential Residential -1 Residential -2 Residential -3 Residential -4 Residential -5 Residential -8 Residential -13 Local Commercialr -1 Neighborhood commercial -2 Community Commercial -3 Existing Commercial -5 Office s Institutional [The proposed amendment would allow large day care homes (6-- 15 children) as a use by right in all residential zoning districts. Day care facilities with more than 15 children would still be permitted in residential districts upon approval of a Class B Special Use Permit. Day care facilities, including large homes, located in commercial or office districts, would also be required to obtain a Class B - Special Use Permit.] ARTICLE 6. APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Proposed changes /new provisions are highlighted in bold. 6.27 LgLe DEC Care Homes [while permitting large day care homes by right, development standards are included to address the potential impacts of such a use in a residential area. The standards are incorporated into a new Article 6.27 and are almost identical to those applicable to larger facilities. The principal difference is that large day care homes would be subject to administrative (staff) approval rather than that of a quasi - judicial board.] 6.27.1 Site Plan Requirements In addition to the information required by Article 14.2, the following shall be submitted as part of an application for site plan approval: a) Evidence that the minimum requirements to qualify for a State of North Carolina large 4day care home license have been satisfied. b) A floor plan of the proposed large day care home, showing the use and dimensions of each room and the location of entrances and exits. 6.27.2 Standards For Evaluation The following standards shall be used in deciding on an application for site plan approval for the use: L, a) The large day care home is to be located in an area which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical *n4_jwril welfare of the children. b) The minimum requirements to qualify for a State of North Carolina large day care home license are satisfied. c) There is direct access from the property on which the large day care home is to be located to a State - maintained road or a private road approved by Orange County. Where direct access is to be provided to a large day care home from a private road, the private road shall be upgraded to a higher classification if required, based on the number of homes currently served by the road and the projected traffic to be generated by the large day care home. The appropriate road classification shall be determined by the orange County Subdivision Regulations and /or Private Road Standards. d) Adequate access to and from the site as well as adequate space off the road right -of -way, is provided for the safe pick -up and discharge Of children and is provided in such a manner that traffic generated by the large day care home is not disruptive to adjacent residentially developed properties. e) The site plan shall show how the facilities will be screened from adjacent properties. A Type A 30 foot buffer shall be provided around the large day care home and play area. These buffers will effectively screen the view of any outdoor play area, and reduce noise associated with the day care. The Type A buffer is described in the Zoning ordinance as being composed of "deciduous and /or evergreen vegetation, forming semi - opaque intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least thirty (3 0) feet." f) Each large day care home is required to 4provide at least 75 square feet of outdoor play space for every child in care. This space may not be located in a required buffer or in an area which is used or reserved for use as a sewage disposal.nitrification field. Fencing is to be provided around the outdoor space which assures the protection of the children recaiving day care and protects adjacent residentially developed properties from trespass. 6.27.3 Large DAy C re Rome - "Rlicatign Procedure No large day care home may be operated in a residence eucept as permitted under this Ordinance and only after approval has been issued by the Zoning Officer. An application for a large day care home shall be filed with the Zoning officer and shall be submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational characteristics are disclosed. In addition to the application, the applicant is required to submit a site plan of the property on which the large day care home is to be located. The site plan shall show the location of the residence in which the large day care home is to be located in relation to existing property lines and adjacent homes; the location, number, and means of access to required off- street parking areas; and the location and type of required landscaping and /or screening. Upon a determination that the application is complete, the Zoning Officer shall cause a review of the application to be made. The review shall determine if the proposed large day care home conforms with all requirements of this ordinance. Based on the review, the application will be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. If conditions are attached to the approval, they may address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address specific impacts which result from the operation of the large day care home. In the latter case, the conditions may include, but not be limited to, limitations on the hours of operation, location of play area, the number of vehicles to be parked on the premises, and the location of a storage area or parking on the property. In addition, the Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks and /or additional landscaping or screening to adequately screen the large day care home from adjoining properties. If the application is approved, either with or without conditions, the Zoning Officer shall send the applicant a letter informing him of the approval and of the requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the large day care home. The letter must be signed by the applicant to indicate his /her willingness to operate the large day care home in conformance with the requirements and conditions 0 S 2 set forth in the letter. Each letter shall be kept on file by the Zoning Officer and shall constitute the approval for the large day care home in question. If the application is denied, the Zoning shall notify the applicant of the denial state the reasons for denial in writing. applicant may appeal the decision of the Officer to the Board of Adjustment as sei Article 21 of this Ordinance. Off icer and shall The Zoning forth in Each large day care home approved by the Zoning Officer shall be reviewed annually by him /her to assure compliance with the standards of evaluation for such facilities. Any change in the operation of the large day care home will constitute a modification and require the approval of the Board of Adjustment under the provisions of Article 8 of this ordinance. in determining whether a change in the operation of - the large day care home has occurred, the Zoning Officer shall be guided by the procedures and criteria contained in Article 8.7. [The standards of evaluation are essentially the same as those required for larger facilities and used by the Board of Adjustment in deciding on an application. Additional standards included as part of the amendments are buffer requirements and a restriction on the location of outdoor play areas. The requirement of 75 square feet of outdoor space is a State standard. If the outdoor space is located on existing nitrification fields or space reserved for that Purpose, the soil may be compacted or a low pressure system damaged by the pedestrian traffic. The restriction is simply an effort to prevent such a situation from occurring. A concern common to all types of day care facilities is the amount of traffic likely to be generated by such a use. Day care involving less than six children is not licensed by the State or regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. If a large day care home may have up to i5 children, the difference between the two day care arrangements is ten children. In a worst case situation, this would mean that an additional 20 vehicular trips are generated by the use. This is equivalent to the trip generation of two single - family homes. Since the facility would also be a single family residence, it could generate (at m &st) traffic equivalent to that of three single- family residences. Under the provisions of Article 6.27.2 c) above, the operator may faced with upgrading a road to a higher standard. This provision is intended to address specific concerns about traffic and its impact on a road.] ARTICLtI4 - SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES Proposed changes /new provisions are highlighted in bold. 0S.3 14.2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 14.2.1 PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND CERTIFICATION Each site plan shall be prepared by a registered engineer, landscape architect, architect, or land surveyor; however, in some cases, professional design and certification of the plan may not be required. These exceptions include, but are not limited to the following: a. Proposed additions to existing permitted non- residential structures where the use of the structure and lot has not changed and the floor area is not increased more than twenty - five percent (25 %); b. Accessory structures to existing permitted non - residential structures where vehicular use, area is not extended and changes to existing grade are not more than one (1.0) foot in elevation; and c. Single - family detached dwellings and duplexes, and accessory structures to such uses when located in the University Lake Watershed (ULW) District. d. Large day care homes, as defined in Article 22, Definitions. [Large day care homes would be required to submit a site plan for Planning Department approval but the plan would not have to be prepared by one of the registered professionals identified above. The purpose of this amendment is to help reduce the start -up expense for day care operators.] ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: 4/3/91 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: OS4 4,-. Ob5 COLEMAN, BERNHOU, BERNHOU, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYON STREET - P.O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 919 -732 -2196 919 -942 -8000 FAX 919- 732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300, THE CENTER 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919 - 929 -7151 FAX 919 - 929 -3892 ALONZO B. COLEMAN, JR. STEVEN A. BERN14OLZ ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN KIM K. STEFFAN JOE L. WEBSTER TERRY G. HARK JANET B. DUTTON JOHN D_ LOFTIN Of Counsel BONNER D. SAWYER (1902 -1972) May 10, 1991 Mr. Eddie Kirk Planner Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Large Day Care Home Zoning Amendment Dear Eddie: I've reviewed the proposed ordinance revisions which would permit so- called Large Day Care Homes to be permitted without a special use permit if they are to be located in residential districts. I have these comments: 1. The first standard for evaluation, that of the home being located "in an area which is free from conditions dangerous to the physical and moral welfare of the children." is vague. It should be written to describe the dangers, physical and moral, that are of concern. 2. I question the advisability of permitting large day care homes on private roads. If they are to be permitted on private roads, I question the staff analysis on this point which indicates that a large day care home would be equivalent to two additional residences. However, this analysis only takes into consideration the difference between a large day care home and a small day care home. The full impact of the home should be considered. In that regard, a day care facility that is not classified as a large one should have #a,tandards which require private road upgrading when a private road is proposed. 3. The new ordinance provisions call for notice to adjoining property owners of an application for a large day care home zoning permit. There is no public input in this process, only notice. Also, only adjoining property owners will get notice. I wonder if z a w a 0 U 086 Mr. Eddie Kirk,.- Page 2 May 10, 1991 this is sufficient. The special use process, although more time consuming to the applicant, ensures public notice to nearby property owners and a public hearing on the application. In other respects, the proposed amendments are in good form. Very t;pu ly yours, GEG /lsg xc: Marvin Collins a . G 11 coumAN, BERNHOU, BERNHOLZ, GLBDHILL & HARGRAVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 129 E. TRYON STMT P.O. DRAWER 1529 HHi i CBOROUGH, NC 27278 919 -732 -2196 919 - 942 -8000 PAX 919 - 732 -7997 CHAPEL HILL OFFICE SUITE 300, THE CENTER May 17, 1991 1506 E. FRANKLIN STREET CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919.929 -7151 FAX 919.929 -3892 ALONZO B. COLEMAN. JR. STEVEN A.BERNHOLZ ROGER B. BERNHOLZ GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL 14r. Eddie Kirk DOUGLAS HARGRAVE G. NICHOLAS HERMAN Planner KIM L. STEFFAN Orange County Planning Department JOE TERRY G. HARN Post office Box 8181 JANET B. DUTTON Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 ` JOHN D. LOFTIN Of Cowl RE: Large Day Care Home Ordinance Amendment BONNER D. SAWYER (1902.1972) Dear Eddie: This letter is in response to your May 15, 1991 letter concerning changes made to the proposed amendment as the result of Ordinance Review Committee and Planning Board review. Comments contained in my May 10, 1991 letter still pertain. I still question whether Large Day Care Homes should be permitted on private roads and the staff analysis concerning the impact of Large Day Care Homes still seems to me flawed. Because small day care facilities (less than six children) are not licensed by the State or regulated by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance does not mean the impact of a Large Day Care Home can be computed by discounting the impact of the first five about children in the day care home. Also, my public input into Large Day Care Homes is not resolved by eliminating any notice to property owners of an application for a zoning permit for a Large Day Care Home. very truly yours, . Gledhill GEG /lsg xc: Marvin Colli 0 OS7 Vss u 0 R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 28. 1991 OP- Action Agenda Item # C 5 SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT (Re- approval of Expired Preliminary Plat) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _X —Yes No ATTACH14ENT (S) : Proposed Amendment INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow staff re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats. BACKGROUND: Under current procedures, the Board of Commissioners may approve a revised phasing plan for an expired Preliminary Plat. If a revision is not approved, the expired portion of the Preliminary Plan must be re- submitted as if it were a new project. In many cases, the re- submitted Preliminary Plan is identical to the original plat. If there have been no major changes in subdivision, zoning, or other regulations which affect the proposal, then the Preliminary Plat is generally re- approved with little or no change. Major design considerations and other issues were addressed and resolved prior to the original approval. In many cases, the approval process for the "new" subdivision is oriented largely toyard process, rather than substance. The attached amendment is proposed to allow staff to re- approve expired Preliminary Plats which meet certain criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. 030 :4 - _ 091 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REFERENCE: SECTION III -D -2 -f ADMINISTRATIVE RE- APPROVAL ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: r X High Middle Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 28, 1991 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide a procedure for administrative re- approval of expired Preliminary Plats. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Under current procedures, an expired Preliminary Plat may be extended upon approval by the Board of Commissioners of a revised phasing plan. There are specific criteria for the Board to consider when determining if the revision will be approved. If a revision to the phasing plan is not approved, then the applicant must re- submit the expired portion of the Preliminary Plan as if it were a new project. In many cases, the re- submitted Preliminary Plan is identical to the original plat which was approved by the Board of Commissioners. If there have been no major changes in subdivision, zoning, or other regulations which affect the proposal, then the Preliminary Plat is generally re- approved with little or no change. Major design considerations and other issues were addressed and resolved prior to the original approval. Where there have been no changes in regulations which affect the subdivision, and no changes to the original proposal are requested, the existing procedure of considering the subdivision as if it were a new project is oriented largely toward process, rather than substance. The attached amendment is proposed to allow staff to re- approve expired Preliminary Plats if: - the original subdivision design and conditions of approval are consistent with regulations in existence at the time of application for re- approval, and - any changes`to the original approval are considered "minor changes ", which are technical rather than substantive. - (I n The concept of staff approval of minor changes is used in the - Zoning Ordinance, where Planning Staff may approve minor changes to a Special Use Permit. The criteria for defining a "minor change" in the attached proposal are similar to those applied to Special Use Permits, modified to reflect concerns unique to subdivisions. Administrative re- approval would be one -time only. If a re- j approved Preliminary Plat expired, then the applicant could request amendment to the phasing plan by the Board of Commissioners, in accordance with current procedures. EXISTING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT; III- D -Z -e. Action Subsegnent to ARRroval Upon approval of the Preliminary Plat by the Board of Commissioners, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the Final Plat, and the installation of or arrangement for required improvements in accordance with the approved Preliminary Plat and the requirements of this Ordinance. If the application is approved or approved with conditions, the Planning Department may issue applicable development permits required to construct, install and use improvements approved as part of the Preliminary Plat approval. Except for the above improvements, no building permits shall be issued to develop any lot or parcel shown on the approved Preliminary Plat until a Final Plat showing such lot or parcel is approved and recorded under this Section. Except as provided in Section III- D -2 -c, the applicant shall submit an amended application for review as an original application if he /she proposes to substantially amend or modify his /her application after the Board of Commissioners have approved the Preliminary Plat. '*The approval of a Preliminary Plat shall be effective for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval by the Board of Commissioners. By the end of that time period, approval of the Final Plat must have been obtained from the Planning Department, although the plat need not have been recorded in, the Office of the Register of Deeds. Any plat or portion thereof not receiving final approval within the time period set forth herein shall be null and void except under the following conditions: U`93 (1) The subdivision is built in sections or phases, and a phasing plan was approved as part of the Preliminary Plat; (2) The period between the approval date of the Preliminary Plat and the approval date of the Final Plat for the first phase does not exceed one (1) year; and (3) The period between the approval date of the Final Plat of the first phase and the approval date(s) of the Final Plat(s) of any subsequent phase(s) does not exceed the time limits specified in the phasing plan of the Preliminary Plat. If no phasing plan is indicated, then the period between Final Plat approvals shall not exceed six (6) months. Where a phasing plan for construction of the subdivision is approved, and construction may not begin until required utilities and /or other facilities are available to serve the development, the expiration date of the Preliminary Plat shall be governed by the time period(s) approved as part of the phasing plan. III- D --2 -f. Administrative Re- Approval The Planning Director or his/her authorized agent ma within one year of the eNRiratign of a preliminary Plat, re-approve the ex ired Rreliminary Plat or portions thereof as long as the subdivision design and conditions of aRnroval are in com liance with subdivision and zoDlLng regulations where aRRlicabl in effect - the time of aRRlicati on for re- aRproval. and Shan es to the original _design or conditions of aRRroval are considere minor,,, nor,^ ch n e may be considered a minor chap a if it does NOT involve any of the fgllowina-z- gny substantive change in a condition-of approval. hj an increase in the number of buildin lots RrOROsed. cl any substantial change in the location of or decrease in the amount of o en s ace buffers or area reserved for recreation use. any substantial change in pedestrian 004 and or vehicular ccess or circulation including road c1 ssification. &„ any c a e i the rovisi n of services s h As water su l a d wastewater disposal_. 91 any su s an is chan a in the location of 11tilities or other easements. T e su iv's'on shall be-suble--t to review by all a22licgbi a eview a encies as is re fired •'+� aiG considered minor changes, the Plannin alrgptor or his her authorized Agent may-rm- apgrgve the 2reliminary—lat, with condition of a r val stated in a format which substantially substgntially conforms to the Resolution of A royal ado ted by the Board of Commissione s` when ar)Rroving a reliminar lat. III-D-2-g. FurtheX Time Extensions Q-n_lv one admi istrative re -a royal may bg approved for anY subdivisi n. If a re- ARgroved Preliminary Plat Mires Where Mme period h" e1aVsa4;&r the developer shall be required to resubmit a new Preliminary Plat for the tract or portion thereof for which approval has expired. The new plat shall be subject to all applicable regulations in existence at the time of resubmittal. Provided, however, the development phasing plan approved as part of the Preliminary Plat (hereafter "the phasing plan ") may be amended by the Board of Commissioners upon application by the subdivider. In determining whether to approve an amended phasing plan, the Board of Commissioners shall consider: (1) whether or not approval of other diligently pursued regulatory requirements can be obtained before the expiration of the time periods established in the phasing plan; and (2) the quality of and length of time of the experience of the subdivider in managing development projects; and (3) whether factors other than market conditions and beyond the control of the subdivider caused a delay in meeting the phasing plan; and (4) whether the development project, if completed consistent with the approved ()1� 5 will tend to aid or Plat► ublic policy goal preliminary octant P County meet an important Board of Commissioners; and an amended the application for before the (5) whether was submitted phasing plan pproved time limit (s) has previously lapsed; and and practicality of (6) the possibility of develop with the subdivider and ect consistent menr gulations aPslrot le if the develop Orange county regulations the phasing Plan granted; and which improvements time by installed would not (7) whether the feted or basing plan. must be Comp revised p be extended by the Submitted of the evidence the considerati�oncerling each of in its After licant the Board may the app above► shown► grant the factors listed for good cause Phasing Plan unless it discretion and the P would not maintain or amendment to do so the general concludes that ec if is man If r the Board promote, in some sp plan, it safety and Welfarthe phasing p health, an amendment to conditions approves additiofinal plat(s). may require reasonaunapproved of approval of the * 4�3�91 gOBC01'�MI'f'� � 2 2 / ORDIRMCB REOI 91 p�IRG BOARD R'KV11 BOCC RzvIZw' ti�. - 096 PM HILL HERALD PAGE 5 Wide - roads and wide vehicles: the search fora 14 -foot lane Bicyclists are very interested in road widths, for instance, wide roads and narrow motor vehicles provide viral margins of safety. We know cyclists who have been clipped by wide truck mirrors. One of us was al- most smacked by .a protruding bulldozer blade when a dump truck towing the trailer. mounted bulldozer cut in front of us. Recently a woman cyclist was killed and another badly in- jured on N.C. 751 near Jordan Lake when they were hit from the rear by a pickup truck. N.C. 751 is a very narrow road with a 55 mph speed limit. That recent accident has been very much on the minds of bi- cyclists in these parts. We fancy it's also been on the minds of many motorists because we think we've noticed motorists are just a bit more willing late ly to share the road a little bet- ter. Not long ago we read in an- . other local newspaper that the standard lane width for North Carolina Highways is 14 feet We think they printed what the DOT told them. We had our doubts. We seem to remember that the maximum legal width for heavy trucks, (and, presumably, lighter ones, too) used to be 8 feet but it was changed to 8 feet 6 inches a flew years ago. If one subtracts 8 feet 6 inch- es from 14 feet, then the differ- ence is 5 fleet 6 inches. A bicy- clist is about 2 feet wide. The N.C. highway code says that motorists should leave a mini- mum of two feet of clearance when passing slower moving vehicles, including bicycles. All that seems to show there's 'room in one of our standard highway lanes for a bike and a big truck. However, we've often had the feeling we didn't have that much space. 5o we decided to find out. We armed ourselves with a clipboard and one of those mea- suring tapes and we set out to measure some roads and some vehicles for ourselves. The first thing we measured was a road v.ety near where we live — Estes 1) rive Extension be- tween Horace Williams Airport and Carrboro. In some places SHARING THE ROAD in much smaller cars. This ap- plies to both bicyclists and mo- torists. There are lots of statistics about how people who ride in big cars are less likely to be in- jured or killed than people who ride in small cars. We've never seen any data as to whether people who get hit by.cars are more likely to die than people who get hit by small cars. But TERRY & ICILJ.()L �1 we can guess what they might show. this road, the whole road from grass to grass, is 22 feet wide But in others it's about 21. A cyclist can depend on lane width, half the road that is, of no more than 10 % feet That means Joe's big rig ca Pass us on Estes Extension with- out crossing the center line, but we might get truck tire sidewall scuff marks on our left sleeves. Next thing, we went to visit the Farrington Point boat ramp parking lot on Jordan Lake. We wandered about, furtively mea- suring boat trailers. We discov- ered most of the new low -slung jobs are at least 8 feet wide. We found one that was over 9 feet. Time was, boats were carried on trailers with the wheels underneath. Now, boats are slung low to the road and the wheels are way out on the sides. Every bicyclist who has ridden in the Jordan Lake area has been passed by these things. Then we proceeded to N.C. 751 to see how much space it has for Moot wide boat trailers to share the road. We found in most places it does have room for two 9 -foot boat trailers to meet — just barely. Except where the Corp of Engineers widened the road when they built the lake. N.C. 751 is most- ly 20 feet wide, grass to grass. We found one place where it's only about 18 feet wide, grass to grass. We're constantly hearing about how bigger cars are safer cars and how bad it would be if we're forced into buying small- er cars. It's certainly true that bigger cats are safer for their occupants. But it seems obvious that for us to be as sate as we can be, we should want the other. guys to be riding around Bicyclists know it's much safer to share the road with a m narrow vehicle than with a wide one. The smallest cats, like a Tercel or a Justy, average a around 6 -foot wide including their mirrors That means on a 10 -faot wide lane there may be n just enough room for a two-foot wide cyclist. his two feet of le- gally mandated clearance, and a very small car with small mir- rors. We don't think it's very safe, but there it is. We measured a "standard size" American pickup in our Parking lot at work and we found that it was 8 feet 2 inches wide including its mirrors. That's over two feet wider than a small car. We also found there a trailer such as a con- tractor might use to tote a mod- est size tractor- mounted back - hoe. It was fully 9 feet wide without any mirrors and with a Place proclaiming it met all ap- plicable safety standards. Even on a 12 -foot wide lane there's not enough room for a "standard size" pickup or a backhoe trailer or one of those wide boat trailers to share the lane with a bike. And we could find very few 12 -foot wide lanes on the byways that cyclists try to use, much less those standard 14 footers. We finally did find one of the 14•foot wide lanes we have seen reported as standard for our state. We found it on a busy new part of N.C. 54 between Chapel Hill and Interstate 40. We had to measure fast to keep our tape from being run over. Actually, two of these 14 feet . are to the .right of the white line where. we like them to be. So were still in search of that 14 -hoot standard lane. Dick Terry and Paul Killough are bicycle enthusiasts who live in Chapel Hill. /0/r -5--- 07 if - �?/ Dukt 3AniurraitV filiehicnl Qltnftr DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27710 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY BEHAVIORAL PHYSIOLOGY LABORATORY BOX 3842 19191 884.4317 May 29, 1991 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Department P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Ladies and Gentlemen; I am writing to protest the proposed change of address for residents of the Stoneridge /Sedgefield subdivisions. Given the advent of computers, everything you wish to accomplish can be programmed in software. Even telephone switches can be programmed to give a physical map location from the input of a phone number. While assigning numbers to rural route post boxes makes sense, changing established street addresses is an unnecessary inconvenience. It will cost a lot more in the aggregate for all of us to change our address on every legal document, then it will for the county to use comVen achieve the desired goal. I am very opposed to the prn. ncerely, S. S urwit, Ph.D. Professor 204 Forest Ridge Drive Chapel Hill, 27514 Jli 3 i991 CP June 11, 1991 34 Sedgewood Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 SUBJECT: STANDARDIZING OF ROUSE NUMBERING IN STONERIDGE /SEDGEFIELD Dear Moses: I will writing to state my strong opposition to changing of the house numbering system in Stoneridge /Sedgefield neighborhood. My reasons of opposition are the following: 1. We are not currently on a rural route and have a house numbering system which has worked efficiently for 12 years. 2. Stoneridge /Sedgefield is a large planned community which is fully developed with a planned numbering system in place. 3. The renumbering of our neighborhood would not enhance our 911 emergency system. We need a central telephone company as you and I have discussed in the past. Our emergency service problems have not been in our numbering system but in automatically reaching Durham rather than Chapel Hill when requesting emergency service. 4. The change would not be beneficial in the GIS coordination. I hope you will consider the above and not vote to make this change. It would inconvenience and penalize the citizens of our area. You know the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it "; I think it is very applicable in this situation. If you would like to discuss this further, please give me a call at work 248 -2558 or home 490 -5138. Best regards, 9 o an Pulley D ,i M, aa,iql ( Oram.1� a P.O. 9 4- PU, A4S aAAA tz hnA -. WAL�t CtAl CUL4'K tt tc - P,p G °� rl �-e OAAs4, OA-ta 'mot r N'c 2 7�� �• ~_:•'e; ice` - ...,.i ;•_•�. '' i, es,'.. , ' -i:' `�H•.'_,•>...- •_,,,` = e�""y`_.di�y_: -.,• .�:; -.' "'y;•' �,Y .� _ - - tm M • ~.w '�1F -�►c .+�a'�i� � �c� pa' - - - .3•:- .,ti*1`ry�-:�- � :�i;!• �•� 'S-� ��.�r� %' ±2y� '• - _ _�• ��� ti ti�•.`i a �~`.;.K � •:, '. !+r i- •• :• ' • ' =: ^•."1':.�"' .m �.i� a� � J'� � �,•� s _ ',faj ~- «#•.` - V r y► Y . _ ✓r !0lr�' :: : -.•;: - +�:- p " ~� fix', ^y ayrr_` {"''�� »'•'. -.ti1 ,° - "R �!'•_� -� w Tt�r _ "1yTi -•:a:� .,A'M+_�.� - r..f,•;w `n -. • ti,� '7"�Z __ _ ��.`�Cw•~C`v�; :r.::_ •l��S_ =;ia Y °; •_� ,a `sr." 1] �- je�� :v� � i -ri• J� 4 \Cl�~: ::;'.:- f = -+ s��n.�. �r+i• -Y.; � 'i;, �y�. -Y^o t: r'��f- J','S: =d • •yL� s'- �xw -w'' "tir =• - {` . -.v- .•7��41~+ �+;_� ;' � • +Y _ ':�.yy.• - a' ypv yrC}.. �. �-;�� .•y,'..;JV; Tti .='+i -'... y�i• Jti -� -{• �/y -a-% t4 . r �'., -��5 -�+•ti� �- .�✓_�:- -�,C.i may' �,'� ,yy�.���'. `a�.w _ -+ fi•A +4T •' �`A',��i.. -'r. .•r•_•�ti'•.- �'f''.Y%�: a.A. .Frd-'R"• - "i�R� M1�� �yV r..n: •,.-- _� "'_� icy y ;{,��y �y�.. _�.r I1v�LT. -�r3 0 .Y ii"" �v�.�- 'r�•,t •«..: ;•.., _*;;'�•::: -F .:r1i' hFi} •L •''1^ iti„ anu DPE CORRIDOR ADVISORY Ca rur Nt:W the City of MOPE Durham County CORRIDOR County of 7 ac i Chape OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN OULTER A880CIATE3, Lantlacaoe Architects 8 bane nin... anu DPE CORRIDOR ADVISORY Ca rur the City of Durham Durham County Drange and 'he Town ►nail. County of 7 ac i Chape Ile y' (.i .' = _ - w'r��a.4 f :4+13, -•'... -- _ - - 1 _' - :i<,i- r - � '- o `F.. :).• ' �- • -4' -' _ _ .. • 1 Vii. �+ �-a, ��• -.s' - r .'u -"*i�: ! M•-^+t -� ,• iii.1:. �:. � ?'•ti�.:7•: •T•�• �.���a..? .��r .5r.?y "�: "'.jai= ':.:••'. ^.'_ ` *- •tiVlr: �' ..r.+�•� Y�'+'` ^���:. - - •-�- ":31 -v y;1l, ••s w. '. �• � •.I�• .w•.+.''.�H• ^•;.'..• • � r� a,i- -Yi "i�� �'7 _ �^.- �! wry =- ':�.it'a " =•• _ -1: da `j;"`tv _.^i f•y -. fa2c ti�• '�!� � � i "� �� ��•. u,� '_ +�i '-•. Y} �_�` -T�t, `!fix � .-:c �•I�' +.�'�`. _ - `��� 22! ti •a •~ ll t rti � •_ w�: y � a• ��•�� 9C � C "•. •'�`== �F�L;v ~~i.�WY � ,•w .. . +ti =:=•' 'fib �`'- `��'t_^'_� �i- t `�{;t •' -:•- `= +f• - :`r` x `�':. -•.i�• •.� `9 try; ~ i' tit •�'�ulir ` ([r d'. � _ �71� :��!_: - ..:..5:: �':_v :� •,�,�,•r`'+":�'`� :"r; � � -�" j `% ��- � X57. -�. �\ .. 7•'`'\ +,fir %�: nr'�` '� � Fti Lip @ %,ATY or rham County uurna Ntw d Town of HUPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLC OULTER ASSOCIATES, Landscape Architects &Land Pla and NEW HOPE CORRIDOR ADVISORY COmwrrTCe @ %,ATY or rham County uurna enge County d d Town of P_hAr New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects & Land Planners and New Hope Corridor Advisory Committee for The City of Durham Durham County Orange County and The Town of Chapel Hill April, 1991 New Rope Corridor Open Space Master Plan NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN April 1991 PREPARED FOR THE JURISDICTIONS OF: Town of Chapel Hill, NC City of Durham, NC Orange County, NC Durham County, NC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Appointed jointly by all four jurisdictions: Judd Edeburn Pearson Stewart, Chair Ray Green Susan S. Rose Orange County: Gail Boyarsky Susan Waldroup Jean Hamilton Durham County: Mary Whitmore Oliver W. Alphin Wade Penny, Jr. Chapel Hill: Gene Davis June Dunnick Kathryn Harris City of Durham: Robert Healy Annette Montgomery Thomas Krakauer PLANNING DE Orange County Durham County Chapel Hill City of Durham PARTMENT STAFF: Emily Crudup Vonda Frantz Midxlle Overby Chris Berndt Vonda Frantz VEGETATION STUDIES, SITE DESCRIPTIONS, AND FIELD MAPS: Ed Harrison Funded by the Triangle Land Conservancy CONSULTANT Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects and Land Planners, Durham, NC New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Pf- The following persons were responsible for the initiation of a resolution which was adopted in the spring of 1989 by the four jurisdictions to provide for the preservation of open space in the New Hope Corridor: Wilber P. (Wib) Gulley - Mayor, Durham, NC Jonathan Howes - Mayor, Chapel Hill, NC William Bell - Chair, Durham Board of County Commissioners Moses Carey - Chair, Orange Board of County Commissioners The interest, dedication, and hard work of the following persons and organizations contributed to the preparation of this Master Plan: Hildegard Ryals Alex Gilleskie Dr. Lynn Maguire, and students Environmental Studies Debbie McCarthy Mike Waldroup Jane Korest Friends of the New Hope New Hope Audubon Society Triangle Land Conservancy from Duke University School of Forestry and The Advisory Committee wishes to thank all of these people and organizations for their contribution. In addition, the Committee thanks the New Hope Improvement Association for the use of the Community Rooms where the Committee held numerous meetings. New Sops Condor Open .Space Mawr Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................... • • ..................... i I. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Narrative .................. 1 A. Introduction and Overview .. ............................... 1 -- Defining the Corridor's Geographical Extent ................... 1 -- The Value of the Corridor's Topography and Natural Habitat ......... 4 B. Planning for the Protection and Use of the Corridor .................. 6 -- General Types of Trail to be Used ......................... 6 Wildlife Corridor Use ...................... .......... 6 -- Trails and Habitat in Portions of the Corridor That Should Not be Built Upon .. ............................... 7 -- Criteria for Developing Portions of the Corridor That Could Be Built Upon . ............................... 8 -- Sewer and Utility Line Installation ......................... 9 -- Road Construction and Use ............................ 10 C. Carrying Out the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan .......... 11 -- Acquisition ......... .............................11 -- Forms of Compensation for Private Owners .................. 12 -- Implementation and Cost .............................. 14 II. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Details ................... 15 A. Value of the Master Plan .. ............................... 16 B. Development of the Master Plan ............................. 16 C. Location and Description of the New Hope Corridor ................ 17 D. Goals of the Open Space Corridor ........................... 19 -- Jurisdictional Goals as Reflected in the 1989 Joint Resolution ........ 19 -- Advisory Committee Goals ............................. 20 E. Description of the Master Plan .............................. 20 F. The Ten Geographic Components of the Master Plan ................ 22 -- Component 1. New Hope Creek From NC 54 to Chapel Hill Road ............................... 26 -- Component 2. New Hope Creek From Chapel Hill Road to Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard ..................... 29 -- Component 3. Sandy Creek From New Hope Creek to Duke University .......................... 34 New Hope Co"Mor Open Spade Master Plan -- Component 4. New Hope Creek From Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard to Erwin Road .......................... 37 Component 5. Dry Creek From New Hope Creek to Erwin Road ..... 41 -- Component 6. Hollow Rock Access Area ................... 44 -- Component 7. Mud Creek Urban Greenway, From Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard to Duke Forest .......................... 47 -- Component 8. Cornwallis -Erwin Natural Area/Open Space ......... 50 -- Component 9. NC 751 Scenic Road ....................... 53 -- Component 10. Orange County Wildlife Protection Areas A. Piney Mountain Creek and Rhodes Creek .............. 55 B. Duke Forest and Upper New Hope Creek .............. 56 M. Implementation Recommendations ............................... 58 A. Master Plan Approval .... ............................... 58 B. Advisory Committee Formation and Operation .................... 58 C. Master Plan Implementation Steps ............................ 59 List of Maps New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Map ...................... 3 VicinityMap ............. ............................... 18 Map of the Ten Geographic Components ........................... 23 Map Legend for All Component Maps ............................ 24 Component 1. New Hope Creek From NC 54 to Chapel Hill Road .......... 25 Component 2. New Hope Creek From Chapel Hill Road to Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard .......................... 28 Component 3. Sandy Creek From New Hope Creek to Duke University Part A. From New Hope Creek to Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard .... 31 Part B. Park Site: From Chapel Hill - Durham Boulevard to Pickett Road . 32 Part C. Pickett Road to Duke University .................... 33 Component 4. New Hope Creek From Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard toErwin Road ...................................... 36 Component 5. Dry Creek from New Hope Creek to Erwin Road ........... 40 Component 6. Hollow Rock Access Area .......................... 43 Component 7. Mud Creek Urban Greenway From Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard to Duke Forest ............................... 46 Component 8. Cornwallis -Erwin Natural Area/Open Space ............... 49 Component 9. NC 751 Scenic Road ............................. 52 New Hope Comdor Open Space Master Plmi List of Tables Table 1: Master Plan Action Summary- -Phase 1, Priority Corridor Actions............. .............................63 Table 2: Master Plan Action Summary- -Phase 2, Land Acquisiton ........... 64 Table 3: Master Plan Action Summary- -Phase 3A, Trail Construction ......... 66 Table 4: Master Plan Action Summary- -Phase 3B, Anchor /Access Development .. 67 Table 5: Master Plan Implementation Cost Summary ................... 68 Appendices (Printed as a seperate document) A. Inventory and Analysis of Existing Conditions .......... 2 B. Resolutions Passed by the Governing Boards ..................... 17 C. Advisory Committee Goal- Setting Process and Rating Sheets ........... 20 D. Report Summaries ...... ............................... 24 E. New Hope Creek Corridor Vegetation Inventory Site Descriptions: Prepared by Edward Harrison ........................... 53 New Hope 0—dor Open Space Master Pf- Executive Summary In 1989, in passing a common resolution, the governing boards of Chapel Hill, Durham, Durham County, and Orange County recognized the value of the New Hope corridor and took steps to preserve this open space as a natural asset. The 1987 inventory of Natural Areas and Rare Species of Durham County recognized as significant the New Hope Corridor itself and three specific natural areas within the corridor. The New Hope corridor received Federal recognition when, in August 1990, the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated New Hope Creek as an "Important Regional Wetland." This designation may offer the possibility of receiving Federal funding. Since October 1989, an Advisory Committee representing each of the jurisdictions has worked with members of the planning staffs and a Consultant, Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects & Land Planners, to prepare a Master Plan for the preservation of the corridor. The Consultant and the Advisory Committee were charged with.... "....creating an open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, the New Hope Creek, Corps Lands, and the growing communities of Durham and Chapel Hill for aesthetic, environmental, educational, and recreational purposes, and as a means of shaping the urban form of the area." The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan identifies the critical environmental areas to be protected to achieve those goals and recommends that the following land areas be acquired through purchase, acquisition of development rights, or donation: • The stream course; • Adjacent floodplains; • Steep slopes (defined as 20 percent or greater) adjacent to floodplains; • Larger tracts of particular historic, educational, or recreational value (open space anchors); and • The NC 751 Scenic Road (designation and some acquisition). New Hope Coridor Open Space Mawr Plan These areas would provide locations for such features as wildlife habitats, trails, and access areas. The Advisory Committee recommends that the participating governing boards move to protect the following areas: • New Hope Creek from NC 54 north and west to Erwin Road in Orange County; • Dry Creek from New Hope Creek on the north side of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard west to Erwin Road and the future Chapel Hill greenway; • Mud Creek from New Hope Creek north to NC 751; • Connections between Mud Creek-NC 751 and the Eno River State Park along NC 751 and Orange County roads (to the west); and • Sandy Creek from New Hope Creek on the south side of Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard northeast across the Boulevard to NC 751. After adoption of the Master Plan by the four jurisdictions, a permanent Advisory Committee should be established to monitor and advise in carrying out the recommendations of the plan and to nurture and foster citizens' involvement in preservation and acquisition. The membership of the Committee would be drawn from the planning and open space agencies of the four jurisdictions with additional representation of interested citizens and property owners. The Committee should be official and permanent and should be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the corridor's future, including reviewing and making recommendations concerning development proposals, annual budgets, etc., that affect the corridor. The Committee should not be responsible for operations related to the corridor. The Committee should require only minimal staff support in carrying out its duties. The Implementation Recommendations (Section III.) consist of three phases, which would take place over a maximum of 20 years: Phase 1. Priority Corridor Acquisition (Years 1 -5) Objective: Through acquisition, to utilize land presently under control of the City of Durham, Duke University, and the Corps of Engineers, as well as that acquired through purchase of opportunity in the Wildlife Protection Area and other acquisition opportunities that are presented through rezoning, negotiation, or donation. New hope Corridor Open Space Master An Phase 2. Completion of Corridor Acquisition (Years 5 -10) Objectives: To complete the acquisition of land needed for the Wildlife Protection Area and for steep slope protection. To acquire land needed for stream protection and for anchors and access areas. To construct trails as needed to connect schools, parks, and other locations. Phase 3. Completion of Trails and Access Areas (years 10-20) Objective: To prepare plans, obtain needed financing for construction, and construct trails and access areas. protecting the New Hope corridor and establishing open space anchors will require the acquisition of approximately 1100 acres of floodplain, 45 acres of steep slopes, and 554 acres of uplands, and the purchase of development rights to an additional 103 acres. To achieve the passive 'recreation potential of the corridor, approximately 20 miles of trails should be developed. The estimated cost of land acquisition ranges between $12.5 million and $22.5 million. The cost of developing the recreational potential and trails is estimated to be between $1.8 million and $2.7 million. The total project cost is estimated to be between $14.3 million and $25.3 million dollars. The partnership between citizens and government that has led to the preservation of the Eno River basin has brought increasing national recognition to our community. Employing a similar private -public partnership to establish the New Hope corridor will ensure that the western side of the Triangle will continue to be a desirable place in which to work and live. The benefits from maintaining open space, maintaining and improving environmental quality, and providing potential for passive recreation are immediate and real. They augment and complement the benefits of preserving for the benefit of all our citizens, a significant buffer of green trees and free - flowing water. W I. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Narrative New Rope Corfidor Open Space Master Plan New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan I. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Narrative A. Introduction and Overview In 1989, the separate governing boards of Chapel Hill, Durham, Durham County, and Orange County adopted a common resolution recognizing the open space value of the New Hope Creek corridor and supporting its preservation. A copy of the resolution is provided as Appendix S. The governing boards established an Advisory Committee and retained Coulter Associates to work with the Committee as a Consultant in preparing recommendations for the corridor. This Master Plan Narrative and the Master Plan Details (Section II) that follows constitute the findings of the Committee and provide the requested recommendations. The recommendations in this report are not simply recapitulations of the pre - resolution studies or of the resolution itself. Rather, they are the result of detailed studies, on -site inspections, map reviews, consultations with area professionals, and committee judgements. In addition, of great importance, they incorporate the knowledge and suggestions of residents of the jurisdictions affected. Defining the Corridor's Geographical Extent The New Hope corridor can be defined in a number of ways. An all encompassing definition could include lands from the western reaches of Orange County east and south to the waters of Jordan Lake. The narrowest definition could limit the corridor to the central portions of New Hope and Mud Creeks, with little regard for tributaries. Rather than defining the corridor to be all encompassing or in a way that is too limited to answer environmental and land use needs, the Committee New Hope Corridor open space Mcarer pimp recommends that the area's governing boards accept the following delineation of the corridor as that land to which they will give attention: • New Hope Creek, from NC 54 north and west to Erwin Road in Orange County; • Dry Creek from New Hope Creek on the north side of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard. west to Erwin Road; • Mud Creek from New Hope Creek north of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard north to NC 751; • Sandy Creek from New Hope Creek south of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard northeasterly across the Boulevard to NC 751; and • Strip connections between Mud Creek -NC 751 and the Eno River State Park along NC 751, old NC 10, Mount Herman Church Road, and Pleasant Green Road. The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Map (page 3) indicates the extent of the New Hope corridor recommended for priority attention. The Committee recognizes that the portions of New Hope Creek and its tributaries that extend upstream of these limits have significant value for water quality protection and other open space purposes. However, the Committee suggests that these values be recognized and incorporated into the normal course of execution of local government development policies. lateral. Extent. Clearly, the areas adjacent to the actual stream courses of New Hope Creek and its tributaries, as well as the associated floodplains and steep slopes (i.e., slopes of 20 percent grade or higher), have great significance for any proposed open space corridor. To some degree, this important area extends to the upper edge of the watershed. However, the Committee recommends that detailed attention should be given to much more limited areas, specifically: • The stream course itself; • Adjacent floodplains; • Steep slopes adjacent to floodplains; and • The remaining land between the top of a slope and the nearest road or existing development. f L/ E ,STATE•PANK' �� I CH APEL HILL ' • ..•• \e � f•A�e — LEGEND _ NORM FORM w' 1 tea YNAN PLOOOPLAIN- PNOPOSSO OMIT SPACS NILOLIPN PNOTSOTION ANSA ANONON/TNAN, •AOONSS ' 41.11 1141NOW NSA AM•M Area • N -a M4 not" ABM M•• 2-0 Mr• - ' AwM AM E-4 bey OrMk AN•N.Af a it I." • Srru N•. F r i S -a ar"r am*% P4A M•— Z Z 9-4 }NSM Pam A*"" AMA -.) -9-1- Sf Comwaft - wb Ne"Ad An• •� OP•rr SP«• • - O� Q O q a q'0 06 PNOPOSSO MW ANO ►NON #TINAN THAN, U V +-mot- , PNOPOSSN NATNNN THAN. ton"wo l 01 4 j SLOP" Yo NS PIIOTSOTNO a a ol� IQ Ga•'. COMPS OF I Co I OUKE DURHAM�� �aa �oNOAN•NebeevoM NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN MAP CITY OF OUNNAM. N.C.' CITY OF CNAPNL "ILL. N.C. OUNNAM COUNTY ONANOS COUNTY COULTER ASSOCIATES - Landscape Architects - Land Planners Durham, N.C. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan The Value of the Corridor's Topography and Natural Habitat The New Hope corridor, especially the portions adjacent to or near the streams, is an unusual combination of wet areas, drier floodplains, steep slopes, gradual slopes, typical common vegetation, regionally rare plant communities, and fine remnant stands of bottomland hardwoods, all of which provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife. Each natural component of the corridor enhances the value of the corridor as a whole. All slopes adjacent to the floodplains contribute to both the environmental quality and the beauty of the corridor. Even the steepest of the slopes should remain open and undeveloped. This is not because it is not possible to build upon them; with care, delicacy, very good design, and appropriate uses, it is possible to build there. Rather, they should be left in their natural state because they are dramatic, botanically significant, they offer inspiring scenic views, and provide a very different natural environment for people to have as part of their heritage. While it is important to protect floodplains for water quality, wildlife, and to prevent property damage, it is these slopes which provide habitat diversity, unique scenic qualities, and wildflower displays. All portions of the corridor are different and intriguing to the naturalist or any curious mind. The western side, south of the Boulevard, has dramatic ravines. The wide floodplain between the Boulevard and Erwin Road is a natural wildlife protection area, with remnants of pastures. The Dry Creek floodplain is anything but dry. The Mud Creek tributary is narrow and, although it has an existing sewer line, it is an oasis between residential areas. The portion of the corridor directly north of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard exemplifies the unusual qualities, the diversity, and the value of the entire corridor. The northern portion of the Boulevard ridge extends from the Boulevard some 1000 to 1500 feet north to the floodplain. The area slopes gently from the Boulevard, but in some portions near the floodplain it eventually slopes quite precipitously. Several ravines cut through to the floodplain. In its own right, the topography of the area is varied and challenging. Although portions can be built on, some portions are quite unsuitable for building. The botanical communities present in this portion of the corridor are diverse, with spectacular displays of spring wildflowers. The area nearest New Hope Creek, known as the Patterson Wildflower Slopes, is essentially a hardwood forest, with sizable northern red oaks, smaller sugar maples, and tulip poplars. More than 50 species of flowering trees, shrubs, and herbs also can be found. Four tenths of a mile 4 New Rope Corridor Open Space Master Plan east of Mt. Moriah Church Road, one finds the Biscayne Road White Oak stand, which has large numbers of large white oaks, some more than two feet in diameter and some of which are estimated to be between 100 and 120 years old. In themselves, these species are neither rare nor unique. However, in this day and age, it is uncommon to find them in such numbers and in an area between and so close to two cities. The corridor also provides habitat for wildlife, ranging from deer to four -toed salamanders. True, it is seldom that a person, casually walling or riding through the corridor, sees a deer or a salamander, but these and other species are part of the natural diversity that is essential to the well-being of our environment. Finally, the corridor contributes to the protection of the water quality enjoyed by the community. Although the corridor is not the only source of protection for Jordan Lake water quality, the floodplains and steep slopes in the corridor are very valuable in maintaining the water quality of the creeks that feed into Jordan Reservoir and, consequently, are valuable components of the overall water quality protection available to the region. Detailed descriptions of the areas in the corridor are provided in Section II, Master Plan: Details. The Value of Seeping the Corridor Open. If the corridor were abandoned today to whatever may happen in the future, it would be reasonable to expect gradual intrusions into portions of the floodplains. Timber removal and installation of non- building uses would be likely to occur over increasingly large areas of the floodplain. As a result of removal of vegetation and other topographical disturbances, erosion and sedimentation from adjacent development would affect more and more of the steep slopes. Thus, over time, the corridor would gradually lose its value to both the natural world and to the people in the community. As has already been noted, the corridor offers a number of valuable environmental protections--to water quality, to diverse wildlife species and their habitats, to birds by providing sanctuaries, to fish and waterfowl, to botanical species that are either regionally rare or present in unusually great diversity and numbers in an urban area. The corridor is also of great recreational value to Triangle residents and visitors. The corridor should never be a major active recreation area --it can be too wet and has too much value in maintaining environmental quality to be developed with ball fields and other active uses. However, it offers unlimited opportunity for walking, observing New Rope Corridor open Space Master PI= birds and other wildlife, fishing, and other activities that offer relaxation in contrast to the stresses of urban life. The most active recreational use of the corridor will be trail use. In order to reduce the effect of trails on natural habitats (effects cannot be avoided altogether), carefully designed trails can be located and scaled so as to have minimum effect. Most trails would be narrow and unpaved. Some parts of the corridor, particularly in the Mud Creek portion, can be the location of reasonably wide trails for more active use -- bicycling, jogging, and distance hiking - -as well as for casual strolls. Some portions of a trail connecting the Corps of Engineers land at NC 54 and the Eno River State Park. also could be wide, and other parts of the trail should be narrow nature trails. Finally, the corridor can provide experiences of visual beauty, a natural resource for education concerning the environment, and an open space cushion between the Durham and Chapel Hill urban areas. These uses are real and valuable, but they will be realized less and less if the corridor is abandoned to whatever may happen in the future. B. Planning for the Protection and Use of the Corridor In order to plan effectively both for the use of the corridor and the preservation of its benefits, it is necessary to establish criteria upon which to base the overall plan. The Advisory Committee agreed that the following items should be incorporated into the Master Plan. General Type of Trail to be Used All trail development must be very sensitive to environmental and topographical factors and the critical nature of floodplains. Different areas will require different types of trail surfaces for wetland and floodplain protection. Although this Plan recommends specific trail types in each area, the Plan recognizes that decisions concerning the particular type and design of trail for a specific location will need to be made during the planning process for each particular trail. To allow for ease of construction, to offer the greatest protection to adjacent habitat, and to permit ease of use, strips of land acquired for trails should be about 100 feet wide. Wildlife Corridor Use The goals and values of wildlife protection and encouragement are major components of the Master Plan. Under the Master Plan, wildlife corridors typically will be 6 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan reserved and maintained for wildlife enhancement and will be used only for passive recreational purposes. Trails and Habitat in Portions of the Corridor That Should Not Be Built Upon The floodplain and steep slope portions of the New Hope corridor should be kept essentially in a natural state, providing a place for vegetation to grow and offering a habitat and passage way for wildlife, as well as providing a natural environment for people to walk through and enjoy. In particular, the floodplains and steep slopes should become wildlife and bird sanctuaries. Any trails should be routed along the edges of the floodplain and at the base of steep slopes. Trail locations proposed for specific areas are indicated on maps provided in Section H, Master Plan: Details. General guidelines for trails are: 1. Trails for more alive use A continuous trail from Chapel Hill Road north to the vicinity of the Eno River State Park,including the following segments: 1) Along New Hope Creek from Chapel Hill Road to Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard and under the Boulevard via the existing New Hope Creek bridge northwest to Erwin Road; 2) Along Mud Creek from Chapel Hill - Durham Boulevard to NC 751; 3) Along Sandy Creek from Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard to NC 751; 4) Connectors between New Hope Creek Trail and Mud and Sandy Creek Trails; 5) Along NC 751 to NC 10 and continuing on in the future along the planned Eno Drive; 6) Along old NC 10 and Mount Herman Church Road to the Eno River State Park. Other trails for more active use extend along Dry Creek west from New Hope Creek to Erwin Road with a temporary but long -time routing along the north side of Interstate 40 to be left in place until the Dry Creek box culvert under Interstate 40 can be enlarged to "people size"; along Dry Creek from Erwin Road east to Interstate 40, to be principally a Chapel Hill greenway system trail until Interstate 40 can be passed under. 2. Trails for less active use From NC 54 north to Chapel Hill Road on Corps of Engineers land; along the west side of the New Hope Creek floodplain from Dry Creek north to Erwin Road. New Rope ramdor Open Space Masser pfmt 3. Access Points for Trails Selected access points, including parking areas, picnic areas, and in some locations interpretive centers should be offered at such locations as: • Leigh Farm; • NC 54; • Sherwood Githens Middle School or the City of Durham Park; • Erwin Road between Dry Creek and Interstate 40; • Erwin Road near the Hollow Rock Store; • Mt. Moriah Road; • Erwin and Cornwallis Roads intersection; • Sandy Creek sewage treatment plant site (abandoned); • Mud Creek between Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard and Pickett Road. Parking only should be offered at NC 54. Should it become less significant for academic purposes in Duke University's Duke Forest plan, the Erwin and Cornwallis Roads intersection location, which is in Duke Forest and bisected by Mud Creek, could be a superb location for a natural area City park. The abandoned sewage treatment plant site at Sandy Creek is an excellent location for an active recreation facility. The Leigh Farm, north of NC 54, should be preserved and made the southern anchor of the corridor. Also, Erwin Road on the north side of Dry Creek is an excellent location for an open space anchor. Hollow Rock Store should be a significant community landmark. Criteria for Developing Portions of the Corridor Tbat Could Be Built Upon This report is not a detailed plan for using portions of the corridor adjacent to the floodplains and steep slopes. However, the ways in which these areas are or are not developed will have a direct impact on the waterways, the floodplains, and the slopes- -the portions of the corridor that should remain essentially undisturbed. 1. General. Criteria, If the adjacent areas are developed, they should be developed with great sensitivity to the environment. Run -off and erosion must be kept at an absolute minimum. Ground disturbance should be kept as far distant as possible from the top of the slopes.. Ravines should be recognized and retained in their natural state with as little disturbance as possible. Any manmade lakes should be located as far as possible upstream in the appropriate draw. Development on or near ridge lines should be designed so as to prevent visual disturbance of the appearance of the ridge line areas as seen from the corridor. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan 2. Development in Areas Suitable for Higher Density There is disparity between the needs of development and the needs of natural areas, but that disparity can be ameliorated by careful and sensitive site planning. Although the lower the density, the easier it is to have less disturbing development, there are portions of the corridor which, by virtue of location, are appropriate for higher density development- -such as residential, office, or other types of commercial development as appropriate for a particular location. In particular, such areas as the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard area and the area between the Boulevard and Chapel Hill Road could accommodate higher density. Any development of those areas immediately adjacent to floodplains and steep slopes will require taking the most care, giving the most thought, and fulfilling the highest responsibility. 3. Steep Slope Development If development is planned to occur in the area of steep slopes, it is strongly recommended that such development meet stringent performance standards that would result in appropriate erosion control, prevention of washing, and sufficient pollutant removal through filtration. The amount of impervious surfaces should be limited. Vegetative cover should be re- established immediately following any construction. It is further recommended that engineering studies be provided in the site - specific plans to ensure that such standards are met. Sewer and Utility Lane Installation The great and obvious disparity between the introduction of sewer and utility lines and the retention of undisturbed natural areas presents a troubling and very real problem. Yet, both uses are necessary to the public good. Of course, existing sewer and utility line locations should be utilized and, in some instances, there is room for both utilities and natural habitat. The Mud Creek sewer easement would be an excellent location for a paved trail, while the section of New Hope Creek which extends through the wide wildlife protection area from Dry Creek up to Erwin Road, is suitable only for a narrow, unpaved trail and should be kept free of additional sewer and utility lines. New Hope Car►idor Open Space MaMr Plan Road Construction and Use Road construction and use have a direct impact on areas that should remain natural. The Committee recommends the following related to plans for three existing or possible highway proposals that could affect the corridor. 1. NC 751 from Erwin Road north to the Railroad The present treatment of this portion of NC 751 should be maintained. NC 751 serves as a limited access highway because of Duke University's policies concerning the Forest and, as such, has a high traffic - carrying capacity. This Part of the road should not be widened. Allowing vegetation, particularly trees and shrubs, to grow close to the ditch line would help maintain and enhance the utility of the road as a parkway and, at the same time, not diminish its traffic capacity. 2. Erwin Road Between Weaver Dairy Road and NC 751 This portion of Erwin Road, the western boundary of much of the corridor, is used and increasingly will be used as an alternate route to the Chapel Hill - Durham Boulevard. Although such alternate use probably cannot be prevented, any temptation to make it easier to use this portion of Erwin Road as an alternate route should be resisted. Specifically, the road should not be widened along this area. Making it a high capacity, two-lane road would do great damage to its lovely, rural character, which makes it a significant asset to the corridor and the whole urban area. 3. Chapel Hill-Durham Boulevard Interchange If a new Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard interchange is included in the forthcoming thoroughfare plan, any proposed road between Chapel Hill Road and the Boulevard should be located away from the steep slopes that border the creek in that area. Further,. any interchange with the Boulevard should be located and planned so as to avoid the steep slopes and accompanying ravines. Finally, the Boulevard interchange design should not include a direct connection to Mt. Moriah Church Road or Erwin Road. 10 New Hope ConMar Open Space Master Plan C. Carrying Out the New Hope Corridor Open Space Masher Plan The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan proposed in this report is ambitious. However, its successful fulfillment- -which hinges on being able to guarantee the open space values of the corridor - -will result in the creation of a major asset for the region. Acquisition There is one primary means through which the Open Space corridor values can be guaranteed -- through acquiring either the land or the development rights to the land that makes up the corridor. Such acquisition should be conducted carefully and through means that are fair to all parties. The majority of the floodplain and steep slope portions of the corridor are privately owned. Various sized portions of the corridor are owned by Duke University, the City of Durham, the Durham County School Board, and the Corps of Engineers (which holds a sizable portion of the floodplain north of NC 54). It is inappropriate to accomplish the Master Plan by additional regulation. Moreover, such an approach really would' not guarantee the open space values inherent in the concept of the Open Space corridor. Some form of compensation should be offered to secure the guarantees. The Committee recommends the following options for acquisition. 1. Trail Locations Whenever possible, trail locations should be acquired outright by the appropriate City or County agency. It is preferable that this be done by purchase. These trail areas will be used by the public and should be acquired by the public. Perhaps trail use through Duke University land could be guaranteed through some mutually beneficial agreement between Duke University and a public agency. Locations for parking areas, picnic areas, and in some locations interpretive centers also will be used by the public and, consequently, should be purchased by a public agency. I Wildlife Corridors The New Hope corridor extending south from Erwin Road is a wonderful extension of the Duke Forest areas that, in themselves, have major wildlife 11 New Rope Corridor Open space Masser Plan utility. Such utility would be enhanced further by using existing wildlife corridors in Orange County extending north from Duke Forest. Some of these corridors should be kept in private ownership. 4. Natural Area City Park The possible park area at the Erwin and Cornwallis Roads intersection is owned by Duke University. In order to establish a natural area City park at that location, the City of Durham and Duke University should negotiate an agreement governing the location's use as a public park at some time in the future. 5. Sandy Creek Active Recreation Area Ownership of the old waste treatment plant site on Sandy Creek should be retained by the City of Durham. The site should be developed as an active public recreation area. 6. Floodplains and Steep Slopes in Undeveloped Residentially Zoned Areas The absence of use by the public does not mean that there is no public benefit to acquiring, maintaining, and protecting floodplains and steep slopes. Because of the usefulness of such natural resources for environmental protection, wildlife habitat, urban separation, and natural beauty, it is to the public benefit to acquire and protect them, although such areas should not be broadly open to the public. Therefore, private owners should be compensated by the public. 7. Floodplains and Steep Slopes in Commercially Zoned Areas It must be recognized that the only equitable method of protecting environmentally sensitive lands in commercially zoned areas is probably through direct purchase by a public agency or by site design which preserves steep slopes and floodplains. Forms of Compensation for Private Owners Compensation to private owners may take the form of direct purchase or purchase of an interest less than full ownership by a public agency. It is also the case that some owners may wish to donate either all or part of their interest in pieces of land to a local jurisdiction. 12 I 4 New Hope Corridor Open Spa" Master PPkn 1. Purchase of Rights Outright purchase offers the fullest protection. However, purchase of partial interest, typically in the form of building/development rights may be as effective. Public acquisition of only the development rights may be less expensive than outright purchase, particularly in the case of development rights that pertain to areas that really should not be built upon in any event. The purchase of rights rather than full ownership of the land would provide the public benefit of keeping the land in its natural state and, at the same time, the private owner would retain ownership and the right of private enjoyment and no trespass. 2. Exchange of Rights (Clustering) In some cases, it may be beneficial to permit the exchange of building rights. In the floodplain areas other than the Erwin Road and Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard wildlife protection area and where the ownership pattern is appropriate, building rights for the floodplain portion of the tract could be transferred to a buildable portion. Such transfers should be permitted only with sensitivity for adjacent tracts. k �� For personal reasons, an owner may wish to give the land or an interest in the land to the public or a private nonprofit agency. Such a situation would be very desirable, but a public agency should not rely upon donation of the land as a primary method of guaranteeing appropriate open space values. It should be noted that the most appropriate location for a trail in many situations will be directly at the edge of a floodplain or, stated differently, between the buildable portion of a tract and the floodplain. In such a situation, the owner may have no interest in retaining ownership of the floodplain. Should that be the case, the public agency should acquire complete interest. Finally, the extensive wildlife protection area between the Boulevard and Erwin Road should be given added protection because of its wildlife value. In addition to preserving the floodplain and steep slopes by purchasing the fee simple interest or development rights, the adjacent buildable areas up to the nearest road should be kept at as low a density as possible by acquiring development rights so that the resulting density will be the same as that provided for in the Orange County rural buffer 4 13 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan provisions. In such areas, a public agency could acquire the development rights for the difference between the existing permitted densities and those permitted by the rural buffer standards. Implementation and Cost The New Hope Creek open space corridor will be an undertaking with major benefits, and implementing the Master Plan for the corridor will require much time and effort. This report does not include a detailed statement of implementation priorities nor would it have been appropriate for the Advisory Committee to do so. Rather, the guidelines and criteria for creating and preserving the corridor should be included by each affected city, county, and private agency in its program and work toward execution of the Master Plan as expeditiously as is reasonable. In addition, as noted earlier in the report, the establishment by inter -local agreement of an Advisory Committee with the direct responsibility for the plan would be very helpful. Such an agency could serve as the catalyst for implementation - -by worldng to insure that the several elements of the Master Plan are kept in the budgets and action plans of the appropriate jurisdictions and by providing guidance, direction, and coordination for the operating departments. Actual expenditures for accomplishing the creation of the New Hope open space corridor should be budgeted as appropriate over a period of years by the respective jurisdictions. Discussions with landowners concerning the transfer of building rights and /or sale of property need not and should not wait. Agreement to making such transfers does not require an immediate exchange of funds, whether public funds or not, only public willingness to act. Arranging now for such transfers, pending payment if payment is to be offered, or for donation would both signify the public agency's good faith to the landowner and do much to give reality to the open space objectives of this Master Plan. Discussions between landowners and private conservation groups concerning protection measures, including transfer of rights and donations, also need not and should not wait. 14 II. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Details j New Hope Corridor Open 4a" Maser Plait II. New Hope Corridor Open Space Mastu Plan: Details The New Hope corridor, which includes New Hope Creek, Mud Creek, Sandy Creek, and Dry Creek, is situated between Durham and Chapel Hill and encompasses portions of Durham County and Orange County. A large area of undeveloped land remains between the two cities and lies in the two counties. However, much of the remaining open land is in the hands of developers. A good portion of this land is in the form of floodplain and steep slopes. Existing development pressures dictate the need to preserve some of the open space that is left. Some efforts have been made to identify and preserve open land areas. The Inventory of Natural Areas and Rare Species of Durham County (1987) has identified areas of regional importance within the New Hope Creek corridor. The Leigh Farm buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places. The New Hope corridor wetlands are included in the Regional Wetlands Concept Plan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (August 1990; ' draft); the wetlands have been identified and designated as warranting "priority consideration for acquisition with funds appropriated through the Land and Water Conservation Fund." In addition, Duke University owns thousands of acres in both counties and preserves them for teaching and research purposes by the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Duke Forest has remained a wooded open space that is enjoyed and appreciated by thousands. The southern end of the corridor is owned by the Corps of Engineers. The Eno River State Park is at the northern end of the corridor. In spite of these efforts, residential subdivision and commercial land development have been occurring at an extremely rapid pace. The floodplains of New Hope Creek, Mud Creek, Sandy Creek, and Dry Creek, as well as Duke Forest, the Corps land, and Eno River State Park, are being crowded to their boundaries. There is an immediate need to create a means for preserving significant open space for wildlife preservation, plant habitat, protection of water quality, and enjoyment by the citizens of the region. Is t New Hope Corridor open Space Maater Pkn A. Value of the Master Plan The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan is intended to specify critical open land areas and to provide a comprehensive, cohesive plan for acquiring and using those lands in such a way as to preserve and protect them for both their natural and public benefit. Specifically, the Master Plan aids in the following processes: • Culminating the many years of inventory, study, and discussion that have occurred concerning the New Hope corridor; • Showing decision - makers, in a systematic and meaningful way, the options that are available and enabling the cities and counties to take action. on available policy choices (including regulations, preservation, and acquisition) to preserve open space; • Providing a forum for the many entities with interests in the future of the New Hope corridor, including local governments, conservation groups, developers, and landowners; • Balancing the beneficial functions of corridor land left in its natural state with the need to develop land for human activities; and • Helping the public visualize the landscapes and learn about the complex environments that. comprise the corridor. B. Development of the Master Plan During the spring of 1989, the elected bodies of Chapel Hill, Durham, Orange County, and Durham County adopted a New Hope Corridor Resolution (Appendix B). The resolution supported the preservation of an open space corridor and directed staff to continue with more detailed planning for its creation. In May 1989, the four jurisdictions directed that funds be appropriated to hire a consultant, Coulter Associates, Landscape Architects and Land Planners, to prepare a Master Plan. During the summer of 1989, the Durham County Inventory of Natural and Cultural Resources received funding through the Triangle Land Conservancy to conduct vegetation studies in the New Hope Corridor. Ed Harrison, Environmental Consultant, studied and reported concerning the vegetative communities in the New Hope corridor and Mud Creek floodplains and slopes. This field work resulted in a better understanding of the characteristics of vegetation in this vicinity. The complete report, New Hope Creek Corridor Vegetation inventory Site Descriptions, 16 T* New (lope Corridor Open Space Mailer Plmt summarized in Appendix E, is available at the planning departments of the participating jurisdictions. In October 1989, an Advisory Committee was appointed. Membership included representatives from each jurisdiction and four at -large members. At the first meeting of the Committee in November 1989, the Consultant presented maps and a written report describing the environmental and cultural makeup of the New Hope corridor. In February 1990, the Committee held its first public meeting, to explain to interested citizens the Master Plan project and to receive comments and suggestions from the public. In March 1990, the Committee formalized its goals and the Consultant prepared the first draft of the Master Plan. Extensive discussions of the draft Master Plan took place. Numerous modifications were made. A revised and refined plan was presented at a second public meeting in August 1990. Comments received at that time have been incorporated into this version of the Master Plan. C. Location and Description of the New Hope Corridor The New Hope Corridor Plan includes the course of New Hope Creek to Erwin Road and extends north to the Eno River State Park along other creeks and roads. The Vicinity Map (page 18) illustrates the area incorporated into the corridor. New Hope Creek is located centrally in the Research Triangle region. The cities of Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Burlington, and Greensboro, North Carolina, and Danville, Virginia, are located within a 50 -mile radius of the corridor. New Hope Creek rises in central Orange County, just west of Orange Grove Road. It flows eastward as a small stream through farmed and wooded lands, supplemented by tributaries and intermittent drainageways as it proceeds. It crosses under Interstate 40 about one mile south of the New Hope Church Road interchange. The Creek then flows under NC 86, into suburban land in the Chapel Hill-Orange County Joint Planning Area. By the time it enters the Korstian Division of Duke Forest, New Hope Creek has cut a valley between 60 and 80 feet deep through the hard Orange County rock. Just above its crossing of Erwin Road, New Hope Creek flows out of the narrow valley it carves through the Carolina Slate Belt, and into the broader floodplains formed in the softer sediments of the Triassic Basin in southwest Durham County. Mud Creek, which flows south from the Durham Division of Duke Forest, and Dry Creek, which flows from Chapel Hill, join the New Hope in the vicinity of US 17 major bodies of water © rivers and major streams city and town limits -major roads VICINITY MAP' NEW ROPE CORRIDOR coulter associates 111 WMMM st. PA sm 212. ounmw Kam wam 27702 IA d 1 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 SCA.L� MILES t r i New Hope Corridor Open Space Master P1an 15 -501, also called the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard. The Boulevard is a major commercial and public transport route. After flowing under the Boulevard and merging with Sandy Creek (which rises in the vicinity of Duke University's West Campus), New Hope Creek enters lands owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These lands surround the impoundments of the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir. Normal levels of this reservoir do not extend north of the Chatham County and Durham County line, although extensive areas of Corps land in Durham County are seasonally or permanently wet. The New Hope Creek again crosses under Interstate 40 just south of the NC 54 interchange, near the Farrington Road sewage treatment plant. The corridor is crossed by two interstate highways, two U.S. highways, and numerous State secondary roads. Local roads serving properties and subdivisions abut the floodplains and sections of Duke Forest in the corridor. Trails and fire roads exist in both divisions of Duke Forest and have long been used for walking by Duke personnel and the general public. Informal footpaths have developed from adjacent subdivisions through Duke Forest and some private properties. Old logging and farm lanes can be found in various states of regrowth, especially along the floodplain areas. Further description of the corridor and its features are contained in Appendix A. Inventory and Analysis of Existing Conditions. D. Goals of the Open Space Corridor Jurisdictional Goals as Reflected in the 1989 Joint Resolution The main goal stated in the Resolution (Appendix B) is to.... "....preserve an open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, the New Hope Creek Corps lands and the growing communities of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro for aesthetic, environmental, educational, and recreational purposes, and as a means of shaping the urban form of the area." The Resolution also contains the following specific, goal - oriented statements: • Preservation of open space as an accompaniment to growth can mitigate the impacts of growth and help retain natural beauty; • Preservation of open space provides environmental benefits such as protecting water quality and providing habitat for native plant species and wildlife; 19 1 New Rape Corridor Open Space luster Am s • Open space could form an aesthetic link between Durham and Chapel Hill, while allowing the two communities to remain distinct. Advisory Committee Goals Using a, questionnaire developed by staff (Appendix C), the Advisory Committee identified the following five goals: • To preserve and enhance environmental quality; • To provide opportunities for passive recreation; • To preserve natural habitats for their aesthetic values; • To provide for a pleasing urban form by creating a varied environment and a corridor of open space linking Chapel Hill and Durham; and • To provide opportunities for environmental and cultural education. E. Description of the Master Plan The Committee identified five actions necessary to preserve the open space corridor, each of which accomplishes one or more of the goals: 1. Preservation of the 100 -year floodplain and steep slopes (i.e., slopes of 20 percent and greater); 2. Creation of open space anchors and access areas; 3. Establishment of a scenic parkway; 4. Protection of wildlife; and S. Development of regional trails for hiking, bicycling and nature walling. The Plan indicates many locations for trails and may refer to trails as nature trails or as bicycle and pedestrian trails. These trails were considered to be desirable to provide access to the experience and observation of nature, to provide for recreational uses such as walldng, fishing, bird - watching, and jogging, as well as for providing for alternative transportation modes such as walking and bicycling in the urban 4 20 New Rope Corridor Open Space Masur Plan environment. The Plan recognizes that when site analysis is undertaken at the time of implementation, it may be found that because of flooding conditions, wetlands, or other environmental factors, a particular trail in a particular location may not be advisable. The recreational and transportation value of trails needs to be balanced with the environmental values and impacts when determining trail locations and types. It is understood that the decisions about where trails should be built and what type at each location, can only be made at the time of implementation. One of the important actions to achieve the goals is protection of steep slopes. In general, the steep slopes rise from the edge of the floodplain, but sometimes form an irregular pattern of slopes and ravines both near and somewhat distant from the floodplain. Although steep slopes of 20 % or greater are usually considered unsuitable for building, strict protection of 20% slopes would result in a patchwork of isolated areas too small to serve as habitat or survive over time. Therefore, it was determined that in keeping with the environmental, recreational, and educational purposes of this Plan, a buffer 200' wide should be preserved adjacent to certain floodplains as indicated in the appropriate components. This buffer includes much of the steep slopes and will provide a protected natural system of floodplain and slopes, integrated and contiguous to provide optimum benefit for wildlife habitat, community integrity, and for scenic and aesthetic benefits. To facilitate planning, the land area contained within the New Hope Corridor was divided into ten major geographic components (with two subcomponents). The following information is provided for each component: 1. Jurisdiction within which the component lies; 2. Existing land use and ownership; 3. Future land use as indicated in local government plans; 4. Significant resources within the component; and 5. Recommendations for protection and use. The ten geographic components are described in detail in the following section. 21 t New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan F. The Ten Geographic Components of the Master Plan _ In this section, a map illustrating each geographic component appears with a written description. Each map provides the location of trails,, boundary lines, pertinent natural features (e.g., creeks), and similar information of interest in the component. The Map of the Ten Geographic Components illustrates the ten geographic components of the Master Plan. The components are: Component Description 1 New Hope Creek between NC 54 and Chapel Hill Road, including Army Corps of Engineers land and historic Leigh Farm plantation. 2 New Hope Creek between Chapel Hill Road and Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard. 3 Sandy Creek between New Hope Creek and Duke University Golf Course. 4 Confluence area of New Hope Creek and Dry Creek, north to Erwin , Road. 5 Dry Creek between Mt. Moriah Road and Erwin Road. 6 Area immediately south of Hollow Rock Store, south of Erwin Road -at Pickett Road. 7 Mud Creek following the floodplain between US 15 -501 and Cornwallis Road. 8 Cornwallis and Erwin Roads natural area, presently part of Duke Forest (Category 2, Research Project Land). 9 NC 751 Scenic Road, from US 70 to the US 15 -501 Bypass, presently part of Duke Forest (mostly Category 1, Permanent Research Forest Land). 10 Future Orange County wildlife corridors. 1. a 22 i /�; - .; ti ► =9 A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL TO E%TRIID ALONG PROPOSED ENO'ORR/E II PROPOSED ENO ORIVS Se : %c.s'; ' �� �•S�j:� =� :,•' ENO RIVER STATE PARK . IA+►a p US NOVTp FD OLD NC 10 f DUKE FOREST DURHAM DIYIEI011 OaGlp ate i �,ro ``a��� r ; : -: %;,.1 .,- •- u :;•.. ROUT! 141 ea t� •' w •i:r :;::: ••S:' I:;S':��:•::2 • w4ro! larooL^G +'' • as� � f S. : : �7�� ti2 ;� �....• r�•.`:•�•• •'•- �.�:..5!{ f �! •�4• • •��.�•�. �•i�i !lltl n11111IIS1Tf ��p% i it �•i':•''i'y � (� Q I • �.• � �' yo 14 CORNWALLIS C/`p ''•ti :. . :•i+� p f REGIONAL- 10,;. 4 4 •' •' PARK /OPEN lo a.le ••'.S•..,, •1q: .. ••qqr, :: S %':�•i:i:�.J•I:• '+� �S SGIF'sAr!!A DUKE FOREST RORS IN �••: %. • t' 't'•- • ' ,� f MUO . ss7111A TU lr '% :'. •4'�' '� � HOLLO CN• UREAII `4iAwf DIVISION %'�5:;• •; !% %•;� .;�: %• ti TRAIL ACCEIS ORElNy/AT '•: • -• �' AREA .A GGS11Yr s in ROAD o� ; • PI OTT RDA 3' DURHAM WH,TFIELD Eby FROIIAJOR r ; SAN CRRRR e ' a UR I GREEHWA Pogue / �OsrNrr,MrET�O •`a�� @Ndr� 3 1 �::� i:i eAn r TOP DRY C o EL HILL \ •O!• O+ CONNECT �Q1•^' �•' so � OREEN�RAT�TEM , r . r � C; CHAPEL. HILL ��E �y f smisR! • • �ti. - y0 LJ 1 r CORPS OF ENG11111=8 LAND LEGEND 100 Tot FLOOOKA06 I a i. • _• PROPOSED OFEN SPACS /RmEEMP/e !0% $116CM TO SR PROTECTED I '.`r / ;• • :. 1 0 OUKR FOREST► ENO RITES PARK ' ^ •�� . PROPOSED OPEN SPACE ANCHORS .••�..r•. EXISTING TRAIL 1LO1 I! J01104R PIpR lGrooL LEION FARM e 'via CULTURAL �. . 088000 PROPOS90 SIKR A PEORSTRIAN TRAILS INTERPRETIVE �' ?� r-• / S FACOMM -•1 00004/ +PROPOS49 YNPAYSO NATURR TRAIL NATURE TRAIL TO JORDAN RESERVOIR . ti NEW HOPE CORRIDOR OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN M 8 p O f the 10 GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS coulter associates LANODCAPE AFAMMCTS • LAM PLAPPOM. m wlSf M4f1 s1, Aa s0! n; OVSMM,Md1M Gwoua4 !pv ONR MILE A A Mew Rope Co rWr Open Space MaWr PIM MAP LEGEND FOR ALL COMPONENT MAPS 100 -Year floodplain r Wildlife Protection Area h , Anchor /Access Area a o a o o a o o Bike/Pedestrian Trails ***00"600090000" Nature Trails 24 COMPONENT 1 ELHIL NEW HOPE CREEK • ; ;; : •• to' FROM N.C. 5.4 TO 06. ` h, � . ' CHAPEL HILL ROAD I; %� ,•''�! ry4�' 71,000 500 0 1.000,. +' �, •:r,.w,' ,. ,'�r'�;. 'r NORTH • _ _ � C� $'.. L X1,000' •S 1') iii.' �V.�I��YY- ••S..'A ,� rl r O,O •d" 9 of • • , •.' h. �7�.. .1 • •` phi .• Ro ,.,; • {'�,., •• • SS �: 1. 96. :('' : y i' i • •• NEW HOPE REEK to 100 -YEAR FLO DPLAIN It -.1., T3 ,r:!•l': 1X lr. iJ )a �.ir ,: ; j� • n.! 1 .�•: `.� i � t t , ; •1 • ham•: /y 1.•••, _ 1 � • , ••• ; •tfwlr�' +•. 'till, . +j•'� ��+ •:;. 1 r 1p ��ri •' to IF LEIGH FARM ' , .-.r ,N r,,k„ ' ,.� . •('`- �`+ ► ►;;,,,- :� +..:(y,,'.rr: .�;��:,.ji ;� ;. •tom_:•, ... LI �� 1 • ',•'. •.�� •: •• _ �'� ORRS OF'ENP31 41 -PR dos Ail :d t4 . ( •. {•• N '. do OR New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Compost 1. New Hope Creek From NC 54 m Chapel Hill Road Jurisdiction: Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • Corps of Engineers flood and mitigation lands along the entire length of New Hope Creek; • Low - density residential use between Farrington Road and Garrett Road on non -Corps land; • Leigh Farm: former plantation with surviving buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and • Jordan High School (Durham County Schools). Future Land Use: Undeveloped privately owned lands will probably remain single - family residential. Future land use in this vicinity is shown in the Southwest Durham Plan as less than four units per acres. Significant Resources: The entire 100 -year floodplain is owned by the Federal government and is subject to its protection measures; in particular, much of the land in this component lies within the Corps land for Jordan Lake. Eight vegetation sites were identified by Harrison (Appendix E) in this component, comprising the New Hope Bottomlands Forest and Tributary Wetlands, the New Hope Swamp Forest and Tributary Wetlands, and the Leigh Farm Area Upland. Additionally, two sites from the Inventory of Natural Areas and Rare Species of Durham County lie in this area, the New Hope Bottomland Forest and the New Hope Overcup Oak Forest. The Corps land is included in this component because the Master Plan provides an opportunity to develop the existing resources of the Corps land and other adjacent resources into an integrated system for educational and recreational use. The Corps land, significant Durham County Inventory sites, Jordan High School, and Leigh Farm offer possibility for development of a trail network and center for cultural history and environmental education. 26 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master P(an Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 1: • Develop cooperative relationships with the Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concerning this and other recommendations of the Master Plan. • Establish an unpaved nature trail following the western edge of the floodplain, extending from Chapel Hill Road to NC 54. Establish lateral connections to Jordan High and Leigh Farm. • Support the acquisition of the historic Leigh Farm for the establishment, with the continuing support of local jurisdictions and civic organizations, of a major open space center at the southern terminus of the corridor. The emphasis of the center would be cultural and historic interpretation, with accompanying incidental recreational activities, in a manner similar to the center at West Point on the Eno. The acquisition of the tract would help preserve the scenic value of the landscape along this stretch of Interstate 40 corridor. • Establish a trail entrance and anchor at the portion of the Leigh Farm tract in the vicinity of the existing historic buildings. Corridor public funds should be used only for acquisition of the portion of the land suitable for the anchor use, not for purchase or restoration of historic buildings. 27 COMPONENT 2 NEW HOPE CREEK ;�, :FROM CHAPEL HILL ROAD TO '•'� `. '. ''CHAPEL HILL- DURHAM BOULEVARD \ , 1,000 500 0. 1000 NORTH • ," r' � � t; ''; ";`��,r:.'` ` "• : +• / SCALE: t"a10001 0 ,�• •r ,,yyam� �'y• e...• .':i' �' •''�' ` •l: ir� = .i�l�l• :�'•'� r E�. �, .• � \•J'� r011r0.�! '�. .,, _� "''• r :�r r , � +'• \ r .,. :� •... •.. ' � � MAO. ` r . • .. �'': 4 • u vs jr ex �' V`ti. =t•�, rid. ��1 „'f i�. A j�`iy. f .• r ":' • r' >�t. 4 � 0' ••,�`•''+;'��,ti3.�`��.�f'a` n' • ;'',�!��'��5. ''w'?�; ,fit• i. • • � « «.... 7-, .ti.M . •j' •� -+ ~ y �h011 - •' • Mob :L •• ♦ ~t �S1���. ,w ' ✓L .. �' °-1101 •\ M '40 ` . 46611i apt MULE' 0J.61 c �'•k etlr.S •� :.rl.w LiD-~ - . r �r Rey / \� /�, �inpogent",'�• llmml 28 ;.ro F_ RA 1l -" 01 \\,--; Afew Hope Comdar Open Space Master Plan Component 2. New Hope Creek From Chapel Hill Road to Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard Jurisdiction: Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • Corps of Engineers lands along about half of the New Hope Creek length; • Sherwood Githens Middle School (Durham County Schools); • Park land, Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Durham; • Residential tracts, medium to low density, private ownership; and • Commercial and industrial uses to the east along Garrett Road Future Land Use: Potential for development between New Hope Creek and Interstate 40 to the west is very high. The Southwest Durham Plan (1989) shows Mixed Use near Interstate 40 and Office near New Hope Creek on the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard, and medium and high density residential in the remainder of this area between New Hope Creek and Interstate 40. Significant Resources: This component is directly adjacent to the Corps of Engineers mitigation lands. Nine vegetation sites -have been identified in this component, comprising the Patterson Farm Lowlands and Slopes (Appendix E). Steep slopes exist, mainly along the west boundary of the floodplain. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 2: • Protect the entire 100 -year floodplain north of the Corps land (130 acres). • Protect the 200' steep slope buffer west of the floodplain. • Provide trail access from Sherwood Githens Middle School to the future City park site and to areas of botanical interest along the floodplain and on the steep slopes. 29 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan • Establish a trail from Chapel Hill - Durham Boulevard to Chapel Hill Road along the west side of the floodplain. The Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Commission has recommended a greenway link in this area.. Connection to trails north of the Boulevard is possible underneath the Boulevard at the bridge. • Incorporate plans for an open space connector into development plans for the large tracts of land to the west (when they are developed). The connector would follow the unnamed drainageway that flows across Watkins Road, then toward New Hope Creek and Sherwood Githens Middle School. • As the area south of Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard develops, maintain a vegetated buffer of at least 50 feet along the Boulevard's edges and incorporate a bicycle/pedestrian trail leading westward toward Chapel Hill. 30 COMPONENT 3 — Part A .�. SANDY CREEK NORTH . C =From New Hope Creek to ,Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard. ,J •.a 4001. .1000. �. 4� I ? • 4 ALI �. , r•J • t00 Yit r'F�oa p in. oe Ir r� r. • • nw• �r ti • r •f rim • 1 • a� •. Z . • ` ♦ • % m1: Y•eq? Floc, airy j .... I If D ATaq..::t.1, �lF 5i ■ ■ ■ v ■I le a a� r �,� riJ TAA IF, ■J_!��h% .'.�■ ■ ■ \ i- A�o \•P�k !I k.�,:�s r ii Sri l lF. / n a1 t. J lllJjl � a F ANDY C rom Pickett mike Ilnive U KojO WMI1,141911 D U R HA W A CA'D OPP moo . ` a kV Cl ip �1 R �� r ra New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Pbn Component 3. Sandy Creek urban Greenway From New Hope Creek to Dube university Jurisdiction: Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • South of Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard, privately owned multifamily units and commercial establishments; • North of Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard, privately owned single - family and multifamily residences; land owned by the City of Durham (former sewer plant) Cresset Academy; Durham Academy; and • East of US 15 -501 Bypass and north of Cornwallis, Duke University (golf course, West Campus). Future Land Use: The corridor along Sandy Creek, much like Mud Creek, appears to be developed to about its maximum potential, given existing land use controls. The largest pieces of open space land exist at the former City sewer plant site, the Duke University golf course, and the large parcel of City-owned land between the abandoned sewer plant and Garrett Road. Significant Resources: Sandy Creek is a small urban stream, arising in the Duke University Campus area, flowing along the Duke Golf Course. On the west side of the US 15 -501 Bypass it passes through several residential area and beside two school properties. Just north of the Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard is an abandoned City-owned former treatment plant. The former treatment plant offers the opportunity for developing a major City Park which is needed in this area of the City. This park can provide both active recreation and trails linking schools, residential areas, a shopping center, and connecting to the main New Hope Creek trail. An existing nature trail along an abandoned sewer line is another attractive feature. It is from the urban character of this stream that its best use is determined. Besides preserving the floodplain in natural vegetation, this is an ideal location for a trail serving for both recreation and alternative transportation. Together the Mud Creek corridor (Component 7) and the Sandy Creek corridor provide the opportunity for a 34 New Rope Corridor Open Space Mawr Plan loop trail. Sandy Creek is indicated on the Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Master Plan as a Greenway Trail. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 3: • Establish a bike and pedestrian trail from New Hope Creek to the vicinity of Duke University West Campus. This trail should begin just north of Chapel Hill - Durham Boulevard (see Component 4), follow an easement along the Boulevard property line of Oak Creek Village shopping center and across Garrett Road. It would proceed eastward along the service road to Sandy Creek, then across the City-owned land, which should be designated as open space and recreational land. (An alternative route for the trail would be from Mud Creek through Garrett Farms, across Garrett Road by Cresset School to City-owned land on Sandy Creek.) The trail then should proceed north across Pickett Road, behind residential areas of Colony Hill and Colony Park, and then to Cornwallis Road. Between US 15 -501 Bypass and the golf course, the trail either could follow the edge of the highway right -of -way or could link into a pathway that has been established beside the golf course. At NC 751, the trail would arrive at the entrance to Duke University described under Component 9. • Protect the entire 100 -year floodplain. • Improve the existing nature trail east of the main trail. 3S e ` COMPONENT 4 :wy7r� :.� NEW HOPE CREEK ? �;,� ,•RO.M ,CHAPEL :HILL R ",Jp �� _'�+ __ ;�: .DURHAM BOULEVARD i : TO ER WIN ROAD 'I . , Opp' '' :.-' .s y A \ • ` ..• �� ,.,1 • r• • •f 1-Poo goo 0. 1,060. 7 . 'r - ;`• _ SCALE: 1 "a 1,000" .. _ "1w ... '� .• NORTH Too P ti w .fw •, •\ • • • 4 • - YS •• r ... r C :. . J a• ti; QJ Via, - .. ,, :, � : ; • �: •! J OF n• ..... 4. �... .. 13 fau New Hope Carridor Opm ,Space Master p1m Component 4. New Hope Cre& From Chapel Hill Durham Boulevard to Erwin Road Ju ds&Xm: Orange County, Chapel Hill, Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • On the northern end, near Erwin Road, privately owned, large, undeveloped tracts, principally in agricultural and forestry use; • Low - density residential use along Mt. Moriah and Cambridge Roads; • Garrett Farms subdivision platted and being built as a medium - density residential development; and • On the north side of Boulevard Ridge, both large and small privately owned parcels. Future Land Use: The potential for development along Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard is extremely high. Rezoning on the north side was proposed in 1990 and later withdrawn. A Proposed grade - separated interchange in the vicinity of Mt. Moriah Road would have an extremely high impact on the ridge uplands and north facing slopes. Lands along both Mt. Moriah and Cambridge Roads, because of their proximity to the Interstate 40 /US 15 -501 interchange, appear to be very valuable as developable land. Zoning is as follows: in Durham, R -20 single - family residential (1 dwelling unit per 1/2 acre), and commercial along Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard; in Chapel Hill, rural transition (1 dwelling unit per 2.3 acres); and in Orange County, rural buffer (1 dwelling unit per 2 acres). Proposed Connector Road: The regional Thoroughfare Plan includes a proposal for a connecting mad that would permit traffic originating in the Chatham County and Chapel Hill vicinity to access Durham and US 15 -501 more efficiently. U I W I a This component of the corridor is perhaps the hub of hydrological and biological systems occurring in the entire area. It is at this location that the Mud Creek, New Hope Creek, and Dry Creek floodplains meet. It is the furthest point upstream where the New Hope Creek flows into its wide Triassic Basin floodplain. W New Rope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Nineteen vegetation sites have been identified in this section, comprising the following groupings: New Hope Creek -Dry Creek-Mud Creek Lowlands; Boulevard Ridge Uplands; and Garrett Farm Peninsula Uplands (see Appendix E). Unlike the Corps lands to the south, this area bears the marks of recent agricultural practices --open meadows, old farm roads, plowed fields, and managed woodlots. Preservation would include continuing these land uses as interpretive activity. The Boulevard Ridge Uplands includes sites on . steep north - facing slopes. The Garrett Farms Peninsula Uplands sites, which were originally identified in the Harrison report, have been significantly compromised by the building of the Garrett Farms subdivision. Component 4 includes several units determined by environmental considerations and potential land development. The portion of the 100 -year floodplain from Erwin Road southward to Garrett Farms retains a greater degree of environmental integrity than do the portions closer to the Boulevard and on the lower reach of Mud Creek. This is due to the fact that adjacent land has not yet been developed as intensely. Also, sewer lines have not been extended northwest of Garrett Farms. This lower degree of disturbance on the adjacent uplands offers a continued potential for wildlife habitat preservation no longer possible south of Garrett Farms. Protection measures must be introduced before the adjacent lands undergo intense development. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 4: • Protect the entire 100 -year floodplain. • Establish a protected wildlife area for plants and animals in the stretch of New Hope Creek as described above. • Permit no extension of sewer lines in the wildlife protection area. • Manage floodplain lands to maintain open fields and pastures. • In Durham County (Component 4 Map, Area A), acquire development rights to lands zoned R -20 (1 dwelling unit per .5 acre) so that the resulting density is one dwelling per 2 acres. • In the Orange County /Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area (Component 4 Map, Area B), maintain the existing rural buffer zone that requires a minimum 2 -acre residential lot size, with no extension of public sewer lines. • In the Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) (Component 4 Map, Area C), retain the existing RT zoning with a 2.3 acre minimum lot size. 38 New (lope Corridor Open Space Master Plan • Retain the existing zoning and zone lines for Garrett Farms (Component 4 Map, Area D). • Acquire a site along the east side of Mt. Moriah Road (Component 4 Map, Area E-2) for a public access site and trailhead. • From the trail access site on Mr. Moriah Road, establish a nature trail along the west fringe of the New Hope Creek floodplain, through the Wildlife Protection Area described above, to link with the Hollow Rock Trail access area described in Component 6 (Component 4 Map, Area E -1). • Establish a bicycle and pedestrian trail connecting from the south through the Boulevard underpass (Component 2) to connect the Sandy Creek trail (Component 3) and the Dry Creek connector (Component 5). • Boulevard Interchange/Thoroughfare Plan: A. It is strongly recommended that the proposed routing of traffic from the southwest, whether by constructing a new road or parkway or by modifying the existing road system, not be permitted to make the Mt. Moriah Road, Erwin Road and Whitfield Road route into effectively an outer loop for Chapel Hill traffic. This would have considerable effect on the rural character of the existing roads and on the environmental quality of New Hope Creek and Duke Forest. B. Should an interchange be included in the forthcoming Thoroughfare Plan, it is recommended that the proposed location between Chapel Hill Road and the Boulevard be away from the steep slopes that border New Hope Creek in that area. Further, any interchange connecting with the Boulevard should be located and planned to avoid the steep slopes and accompanying ravines. C. Any interchange at the Boulevard should avoid a direct connection or extension to Mt. Moriah Road or Erwin Road. 39 >P HILL COMPONENT CHA DRY ' CREEK `{ FROM NEW HOPE CREEK TO ERWIN ROAD �4. NORTH s 100 —YE R -FLOOD LAI • �! �' • " ''� • 1,000 500 0 1900, SCALE: 1" .1000" • .5w K ASTOWNE •.�i•�� %- 4 fj +� �� ��,�` t ...■� • Nom. • J I lvdL 1 Y ~ of^ it w CA oft ..tai= r,•Q': � P � r . ti:. ��': o one _ Y CA ° • :' I, i pie i ° +p\ m ��'!� � :'`,• — - �.�+::�� I � V �I e1 . � 'h.. /J•� r.: New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Component S. Dry Creek From New Hope Creek to Erwin Road Jurisdiction: Durham County, City of Durham and Town of Chapel Hill Existing Land Use and Ownership: • Large, privately owned agricultural tracts between Mt. Moriah Road and Interstate 40; • Eastowne Office Park; and • Large, undeveloped, privately owned tracts east of Erwin Road. Future Land Use: The potential for development in the Mt. Moriah Road/Erwin Road vicinity is very high. Permitted development is controlled by the Chapel Hill zoning ordinance and the area is zoned R -1 and rural transition (RT). Major Transportation Corridor Restrictions on development apply along the north (Orange County) side of Interstate 40. U 1 •' 1 a In this component, two vegetation sites were identified by Harrison (Appendix E), one of which also was described in the Orange County Inventory. Presently, the large amount of fill on the Interstate 40 roadbed precludes creating a connection from east to west along Dry Creek, a condition that will continue until Interstate 40 is widened or modified in a way that offers the opportunity to build an acceptable pedestrian underpass. At present, Interstate 40 can be crossed only at the bridge at Erwin Road. A trail and underpass as described in this component would provide a connecting link between the Chapel Hill and Durham greenway systems. for the Protection and Use of Component 5: • Obtain a pedestrian easement within the 1250 -foot wide Major Transportation Corridor Overlay Zone for a path along the northeast side of Interstate 40. 41 F, New Elope Corridor Open Space Master PimL • Acquire the area of uplands immediately southwest of the Erwin Road /Interstate 40 overpass to use as an open space anchor (Area E-4). • Acquire floodplain lands along both sides of Dry Creek to use as a wildlife habitat area. • Develop a bicycle and pedestrian trail between the greenway trail systems of Durham and Chapel Hill utilizing the Erwin Road overpass and, in the event that future plans permit, employing a pedestrian underpass at Dry Creek (going under Interstate 40). M N J 1 �- •\ I I� r -=-Jo0 J r •\ COMPONENT 6 HOLLOW ROCK ACCESS AREA Area. E -1 1,000 500 0. 1,000 SCALE: 1 "1,000" • `� 50 ' r�- i r • 10 r !'lam• T� '.� � . • • • ..d .� 0 Al ,X �bsr- Tld'ddpTii�`� �• / S: 1, Rt I N ��♦ I r I 13 I C) a- • t-D&%\ - aO1 it/ • /- I� New Hope Corridor Open Space Master plmi Component 6. Hallow Rock Access Area Jurisdiction: Orange County, Durham County and City of Durham Existing land Use and Ownership: • Duke University; and • One privately owned parcel immediately south of Duke Forest. Future land Use: The Duke University land is part of the Korstian Division of Duke Forest. In the Duke Land Resource Committee's report (December, 1988), .the area below Erwin Road is classified as Residual Endowment Lands (Class 4), which means that the area will "no longer be considered part of Duke Forest .... The priority use of [this] land will be to generate financial return or other benefits to ... the University. " Duke Forest immediately above Erwin Road is classified as permanent Research Forest (Class 1) land, which is "most intensively used for academic and research purposes. These lands will be dedicated to academic purposes for a period of 50 years. " IF The lands in private ownership southwest of Erwin Road are zoned in Orange County as rural buffer (permitting 1 dwelling per 2 acres) and in Durham County as R -20 (1 dwelling per 1/2 acre). Significant Resources: North of Erwin Road, New Hope Creek flows east and south through the Carolina Slate Belt, creating narrow, deep, twisted valleys. A short distance southeast of Erwin Road, the Creek flows onto the Durham -Deep River Triassic Basin, characterized by broad floodplains. This portion of the floodplain, in which it is recommended that a natural area be established, is of considerable interest in that it displays the interactions that exist among geologic formations, the flow of water, plants and animals, and human activity. Pickett Road has significant historical value because it is the path of the Old Stage Coach Road. The west end is gravel and retains the rural flavor of by -gone days. It crosses a tributary of New Hope Creek. 44 New Rope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 6: • Acquire the Class 4 property south of Erwin Road from Duke University as part of the Wildlife Protection Area. • Acquire additional land adjacent to the Duke parcel south of Erwin Road to provide access to New Hope Creek south of the Hollow Rock Store as part of the Wildlife Protection Area. • Develop a carefully planned and constructed access from Erwin Road, with a parking area, picnic area, interpretive facility, and trailheads leading into the footpath systems in the wildlife habitat area and recognize with care the existing trails in Duke Forest. • Give careful attention to the alignment and use of Pickett Road where it intersects Erwin Road and assure safe and adequate access to the Hollow Rock access area. 45 1 COMPONENT 7 MUD CREEK FROM CHAPEL HILL - DURHAM BOULEVARD TO DUKE FOREST 1,000 S00 0 1OOQ L� NORTH. S CALEc 1 "x1,000' Sr• . f DUKE,FO ,fT . . . .i � -• --eat 1 V ,I at MO - 0 �•J or w i r,_to ICK�TT p0 A PICOT r.• MUD' C i 0 :., i 00— FLO PLA14 L A i it, I lei - �;.f• ^• .. • r :•�►.• � \:.� gar o� i Sr:'7 • `y,' "f . �.�x• r� f,.;• "..t, ,•'}' t 1h. \r._ \`�j'_;iH F+rt1 • yy, r,. +j ,,�. �•:: •1;,ti "'�': %; r• : - ,.�.,. ti� - �• � �ilAl;� r :4>)i.rf.: -b y ,�"�: •i 1 l i .- ,: ii� a; ;'��•+; +z:Irs. 'ti +.,'ti� ,. .. •� E5 \4. f� •f1�t %: �.� *. ~ ��;„. .y ,j�'\ .:t��f *� \y�'3•.iZ�t �'�,• �a .. �i a♦; l0�1?% qty.`...,• Qm�i�i il•�''•!�.:. 1 T..•. A \•)'1\ � ,.... a A'���i [�P,/'�`�fi�"S rY:.,•�• !SI faY•• ,'1::4t:� -'' IR]!I ::�; r� \�y t' .\':1. AL•`;` { fA � }-ti''•.. �\ r r ;.,y�`� 1, '.5d .:!. F:` t'�i�'y,:6`,� `.ti 'r. t �1. r�i� ~� a"!4:'••_� <•,y'i . r• �., .�;.i.ww- .,•� ?4•r•`.'- �i }�;ry.1+ �7- .�5'•� ;(, �!� R1 '�... New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Component 7. Mud Creek Urban Greenway from Chapel Hill- Durham Boulevard to Duke Forest Jurisdiction: Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • East side to Garrett Road: privately owned single - family residences; • West side, south end: Garrett Farms subdivision; e West side, midsection: privately owned single- family residences; and • West side, north end: Loch N'ora subdivision. Future Land Use: Land use in this area is presently subdivisions, and the Future Land Use Map indicates residential uses for the future. No anticipated change. The environment of this area of Mud Creek has been compromised somewhat by the installation of a sanitary sewer main, which at the same time has the effect of giving this area a more open feeling than that experienced in the heavily forested floodplains to the south. Some steep slopes exist along the eastern boundary of the floodplain. Four vegetation sites occur in this area including three large vegetation units, the New Hope Creek -Dry Creek -Mud Creek Lowlands, the Upper Mud Creek Triassic Lowlands, and the Eastern Mud Creek Hardwood Slopes (Appendix E). The steep slopes on the east bank of Mud Creek are in private small - parcel ownership and will likely not be disturbed. Acquisition is not considered an absolute necessity. However, it would be desirable to obtain conservation easements to protect scenic values. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 7: • Protect the entire 100 -year floodplain. • Obtain conservation easements to the steep slopes on the east bank of Mud Creek. 47 New Hope Qwtdor Open Space Master Plan Component 9. NC 751 Scenic Road Jurisdiction: Orange County, Durham County and City of Durham Existing Land Use and Ownership: • Duke University. Future Land Use: Component 9 is almost completely within Duke Forest. Most of this land was classified by the Duke Land Resources Committee as Category 1, Permanent Research Forest Land (i.e., not to be sold for a period of 50 years). One area, east of NC 751 in the vicinity of the US 15 -501 Bypass, is classified as Category 2, Research Project Land, which means that the land is protected at least for the short term but use may change in the future. 'J 1 1 - 1 6 � �� Duke Forest in this vicinity is mostly uplands, since Mud Creek has reached it point - of- origin above Erwin Road. Some areas of biologic significance have been described in the Orange County Inventory. However, the main reason for the proposed NC 751 Scenic Road is the preservation of this stretch of public road in its present forested character. This is a valuable type of "open space ", tied not directly to any specific natural value, but to the value of a pleasant driving experience in a rapidly urbanizing part of North Carolina. Extensive examples of the legacy of timely parkway planning exist in many of our large urban areas. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 9: • Encourage Duke University to retain its Category 1 classification of Component 9 lands in Duke Forest, thereby providing sufficient protection of the forested lands along the NC 751 Scenic Road. • Should Duke decide to sell all or part of this land, negotiate to obtain by purchase or easement a corridor 500 feet to 1000 feet wide on each side of NC 751 for a wide scenic and pedestrian corridor. • As NC 751 is extended north of US 70 (the "Eno Drive" proposal), extend the scenic road concept in order to provide for scenic treatment and the creation of bicycle and pedestrian paths along the proposed Eno Drive. 53 Mery Rope Corridor Open Space Master Pin • Extend the NC 751 Scenic Road corridor protection eastward to and beyond the US 15 -501 Bypass interchange to meet the northern terminus of the Sandy Creek Urban Greenway and continue with an entrance to the Duke University West Campus. • Because NC 751 can continue to be a scenic road and to serve high - volume traffic needs as a two-lane road, prohibit additional cross streets and driveway entrances. S4 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Component 10. Orange County Wildlife Protection Areas A. Piney Mountain Creek and Rhodes Creek Jurisdiction: Orange County Existing Land Use and Ownership: • Various private owners. Future Land Use and Ownership: Low density residential and agricultural. Significant Resources: In Orange County north of the Korstian Division of Duke Forest, there are a few locations suitable for wildlife corridors. Piney Mountain Creek, and Rhodes Creek have excellent potential as protected wildlife corridors (see New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Map, page 3). Wildlife is abundant and is accustomed to ranging over the areas and entering and leaving Duke Forest. In addition, several sites identified in the Orange County Inventory are located in these areas and should be preserved and protected. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 10-A: • Take steps to preserve Orange County wildlife corridors and incorporate them into the Master Plan as an extension of the Duke Forest open areas. These corridors should remain in private ownership. • incorporate protection of the Orange County Inventory sites into the Master Plan and plan for specific wildlife corridors in Orange County. • Sign a route from NC 751 to the Eno River State Park, following NC 10 to Pleasant Green Road, north on Pleasant Green Road across the Eno River, and entering the Park on the north side of the River. This route would be primarily along roads with off - street paths where feasible. The route could provide for both bicycle and pedestrian use. ss New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Component 10. Orange County R�ildlife Protection Areas B. Duke Forest and Upper New Hope Creek Jurisdiction: Orange County, and Chapel Hill Faisting Land Use and Ownership: • Duke University and other private land owners. Future Land Use: Use of Duke Forest lands is subject to Duke land resource policy and, therefore, may change over time. Land adjacent to Duke Forest is now and will probably remain primarily in low density residential and agricultural use. Significant Resources: This component includes the Korstian Division of Duke Forest and the western, upstream corridors of New Hope Creek, as shown on the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Map (page 3). A basic assumption in the creation of the Open Space corridor concept and this Master Plan has been that the inclusion of Duke Forest and its trails is a critical part of the Master Plan. As has been noted many times in this Master Plan, the trails in the forest are already used by hikers. Plant and animal life are plentiful and worthy of protection. This Component of the Master Plan takes advantage of the splendid and immensely popular Alluvial Forest Trail along New Hope Creek in the Korstian Division of Duke Forest. This trail has been created by informal hiking activity and for the most part is on floodplain soils that are scoured during flood events. in several locations, the trail connects with fire roads constructed and maintained by Duke Forest crews. These roads lead out of the forest to locked gates opening onto State - maintained roads. One of the roads, Wooden Bridge Road, leads to Whitfield Road at Gate 24. Another unnamed fire road leads to Gate 25, also on Whitfield Road. Recommendations for the Protection and Use of Component 10-B: • Recognizing that Duke University has assumed the management, maintenance, and liability responsibilities for Duke Forest and its trails, the Committee recommends that the appropriate local governments consider sharing in these 56 New Hope COrrWOr Open Space Master Pkn responsibilities in order to support the continued natural use of Duke Forest and its trails as part of the Open Space corridor. • In the future, consider taking advantage of the location of the Sunrise Drive overpass over Interstate 40 in order to connect the Duke Forest trails and roads into a northern Chapel Hill open space/greenway system. S7 III. Implementation Recommendations New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan D.I. Implementation Recommendations A. Master Plan Approval It is recommended that each of the jurisdictions that commissioned the Master Plan adopt the Master Plan as soon as reasonably possible. B. Advisory Committee Formation and Operation • An official, joint, permanent New Hope Corridor Open Space Advisory Committee should be established. • The Committee would be charged with the oversight responsibility for the corridor's future; specifically, the Committee would have the following functions: 1. To monitor and advise concerning progress that is made by the appropriate jurisdictions through their operating agencies in carrying out the recommendations of the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan; 2. To review and make recommendations concerning those portions of annual budgets of operating agencies that relate to the corridor; 3. To review and make recommendations concerning any development or infrastructure proposals, both public and private, that affect the corridor; 4. To meet at least quarterly; S. To report to the four governing bodies; and 6. To nurture and foster citizen involvement in preservation and acquisition of the corridor. 58 New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan • The Committee could be freestanding or could be a component of existing planning or open space agencies. • Committee membership could be drawn from the membership of existing agency committee groups with additional representation by interested corridor property owners and other interested citizens. • The Committee should be provided with staff support from appropriate operating agencies. It is expected that required support would be limited. • The Committee would not have operating responsibilities associated with the corridor's development and preservation. C. Master Plan Implementation Steps It is recommended that the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan be implemented over a maximum period of 20 years in three phases (Tables 1 -4: Master Plan Action Summary). The overall cost of plan implementation is estimated to be between $14.9 million and $26.4 million, with costs to be borne by appropriate jurisdictions (Table 5: Master Plan Implementation Cost Summary). The wide range of estimated costs is due to the variety of options available for acquiring land, amount of land to acquire, types of trail construction, and other facility development. The Committee recommends and expects that the public agencies involved in implementing the Master Plan will take advantage of particular opportunities, as such opportunities occur, to move the Master Plan implementation ahead. As a general principle, land acquisition and protection will precede construction and development. However, all or portions of construction and development actions should not be delayed pending acquisition of all land and development rights. For example, all trail installation should not be postponed until all land is acquired. Some development of trails and other facilities for public use should be carried out in conjunction with land acquisition; while preservation of the land is of primary importance, it is also important that the public be able to enjoy the benefits of the corridor. It is hoped that the area will be accessible to the public in order to develop awareness and appreciation of the corridor. The phases of the plan are outlined below. Activities in Phases 1 through 3 may overlap, depending on the opportunities for funding, acquisition, and development that arise. Thus, for instance, Phase 2 might actually span year 2 to year 10 and Phase 3 might span year 2 through year 20. 59 New Rope Corridor Open Space Master Plan Phase. 1. Priority Corridor Acquisition (1 m 5 Years) Estimated Cost: $2.74 million to $5.37 million (Table 1). Objective: Utilization of land presently under control of the City of Durham, Duke University, and the Army Corps of Engineers, along with purchases of opportunity in the Wildlife Protection Area and any other acquisition that presents itself through zoning or negotiation. Actions Required: 1. Designate the City-owned former Sandy Creek sewage treatment plant site as recreational land. The City of Durham Parks and Recreation Department staff should study program needs and site capabilities. 2. Negotiate agreements with Duke University, including liability agreements, concerning public use of trails, fire roads, NC 751 Parkway, the Cornwallis -Erwin Natural Area, and the Hollow Rock Access Area, which are located on Duke Forest land. Consideration should be given to usage requirements of both Duke University and the public to determine if land swaps are in order. 3. Negotiate with the Corps of Engineers concerning nature trails and bicyclelpedestrian trails along the edge of the floodplain. 4. Begin acquisition of land for Wildlife Protection Areas, purchasing in fee simple and/or through purchase of development rights. 5. Acquire any appropriate tracts made available through the development process and by willing landowners. 6. Involve Eno River State Park personnel and the Association for the Preservation of the Eno River Valley in planning for any hail connection to the Park. 7. Acquire floodplain land along Sandy Creek. 8. Acquire land for a 200 -foot "steep slope buffer" along Dry Creek and New Hope Creek in the vicinity of US 15 -501. r•:IJ New Hope Corridor Open Space Master barn Phase 2. Completion of Corridor Acquisition (5 to 10 Years) Estimated Cost: $5.73 million to $11.15 million (Table 2). Objective: Complete acquisition of land needed for Wildlife Protection Areas and for steep slope areas. Acquire necessary land for stream protection and for anchors and access areas. Construct trails as needed to connect schools, parks, and other destinations. Actions Required: 1. Acquire development rights to land adjacent to the Wildlife Protection Area as shown in Component 4 of the Master Plan. 2. Acquire floodpWn land along New Hope Creek, Mud Creek and Dry Creek. 3. Acquire land necessary for anchor and trail access at the intersection of Cornwallis and Erwin Roads, Garrett Farms, Erwin Road at Pickett, Erwin Road at Interstate 40, Mt. Moriah Road, and Leigh Farm. I 4. Coordinate with Greenways Commissions of Durham and Chapel Hill to construct trails. • Phase 3. Completion of Trails and Access Areas (10 to 20 Years) Estimated Cost: $1.84 million to $2.73 million (Tables 3 and 4). Trail construction, $358,000 to $1.03 million. Anchor /access development, $1.48 million to $1.7 million. Objective: Prepare plans for, obtain financing for and complete the construction of trails and access areas. Actions Required: 1. Establish priorities for trail construction. 2. Find funding. 61 New Hope ConMor Open Spaee Master pk" 3. Complete construction of trails and access areas as shown in the Master Plan. The estimated cost of the project for Durham County and the City of Durham is from $12,251,500 to $21,260,950. The estimated cost for Chapel Hill is from $1,164,500 to $2,123,600 and for Orange County is from $945,000 to $1,861,400. The total estimated cost is from $14,361,000 to $25,245,950 over a 20 year period (Table 5). 62 c 4 y v c �a 0 U Q Vr'►5 9 4 •a Q O Q� V 0. r-i I C/1 O Q b o a o a a g o a g00 b9 b4 404 v9 44 ii4 K K Q Z N OD N1 00 N to �V ^p Z eq Q 7�] � a g� Gn M en _ q Ch 3 aG � x U r y� in b �i AA 0 N r� O_ s tn N v gg ~ Cq N .M. 44 il} a 8 44 Olt 4m i�Il H K 44 4�4 4011, ! y 40# 44 H Q U O V M oo a in M .N. (V M d\ -. ... �p ..i ON C4 w w w w w w Od ❑ g g � 04 m 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 a 2 � � 2�7 J � 2 2 2 2 � 2 409, 409� 4 ro 3 \ k § k $ A A 0 2 2 2 2 2 � 3 � 2 k o � � � 7 \ I 2 § a � � \ I qr / 2 k k 2 k k e J i F 2 a 0 0 U 0 0 0 V! q V t 0 Q IA $$ S g g �o RR n `�' § ao u, n o, o3� °ae ve viQ ZS `c °��n� n °vr ei ohov: iR d i 4 iIf t y fA V! O y 44 Q en H fA iN9 S $ S 00 m � b � b 'hero U � ,U'�.► D � V Z Z CAien .1 A av c ya, c M o � 0 F g a a o 0 0 8 oo ...1 v v .: .: .. qT a wr 8Q 1�1 s oc m oAL en i 4 y � H H K it v, C14 en 00 O O n K K 00 H H y H en N en r- (n n N ~ H H H K en H y H H if} w.i V} o .: N H H H H s s s s s s s $ $ g s s fNA y H i4 H H � v y