Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-24-1992ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 24, 1992 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA X e � 4, 0,—� - il -, 0? y- �A 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 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01 a. CP -1 -92 University Station 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments 47 a. Z -3 -92 Donald Wayne Combs 75 b. PD -2 -92 Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain - Phase 3 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 1Q3 a. Mobile /Manufactured Structures 4. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance Amendment 109 a. Minimum Acreage Requirement D. ADJOURNMENT 1 � . I APPROVED 10/5/92. MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 24, 1992 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners awad the Orange County Planning Board held.-their quarterly public hearing on August 24, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners -Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Verla Insko. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Don Willhoit COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD? MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Carol Cantrell and members H. Paul Hoecke, William J. Waddell, James Gray, Elizabeth Eidenier, D..Kent Scott, Clinton E. Burklin, Jean Hamilton, Virginia W._ Boland and Larry Reid. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Jim Hinkley, Eddie Kirk and Mary Scearbo. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Opening remarks were made by Chair Moses Carey, Jr. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The public charge was read by Chair Moses Carey, Jr. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT a. CP -1 -92 University Station Marvin Collins stated that this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan involves the Land Use Plan of the land use element. He stated that 87 required notices were sent out to those property owners within 500 feet of the proposed amendment. Also, over 200 courtesy notices were sent to let other people know about this proposal. He explained the approval process that the applicant will have to follow before any work can begin on such a project. He emphasized that this item is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and not a rezoning. This public hearing does not involve approval of a specific site plan. A conceptual plan has been submitted to give others an idea of the contemplated use of the property. He noted that no decision will be made tonight. Following this public hearing this item will be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. The earliest the Planning Board could consider this proposal would be September 21. Written comments received before that meeting will be considered in making the recommendation. He continued that if this land use amendment is approved, a second public hearing is required. At that time, the detailed plan will be submitted for review and approval. The developers would also need to request �f 0A the appropriate rezoning classification and obtain approval of a Special. Use Permit. The Special.Use Permit is important because the County can attach.. conditions of approval to that permit which bind the applicant to those specific conditions which generally attempt to address or mitigate impacts which are identified in the site plan review and approval process. If a second hearing is held, it will occur on November 23, 1992. Marvin. Collins presented the staff analysis and recommendation which is included in the agenda abstract. He noted that- while "neo- traditional" community planning is new to Orange County, there are other similar projects both in this state and nationally. QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING HOARD MEMBERS Marvin Collins clarified that those areas designated transition would become the jurisdiction of the Town of Hillsborough and eligible for annexation to the Town of Hillsborough. If a transition area designation was approved by the County, it would be the hope of the planning department that when the site plan and the rezoning and special use permit approvals are sought, that the plan that is submitted would be entirely consistent with the planned community open space strategy. This would make it possible for these 629 acres to be designated as part of the open space area. Commissioner Insko asked about the 377 acres in open space and the provisions that would ensure that this area be maintained as open space in perpetuity. Collins stated that, as a part of the planned development application,. the golf course would be shown on the site plan. When the plan is approved, the special use permit must be recorded and the developers would have to carry out the plan. If they wanted to make any other use of this area, they would have to seek approval from the County Commissioners because it would constitute a major modification to the original plan and require a public hearing. He explained several options for assuring that the area remain open space. Geoffrey Gledhill explained that the land itself could be dedicated as open space which even at a later date could not be changed through modification of the special use permit. Marvin Collins noted that this project would be carried out over ten years with the first phase being the construction of the golf course. The developers could begin construction of the golf course within the first six months after approval and continue to build without letting six months pass with no construction. If this land remains in transition as a part of the Cooperative Area Land Use Plan, the permitting process would pass from the County to the Town of Hillsborough. However, if this site and the zoning of this site were in some category of open space district or open space area, it would stay with the County. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the statement in the document that 25 acres will be designated for a park as well as a site for fire and rescue stations and asked if this was a separate parcel of land. Marvin Collins indicated that this is his understanding. Halkiotis asked that they consider combining fire, rescue and sheriff services. 3 In answer to a question from Wayne Huffy, Marvin Collins showed the Rural Buffer boundary and stated that no portion of the agreement with Hillsborough can extend into or affect this area. If University Station was placed in transition, that would mean that the town could zone it but at that time, it would have to be approved by both the town and the County as part. -.:.. of the cooperative agreement. If there is any change to the zoning in that.:.:. area by the town that differs from the Land Use Plan that is jointly adopted,.-,,.. by the County and the Town of Hillsborough, then it would require a joint_,,,,-, public hearing involving both the County and the Town and would need to be.rt >. approved by both jurisdictions to become effective. Areas outside of the transition will be governed by the Land Use Plan which will be jointly adopted. In that area, the County would maintain jurisdiction and the County would have all the administrative powers, zoning powers, and subdivision powers that it currently oversees. No rezonings could take place without a joint public hearing and approved by both jurisdictions. CITIZEN CQMMENTS PETER KLOPFER spoke in support of preserving the character of this area with open areas and rural buffers. He feels that this project would take a large chunk of rural Orange County and give it to developers. The justification for this lies in the financial interest of a few landowners but it is also an area where the needs have changed. It will not be long before another developer argues for the need of yet another town. He suggested that sight not be lost of the whole purpose of the Comprehensive Plan which was•v,n to slow the population growth in this area to maintain some open area for as:, many generations as possible. Even though a planned community of this kind,; is better than no planning at all in the destruction of rural countryside,.,- that is not the only option. There is still the option of preserving thes;, rural countryside and requiring developments of this sort to be contiguous with and included within existing urban boundaries. ALAN SEIFERFELD indicated he moved to this area because of the rural character of this area. He would like to see it preserved and is against any proposed changes that would increase the density. DENNIS MCCULLOCH stated that a lot of planning has gone into this area relative to the development of a model school. A development of high density in the immediate area will have a serious impact on the growth and development of this model school. The roads in the immediate area can not handle the kind of traffic generated by this project. The development would destroy the rural nature of this area, the roads cannot handle the traffic and the school system will suffer a great impact if this project is developed. ARTHUR COGSWELL, one of the promoters for this project, made reference to the "move back to earlier principles of rural land planning" which have guided their planning for this project. They know that growth is going to ,, occur. The task is to handle the growth in as benign a way as possible. This project would provide a pedestrian oriented community which would deemphasis the automobile. The notion behind this is that the community will be, to a large extent, self- sufficient. One of the major tradeoffs is the 4 number of offsite automobile traps which might be diminished. The task is to concentrate development and avoid the inevitable urban sprawl that will ensue otherwise. If this village is going to be successful, it must be successful economically. One of the major objectives here, since this is to be a complete village, is to address housing needs across the market spectrum. It is a middle market village, providing inexpensive housing of various types through up -scale housing circling the golf course. In answer to a question from Gary Maske, Mr. Cogswell stated that construction.o.f.the golf course would take place at the same time they begin building housing of several different market values. Mr. Maske's main concern was that, with the golf course being built first, there will be a lot of traffic on Old ,#10 and that the first houses being built would be the most expensive and affordable housing would be lost or not pursued. ROY ROTH; Stoneycreek resident, presented some traffic calculations based on the number of units proposed for this project. With 1100 units and an average of 1 -1/2 cars per family, these 1500 cars have only three exits from the area. He asked that everyone consider what the traffic impact will be. MARTY FITZPATRICK stated his support for this project. He made reference to the control of storm water and stated that at the intersection of Old NC1.0 that goes underneath the railroad tracks, it floods out quite often. Also, there is a small lake that is contained by an earthen dam. If this area was.ever flooded, it would be a concern for everyone. MICHAEL DROWNS stated that provided the County and the town do not reach a cooperative agreement and this area is still included in the Land Use Plan, then this area falls under the jurisdiction of Hillsborough. He asked if at this point in time the County has a cooperative agreement for working on developments of this size. His concern is that Hillsborough does not have a planning department that would be capable of handling a development this size. His other concern is that if the town should annex this area, it has a wide range of zoning categories that the County does not have. Among them is a category called GC that has 52 different uses. Once this property is taken into the Town of Hillsborough, then the developers have to change their zoning to comply with that of the Town of Hillsborough. In the process of doing that, GC zoning allows anything from adult book stores, churches and schools to the extraction of minerals from the soil. If some of these land uses should happen it could be quite disastrous to the area, depending on what the developer and the town decide. He questioned that if the town and the County reach this joint agreement, how would that be handled as far as the town if they want to annex this area. Will the area still be allowed to be annexed it into the town of Hillsborough. Marvin Collins stated that if the property was approved for transition area and it was open space, Hillsborough could not annex it. If it was left as transition, Hillsborough could annex it, but they would have to meet the General Statute requirements concerning annexation -- either have adjoining property or satisfy the annexation provisions. Mike Drowns asked if the Special Use Permit would be Class A or B, and Marvin Collins stated that it would be a Class A SUP which is one that is approved after a joint public hearing such as this one involving the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners. 5 Class A Permits are required for larger projects where the impacts cover a much wider area. Commissioner Gordon asked if this entire area is in the open space area. Marvin Collins indicated that the lower portion of the project is not in the cooperative planning boundary and would not be in the open space area if it did exist. She asked if this was not in existence at all and if the proposal went through and the developers wanted to put something in the open;,; space, what would be allowed in that area. Marvin Collins noted that the way r:! the agreement is worded, in terms of the open space area, is that the Town of Hillsborough can extend public water and sewer to projects in the open space area if they are developed in accordance with one of the rural character strategies that are adopted. The closest strategy to the conceptual plan that the study committee is considering is the one with 1.74 units per acre -and 60% open space. Commissioner Gordon asked about the impact on the environment of maintaining a golf course. Mr. Cogswell stated that there have been many studies which have indicated that water leaving a golf course downhill is purer than the water that runs onto a golf course. He will provide a copy of the study to Commissioner Gordon. Marvin Collins stated that one of the things the staff has been discussing with the Rural Character Study Committee is the whole issue of golf courses and the potential impact that could result from the pesticides or insecticides or nutrients that come off of a golf course. Clemson University has been conducting studies for several years on these very impacts and even though there are not any standards set at this time, he is interested in their findings and how to mitigate those impacts. There have also been some recent articles, one of which he will provide copies for the Board, about a golf course that was designed in the Charleston, South Carolina area in conjunction with a natural area. The biggest complaint is about mosquitos because no pesticides are used. A typical golf course takes up about 150 acres. Marvin Collins noted that it will be April, 1993 when the Cooperative Area Land Use Plan is brought to public hearing. In answer to a question from Michael Drowns, Mr. Collins noted that as part of the Cooperative Planning Agreement, the staff position would be that this area be changed from transition to open space so that the project will stay within the County's jurisdiction. Mr. Drowns asked if the staff and the developer would be willing to take the position that, if this land use change is allowed, to put everything on hold until the Cooperative Agreement is reached and that area designated as open space. This would mean staying with the County which can handle the development. Mr. Collins stated that the reason for the request at this time is the concern of expiration of land options and the threat of losing the project. Commissioner Gordon asked what would happen if the Land Use Plan is changed and becomes a ten -year transition area and then no cooperative agreement is reached with Hillsborough. Mr. Collins stated that it could stay transition and would be the County's jurisdiction. If the County wanted N to implement some kind-of open space area around Hillsborough on its own, it could do so. In answer to a question from Mr. Drowns to Mr. Cogswell on how soon the company would build any structures on the property, Mr. Cogswell indicated that it would be at least March, 1994, before any houses are built. DON HILL applaud the plan. He adjoins the property and sees nothing wrong with developing the land. The plan seems to be a good plan. There needs to be more room to put more people. PETER KEISTER of Strayhorn Hills stated he moved to this area because of the rural character of the area. This proposal will put an imposition on traffic, on getting around, and on enjoying the life here in Hillsborough. This plan has problems. He questions the prefix "NEO" and the definition of aural village as one with 1,000 homes. He feels that people are not going, to abandon their cars and stay within the area to do their shopping. He feels that if the developers build the village center first, that the concept of the village would be more real. However, the first stage includes the golf course and the second stage is still upscale. He feels that there will be an overburden of the resources and a general deterioration of the quality of life. The ideal would be 600 homes on this 629 acre tract. He felt that this development should be placed on 629 acres near Cary and not in Orange County. KAREN BLY who lives on New Hope Church Road spoke against the plan. She is outraged and is firmly against it. She does not believe that all these people are going to live in this little village and never go to work and that there will be enough jobs in this little village for everyone not to travel downtown or New Hope Church Road or University Station. She encouraged everyone to take a close look at this because she feels it is very important to their community. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners on October 5, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z -3 -92 Donald Wayne Combs In summary this item is to receive citizen comments on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. The property is located 597.22 feet west of Ferguson Road and contains 1.84 acres. The property has a width of 200.45 feet and a depth of 400 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is RB -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning designation is EC -5 Existing Commercial -5. The request has been made to correct an apparent error in the Zoning Atlas. The rezoning was initiated as a means of resolving a zoning violation involving the storage of automobiles. The applicant alleges that the rezoning will correct an error in the Zoning Ordinance, in that the property was used for the storage of automobiles prior to the zoning of Bingham Township in 1981. Planning Staff has been unable to substantiate the applicant's claims through examination of aerial photos. The photographs show that in 1979 and in 1982 there were 7 not any motor vehicles on the parcel. The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that no error was made in respect to this property in the Zoning Atlas when zoning was adopted for Bingham Township on September 2, 1981. The current owners of the property purchased the first six acres on February 9, 1984. The twelve acre lot to the north was purchased in January of 1991. Jim Hinkley noted that currently there is a three bay garage on this property and automobiles are being refurbished. Parts are being taken off of automobiles in the salvage yard and being used to refurbish automobiles to make them road worthy again. The parcel is also currently being used for insurance purposes where damaged automobiles -axe stored until there is a determination by the insurance company on what to do with them. It is also being used for the storage of cars which are towed off the streets of Chapel Hill. The recommendation is that, provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the negative, the Zoning Officer recommends disapproval of the request. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD In answer to a question from Mr. Waddell, Mr. Hinkley stated that the eastern most portion toward Ferguson Road is in the upper most area of the University Lake Watershed. PUBLIC COMMENTS ROBERT SMITH, lawyer for the Combs in this matter, stated that the only way Mr. Combs can continue this operation is to rezone this property to EC -5. This would acknowledge that this was used for commercial purposes at the time the zoning became effective on September 2, 1981. This matter started with one complaint to the Orange County zoning office in the fall of 1991. The property was purchased in May of 1979 by J.D. and Doris Martin for the purpose of storing junk cars and it was used for that purpose the entire time they owned the property. They called Orange County and was told that this was a permitted use. He stressed that if this is allowed to be rezoned, it will not be allowing anything new, but a continuation of something that has been there for quite some time. Mr. Combs has tried real hard to be a good neighbor. He has kept the cars away from the road and away from the adjoining property. He has kept a natural barrier between where he keeps the cars and the adjacent property. In addition, after they bought the property, they built a house on the property and that is where they live. No cars can be seen from Ferguson Road. He presented a petition with 170 signatures in support of this proposal. If the person who complained about this property had approached Mr. Combs, he would have worked out the problems. one of the concerns was that there were too many cars on the property. in response to this complaint, Mr. Combs removed 200 cars from the property in December, 1991. Another concern was that Mr. Combs is working on cars. There is a garage on the property. Originally, Mr. Combs had applied for a building permit and received a certificate of occupancy from orange County to store some of his personal cars. He has applied for a home occupation permit which would let Mr. Combs work on cars. Mr. Smith feels he can meet the requirements for that and work on cars under the present zoning. The problem is that there is not a home occupation permit for storing cars. They went to the Board of Adjustment which suggested that they apply for a rezoning. E3 The EC -5 zoning would not establish a wide -open commercial area with all the permitted uses. All it allows is the type of use that was there at the time the Zoning Ordinance was approved. They are asking that this error be corrected and that this land be rezoned to EC -5. He feels that Mr. Combs is providing a public service. He is available 24 -hours a day for wrecker calls from various law -- enforcement agencies. Mr. Smith submitted various documents for the record including a copy of the deed of the people who purchased the property in 1979, affidavits showing the use of the property, survey which shows that some properties were found to be allowed to continue as commercial, receipts for the car,,; which were crushed, privilege licenses and other documents showing that the business has been in operation for some time. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about the increase in the number of cars, Mr. Smith indicated that they would certainly try to keep the number of cars down. TROOPER MARK T. BROWN spoke about the service that Mr. Combs provides. Mr. Combs responds to accidents at all hours of the night. He is a definite asset. He does a good job and does not complain. His storage area is in a key location on the south side of the county. There are only one or two other places they can store vehicles. The cars cannot be seen from the road or any public access. He keeps the area neat and organized and works well with all the law enforcement agencies.. GLENN BALDWIN purchased in 1979 one to two acres on the north side of the Combs' property. He noticed that there were cars on the property in question. The cars did not bother him then and they do not bother him now. Mr. Combs in an excellent neighbor and a friend. He asked that the Board vote to allow them to continue to operate in this area. HENRY DOWNEY has been a neighbor of Mr. Combs for five or six years. Mr. Combs in a good neighbor and he supports the rezoning. DOUG CLARK purchased 11 acres in 1964 on Ferguson Road which is connected to Mr. Combs' property. There is no evidence that there is a garage or cars stored on the property. His house is nice and he provides a service to the community. He wants Combs to be able to continue. EDWARD FOUSHEE lives across from Mr. Combs. He noted that the property is kept neat with all the cars lined up like soldiers, the grass is mowed and there is no junk. His house is neat. There is no traffic problem and he sees nothing wrong with keeping it the way it is. T.C. HUDSON, JR. noted he has been car crushing for Mr. Combs since 1986. A division of his company has been recycling metal since the early 1970's and car crushing since 1986. Mr. Combs was waiting on the price to increase on metal before moving out the cars he had accumulated. He sold his cars as ordered by Orange County. They brought several thousand dollars less than they would have on a good scrap metal market. Hudson does car crushing for all of central North Carolina and have never been to a yard as well kept as Combs. Since 1986, Mr. Combs has had about 200 tons of cars per year crushed until December when he crushed 200 to be in compliance with the County's order. He wants Mr. Combs to be allowed to continue. He emphasized that Wayne Combs is a roan of his word. HUBERT,ARRINGTON stated that he knew Mr. Martin property and he helped him move some cars on the property Mr. Combs is a fine person who has a well organized place. 01'' when he owned the in 1979-and 1980. BARTON LLOYD owns two lots to the south of the proposed area to be rezoned. His understanding is that the issue is whether or not cars were stored on the property when the zoning came into effect in Bingham Township in 1981. When he acquired these two lots, he was aware that cars were being stored on Mr. Combs' property. He became concerned wherr trees were cut and the lot was expanded. He asked that if the EC -5 zoning is granted, it reflect very precisely the actual area of land that was in use as a storage facility in 1981 -at the time that it would have had to be in use as a storage facility to justify such a rezoning. He doesn't know if there were cars there at that time or how many. GARY ZADJEIKA owns two lots in the-southwest corner of this area. He asked if the application for a business license is reviewed and if so why the zoning was not checked. He is in the salvage business and had to appear before the Board of Commissioners in order to get a conditional use permit before getting his privilege license. He noted that it seems that Mr. Combs business is growing and that there were structures built on the property. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill stated that Orange County does not license businesses as such. They do issue permits for some kinds of land use like Special Use Permits and Home Occupation Permits which are for a particular use of the land. Privilege licenses are issued by the state and the towns. Gary Zadjeika stated no opposition to Mr. Combs continuing within the space that was preexisting but does not agree with rezoning the area which has been cleared since 1981. WILLIAM FORD owns a large tract property. He has no use of the property. worked for Mr. Martin objection to the zoning There have been cars since high school. of land west of the Combs' change and feels it is a good there since the mid 501s. He WAYNE MELNER lives in a mobile home approximately 50 feet from where the cars are stored. He has lived there for six years and this salvage operation has never bothered him. There is no erosion and he has never found a creek on the property. DURWOOD HOUSE lives on Damascus Church Road. He spoke in support of this rezoning. He has known Wayne Combs for a lot of years. He is dependable. The site is clean and cannot be seen from the road. He indicated that he has nothing but good things to say about Mr. Combs. KENNETH MARTIN , stated that he is the son of the man who sold the land to Mr. Combs. The land was originally purchased for the purpose of storing junk cars. That use was permitted by the County at that time. He and his father used the land to store cars for parts in their automobile 10 repair business. At .a later time they sold ..the land to Mr. Combs for the same use. He indicated that he continues to use this land to store cars from his business and that Orange County needs places to store these cars. This lot is not visible from the road and it serves a need in the community. In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon,.Mr.. Gledhill indicated that he was interested in the comments made regarding a license. If a license needs to be purchased, Mr. Combs will need to take care of that. However, the land use question needs to be resolved independent of whether or not Mr. Combs is licensed to do business. The land use question is simple. Was the property in question in existence in a commercial way in 1981 which is when the zoning laws went into effect in this township? If it did, then there is a factual basis for rezoning the property to EC -5. That factual basis ,would be that there was an error in the zoning atlas. The error comes about because the intention of the County when the zoning laws were put into effect was to locate all of the commercial operations that existed and to classify them EC -5 or some other commercial classification. Commissioner Gordon asked that this item be referred. -to the County Attorney and then to the Planning Board for a recommendation, so that the Planning Board would have the attorney's input. Mr. Gledhill indicated that he would put his comments in writing and forward them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board needs to decide if they believe that this commercial operation was located at its present location and to what extent it was operating in 1981. Commissioner Insko asked for clarification as to what the Planning Board would mean if they recommended EC -5. Would they be recommending EC -5 as it existed in 1981 or as it exists currently. If it was zoned EC -5 in 1981, would the buildings have been permitted? Mr.. Gledhill stated that if the buildings were a permitted use, they would have been approved for construction. If the use was a special use, then Mr. Combs would have needed a Special Use Permit. Mr. Gledhill indicated that the Planning Board's recommendation for EC -5 zoning will indicate whether or not the lot which is in question occupied that zoning lot in 1981. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to refer this item to the Planning Board to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. PD -2--92 Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain - Phase 3 The following people were sworn in by Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board: Roch Will, Bill Selvidge, Linda Powers, Spence Dickinson, Jenny Shafer, John Hartley, Dave Laudicina and Eddie Kirk. This item was presented by Eddie Kirk in order to receive citizen comment on a proposed modification for an additional phase to the Heartwood Mountain Planned Development. The applicant is. requesting a Planned 11 Development Housing designation for 19.534 acres of land located north of the existing Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain development off Mill House Road. The proposed addition would contain 9 lots and receive access through the existing development by the extension of Heartwood Drive and Pathway Court. It is known as lot 26E, of Tax Map 19 in Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning, of the property is RB (Rural Buffer) . The proposed zoning is PD -H -RB (Planned-Development-Housing-Rural Buffer). The applicant is proposing to use the existing community well,-system for water and have.individual septic tanks for sewage disposal. The property is located in the Rural Buffer area as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1986. Article 8.7.3 of'the Zoning Ordinance required that such a change be considered by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed addition of the 9 lots complies with all the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance. Conditions have been included in the Planning Staff's recommendations to insure compliance with all state and local regulations. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD. In response to a question from commissioner Carey, Mr. Kirk indicated the exact location of the common area. PUBLIC COMMENTS- BILL SELVIDGE President of the Heartwood Land Owners Association. voiced his concerns about this project. The neighbors would like to have these easements for the common areas removed from the plan. Regarding the maintenance of septic easements on common property, they request that the easements include specific language which require the owners of the property served by the system to provide for and finance the maintenance of those systems. Their third concern involves the extension of Heartwood Drive and Partway court. The owners request that the extension be built to the standards previously required and that the maintenance of that extension be divided on a prorated basis. LINDA POWERS, a resident of Heartwood indicated that her concerns are about the common areas,not the additional home sites. It appears that the Home Owners Association would be responsible for the maintenance of the common area, however, that area would actually be a septic field for specific homes. She also indicated that allowing non -- residents to have access to the common lands is not appropriate. ROCH WILL indicated that he welcomed the Phase III development of Heartwood with the exception of several fundamental potential problems. Those problems are trail easements, septic systems and road construction. His main concern is that an undue burden will be placed upon current residents and that their quality of life will be jeopardized. SPENCE DICKINSON, developer of Heartwood, indicated that several existing lots already have septic easements and those home owners are aware that they are responsible for their septic maintenance. He indicated that 12 the common area could have been. designated private land, however, developers were hoping to provide additional common-area. JENNY SHAFER, a resident of Heartwood,. indicated that the septic easement for Phase III is at least 1/4 of an acre away from the land it would serve. This would require running the septic.line under a paved road and up a hill. She indicated that she is opposed to this arrangement. Shp-also spoke in opposition to putting a public access onto. th.eir,private land. JOHN HARTLEY spoke in support of this project. DAVE LAUDICINA a resident of Heartwood, indicated that he supports what is being done with the 9 -lots. It was planned that those lots would be annexed into Heartwood, which means that they will share their common land and Heartwood would share their common land with them. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko to keep this public hearing open to receive a recommendation from the Planning Board on October 5, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT A—* Mobile Manufactured structures This proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would add a new section addressing Mobile /Manufactured Structures as Class B Special Uses in the Agricultural Residential (AR) , Rural Residential (R -1) , and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. This amendment would specifically set up mobile /manufactured structures to be used for accessory purposes as a Class B Special Use Permit. The Zoning ordinance does not allow mobile homes to be used as accessory structures. Whereas manufactured structures and mobile office structures are constructed differently than mobile homes and are not intended to be used as residential units. These types of structures differ from mobile homes and would be appropriate to use as accessory structures. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Gordon questioned the difference between mobile homes and manufactured structures. Additional information will be nroy; PH to her. Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the public hearing until 7 :30 on October 5, 1992 at the County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C. to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT A-. Minimum Acreage Requirement In summary this proposed amendment would change the minimum farm size required for participation in the voluntary agricultural districts program from 155 acres to 80 acres. The 80 acres could'be in one tract or 13 two or more tracts as long as they total more than 80 acres. The 80 acres conforms -with the median farm size as opposed to the average. This would allow more smaller farms to participate in the voluntary districts program. Person Stewart spoke in support of this amendment. Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this proposal to the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for a recommendation- to be returned to the County Commissioners no sooner than September 22, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, Chair Moses Carey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on September 8, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the courtroom of the old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk BOOK "M 422 FnwAx= my, Beemer, Savery S Jordan, P.A. Return To: LEVINE & STEWART, 304 University Sq., 123 W. Franklin St „ Chapel Hill, HC 27514 NORTH CARONNA. ORANGE COUNTY ;III 4 THIS OECD. MA02 AND ENTERED INTO THIS THE 21st DAY of May a 79 . wY AYD saTw[/N Evelyn Atwater and husband, Roscoe Atwater rARTy DF THt FIRST FART AND ! I J. B. Martin and wife, Doris Helen Martin Mt. Carmel Church Rd.. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 1 P ►STY OF THE GSCOND FAST. WMNE54ETH: THAT THE RAID PARTY OF TN[ FIRST FART. IN CONBID[wAT10N OF TN[ SUY OF TEN DOLLARS AMP DTN[N DOOR, VALOASL[ AND /U"i I.I I CIENT CONS IDKNATIONR• PAID GY THE SAID PANTY O► THE SECOND PART. TNt RECEIPT OF WHICH It HERESY ACKNOWLEDGED. NAG BARGAINED ANP GOLD ANP GY THESE FREGENTG DOES SMGAIN. SELL AND CONYKY UNTO THE SAID PARTY OF THE SECOND FART AND HI/ HEIRS AND 1 ASSIGNS ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR F4NCKL OF LAND IN Bingham TOWNSHIP GUANO[ COUNTY. NORTH CARCLINA. AND YORK PARTICULANLY DESCRIBED AG FOL4DWG- -B on Plat entitled "Division of BEING all of 6.00 acres, shown as Tract 4 Tract 4- -Lacy Pennix Heirs ", as surveyed by Stephen E. Wilson, R.L.S. L -1370, dated March 9, 1979, recorded in Plat Book 30 Page 61 Orange County Registry, and more particularly described as Mows: BEGINNING at a point in the centerline of S.R. 1948, the Southeast corner of m said Lot Number 4 of the property of the Lacy Pennix Heirs, running thence fro beginning point with the centerline of said S.R. 1948 N 17° 05' 41" W 40.76 feet, thence N 180 06' 55" W 169.24 feet to a point in the centerline of said S.R. 1948, thence S 890 17' 41" W 1271.58 feet to an iron . stake, running thence S 000 42' 19" E 200.59 feet to an iron stake, running thence N 896 17' 41" E 1986.17 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. This conveyance is made subject to the right of way of N.C.S.R. 1948. V, >� r, 4 e�.• * MA131.19 /L.00 ? PS 23 81.5 P4i� TN6 AROFB INNORNES M DFRIrn was PN.VETSG M COMMOTION M PEAA RECV.eGO IN ROBS_ Irk TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE AFOR[SAIP TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND AND ALL PRIVILEGES AND APPURTENANG96 TNSREUNTO GSLONSING TO THE 6410 PARTY OF THE SECOND PART AND NIB HEIRG AND ASSIGNS IN FEE SIMPLE FORKVER, EXCEPT AE GR FONTW ABOVE. AND THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART DOER COVENANT THAT HE IN 6 2ED OF SAID PREMISES IN FEE SIMILE AND NAE THE RIGHT TO CONV[V THE SAME IN FEE SINPLt: THAT THE SAME AMC FREE FROM ENCUMSNANCES EXCEPT AS GET FORTH ASCVt1 AND THAT HC WIµ WARRANT ANP DEFEND THE RAID TITLE TO THE MME AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF ALL rENSON$ WI(OMSOKVKR, WNEREVER UKtP HEREIN. THE SINGULAR NUMBER SMALL INCLUDE THE FLU AL. THE PLUIUIL THE SINGULAR. AND THE USE OF ANY D[NDER ` /HALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL GENDERS. AS THE CONTEXT MAY INDICATE IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HAS HEREUNTO SET WIG HAND AND SSALTNt DAV AND YVAN FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. `/ , / ^ y IJF 4. ISKAL) •' /u /AwL /Ql_� //J� Lf��i�7�! /LtJtyt i ( //A4) Evelvn Atwater Roscoe Atwater STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY CW r. Oran &e 1. Wendy Kimbel . A NerrARY PUBuc or SAID COUNTY. PD HENEGV CERTIFY THAT Evelyn Atwater and husband, Roscoe Atwater GRANTOII. PERSONALLY APPEARED SEFOR[ ME THIS DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE DUE EXECUTION OF THE FOIIEOOING PEEP. WITNKGG MT NAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL. THIS THE 21StT OF i�_ 6y - .1679 MT COMMISSION uPIRa: 7/4/83 9RANTOR. FERROmAL}Y APPEARED BVpRE NK TI/I/ DAY AND ACKNOWLEDGED TH[ DUE EXECUTION OF THE FONW40ING DEED. WITNESS BIT NAND AND NOTARIAL BSAL. THIS THE DAY OP .19 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -- COUNTY OF ORANGE THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATE(In OF Wendy Kimbel A NOTARY 3MW"7XA=I11 PU /LAC OF THE DTAIGNATCO GOVERNMENTAL UNITS IB GEM CERTIFIED TO SE CORRECT. FILED FOR REGISTRATION ON THE 31St DAY OF May . +879 . AT 10:46 O'CLOCK A. AND DULY R[COROED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RCGIGTER OF PE[GB OFV-6) COUNTY IN GOOK cocxa C6CNO. 311 FAGS 422 ham:. AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETB 11. MARTIN My name is Kenneth 11. Martin. In 1978 or 1979, my parents, J.B. and Doris Martin, bought a tract of land on Ferguson Road in Bingham Township which is now owned by Wayne and Brenda Combs. At the time, my father worked on cars at our house on Mt. Carmel Church Road, and I worked for him. We needed a place to put cars, and bought this land for the purpose of having a salvage yard to keep old cars. Most of them were junk cars which were used for parts. We checked with orange County before my parents bought the land to be sure there were no zoning regulations or other regulations which would keep us from storing cars on the land and were told that it was permitted. As soon as the land was purchnsed, we started taking cars out there. I had a wrecker and took most of them out there myself. At first, there were probably to to 15 cars out there. More cars were taken out from time to time and cars were almost never taken off of the land. When my parents owned the land, t went out there at least once a week, and sometimes as much as 10 times a week. When the land was sold to the Combs, they agreed that we could keep cars out there, and so I have continued to go to the land frequently up to the present time. There have been old junk cars kept on this land continuously since my family bought it. This the �-/ / day of / _ , 1991. Sworn to and subscribe to before me 0 the day of d 1991. Notary Fublic My Commission xpires: lrl&� - l ' KENNETH H. MARTIN r� AFFIDAVIT OF DORIS fl. MARTIN My name is Doris 11. Martin. My ]nte husband, J.A. Martin, and I were the former -t was srs of a tract Fnrcopynofothe rendadCombsibylius deedsisrattached. sold old to Wars and B InW1983, and My husband and T purchased this Land in 1979. We never lived there or had a house there. It was boughtf the sole of Read, storing andneeded.a place to worked on cars at our ho on Mt. Carmel Churche store cars. This the _L� day of yr ✓`�`' �, 1991. Sworn to and subscribe to before me thin the P day of �i%aJ 1991. Not«�ry Public My Commission Ex res: La -14_ DORIS H. MARTIN AFFIDAVIT OF HERBERT ARRINGT0N My name is Herbert Arrington. I was a good friend of J.B. Martin's, and knew film from the 1950's until his death in 1987. I am familiar with the property in Bingham Township on Ferguson Road now owned by Wayne and Brenda Combs. This was previously owned by J.B. Martin and Ills wife, Doris. I remember when the Martins bought this property in 1979. J.B. Martin needed a pl.nce to store curs, and also was planning to build a car repair shop there. I went to this land with J.B.Martin at least 3 times, the first time right after tie bought the land, and the second and third times I believe were in 1980. On each occasion, J.B. Martin and I were riding around together, and rode out to the land to look at it, or to look for a part from n junked car which was on the land. Each time we stayed 30 to 45 minutes. The first time I went to this land, there were approximately 10 cars stored there. The other 2 times there were 10 to 15 cars. A few of the cars still ran, but most were junk cars kept to get parts. The cars I saw were gr.otiped together in the middle part of the property. I did not go on the whale property and do not know if there were other cars on other parts of it. I. was on the property in 1983 to deliver a tractor to Wayne Combs, and there were as many as 50 junk cars on the property at that time. I have been on the property several other times between the time Wayne and Brenda combs bought the property and the present, and there have always been junked cars stored on the property. This the I day of N Cry, 1991. HERBERT ARRINGTON Sworn before day q$ to and subscribed to l,jjj %1(;%q6 jh e✓ 1991. My AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM C. FORD My name 1s William C. Ford. 1. am familinr with the property at 1300 Ferguson Road now owned by Wayne and Arencla Combs, itd lallem been .iffor nnd over 30 years. 1. have 11.ved in this part of Orar►p. Y currently .live less than a mile away through the woods. 1 knew .t.11. Martin, tar' former owner of tl+e land for about 20 years, rind used to work for hlm. 1 know that he bought the property now owned by the Combs' around 1979. During 1979' 1980 and 1981 1 Was on the property aboilt once n month, usually riding horses through it. .I.li. Martin started to rut used pnrts, cars, c1n 'h1s, eltiritir timelandtit' 1 know thnt by 1981., there were '-it le"st 0 used p: Thts the _ clay of Sworn t�l, c+rrcl +r14'sc r t.hed to h o�%�<<day • 1991. o f 1991. �-� w11.11-nM c:. rcwn r � AFFIDAVIT OF WALTER MCFALL My name is Walter McFall. I am familiar with the property on Ferguson Road now owned by Wayne and Brenda Combs. I worked for the former owner, J.B. Martin, starting in 1975, and I re- member when he bought the property. He bought it to move his car repair garage to, and to store cars on for parts, and he started putting junked cars out here just after he bought it. By 1980, there were a lot of cars out there, at least 25 or 30; enough to be a salvage yard. There was a lot of other junk there, too; pieces of lumber, tractor parts, etc. J.B. was a pack rat and never threw anything away, and the number of cars out at his land always went up, it never went down. This the day of December, 1991. Lo /#, WALTER MCFALL Sworn to and subscribed before me this '•, 1991. Notar* 10�b}ic �Ilt� My Commission Expires: i� FLPNHI11 ORANGE CoV'TY .PIANfirrNG DR- PA-RTME -T nY monOROQGH IgO=M CA ROLINoL 2727$ 4 • y fi 02=9 TO: P1azv irk Board FR%I: Planning Staff SUBj -EC` : List of Proposed Non- Confoa-rning Uses of Land, Uses of Major Structures arld Premises, and Structures DA'Z'E: May 6, 1981 F. Z in order to clarify how the Staff has handled non-- confor dM uses :L1 Orange County, enclosed is a list of the non-conforming uses we h_3ve identified. 1 II130 T ISHIP ZONE TAY. MAP SR #59 Gates Septic Taj'�c Res -Ar 20- 29 12 Welding. Slap -1 21..0 '�Us 70 HILLSBOR013GH TUNSHIP Bass Welding R -1 R -1 5 -43 ;;2 Triangle Cre-,mav criun R -1 43 -3-14 45 -32 1133 #9 Orange Concrete R -I R -1 23 -A -10 1.560 #72 R & J Specia -Ity CO. AR 1395 #77 Bowman$ Pool Hall � .AR 32-A -2B us70 #79 Pzaasp Tcdse Asco,Marehouses/Weldillg Sinop R1 45-19 did #10, BMW TOt*091' #12 MDK � 1��1LA NCa54 #29 Nello L. Teer Asphalt Plant NC-2 NC- 2 -9 2$ -a-6 NC 54 ;'24 J.W.'s F1wce IdC-2 26 -6 NC 54 "44 Tbleweed uur CfiAf'EL ML 'IOVX13HIF #3 CastacMy Club R--1 R-1 4--22 5 -23A 95 0 Garage Cary W. bean R -1 5 -1A #7 Deaf' s Trtixclt & Coach R--1 5 -50 5 -55 & 56 16 Bass Welding R -1 R -1 5 -43 #11 #25 Glass Company National Chemical Lab R -I 19 --17A 1710 171.4 1714 1715 1715 off 1716 NC 86 PHONE i SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION f�l 9a7 2ps^g MONTVA4 VIRGINIA 3 - FX SUBSCuRY OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION /bsTRUCK CAR /. . 20 . GROSS 84540 M_... • Qv TARE NET ,i" .5ag6o 1! �. I CUSTOME�i. `A :' ORECRE . ` ERV I CF LOCATION ZONF F OURT1 i BY I N -POUND NO. 033672 TIME OUT 9�8 :� ?2 SIGNATURE_ /Y�'►s'i�d if l_ U'- HAULER - - � 'Gpd� PHONE SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION (7fKi) 907 - 2226. + = MONTY" VIRGINIA J • .� SUBSIOUARY OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION TRUCK CART .. GROSS S .. _ E35400 11 J ,, TARE QY 31740 NET CUSTOMER. . LOCATION ZONE �.'f=OURTEP4 - Nox N -POUND • t? a37�C DATE 4�. BY j 1, (- RGE CRUSHED ,�- 6,1 O e, - IIME IN ? -�4. ]b I l' I ME OUT 9.56.13 r f SIGNATURE HAULER PHONE Z SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1 ! F,Mq 947.2225: .. MONTVALE. VIRGINIA 1..w1f Ca)= ::RU,n IE 1 � SUBSaARY OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION # 3 SIN -POUND ; o337FI1 , `. TRUCK I CAR , � Ibf 1 GATE PHO SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION �74 (AIM qq MONTVALE. VIRGINIA 3 1 `A GROSS SUBMDI"Y OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION 114-BOUND 1 TARE NO 03:3958 TRUCK , DAR A 19 f ' DATE GROSS 86180 'I 72d M I TARE 31 b8C1 i'� NET !I NET ,jp.cliil .. e 1 p1 +;7 I LmATION - ZONE FOURTEEN ir CUSTOLIPR or LociTloN `ONf- FQUkeTEF:f,I + BY I - •1 { j I..AF:G•E CRUSHED TI i' E IN S. 35. TIME OUT 20- :�7. � SE i I 1 I SIGNATURE 1 i HAULER PHONE! Carte SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION M 947• MONTVALE. VIRGINIA 6t SUBSIDIARY OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION TRUCK, CAR t 2E ' 'A(l o I GROSS G4r.Fi l TARE. 317480 IN-POUND NO. Cr33l34.9 DATE 1 aJ i r-, ! v i i + 1 1 NET 1 CUSTOMER LOCAnOH ZONE FOUF;TFEN I, f SY .. 1..w1f Ca)= ::RU,n IE TIME' IN E3.1i6.. -' TIME OUT --- --...... - -. -�_ SIGNATURE HAULER _..__..._._.. - - - -. - .... .........._._- .�— _.... _ -�. ' ....-- - —..1 I PHO SHREDDED PRODUCTS CORPORATION �74 (AIM qq MONTVALE. VIRGINIA 3 1 `A SUBMDI"Y OF ROANOKE ELECTRIC STEEL CORPORATION 114-BOUND NO 03:3958 TRUCK , DAR A 19 f ' DATE GROSS 86180 tA I ' p p I TARE 31 b8C1 i'� Y r I !I NET ,jp.cliil 1 CUSTOMER A ? WRECKER :SERVICE I LmATION - ZONE FOURTEEN I BY TIME OUT 10.5 0.29. SKMTURE I I j /L�. ✓� i HAULER ° I � J l r 1 �I.•A •al e111� d n of Chapel 1611, �. this the 'Yr view when passible b do,, FROM JULY 1, 1991 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 193657 TO JUNE 30, 1992 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE .�� PRIVILEGE LICENSE (THIS IS NOT ABILL) GENERAL STATUTE CODE ACCOUNT NUMBER PENALTY TOTAL 105 89 Q5 068 OQ99Z��i 7U 2s "it, 52• LICENSE DESCRIPTION THIS LICENSE ALONE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION, BUSINESS OR TRADE FOR WHICH A STAT�NttALIFICATION LICENSE IS REQUIRED. THE PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION NAMED BELOW HAS PAID THE LICENSE DATE TAX REOVIRED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. OR DOING THE ACT LISTED ABOVE. rAYNE COMBS AUTOMOTIVE O ISSUED BY SECRETARY OF REVENUE WEST FRANKLIN GULF INC 1300 F ERGUSOM RD �r 7 LCHAPEL HILL NC 27516 SECRETARY ADDITIONAL TAA OF S2& -00 WILL BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO KEEP LICENSE POSTED. 11 0 A JET- i i t4i 9 V . . . . . . . . . . . popleFow AA 'Aa AWL 14 1.11 1 �'.,�'P,.,.''� d�' ..:1iiY'J:t°��n�.. �.. .. _ d` 1... e._ 1^._... a.- r�V e.. a- AMx. wL. iY.. a. n. w.,.. EQ. i.x- ._.�.�- �_.._�_�- !.._....1.. .....__._..,.-i,�.•..�y�J'::.: _ ���x •. I-M l W, IrA �.. iii' 7�T,7_ ti 141 1R' ti yu,t-. tw—A NO 'U"Aaw W" V-7-41 u61 K"s -,:'j . . . . . . . . . . . . State of North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: I. Thad Eure, Secretary of State of the State of North Carolina, do hereby certify the following and liereto attached ( , sheets) to be a true copy of ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF WEST FRANKLIN GULF, INC. and the probates thereon, the original of which was filed in this office on the 22nd day of December 1982 , after having been found to conform to law. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal. Done in Office, at Raleigh, this 22nd day Of December in the year of our Lord 19 82 �I E .f PETITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. S i� ng; ature � :emu..•_. �i �.. FA-A �l..� r � Printed Name Na YL bt2k QXR, -M-w".m R M r<"r I " rUt 1w C i - %)cLj5jL!a'j L f Sa Address ed� ! )5A-Rfif 5Y z A L .c. 15A;21 a/d&f- Aots)wt-ae. ra V r, 14!4 0{ Fri et o' �i\ ��f .� . PEnTION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RA to EC -5. Signature Printed Name �.�51,4 3 ff Address 1 -w I-w'IVI-EMTK I'm U P QC2 rU4W I-) Q n L-A) CP �a ar �,. . �k ,�, ,., ! �. - -- • _ , ,. d . � •. .,,� ,' .,ti.. , 1 +;�, .. �' ,�'' :.� PRTITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. 1 Printed Name lute Lle e- Y —04#rl � > I Address .�. Y n- >i I2nff,Y- ��1Y 1 'o Zc �l R �a 14110v0 co" ` We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. Signature Printed Name Address J� 2���v�J,� u � Ot_rl �� ► L _ �h i LeA, t i,+ d L WJ -6 r6.ss fld A� ...�� � . J h r h l � 5 � �� n 1 PKMION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. Signature . Mor Printed Name Address �� �,� ld i� � a l /,roc tl a- rrr 13vn,4 �LIJs "fus J a I 0 C 1 � _ A� r � Y r I PETITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. Signature A?APC� 24 N vcjwt11 Printed Name Address al t /� _. ,�' r -c ►iS d 3 �7 : �� �JF�s f�c� A/c_ 1J icjly is fa 3 g4r t+, ca"r0 lv �- a7210 9 1 i, r , � . =. V . o ' IIUA - Z 4AAO 0 'cr AS ZZ Of VC 4­7 AIC j"/�,OL b�d C r2�nS�dYd Owl IDETITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC-5. Printed Name Address z- 7 C6 14 M 61 rE d-R 6-SS cl, OP 40 4 - cd c PO /6, Get c-m Hit le 2o. S wI* KQ lo 6 +Iwu 1"t wt F"46T" WAR �9A orr A;, ).ae� P PETITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. SiVatur �r m Printed Name Address J�o /� G, id9�iN 5 T. C AOetf Qa A ?, ; 00 v t � r u KT- 4 q Boy, %-7- c a z-? s i y 123 vAu..E �e. s Ch 754 &_CIf- 21SIY 2;7sT CG Q li l V'r- )'115 ftt Rd C R . S�2 l Elfo �ti�4��` A.Ic- LI .y�:l We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RE to EC -5. Signature Printed Name Address c - :Sw R� .1 'fix ' Pi ftsb ab � o ►� �+ �. z 1 s 3� 5 Cl� 2 N��L 0 1 -ffM4'-- Oil 1� iii'1111111111111 all o �(v t cf�r� Zc) 3 Pfev, iz 6 F Or. Cc e"tJ ALL 2- 7.3/ I IN b S 4 A.A// �)7Z _6 N S al - ) +I ( N C ��- t 0 PSrITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. Signature Printed Name Address aka., R11. c C-/ f/I r a C.euMP��,� Asa/ rd�D 2b +/J C141K ION.L� �O�r'Cfi� ._. ids o� to j 3 /�• J biiy►n�l �G11n �� rRD ret) #I 7 0 N -1- c TTS b_p rr� /moo / -�( F 'd R-.rj) Al' c, ��,�arbac�gUrS /.mac df-dcP, �i We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson ]toad, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to BC -5. �i (10 „ '1 Printed Name Address 'Vk�-4j-1 100- iF �r J a•u r:.. 6sse&-�-- 313 Lo to -1 L-esyl- STi0.w � IN 67 I e' �1F. re rl A642 Z K, ZP, PETITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RB to EC -5. Signature Printed Name Address -jomds,S., 'e jle gig ciao �d V Y PEPITION We, the undersigned, support the proposed rezoning of part of the Combs property at 1300 Ferguson Road, Chapel Hill, NC, from AR and RH to EC -5. Printed Name Address t(.c.fl�hr► �UoQ.n1� �GOS� NL[oi'f� d -����� /P 9 &�: use- X03 -�" Zo4M JWKAWW /O,L f k `t/< /i Ll�&—arFi< . t w ''- l��J�x>f5s S/ Z 7701W 7wlN1�� ` ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 v i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND VOLUNTARY FARMLAND PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Article 18, Sections 323, 340, and 343; and Articles 2.2, 8.4, 20.5, and 20.6 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, August 24, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan is as follows: 1. CP- 1- 92'University Station The property in question is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710). The property contains approximately 629 acres and is specifically described as lots 20 and 20A of Tax Map 27 in Eno Township, lots 47 and 48 of Tax Map 26 in Eno Township, lots 7,12, 13, 13A, 135, and 13C of Tax Map 3 in Chapel Hill Township, and lots 51, 52, 52A, and 52E of Tax Map 4 in Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) for a distance of 2,900 feet, on Old N.C. 10 for a distance of 4,920 feet, and on University Station Road (SR 1712) for a distance of 865 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Residential. The property is being considered for re- designation in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township components of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element from Rural Residential, Agricultural Use, and Resource Conservation to Ten -Year Transition. Areas designated as Ten -Year Transition are those projected for change from rural to urban, suitable for urban -type densities, and provided with public utilities and services. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas are as follows: 1. Z-3-92 Donald Wayne Combs The property in question is located 597.22 feet west of Ferguson Road (SR 1948). The property contains 1.84 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 6A of Tax Map 37A in Bingham Township. The property has a width of 200.45 feet and a depth of 400 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is RB -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning designation is EC -5 Existing Commercial -5. The request has been made to correct an apparent error in the Zoning Atlas. 2. PD -2 -92 Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain - Phase 3 The expansion of an existing planned development is proposed on property located west of Mill House Road (SR 1725). The Property contains 19.534 acres and is specifically described as lot number 26E of Tax Map 19 in Chapel Hill Township. The property is currently zoned RB -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning of the property is PD -H -RB. The planned development is not a new facility but represents the expansion of an existing residential development. Approval of a planned development application and a Class A Special Use Permit is required, because the expansion is considered a major modification to an existing planned development. Nine (9) new lots are proposed and would be served by the extension of Heartwood Drive and the construction of a new street, Pathway Court. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT The proposed amendment to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance is as follows: 1. Mobile /Manufactured Structures Under the proposal, mobile /manufactured structures would be defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Such structures would be Permitted for use as accessory buildings in AR- Agricultural Residential, R -1 Rural Residential, and RB-Rural Buffer zoning districts upon the approval of a Class B Special Use Permit by the Board of Adjustment. VOLUNTARY The Ordinance FARIQAND• PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 1 proposed amendment is as follows: to the Voluntary Farmland Preservation 1. Minimum Acreage Requirement Under the proposal, the minimum required acreage for designation as a voluntary agricultural district would be reduced from 155 to 80 acres. The change would recognize the role that smaller farms play in the agricultural economy, and, by permitting two or more contiguous farms to join together, allow farms as small as 40 acres to participate. 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 questions. PUBLISH: August 12, 1992 August 19, 1992 Marvin Collins, Planning Director 17 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 24, 1992 Agenda Abstract Item # ?-(a) SUBJECT: CP -1 -92 UNIVERSITY STATION DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _X —yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicinity Map Planning Director X2592 Application Materials Staff Report PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located south of the Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR 1710). The property contains approximately 629 acres and is specifically described as lots 20 and 20A of Tax Map 27 in Eno Township, lots 47 and 48 of Tax Map 26 in Eno Township, lots 7,12, 13, 13A, 13B, and 13C of Tax Map 3 in Chapel Hill Township, and lots 51, 52, 52A, and 52E of Tax Map 4 in Chapel Hill Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) for a distance of 2,900 feet, on Old N.C. 10 for a distance of 4,920 feet, and on University Station Road (SR 1712) for a distance of 865 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is R -1 Residential. The property is being considered for re- designation in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township components of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element from Rural Residential, Agricultural Use, and Resource Conservation to Ten -Year Transition. Areas designated as Ten -Year Transition are those projected for change from rural to urban, suitable for urban -type densities, and provided with public utilities and services. The purpose of the request is to allow the applicant to make application for approval of a planned residential community. IUL-J An analysis of the request is provided on the attached 8/20/92 Planning Director memorandum. RECOMMMATION: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are treated in the same manner as proposed Zoning Atlas amendments. Article 20.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. The 30 -day period may be extended up to 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application and all supporting documentation, and prepared an analysis of the request. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. No decision is made on the proposed amendment by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead the Planning Board has. 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1992. r V LW Atc s ............. Old NC IQ r - wr••r. d r ~ 'J 4 "• r O r� Fr +. I �..� _ v o �O %/ O CP -1-92 University Station Proposed Amendment to Land Use Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan li r� CP -1-92 University Station Proposed Amendment to Land Use Element Orange County Comprehensive Plan 04 T. C ` i O t f ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' 306F REVERE ROAD ( HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 1 Y } LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT .APPLICATION All persons requesting an amendment to the Land Use Plan of Orange County are required to complete the following application as completely as possible: OFFICE USE ONLY Cr REQUEST LUP- 1 - Q2.. DATE EC V D: STAFF PERSObItS.1 RESPONSIBLE: GENERAL DATA: Property Owner(s) Name: KENAN AMERIVEST COGSWELL GROUP acrent for: (see attachment A - list of owners) Mailing Address: 4601 Six Forks Road Suite 502 Raleigh,-NC 27605 Phone: Agent(s) Name: Mailing Address: Phone: SPECIFIC DATA: Tax Reference: Township (Home) (919)782 -•6583 (Work) (919)787 -7400 Same (SEE ATTACHMENT A) ENO Tax Map Block Lot Public /Private Road Name: New Hope Church Rd., NC 10, University Station Lot Size: Acreage-- Approx. 600 Square Footage 26,000,000 sf _ Lot Frontage _(see plan) Lot Depth Current Plan Category Designation(s): General Rural Activity Node ,joint Planning Area Watershed 0C SPECIFIC DATA (continued): Y } Cp REQUEST ALUP- l - 92, Describe Land Uses in the General Area: Farming, residential On Adjacent Parcels of Land: Same REQUEST: Land Use Plan Category Designation(s) Requested: Transitional Type of Amendment: Primary X Secondary This application should be submitted with the following materials: V/ Fully dimensioned tax map on which is highlighted the parcel, or portion thereof, in question. ✓ Legal description of the parcel, or portion thereof. Letter of request to include: q/ the tax reference, general location and owner of the parcel c/ the current and requested land use plan category designation(s) a narrative stating the manner in which the proposed amendment will carry -out the intent and purpose of the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof 1p/a statement of any other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment V/ statement of the changed or changing conditions in the area, or in the County generally, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary. I (We), the undersigned, certify that all statements furnished in this application are true and to the best of my (our) knowledge and that the ap, icat'on as submitted is complete % NAME OF APPLICANT SIGNATURE tF APPLICµz1Iv'T(S ) DA 9 y 9 9 9 9 UNIVERSITY STATION A Neo- traditional Village near Chapel Hill, North Carolina June, 1992 The ANMUNEST /KENAN /COGSWELL Group Chapel HA North Carolina lJ 08 D As we near the end of the 20th Century, an increasing number of families everywhere are dissatisfied with the current living conditions they find in urban pollution and the the urban in- frastructure Street crime, traffic congestion, p decay o f cause them to look elsewhere for an environment more suited to the needs of families of all sizes and ages. ?More and more, people are turning back with a sense of nostalgia to the values suggested by images of the 19th century village, and to the advantages of living in a small town. a 4 University Station is planned to satisfy this desire for a simpler life in a 0 smaller place: a place where traffic is quiet, where families can walk the streets and sit in•the park, where children can play, where most of the ne- cessities can be found within a short wally In short, University Station is planned for people, not for automobiles, and for the enhancement of the 4 quality of family life and the convenience and gratification of a broad and diverse mix of families and individual residents. y 3 Y 9 a 0 a 0 u D 7 A U 0 c 0 u u 4 4 1 1 5 1 t u 10 CP -1 -92 University Station Rural Village PROJECT DESCRIP'T'ION The amendment proposed will permit the development of a "Rural Village" on the University Station site between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. This will be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan and is in line with work currently underway by the Rural Character Study Committee, currently studying means of preserving the very pleasant rural fla- vor of the undeveloped areas of the county. Development will be focused on the village center, reserving permanent open space as buffers and for use as a public golf course surrounded by residential Iots and adjacent to a 25 -acre public park to be donated by University Station to the County. I Development of this community will be similar to neo- traditional villages which have been recently developed at Seaside in Florida, Kentlands in Maryland, # Black Oak in Virginia and Lake Park Village here in North Carolina. They are examples of recent developments in rural land planning and of a line of thinking # gaining increased acceptance from planning boards and in the marketplace, as well. Planners in this area are familiar with this work, primarily as a result of a presentation made here last year by Andres Duany. With a character drawing heavily from 19th century archit- ctural precedents in Orange County, University Station. is to be a complete community with ap- proximately 1,110 housing lots of a number of types, with approximately half in the village center and half elsewhere on the site, primarily adjacent to the golf course. Housing offered will appeal to a very wide spectrum across the market. Since University Station is seen as a functioning community and will be to a considerable extent self - contained, with its own commercial and institutional services, it will be able to appeal to and respond to a very wide range of needs. It will not be necessary for residents to travel by car to a distant shopping cen- ter to buy a loaf of bread, nor to chauffer children some miles to a softball game. It is intended that most facilities at University Station will be located with walking distance. A circle is shown on the site plan defining a five minute walk centered on the village square, approximately 1,350 feet in radius, and it will be seen that most of a resident's daily needs can be satisfied within that circle without driving offsite. There seems to be a great desire, tinged with nostalgia for a simpler and more friendly past, on the part of a large segment of the population in America today I j for a place to live that is smaller than a large or medium -sized town: a place small enough for one to feel a part of the community, rather than apart from the community, a place where people know one's name, and where a walk to the corner grocery becomes a friendly visit. Studies have shown that one's feeling of contentment and happiness is inversely related to the size of the place in which one lives. The intent is for University Station to respond to this need for a sense of neighborhood and identity. J The heart of the community will be the shaded village square, surrounded by shops, with awnings, benches and a fountain. One of the buildings fronting on the square will house apartments above the first floor, overlooking the scene. Another will be a more upscale condominium building. There will be offices, as well, a church and a community center. Nearby will be housing of all types: townhouses, more apartments, and houses of all sizes, all within close walking �1 distance. From one side of the square, a broader street with more shops will lead to the Inn overlooking the golf course and housing on its lower floor the pro shop, locker rooms and other golf related facilities. In general, the village will be somewhat closer than most modern suburbs, and 4 perhaps more like what our parents may have known. The automobile will not be as prominent: there will be angled parking on one side of the typical street, but alleys down the center of each block behind the houses will give access to L) garages and other parking. All utilities will be underground, with pre - installed stub -outs at each lot to avoid future cutting and repair of the streets for new construction. Streets within the village center will be arranged in a simple grid for the con - venience of internal traffic. Streets will have shade trees and low level street lights at frequent intervals for pedestrians as well as automobiles. Angled parking will be provided on one side, and alleys as described above. In the vil- lage center a brick sidewalk will border each side of the street. In addition, a � J golf cart path will connect all areas of the site for further convenience. This path will complement a network of jogging and nature trails which will lace the site. Sites will be reserved for churches, a daycare center, a community center, a seniors' center and other community facilities. On the north side of the site, a 25 -acre park will be donated to the county for recreation, as well as a site for a fire and rescue station and a recycling "green box" location. Since the railway fine connecting with Chapel Hill several -mles away bounds part of the site, and is used only once each day, the possibility of a light rail connection has been +) raised, and a site for a station will be designated. The golf course will surround the village and will cross NC -10, the old Dur- �� ham- 10sboro Road, where there will be another small cluster of buildings: a 7 11 12 golf and tennis clinic and a fitness center. At the edge of the village center, somewhat larger lots will face outward to the fairways, and throughout the site house lots will be arranged to take maximum advantage of golf, water and other views. Stony Creek traverses the site flowing from southwest to northeast and areas bordering the stream are a rich area of wetlands nurturing a variety of wildlife. The golf course will be carefully designed to take maximum advantage of the views and hazards offered by the creek without unduly violating this natural area or the natural wildlife corridor. Water will be available for irrigation and the creek will be an attractive focus for views from much of the site. In sum, the development of University Station will be a responsible response to the desire of the County for a project which leaves as much open space as is possible consistent with successful investment. A buffer of existing tree cover will be left around most of the site except at certain areas of the golf course bordering the road, and the village center itself will most likely not be visible from offsite. The passerby will have the expansive vistas offered by the golf course and will see the approach road to the village, but little other evidence of the development. It is proposed to develop University Station with approximately 1110 lots, plus i six 36 -unit apartment and condominium sites, an associated mix of small scale commercial uses and a championship signature golf course. The 620 acres will be developed with clustered density near the village center and decreasing density away from the center toward the golf course which wraps around the village. The project is being planned with an overall density of 1.80 lots per acre: nec- essary because of land costs and because that density is required if the small commercial core of the village is to prosper. The condominiums and apart- ! ments mentioned above will all be in the village center and will be in 3 -story ' elevator configuration to minimize site impact and to add support for the com- mercial core. The planning will be characterized by: o Siting of the village center on high ground, as in 19th century precedents o A regular street grid in the village center to facilitate internal �) transportation ') o Provision in the village center of necessary commercial and common facilities to minimize off -site auto trips s 0 # # # j i o A village square, with traditional uses o Short blocks and narrow streets with two traffic lanes and diagonal parking 0 Mixed uses and building types, not separated by zoning o Mixed cost range for housing types o Housing over shops and other commercial spaces o Narrow lots o Alleys, to provide vehicular access and parking at rear of lots o Lots dedicated to churches, daycare and community center and other common uses o Minimum setbacks o Golf clubhouse and recreation center within walking distance of village square and shops o Golf course wrapping around village r 0 All facilities clustered for maximum walking distance of 1,350' o Site reserved for light rail station on railway line to Chapel bill within walking distance of village square o Retention, where possible, of existing historical buildings and other features, roads, etc., to preserve historic context o Occasional irregularity within regular grid pattern o . Maximum variety, minimum repetition within design guidelines, provision of unexpected features 0 Low speed limits in village o Low hazard sprinkler systems in wood frame construction to minimize fire hazard, lower insurance costs l; 14 i The appearance of the village will be characterized by: o A small human scale, consistent throughout 1 o A mix of white clapboard, stucco and brick construction o Steep roof slopes, 8/12 or higher, of selected colors o White trim very "carpentery" 21 o Many benches, flower beds, flowering trees r o Brick sidewalks in the village center j o Many shade trees along streets o Frequent low level street lights for pedestrians o Variety in material, detailing and dimension within a selected palette o Many gables, porches, bay windows, dormers, turrets, picket fences, gates and trellises r i It is important to understand the relationship between the size of this devel- opment, its land cost, the large cost of extending water and sewer services, the planning concept which provides for a complete community with a small i commercial core, and the density required far it to succeed First, the site is ! large enough to afford the cost of water and sewer extension. Second the commercial core requires consideable density within walking distance to suc- ceed (Duany mentions 10 -20 per acre). Land cost in this case is 510, 000 per acre, with approximately 190 acres devoted to the golf course and not avail- j able for resale as lots. If University Station is to maintain a moderate pricing i structure, as opposed to an upscale project such as Governor's Club, for ex- ample, an overall density of at least 1.8 lots per acre will be required The density in the village center is much higher, of course, and includes the dwelling units represented by the elevator buildings for apartments and con - dominiums, and by the "granny flats ", a density required for the core to be commercially viable and for the village to function. In short, the density con- centrated in the village center pays for the low density provided elsewhere on the site, and for the open space. 3 r 2 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES: University Station will contribute to the prosperity of Orange County by: 1) Creating jobs, both during construction and after completion 2) Providing housing which will complement and stimulate other compatible industrial and business projects 3) Stimulating local business by providing many new customers for goods and services The approach to the land planning for University Station, the rural village, is familiar to many in this area because of the presentation made here last year by Andres Duany, well -known planner who has pioneered this way of planning rural tracts. Its priorities are significantly different from planning concepts pre- viously used and present a number of advantages important to Orange County: 1) The retention of large amounts of open space, with develop- ment concentrated in smaller areas of higher density, connected to water and sewer extensions. 2) The consequent avoidance of urban sprawl and the conserva- tion of the rural flavor of the current land use. 3) A reduction of the number of off -site auto trips by residents. 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING GOALS University Station will address a number of goals of the County. First, the de- velopment will represent a major recreation asset for the area. The champion- ship signature golf course will be a public access course open to all. Further, the 25 -acre park site donated to the County wi l s tistl a100=5 ::wd Lbw `:e with respect to public recreation. (The location and size of the park are consis- I if is ro in in tent with the recommendations of the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. This plan also identifies the need for two new public golf courses in the local area.) In addition, sites will be provided here for a "green box" recycling center and for a fire and rescue facility. In the village center, sites will be reserved for churches, a community center, a daycare center and other community facilities. With respect to another County goal, the provision of affordable housing, Uni- versity Station, by virtue of the fact that it will be a complete community, will provide housing across the complete spectrum of the market, including small apartments and townhouses, larger condominium elevator flats, a retirement center for elderly residents, modest houses on small lots, and larger houses on larger lots. There will be modest apartments above shops on the square, and other garage apartments and "granny flats" associated with houses in the vil- lage center. Ideally, people who work in the village will live in the village, and the needs of the residents will be largely satisfied by shops and other facilities found there, thus reducing the need for off-site auto trips and commuting. 4 4 CHANGING CONDITIONS: Density: The planning behind University Station has proceeded in the context of the 3 work done by the Rural Character Study Committee and generally, but not to- tally, satisfies the requirements projected in recent drafts of committee mate- rial. But it is important to note that the land use as illustrated in the Preliminary 4 Site Plan represents at a minimum what is realistically required to interest a de- veloper in assuming the considerable risk inherent in a large development. A higher land cost, a lower density, a processing delay or a higher projected de- velopment cost would render the project infeasible. But as now projected the project is feasible, and an investor /developer is ready to proceed upon receiv- 4 ing site approval. Timing is very important here: land options are in place, but the various land- owners will not be able to continue to commit their land to this use if the pro- ject does-not proceed now. There is a window of opportunity open just now: i the land is assembled, the planning answers current needs in the County, the investor /developer /planning/marketing team is in place. But all of these factors will not remain aligned if the project is not able to proceed with some dispatch, and the opportunity to build University Station will be lost. 9 11 in in- Water and Sewer: Meetings with public works officials of the Town of Hillsborough have made it clear that water and sewer will be available from the town, and that adequate capacity is in place. Satisfactory documentation will be provided to this effect. �p Phasing: It is projected that build -out will take 9 -10 years, with approximately 100 -1 0 sales per year, depending upon market conditions, so the impact of University Station on the local area will be gradual. 9 As we near the end of the 20th Century, an increasing number of families everywhere are dissatisfied with the current living conditions they find in urban areas Street crime, traffic congestion and the de- cay in the urban infrastructure cause them to look elsewhere for an environment more suited to the needs of families of all sizes and ages. More and more, people are turning back with a sense of nostalgia to the values suggested by images of the 19th Century village, and to the advantages of living in a small town environment: University Station is planned to satisfy this desire for a simpler life in a smaller place: a place where traffic is quiet, where families can walk the streets or sit in the park, where children can play, where most of the necessities can be found within a short walk In short, University Station is planned for people, not for automobiles, and for the en- 7 hancement of the quality of family life and the convenience and gratification of a broad and diverse mix of families and individual residents w MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Planning Board John Link, County Manager FROM: Orange County Planning Staff DATE: August 18, 1992 SUBJECT: CP -1 -92 University Station Analysis of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 191 On April 7, a petition for amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was submitted by The Amerivest /Kenan /Cogswell Group. On the following pages, the proposed amendment is evaluated in accordance with Articles 2 and 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION The site in question is located in southern Eno and northern Chapel Hill Townships at the intersection of Old NC 10 and New Hope Church Road. The site is bisected by Old NC 10 and lies south of the main Norfolk and Southern Railway line. The site contains 14 parcels of land, referenced as lots 20 and 20A of Eno Township Tax Map 27; lots 47 and 48 of Eno Township Tax Map 26; lots 7, 12, 13, 13A, 13B, and 13C of Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 3; and lots 51, 52, 52A and 52E of Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 4. Approximately 629 acres of land is contained within the site, with 2900 feet of frontage on New Hope Church Road, 4920 feet of frontage on Old N.C. 10, and 865 feet of frontage on University Station Road. The current zoning of the site is R -1, a residential zoning district allowing one unit per 40,000 square feet and served by private wells and septic tanks. B. APPROVAL STEPS FOR THIS PROJECT In accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, a step -by -step process must be followed by development projects requiring amendments to the Plan. In this case, the applicants are involved in the initial phase of a four - step process, culminating in approval of a detailed site plan as a part of a Planned Development application. Petitioners for amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are not required to present development plans at the Plan amendment phase. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is evaluated on a more conceptual level, considering conformance to the Plan's goals, objectives, policies, and locational criteria without respect to the particulars of the 1 20 proposed project. In this case, the petitioners have submitted a conceptual design showing the manner in which they plan to develop the project over a 10 -year period. However, the design should be considered only as an illustrative tool showing the ultimate plan of the developers. There is no debate on the specifics of development proposal. However, this analysis does, out of necessity, recognize the applicants' conceptual design for the project as one possible outcome. Later phases in the approval process will provide public hearings and the occasion for debate on specific site plans. The approval process for the proposed project would be: I. Following comment at the public hearing, the plan amendment is forwarded for recommendation to the Planning Board. After a recommendation is made, the Board of Commissioners will make a decision on the amendment. The earliest possible date for Planning Board consideration and Board of Commissioners' decision are September 21 and October 5, respectively. 2. If the plan amendment is approved, the applicant must then submit an application for Planned Development approval to pursue the project per their current plans /design. As a part of the Planned Development approval, the developers.must submit applications for: a) Rezoning to an appropriate zoning category; b) A Special Use Permit for the specific project; C) Site Plan and /or Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Another public hearing will be conducted to solicit public comment on the specific Planned Development proposals. It is at that time that debate regarding the specific plans, designs, and provisions of the proposal is appropriate. Due to the size of the project, a Traffic Impact Analysis and an Environmental Assessment will be required as part of the Planned Development application. Given the timeframe for implementation (10 years), a phasing plan for the project would also be approved. 3. After a public hearing on the above, the Planning Board will recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of the Planned Development application. The Board of Commissioners, in making a decision on the project, may place conditions of approval on the project to address specific concerns raised during the hearing process. The earliest regular dates for Planning Board consideration and Board of Commissioners' approval are December 21, 1992 and January 4, 1993, 2 21 respectively - assuming public hearing on the Planned Development on November 23, 1992. 4. If the project receives approval, final plats for each phase must be recorded and all conditions of approval must be complied with. Approvals at this stage are handled by the County staff and attorney, and appropriate State and local agencies. C. APPLICATION „REQUIREMENTS Application requirements for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan are contained in Articles 2 and 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Listed below are the requirements, followed by staff analysis of information provided by the applicants (shown in bold). Amendment Rationale Article 2.2.14 states the reasons for which the Comprehensive Plan may be amended: a. "Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area of the County.” The applicant cites the window of opportunity currently open to allow a master- planned, neo- traditional community on this site. Timing for land options (due to expire at the end of 1992) that affect the feasibility of the project are also cited. The applicant further cites the Rural Character Study as a potential catalyst for changing standards in this portion of the County. The advent of cooperative planning between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County in this area is not cited by the applicant, but this "changing condition" is very relevant to the nature of land uses in the areas surrounding Hillsborough. The site falls within the Cooperative Planning Open Space Area, where the introduction of water and sewer service for "large developments...or small developments with significant preserved open space" would be permitted. The Cooperative Planning Agreement and forthcoming plans represent a substantial changing condition in this area. Finally, in previous applications, the applicant has cited changing land use patterns from agricultural to residential in the area as a changing condition. b. "To correct an error or omission in the Comprehensive Plan." No error or omission is cited by the applicants. K3 22 c. "In response to a change in policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County." The applicants note that their proposed project (after approval of the plan amendment) is generally consistent with draft recommendations developed by the Rural Character Study Committee for a "Planned Community" open -space development. In anticipation of changing standards to be recommended this fall by the Committee, the applicants cite their work to develop a project that is "consistent with the intent and purpose of the... Comprehensive Plan and is in line with work currently underway by the Rural Character Study Committee." Concerns over taming (expiration of land options) have led the applicants to submit for approval at this time, rather than wait for final "changed standards" to be adopted. Therefore, while not explicitly mentioned as a rationale, anticipation of a change in policies that would recognize planned communities as a means of open -space preservation is a rationale for the proposed amendment. ualification of Amendment as Principal or Secondaly Article 2.2.14.2 differentiates between "principal" and "secondary" amendments to the Plan. "Principal" amendments include any of the below: a. "Additions to, or modifications of policies, objectives, principles or standards." No modifications or additions are proposed by the applicant. However, anticipated additions and modifications to development standards to be recommended by the Rural Character Study Committee are relevant. b. "The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten (10) acres in land area." Not applicable. c. "Proposals for new freestanding plan areas, or additions to existing areas, that exceed one hundred (100 ) acres in land area. The proposed amendment is a principal amendment by virtue of this provision, with approximately 629 acres proposed for inclusion in an existing, adjacent "Ten -Year Transition" area. The site is contiguous with the 4 Strayhorn Hills subdivision, an existing residential development located in Ten -Year Transition, along a 750 foot boundary with the Norfolk and Southern Railroad. Additional Information Article 20.3.2 also requires the submission of the following additional information: a. "A fully- dimensioned map at a scale of not less than one hundred (100 ) feet to the inch showing the land which would be covered by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, and a legal description of the land." A site plan map at a scale of one inch to two hundred (200) feet has been submitted in lieu of the map specified above. A Conceptual Land use Plan Map has also been submitted at the same scale. Both maps show detail beyond that needed for a plan amendment proposal. b. "The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Comprehensive Plan." The applicants state that the creation of "Ten -Year Transition" on this site will allow them to pursue plans for a Rural Village on this site, which would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Plan. The applicants cite their plans for a project that will "retain large amounts of open space, with development concentrated in smaller areas of higher density... avoid urban sprawl and the conservation of the rural flavor...[and provide] a reduction in the number of off - site auto trips by residents." The applicants further contend that the ultimate project will create jobs, provide housing and stimulate local businesses, thereby contributing to the prosperity of Orange County. Additionally, the applicants note that the planned championship golf course will be available to the public, and that a 25-acre park site will be donated to the County which could serve as a proposed "Community Park" on the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. The applicants also propose to provide a site for a "green -box" recycling center an part of the project. Finally, the applicants cite their plans to provide affordable housing a part of the planned "complete community" an a means of meeting the intent and purpose of the plan. Housing units are proposed to range from 5 21 24 -6 apartments and townhouses to larger homes on single - family lots on the proposed golf course. D. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH LOCATIONAL CRITERIA In analyzing an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the requested land use category is evaluated for compatibility with all applicable Locational Criteria from Section 3.4 of the Land Use Element. For comparative purposes, the table below compares both the current land use designation (Rural Residential) and the proposed category (Ten -Year Transition). COMPLIES means that the area being evaluated is compatible with the locational criteria. DOES NOT COMPLY means that the area is not compatible with the locational criteria. QUESTIONABLE means that compatibility cannot be definitively stated from information currently available. 6 J- CRITERIA ; FLOSI! 4M FILM. (TM MID . RB: Located away: from sites that would, .. if developed', . create a threat to unique or endangered species as identified.-by:.. the State or Federal Government.): (TM Loca :..that: have: T� --Y�a TR�xsra�e cwt COKPLIES: One natural site on the Inventor of Natural Areas and wildlife Habitats is located one -half mile upstream of the site within Duke Forest. Runoff from the site will not affect the natural area, but buffers along the western perimeter may be needed for other potential impacts. One benefit that would be gained is that the proposed project in final development plans would have an open -space /golf course area, which could contain a wildlife corridor recommended in the Inventory. Such corridors are important to wildlife survival. COMTJXS: The predominant soil type is Georgeville sandy loam, which is generally conducive to development. Small stretches of poorer Enon and Tatum soils exist, but largely in the projected open space area. water /Sewer availability should mitigate any problems in this area. COMPLIES: The site will be served with water and sewer service from Hillsborough. Police protection would be provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Fire protection would be provided by the Eno Rural Fire Department. The ability of the Sheriff's and Eno Rural Fire Department to serve the development would be examined in detail as part of a Planned Development application. COI@LXRS: The western portion of this site is in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and the eastern portion is in the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan. Both Old NC 10 and New Hope Church Road are designated as Major Thoroughfares on both plans. University Station Road is classified as a minor Thoroughfare on the DCHC Plan. Specific impacts on New Hope Church Road, Old NC 10 and University Station Road will be evaluated in depth as part of the next step or Planned Development application. �•� i i •75�.��i� COMPLIES: Same as TYT. COMPLIES: Soils are predominantly of the Georgeville group, with are generally suitable for septic tanks. Some portions of the site, primarily along streams, have soils with septic tank limitations. However, most of the site should allow on -site disposal. DOES NOT COiPM water service is located to north in Strayhorn Hills. In addition, the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement would allow water and sewer service in this area for developments that protect rural character. ! �-' 4V 4;0 A ka-T-TV] 7 2E CRS 6RT11<: ' MUF-TRM TRAMITICH, RURALBROMDENTM RR ( TR' PS.. Located':witt►3n:.:::;:;:. :'!,: COMMMS: The site is within a five- minute drive of COMMMaM The site is within minute:;:':.:: small commercial uses at I -85 /NC 86, five minutes of small -scale commercial uses at I -85 /NC 86. commuting. uting.t3me from ::: and within 10 minutes of urban smal:l.- ecale.cammeraz:al. ... areas in Durham, Hillsborough uses' ,.:and'.a five-ten:: ., and north Chapel Hill. minute: commute to major. Additionally, the applicant's commercial. uses. or.an;:..;. :. :.. proposed project would urban.:aren..�;.:;i:; :..,_ alleviate some outside trips by providing services within (;RRs At..: least five :':.'. :.: the site. minutesi::.commutinq:. time:..: $rpm: ail activity .node. BYISTIIG' DSN'.:' (:TlTv> Located: in areias . '' QORSTIOMaBLBS At present, the Strayhorn Hills area to the Ql1SSTIOI,Ns All current land wh cwi'are.in;t:rarisitids ',,,?:`;:: north is the only area that uses surrounding this site are of a low- density nature. This f reS:.:ruor:''low- >. :t�r:uaas >t'a:uxban- can be described as site is within the Hillsborough . :.:.hip or.:;: higher.- derie...... es:� :;:: >::. Transition, and this area has lots averaging one acre in Open Space Area, which should remain low- density in nature. Ln :. size. Other surrounding properties, are still rural in However, other projects of a similar nature with water and rsssoc. . ..:; with :'otY►er;::::. loa�»denisii.isy rural >:'.:. ' : nature. However, a mobile home sewer service could be permitted .... residsnt:ial:.usea:: in::>': park was recently approved to the northwest, and long -term in this area. ganOral:. proximity ' to... , .::: •. trends indicate growth in this dewejpped:'or: dev'elog ng.::;,',:: sector over the next 20 years. QONSTIOIKRBI,N: Significant Q08STiOMABfi: Same as TXT. BRA; Located:! .; :.>:::: conversion away from away :',froia:nreas:wherg•::;.:':;; agricultural uses in the vicinity has occurred in the ac,'datrimen :2AVa'Ct 6A ::;, last 20 years. However, the prwductiae agrpLt.gral;:;:; >' managed forest land of Duke tree::::nntl:iadnaged;, oreati:... Forest does lie due west of the site, separated by New Hope Church Road. Considering the quality of the mesic forest land and the natural area site contained within, protection of these areas from nearby development nt is of articular concern. p As previously mentioned , a buffer on the western P erimeter of this site mX h t alleviate g concerns in this area. ('1R h . todated': iri area* :; ;;;; .: QMSTXC A Ws Areas to the north and northwest along Old COMPLI:SS It is not anticipated that the surrounding area will vtth >,oderate.tri hig2�y; NC 10 contain lots of one acre exceed one dwelling unit per .: pf] pi' 1';: 16t ::6F1:1 ;:,'�;e4 > };_;;;;;;; and up. However, this area is acre during the plan period. an area where substantial (URV ate : iwli'.; tk population increase is pop lo�a' Popula A :Za. ;itj projected over the next 20 Sea: <.thf:;vF1*'a yeare as Hillsborough grows south and east. 8 CRX� :. TWO—TEAR TFiulSiTIQR (TW) RUMIa RgS7'71YIIWIrF1T. (BR). HISTORIC Mo COZ29R L Q08STICKLUi: As previously QOESTI011A8LS: Same as on left. (TgT,aHn:B@s: Located`: ::;:: mentioned, the Eno Division of away. from:areas;:where:'. Duke Forest is located west of development would have a:.. the site with natural sites of detrimental impact on:::: significance within. In State or Federally . addition, a historic cemetery acknowledged is located on or near the historicicultural: sites.:: :: property. The 1988 Inventory or County - identified .. of Sites of Cultural public interest areas. j.; H storic, Recreational, Biological and Geological Significance ... references a family cemetery from the period 1836 -1905 that is located on the north side of Old NC 30, west of university Station Road. The document further states that a large slave cemetery is "supposedly situated on nearby hillside.. This slave cemetery could be located on the site. it should be noted that as a part of the Environmental Assessment process, sites must be identified and impacts mitigated. E. RELEVANT POLICIES AND INITIATIVES Although not required by the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan, it is useful to evaluate current policy - making initiatives relevant to this proposal. Three such areas are listed below: 1. Water and Seater Policy The County Water and Sewer Policy and the Comprehensive Plan are consistent in requiring the designation of "Transition" for most areas receiving water /sewer service. This project, at least in the interim period, would be in "Ten --Year Transition" and therefore eligible for Town water and sewer service. The applicants have secured a letter from the Town of Hillsborough which states that the Town has the capacity to provide the proposed development with water and sewer service. In addition, The Town of Hillsborough entered into an agreement with the City of Durham in 1991 whereby Durham will provide water to Hillsborough via the new water pipeline at a reduced rate during "emergency situations ". The wording of the agreement is such that water may be obtained in other than emergency situations, but the Town must pay the full rate rather than a reduced rate for such service. Z. Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement The Cooperative Planning Agreement was adopted by Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough on October 14, 1991. The agreement identifies two categories of land surrounding the current Town jurisdiction, Transition Area and Open Space Area. The text of the 9 9 28 Cooperative Planning Agreement defines the two areas as follows: Transition Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such. The area is further defined as being in transition from rural to urban or already urban in density. Urban services (public water and sewer and other town services) are now provided to this area or are projected to be provided to this area. The area is further defined as likely to be annexed by Hillsborough in the foreseeable future. Open Space Area. That portion of the Cooperative Planning Area designated on the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Map as such and containing development options as may be approved by Orange County from time to time. The Open Space area is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an urban or transition area, is generally nonurban and which will generally remain nonurban and generally contain low density residential uses. This area may be served by public water and sewer but solely for the purpose of the development of large developments, or a combination of small developments, with significant preserved open space. The agreement specifies that a land use plan will be prepared and adopted by Town and County. Following plan adoption, a zoning plan for the transition area using Town zoning classifications will be prepared and jointly adopted. Afterward, day -to -day administration of land use ordinances in the transition area shall be the responsibility of the Town. The open space area shall remain under County jurisdiction, but the Town shall have courtesy review of projects proposed there. The open space area differs from other "rural" plan designations, i.e., rural residential, rural buffer, and agricultural residential, in that Town water and sewer lines may be extended to serve projects which preserve large amounts of open space and take innovative approaches to residential development. Preparation of the Cooperative Planning Area Land Use Plan is currently underway with the goal of going to public hearing in April 1993. Normally, an applicant requesting a plan amendment in an area undergoing plan revision is asked to await the completion of the project. However, the situation with University Station differs considerably from past experience with plan amendments received during the plan update process. Worthy of note in this context is the size of the project (629 acres) and number of individual properties /owners (14). The owners would be willing to await the completion of the Cooperative Planning process, but market conditions, financial considerations, and other development proposals make this very difficult. The applicants have achieved a remarkable consensus among the various property owners by pulling together 14 contiguous 10 a. Y tracts. However, options on some of these properties will be expiring before Cooperative Planning is completed and the unique window of opportunity now available to master plan so large an area will be lost permanently. Some property owners are considering other proposals for their land if University Station does not materialize. These proposals range from mobile home parks to a warehousing and distribution center. It is expected that Cooperative Planning will result in an Open Space plan category to correspond to the Open Space Area designation in the agreement. In effect, the designation of transition for the area could be viewed as a "holding" plan category for the area until the Cooperative Plan is completed and Open Space could be permanently applied. 3. The Rural CharacterlOpen Space Strategy. In the summer of 1990, the Rural Character Study Committee began deliberations on a strategic plan for protecting rural character (open space, natural resources, visual resources, agriculture) for the rural portions of Orange County, outside the Joint Planning Area with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. As a part of developing a plan, the Committee heard from nationally - renowned architects and planners such as Andres Duany (on neotraditional community planning) and Randall Arendt (on open -space development). Draft plans in May 1991 and again in the summer of 1992 have contained several types of development options which the Committee has identified as potential means of protecting rural character in Orange County. One of these techniques is the creation of an open - space version of Duany's neotraditional community. Intermittently termed "hamlets ", "Rural Villages" or most recently "Planned Communities ", this development style would preserve the majority (60 %) of the development tract in permanent open space. This open space would provide a buffer from adjoining tracts, and contain any sites of special natural areas or wildlife habitats as identified on the inventories to date. On the remaining 40% of the tract, buffered by open space on all sides, a higher- density mixed - use community could be- developed. Lot sizes in the community would average at least 10,000 square feet (0.23 acres), and a mix of housing types would be encouraged. Commercial /office uses designed at a scale to serve the residents of the community would be. permitted and encouraged in the "core" of the village. The overall density of the village would be 1.74 units per gross acre, or 4.35 units per acre within the developed portion of the community. As currently proposed in the Rural Character Study Committee draft, these communities would only be allowed in the Orange County /Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Area "Open Space Area" as mentioned above; or in the future, in other similar areas near Mebane or Durham where water and sewer service is available. 11 2r 30 The Rural Character Study Committee is currently involved in ironing out details in their recommended plan for Rural Orange. This plan is scheduled for adoption by the Committee on September 24, and public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November, 1992. Ordinance language (zoning and subdivision) to implement these recommendations could be considered by the Hoard in May 1993. The applicants' site plan, while not relevant at this stage of the process, is generally consistent with the "Planned Community" standards considered by the Committee. The density proposed by the applicants is slightly higher than the 1.74 standard recommended by the Committee, and open space area of the project is 54 %, slightly less than the 60% provision recommended. F. ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR THIS SITE Also useful in evaluating this proposed amendment is a comparison of development possibilities for the property both under the current plan designation/ zoning and potential scenarios that could be achieved with approval of the proposed amendment or pending rural character strategies. A chart comparing the various options is provided on the following page. Since the applicant's conceptual plan proposes a density which closely matches R -2 zoning densities, a list of permitted uses is. provided for the current R -1 and potential R -2 districts. 1. The Status Ouo. If the proposed amendment is denied, the property could be developed under its current zoning. Currently, this site is designated "Rural Residential" on the Land Use Element Map and is zoned R -1, which allows single- family lots of 40,000 square feet served by wells and septic tanks. Thus, these 629 acres could be developed as a large subdivision with the potential of up to 623 40,000 square feet lots, depending on site constraints. 2. The A licant's Pro sad Project. If the plan amendment is approved, the applicants have stated a desire to proceed with plans to pursue approval of a Planned Development application for construction of a "Rural Village" with water and sewer service from Hillsborough. As currently shown on the site plan, this village would contain: • a commercial village core, • a village square /commons area • a public golf course, • an inn, 12 u G] z 0 H E4 pa O H qL O a w W A W O z O U) H a a O U 1 AJ �--� 1 U � 1 ro La 1 aj wEmR 1 -rl to 1 C1 V 41 w 1 C C 1.1 41 I A4J4J•[ 1 N] C D 1 pL7 �r 1 I m I Ei r-I O I •,4 $ GO 1 x O iJ 1 ro r� •.d 1 r-I C 1 I I tll 1 N � I •ri 1J 1 a.J 11] I 1 p 1 � 1 I 1 Q1 I 1 A ro IA I I O •d ►,+ H I 1 z r-1 Q V 1 I •.�I � I 1 cC I 1 , 1 •• tV to I 1 to tV 3: Iv 1 1 m W O w 1 I IU � CC U 1 1 a w Q 1 1 1 I I I a-J 1 1 d 1 I 1 �O 1 I J.1 CG I it 1 CA I 1 1 I m I 1 r-I ►� 1 1 0 r-I R; U 1 I E4 •rl 1 1 •• :d a fU m 1 1 m --I tU U 41 I W w0�n4 i 1 , 1 , 1 M 4) j 1 O 041 1 [A 1 I , I , I I r-I N 1 1 ro U 1 1 W 1 1 p U 1 1 Ei Q 1 1 , t 1 iJ 1 1 id C 1 1 O dl C t 1 1 C O W I 1 -r1. -I 04 1 1 C 4) 0 1 1 I oa d j 1 A I 2 C H E- 0 C E 2 fY a C ri C Q z O 1-4 E� a d O .--1 N r9 +7 mCrya1mmo 1 MCV.rwN0 1 NLDNLnma -I 1 N en 1 1 1 I 1 I O d O O O O I N O O d 0 0 1 �oo00tn I ndotnon 1 CD V 1 1 I I I F Ln Lit Ln Ln o in 1 F I 1 � I � I 1 E I G a'Ln�owmCIn 1 C 1 2 1 C I 12 dP 0 dP dP I C dP dP r•1 L-•1 Ln Ln 1 I- n 1 1 R 1 E- I tr r♦ P-4 N N M r-1 n oL r r �e c n u dl CC 1 E� 1 I 11 I CV N(V NNlhl I z I a1 I H I 1 2+ 1 I A 1 0OOOOO 0 dP dP dP dP dP = O O d O d 7%01Ma1 C%C1 V N N N N N r-I I a N m -w Ln Cq a I 1 I I a�r�xxlx G C M E c C R C Q u 2 k C c a r= E• C R a R C C.i a a a rx G I I 0 1 m i N 14 1 L7 1 A lz 1 1 w pr 1 1 (SL 1 1 I I 1 dP I I r1 1 1 Ln 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 a1 1 1 N I I LD 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , I r•I .r C+ C1 0' 1 1 NLnrOn 1 I , 1 , I 1 I , I 1 I , I 1 I 1 O C% oN t0 mr I r'7 r- 1L71wm 1 r-1 f•9 Q' LO O 1 ri 1 1 1 I I I 0 I O O d N l dCD dw.1 1 d00nLm I 000rcn 1 NCDvr -I I 1 1 I 1 I CO LM CD0-cr I a1=LnwP4 I LnL7d'NN 1 1 1 I I 1 1 r-1v'LnLmw 1 en 1 I I I 1 dP dP I dP dP dP r-I Ln 1 Ln n m ri .� 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 a+ C1 en Ln N 1 NNOtiLn 1 w%DLnmN I I I 1 1 I 1 %D Ln n 1 CD ON­Ln I r-1 P'1 M 1 1 I 1 dP dP dP 1 OP dP 000 1 7 O N Ln %0 1 1 I I 1 I 7% a1CTa1Ch 1 N N N N N 1 0 1 � I 00 a C7 0 1 tU tU U V t 444N Lao d I 1 '*%. .--I 1 4N r-I rlp41 31 3� Table 4.3 Permitted Use Permitted Use A — Class A Special Use (Article 8) 6 = Class B Special Use (Article 8) Land Use Plan Category 3 'tee � Jt9` �,e O e� •y0 � <Q�5`��0 R8 AR R1 R2 R3 A R5 R8 R1, Airport, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L. A A A Botanical Gardens & Arboretums Buildings; Portable B B B B B B B B B Bus Passenger Shelter Cemetery B 1 * B B B B B B B Church Community Center B B 8 B B B B B B Extraction of Earth Products(1) A Governmental Protective Services (Police•& Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments" Land Fills (2 Acres or More) A Al A Land Fills (Less Than 2 Acres) B B B /Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks B B B B B 9 8 B B Parks, Public & Non- Profit Schools: Elementary, Middle & Secondary * r Non - Profit Educational Cooperative (1) A Transmission Lines B B B B B B B B B Universities, Colleges & Institutes t Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations * t Camp /Retreat Center (3) B B B Greenhouses (No On Premises Sales) Greenhouses (On Premises Sales) Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses Public Utility Stations & Sub - Stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, A A A A A A A A A Water & Sewage Treatment Plants R8 AR .1 R1 1 R2 R3 11 R4 R5 RP 13 31 Table 4.3 Permitted Use • = Permitted Use A = Class A Special Use (Article 8) B Class B Special Use (Article 8) M Land Use Plan Category Da�`a1o���g``\c� N Commercial Feeder Operation RB AR RI R2 R3 R4 R5 R9 R13 • Class I Kennels (3) • • • Class II Kennels /Riding Stables (3) B B B Historic Structures Non - Residential /Nixed Use (1) A A A Golf Driving and Practice Ranges (7) b Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) B B B B B B B B B Recreational Facilities (Profit /Non- Profit): Golf Club i Golf Club Countryclub • • • • • • RB AR R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R13 • a wide variety of housing types - from large single - family homes, to an elderly center, to apartments, • a park site to be donated to Orange County • a future light rail depot site. The community (as currently planned) would contain 1,110 housing units and 216 apartment /condominium units for a total of 1,326 housing units. The community would have an overall density of 2.11 units per gross acre - roughly the equivalent of R -2 zoning in density. At buildout - projected to occur in or around the year 2003 - the population of the community could be projected to range from 2,500 persons to 3,200 persons. While the "neo- traditional" community proposed by the applicants is new to Orange County, there are other similar projects both nationally and in this state. Perhaps the best known project in the Triangle of this type is Fearrington Village, a planned community in northern Chatham County. Other similar communities are Lake Park Village, in Indian Trail just east of Charlotte; and a community in suburban Washington - The Rentlands in suburban Maryland. The following chart compares the density and open space of these communities to the proposed University Station project. COWWNITY' ::: '? .: '; (; MN:SITT: . 0J? SpACS RRIN(71SDN.'': :: 1.45 25% Llil'PARiC:. 1.96 To Be charloCtei NC ::::::::. Provided 4.51 To Be Gaithersburg Provided UNIVERSITY 2.14 548 STATION Orange Co:;: 3. A "Hi har- Dennit " Alternative. If the amendment for "Ten -Year Transition" is approved, the property could. be developed for residential purposes in a manner other than the applicant's current proposal. The applicants have stated emphatically that they do not intend to present any alternative plans to this end. Different residential zoning categories from two to 13 units per acre can be requested by the applicant or future applicants within "Ten -Year Transition". While R--13 zoning could be requested for the 13 36 site (13 units /acre) , no such zoning currently exists in the County. Likewise, there are a very limited number of R -8 zones. The closest example is Timbers Mobile Home Park on Orange Grove Road. One alternative scenario, based on past approvals, is that of R -5 zoning, with 4.94 units to the acre and lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. On this property, a subdivision could potentially contain 3,105 lots. Wildwood subdivision south of Hillsborough is an example of development under R -5 zoning. By contrast, R -4 zoning would have a lot size of 10,000 square feet, and a project on this site could potentially contain 2,329 lots. 4. Rural Character Open S ace O tions The draft Rural Character strategies contain three open space development options: • a One -Acre Open Space Development (OSD), with 20% open space. • a Half -Acre OSD, with 50% open space, and • a Planned Community option, with 60% open space. As can be seen on the attached chart, the One -Acre OSD option applied to this site would provide 126 acres of open space, with 499 lots of 40,000 square feet in size for an overall density of 0.79 ( lots per gross acre) . The Half -Acre OSD would provide 315 acres of open space, with 686 lots averaging 17,784 square feet in size - with an overall density of 1.09. The Planned Community option would provide 377 acres of open space, with a maximum of 1094 lots /units averaging 8,512 square feet. The density of a Planned Community would be 1.74 lots /units per gross acre. All three of these options are less dense than R -2 zoning, with considerable open space provided. G. AGENCY COlO —NTS The Town of Hillsborough has commented that it has the capacity to provide water and sewer service to the project. NCDOT, in previous comment on an identical Plan amendment for this site, stated that its 1988 correspondence on this proposal still applies. Agency responses to detailed site plans will be provided as part of the Planned Development application. H. RLCOMONDATION Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the application 14 requirements of a Land Use Element amendment. A case can be made for the changing, transitional nature of this area which lies between the two major interstate highways of I -40 and I- 85. There are significant examples of transition away from rural, agricultural uses in the area to low and moderate density residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and the location of the New Hope Elementary School at New Hope Church Road and New N.C. 86 is testimony to this transition. Using the definition of a "Transition Area" from the Land Use Element, this proposed amendment appears to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal complies with six of 11 location criteria and could potentially comply with all. There are areas of special concern, but conditions and methods of mitigation can be imposed and applied at the site plan level to address these concerns. The existing land use of the area is undergoing change at this time, and will undoubtedly continue to do so whether the change is piecemeal (as it has been in the past), or part of a master plan, which would potentially occur with this proposed project. Another area of concern is for the areas of natural and historical significance that are located near the site. The Duke Forest land and natural site contained within are located upstream from the proposed area. Thus, there should be no water -borne impact on the natural site from this development. Additionally, buffers can be imposed at the site plan level to protect this natural site and surrounding forest resource, and the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide such buffers along New Hope Church Road, as well as other locations. The potential wildlife corridor that would be provided by open space in the project would be highly beneficial to species survival. Similarly, methods of protecting the nearby family cemetery and possible slave cemetery can be implemented at the site plan level through the Environmental Assessment process. This proposed amendment, and the subsequent planned development, would unquestionably impact New Hope Church Road and Old N.C. 10. The potential for this type of impact has been foreseen by both Orange County and NCDOT, as referenced by the inclusion of both as major urban thoroughfares in the Hillsborough and Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Thoroughfare Plans. Impact on these roads and possible improvements by the developer would be assessed and required in the Planned Development approval process. 3. The agreement of the Town of Hillsborough to provide this site with public water and sewer service indicates further the transition that this area is undergoing. Water service from Hillsborough currently exists in Strayhorn Hills, an adjacent is 3" 36 _P one unit /acre subdivision. In addition, the proposed park dedication is consistent with the Parks and Recreation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the extension of water and sewer service and the proposed park are indicative of an area in transition from rural agricultural to low density residential. 4. Finally, a certain number of unknowns exist with a project the scale of which has not been seen in this County. Concerns over traffic impact, school enrollment, fire protection and the integrity of Duke Forest are issues to consider. However, the project which could evolve from this plan amendment also offers a number of benefits to the area and the County as a whole. The potential project would preserve open space, provide a wildlife corridor, reduce the number of trips for services, offer economic benefits to the region, and promote an interactive social community with a variety of different housing types. Mitigation measures such as buffers along the perimeter of the site and park dedication can be applied to the project in later phases, along with other conditions found necessary to mitigate other impacts. Additionally, the change in Land Use Element designation is not de facto zoning. If there is a substantial change in the project at later stages which compromises the goals and objectives of the Plan, the Planned Development may be denied until it meets the purpose and intent of the Plan. 16 19 0uuxn of Millsbruruug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange County Planning Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: University Station Project Dear Mr. Collins: 2727$ 3J 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104 August 10, 1992 The Town of Hillsborough hereby states its commitment to serve water and sewer to the referenced project. The water and wastewater treatment plants, both rated at 3.0 MGD, can easily asssimilate the required demands for this project. Currently the Town is treating approximately 1.5 MGD at the water plant and 1.1 MGD at the wastewater plant. The residential water demand for this project would be approximately 0.542 MGD based on 1326 units and a 30 room Inn at a standard design criteria of 400 gpd /unit. The residential wastewater demand for this project would be 0.488 MGD based on a conservative design demand of 360 gpd /unit. The golf course is planned to be irrigated with on -site storage ponds. As you are aware, the Town is currently completing a water interconnection with Durham which consists of a 1611 by 12" pipeline and a 2 MGD pump station (with a 1 MGD spare backup pump). During drought periods or other such emergencies, the Town has the ability to purchase water from both Durham and OWASA. Pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Ammendment to the Agreement for the Sale of Water Between The Town of Hillsborough and The City of Durham, water purchases from Durham in emergencies (ie during drought conditions) shall be at 75% of their rate in effect at the time whereas water purchased for nonemergencies shall be at 100% of their rate in effect. The long term scenario is for Hillsborough to build its own reservoir to meet all of its future demands. We hope to have the reservoir on -line by September of 1995. The developer will be required to make the following necessary improvements to both the distribution and collection systems to meet the objectives of both the water and sewer master plans respectively. Extentions to tie into the Towns water distribution system will consist of connecting to two existing 12" lines where New Hope Rd. 4r Page No. 2 August 10, 1992 Marvin Collins meets NC86, and where US 70 meets University Station Rd., and to an existing 6" line along NC 10. All off -site water lines will be 12" diameter. The on -site sewer shall include an 18" outfall along Stony Creek to a lift station feeding a 12" force main that will transmit the wastewater off -site back to Wildwood to tie into an outfall along Cates Creek. In additon to these improvements, Capital Facilities Fees will be assessed on a per acreage basis and a perpetual maintenance fee will be required for the lift station. The Town looks foward to the proposed University Station Project and the benefits it may bring to all concerned. The Town hereby endorses this project and recommends approval by the Orange County Planning Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Sincerely, Tl os n, Mayor cc: Hillsborough Board of Commissioners Eric Swanson, Town Manager Arthur Cogswell, AIA E NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY /DURHAM COUNTY AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF WATER BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE CITY OF DURHAM THIS AMENDMENT is entered into in duplicate originals this 8th day of October , 1990 by and between the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH (hereinafter referred to as "Town "), and the CITY OF DURHAM (hereinafter referred to as "City "). WHEREAS, the Town and the City entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement for the Sale of Water Between the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Durham" on or about November 16, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement "); and WHEREAS, the Town and the City wish to amend and clarify that Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the amended promises and provisions set forth below and especially in consideration of the parties.' continuing cooperative efforts to alleviate water shortages, the City and the Town, for themselves, their successors and assigns, do mutually agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 is rewritten to read as follows: A water and sanitary sewer service boundary line is hereby established as described in Attachment A and shown on Attachment B. It is understood and agreed that, if any portion of the area located west of the boundary line receives water and /or sanitary sewer service, such service shall be provided by the Town, and if any portion of the area located east of the boundary line receives public water and /or sanitary sewer service, such service shall be provided by the City. 2. The third sentence of paragraph 3 is amended to read as follows: The water main shall be 16" (sixteen inch) ductile iron water pipe from the and of the City's existing water main to the service area boundary line. 3. The third sentence of subparagraph 3(1) is rewritten to read as follows: Consequently, the City and Town, in considering any connections of proposed new development to the water lines covered in this Agreement where such development is located outside the City or Town limits, will allow new development only in conformance with the adopted land use plan of the controlling jurisdiction. 42 4, paragraph 13 is rewritten to read as follows: 13. Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be commenced in Durham County Superior Court. 5. A new paragraph 15 shall be added to read as follows: 15. It is the parties' intent that the as and supply of water provided for in this Agreement shall be for emergency water supply needs. Neither party shall, in planning r h r the other party suppl e efuture de this Agreement to serve such growth. 2 6. Attachment A, the Service Area Boundary Description, and Attachment B, the map showing the location of the service area boundary line, are amended and replaced with new Attachments A and B attached hereto. 7. paragraph 9 is amended by adding the following at the end of that paragraph: However, if the City supplies the Town water through the subject water main during any part of two or more consecutive days, and the city manager of the City determines that neither sudden emergency nor drought necessitated such use, then the charge for all of the water supplied by the City to the Town during said two or more days shall be at one hundred percent (100 %) of the "Inside City" rate. Any water supplied by the City to the Town through said main other than during the percents(75�)consecutive days shall be rate CITY O4DU BY: Cit �a D U;? ATTEST: �� OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH BY: OR Mayor. _ BY: ATTEST. haaasfer r city I C�lQrx c�o'',��`�o�`3fl V This instrument has been p,�4ed in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. CITY OF DURHAM FiZn4ac Lof D � Date TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH F' nce 0. icer. r Date^ 4L . I n\^�o r 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY CITY OF DURHAM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM I, a notar public in a d fo the aforesaid county and state, certify that personall appeared before me this day and acknowledged that a /she is clerk of the City of Durham, a municipal corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the city, the �vregoing Agreement was signed in its corporate name by its city manager, sealed with its corporate seal, and attested by (him / U)self as its said c t clerk This � day of , 1990. My commission expires: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY TOWN OF STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF ORANGE t�t'jjjjil still, CIS PUB 1.1 C CO UN� HILLSBOROUdftfifigis", I, a notary ubli in a d for the aforesaid county and state, certify that � S personally appeared before me this d , and acknowledged that ire /she is town clerk of the Town of Hillsborough, a municipal corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the town, the foregoing Agreement was signed in its corporate name by its tews ma.%agar, sealed with its corporate seal, and attested by (- hpoi-m/her) self as its said town clerk. This the 9t"- day of Qc L,- 11 1990. tary Pu Ic My commission expires: 4 4 ATTACHMENT A SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION BEGINNING at a point on the Eno River, known as Cabe eIs Ford, thence running in a southerly direction along the centerline of the river a distance of approximately 14,000 feet to an overhead electric transmission line, which line crosses the Eno River approximately 500 feet north of Pleasant Green Road, thence in a southwesterly direction approximately 2,000 feet along the overhead electric transmission line to the Duke Power Company electric substation, thence in a southwesterly direction along an overhead electric transmission line, said electric transmission line being the northernmost line of three (3) parallel overhead transmission lines that leave the power substation, a distance of approximately 3,500 feet to 1--95, thence in a south - southwesterly direction along the same overhead electric transmission line a distance of approximately 9,500 feet to a point 230 feet south of the centerline of Brockwell Road (SR 1720), said point being the end of the service area boundary line. For further description, see Attachment B. UO h- e_14 j1 j r• raj ) t / .y ! `l' IV �•, � :�,;, . _ j _ ) `•,t•. -: -: ,,� • 1. _ � r �•7; c•° [ .J_ , •wv � ' R, • � l 1 I h ' r `)�' _,t�a � ��,.�'•. I n • � ' "�ti• I : •' is Ifn_ t: 1� �I�1 l'y �r �l ,�l• •r, •�l 1: /• � -- �� Nfa,,: r�1''\; � �_.�I / `... i�:.� ii•I i �•.., . f• - � . ' 1.11: �-J `I .ri ��, - I_ : J�) '. `..'�. 1 .1� w �1 l.'r '/' • -1 -1�� J .•�, if L. -• C. ... •`,it )I S' r �)!�� lam: %� %���� �i. -'-1� _ ��Y � � I n r,�,� ..,lip �J .. , !�i l •f'a v' � � � t r , - -- Jl ),) ��'�i� =l� _1 •�1��' • J �, r •I• •`r- �fl .i /) � �� �% �'� /`_`7`7 �1II �'�(:' '1_.I� ,!' \\ �•'1t''kK /•t J'l''.1Lr�� .. -,1i . }�,- 1 % .ervc,I � ' . ••r - ` � ��) 11 � ` `r`�_' "• ' v . so��u!" - '•r '1 �rw?t rwK �' - .. �,- -:r�. !'•,' -4%.._ ,:� -'V� /. -� /� ter•_ /� .i .. _r• , L d• "mot.' S 1. ti_ < -..- ��I�.. u! y �;'' :i/ �� ~ �{ I)r��''J1 ( o•n •+�l����' ' `i• I (t' '`i7 / • T• Y • ., `;, ` ..`µ r 1��, �`: ,I ,� '� ')• �� ' �' 111 `• . '�; ,� I . \,� =; � -•'•�1 '. , � -. << ll� • � ��; .� I� r �J •�: •=1= -><I :•, �•.Itf� r � .--, fir•, 1 1, /• ., 1 I�l - 12ti(" t;ll'.(' � - _ , •. /, '( 1i) �; lil' ' /' 1 '.il % � !.�,..l:s''� ,.�. ._f�, 1� •.,j.e:IIr.._,r /'• '1a ,J \�•� 1, - r.i • •0 ; ,:'O.1 - •1. / , ,. �`,•� il•\ ti '1! G/1 1. /•l1 ., J :�' .OI�',- ..y�! ° `,,,'�!�li �;•' :,�,•. )' `� ;•�J�j :ri ••�' -:� •S�cis•S4�'� 1.1.'.��r ~`4~ ff//•I r..'•:� ?'- i•r.`.- - : ,.1 ,:• ;11`; ,', Ii. _)) r ,_�Ad ••�•,) �• 1 a'� •1 J 1 •I' -.f- 1 Nj t,_� •. .:�' �•I `I 1. „ -, ��,ij: • 4 ,�r�•�( <.\.;, •� •Y}_,.. ��� !!� , o , � .11 .1 �(;'�' -'� o(�t''.'�''�• �•- i•� "�1� �� •.0 _ •�i ,Il •',iM:.'�`\d J) .6li / l 'll • 'I q � ., ',.,(. '. •_I L..,�j� 'h _ .v__•._- 1.1 � ,.. 11 , /i ` •');' " •_ :) �`h,- • rte,. •I � /!� .t �_. 1 t �, y)f �; ",�'``•1', �.I �,11r1ij 's;�A. ��' _ v •:1 ,): / .'l, I !,) r,; ,ti•, �)_�)��f/ !l•7 _r� ,�.' ') ;' Il, rl 1 '�7• ! t "ji.• '�„ ..1•,' �. , " _:f9 ° ' •r0 i.l >�� I'• i. •• fir' \ r %�rM •.r�, •`, j � �• .,_ )'r. . ,!. 1. l�� ,, • : .fit ,;:,a,• •,,,- .. •s _ w" Or •! o•r.• -• •�1 :,•1 � � 1'•c� ��- R;r.'� Il .: �. /% 1)! /i, �r•� �� �f1.a:�� - 1 , ATTACHMENT ,er+..[� ruu qs •nf Y30- '•71 I.7v .GALE 1:24000. 1990 P, PRoPp SEDATER E W E SE 91,v%CE A. ks A ho II I VgPTI w4 10 FEES 1 `� :1[TIC KIITIfX Mil•N p! HP7 4.+ t �our.►DAR m O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 24 1992 Action Agenda Item # C 2 (a) SUBJECT: Z -3 -92 BRENDA CAROL AND DONALD WAYNE COMBS - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —X —Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hinkley Extension 2584 Application Site Plan Vicinity Map Findings of Fact Chronology of Events Certificate of Mailing TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located 597.22 feet west of Ferguson Road (SR 1948). The property contains 1.84 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 6A of Tax Map 37A in Bingham Township. The property has a width of 200.45 feet and a depth of 400 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is RB -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning designation is EC -5 Existing Commercial -5. The request has been made to correct an apparent error in the Zoning Atlas. The requested rezoning was initiated as a means of resolving a zoning violation involving the storage of automobiles. The applicant alleges that the rezoning will correct an error in the Zoning Ordinance, in that the property was used for the storage of automobiles prior to the zoning of Bingham Township in 1981. Planning Staff has been unable to substantiate the applicant's claims through examination of aerial photos. A complete history of enforcement activity is attached. EVA • 2 RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Zoning Officer to present recommendations to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. The 30 -day period may be extended up to 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning Officer's Recommendations The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that no error was made in respect to this property in the Zoning Atlas when zoning was adopted for Bingham Township on September 2, 1992. Provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the negative, the Zoning Officer recommends disapproval of the request. No decision on the application is made by either the Planning Board or County Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the County Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October S, 1992. w L cn C c:J C: C h ad n 0 L Z 'L n d � v � L Q 3 C1 O a a y L J.d 'n Z tA a n � � C C � C c*7 M �1 3 N O G7 G u� o ;s3 fr C C d T,: O L O C U Z` w 4] 7 7 2 :7 e O U'f FC z O ti J J cA C L n x x N 4 'J C11 ti z � Q N w u 7 �0 -+ 7 U a _ •4 7 7 T Zr �G CII G1 a v � a J fn L 7 rn d C!i u L U •• n N O N 'y U N u T O Z. J 7 7 O y 00 u Q 7 L: O a O � V Z u y Tr .r a0a w w �S O w w ^+ �0 J u U a _ •4 7 � T Zr �G CII G1 v a u fn L N rn d u U •• 41 J. O N ❑' U f.r O N O Z. 4 m y 00 u a M x y .r a0a O d C d G C N u G L L 9 N S+ N 7 T O O N cti a 4 v c 4 w d T7 O O w n y N 4 m u V L U �I n M v. a xl JI n cc i 41 � n L v 4 � 4 u � O 'n M u� n Lr7 u7 i n M 4 L. M N C v ca � E C x vw L m r v ^y u c >~ ..0i G y u C L (� u a n +� d C m E a a Fa u ,1 f �0 a d v Zr �G CII G1 v a u fn v N � d 7 J. O N ❑' U f.r O N O Z. 4 m y 00 u a M x y .r a0a O w CL @ 7 of L r z a x " u y U - 9 N S+ N 7 T O O N cti a 4 v c 4 w d T7 O O w n y N 4 m u V L U �I n M v. a xl JI n cc i 41 � n L v 4 � 4 u � O 'n M u� n Lr7 u7 i n M 4 L. M N C v ca � E C x vw L m r v ^y u c >~ ..0i G y u C L (� u a n +� d C m E a a Fa u ,1 f M Statement of Justification Combs Rezoning One of the permissible grounds for a chanoe in the zoning atlas of Orange County is to correct an error in the zoning ordinance. The property requested for rezoning has been used for the storage of automobiles since before the adoption of zoning for Bingham Township, and thus should have been zoned EC-5 to allow the continuation of preexisting land use. This rezoning is being requested in part at the suggestion of the Orange County Board of Adjustment. According to the Orange County Planning Staff, zoning became effective for Bingham Township on September 2, 1981. The property was at that time an uninhabited tract of land. It had been purchased as part of a six acre parcel known as Orange County Tax Map 373, Cot bA, by J. B. Martin and wife Doris Helen Martin on May 31, 1979. Mr. Martin was in the automobile business and oought this land as a salvage vard tc keep old cars. He is now deceased, but his son Kenneth Martin has stated that the family checked with Orange County before the land was purchased and was told that no zoning or other regulations would prevent the property from being used for this purpose. As soon as the property was purchased, the Martins started to place cars upon it for storage. According to testimony of numerous persons, cars have been stored on the property continuously from the Sprino of 1979 until the present time. At the time the property was zoned in 1981, it appears that Orange County was not aware of the use o{ the property. The property has access off of Ferguson Road, and the cars were stored towards the rear of the property, so that a person driving past the property on Ferguson Road would not see the stored cars. It would have been difficult to know the use of all the parcels of land in an area as large as Bingham Township. On August 29, 1983, the property was purchased from the Martins by the present owners, Donald Wayne Combs and wife Brenda Carol Combs. It was bought for the purpose of storing cars, and the Combs agreed to let the Martins continue to store cars on it. Mr. Combs, at that time, owned and operated West Franklin Street Gulf in Chapel Hill. Cars could not be stored at the downtown location, and Mr. Combs stored cars on the property. In-19 @S, Mr. & Mrs. Combs built an framed ranch style house on the front of the property to be their residence. They continue to live there. Under their proposed rezoning, this portion of the six acre parcel which fronts on the public road, will remain residential. The impetus for this rezoning came in October of 1991, when Mr. Combs received a letter from the Orange County Planning Department stating that he was operating an automobile storage and repair Dusiness on the property in violation of Oranoe County's zoning ordinance. He has been informed that one anonymous telephone compliant had been made. Mr. Combs has not been informed of and is not aware of any other complaints concerning the use of the property. To meet Orange County's concerns, Mr. Comps did a number of things. He had over two - hundred cars removed from the property. This was done in December of 1991 at a time when demand for these cars was low, and he received approximately 57,500.00 less than if he had waited. He also applied for a home occupation permit on November 11, 1991 to allow car repair at the building on the property behind his residence. Mr. Combs had previously received a building permit from Orange County to construct this building. The home occupation permit has not been acted on at this time. The issue of storage of cars was heard by the Board of Adjustment on February 10, 1992. It was Mr. Combs' contention that the storage of cars could be allowed under Article 11 of the zoning ordinance as a valid non- conforming use since the property had been used =or tnis purpose since prior to the adoption of zoning for all of Bingham Township, including the property in 19.81. At the hearing, a number of witnesses testified in favor of Mr. Combs. They included persons who had first -hand knowledoe that cars had been stored on the property at the time that zoning became effective in 1981, and neighbors who stated their support for Mr. Combs and his use of the property. No one spoke in opposition to Mr. Combs. The Board appeared very sympathetic to Mr. Comb=_, and it was stated by the Chairman that it appeared that the property had been used to store cars at the time when zoning be =ame effective, and that Mr. Combs should be able to continue this use. Since the County has the authority to rezone property to EC -5 to correct situations it was unaware of at the time zoning is adopted, it was suggested that Mr. 5,' Combs apply for rezoning of the property. Mir. Combs provides a vaivaoie service to Grange County. He is on the wrecker rotation for Chapel Hill, and for the N. C. Highway Patrol. There is a shortace of places to take cars after wrecks, especially near Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill used to allow abandoned vehicles to be stored at it's police lot, but since December of 1951 has required Such vehicles to be stored at the facility of the person who tows the vehicle. The cars are stored in such a way that they are not visible from the public road. Thus, it is evident that the county was not aware of this use at the time zoning became effective in 1981. There has been one anonymous complaint against Mr. Combs. In contrast, all who appeared at the Board of Adjustment spoke in favor of this use. By its very nature, an EC -5 district will have only a small effect on the county, since the law already allows continuation of non - conforming uses. Applicant thus respectfully requests that the Board grant his request for rezoning to EC -c, and make the necessary change in the table of permitted uses to allow cars to be stored outside. 5.1 9 L - LZ I'd � x SR 1945 N RQw ` r -• w 1 1 all^ Ai 70C i �dG OL 90N r C4 • it o 05V F4 399O.O*S sc Tw Osg in. C* aom 0 +f s T I i i Cl Xr_'•�:n Zen ariszd` « I Gig I� WF i e O� I I •' Im I W 1 I C W I I I Imo, l� Z 4 v ao� �„`.► - mac;• -. �l c, Y E 4 IE r � 1 � W `j 4 7 ,1 wl r .r�YnL I ss 4 rye: r I ;m m �f r �'L I � V R E I Y / A jl V jI v� v I . �? 1 /�` 1� 1 fi- �•I�ir l�� �l c, Y E 4 IE r � 1 � W `j 4 7 ,1 wl r .r�YnL I ss 4 rye: r I ;m m �f r �'L I � V R E I Y / A 56 r-, o z� z Q 2 z r r �0Luz I I I O 7:; 0. m W. LL. U 0 z tw a _ v, cw o co V Z = .J V z y; wm O F 0 .. O a q O W � N 0 O z a V V D U ¢O z ? >a WU) a� z W 0 VEV w� 0 F 0 0 Cc) wo W Z Z Z Z w I I I cW w ua zz�u N �U z z °�� z a o o a Q zz HQ cn cn Z~ U H U U c N y Q..1 Qr C r' 4 d ��" Q p C QO O � at U F" C� O o b .� .0 G 0 3 Z w O N N s a 04 a~i a [ W A u]O U U fl._.,'�,EG _;11p .cam N ��0 C d��G ` y N O (^l `14 7- cv a ry N 5S W z W z 0 0 z v w z v w w V zIn z zzzp z z aaOgow4 i uOGari I a z p z � Qw❑ z rH�O I a r o0 w V c C V y �a ¢ w w W. O F V � . c � ��� � ro 8� •� W �• w o v '8 Ei e a Wv� � QI Wv�i U w 3.0 p z � Qw❑ z rH�O I a ��wp xl w V V y �a ¢ �❑cn0. w W. O F V w V V � . c � ��� � ro 8� •� w r a" Ei e a •C � C ❑ 'C q Q � '7 W � .0 � � C � 'O ca b N ... � C N N � � U N bq '�y 7. � p y � U ,� y D •� � � C Cy •p G p .0 v b r. ... �" p W n a G O cQi ro °ea ¢ O ¢ 3b N mw off¢ $•° a a�ZU m Q J 4 0 2 ■ o ; k\k � aE =ƒ � § �� k\u� _ o \\0 / � � 2 §/§ � f&e� | a E a § ■ � %}7 o ?$ � 2 2 k , �� F. � Z _ o \\0 / � � 2 §/§ � a | a E a § ■ � 2 k , 2 2 g 2 \/ 2 / � � 2 \ � §� a E a § ■ � %}7 o ?$ b0 Z -3 -92 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT REQUEST CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS March 22, 1990 Mr. Combs receives a Permit for Construction (Permit #04885) to erect a "Building: 45' X 32', 1 -story building. Will be used to store owner's own cars...". May 15, 1990 A Certificate of Occupancy is issued. October 25, 1991 An anonymous complainant reports that the Combs are operating a junk motor vehicle business on his property at 1300 Ferguson Road. October 28 The first site inspection is conducted by Jim Hinkley. The following is observed: 1. Open storage of 250+ junked motor vehicles, aligned in eleven rows, generally inventoried by make and model, and spread over two parcels (TM 6.37B..6 & 6A) 2. A recently cleared wooded area appearing to be over an acre with no silt fencing, ground cover, or evidence of vegetative stabilization, containing 100+ junked motor vehicles 3. A three -bay garage with two lifts and other heavy auto maintenance and repair equipment, a machine shop and tool area, office area, and a white sign with green and red lettering advertizing Interstate Batteries mounted on the west facade 4. Two mobile structures situated along the south border of parcel 6A being used for storage of automobiles, motors, parts and equipment 5. Four people working in the garage. 62 COMS REZONING REQUEST Page Two October 31, 1991 Based on the October 28 inspection, a Certified Letter (Article No. P 409 837 683) is sent to the Combs, citing them for violtions of the Zoning Ordinance. November 2 The Certified Mail return receipt is signed by the Combs. November 6 Mr. Robert H. Smith, Attorney representing Combs, calls Hinkley to state that junked motor vehicles have been stored on the property prior to the effective date of zoning for Bingham Township (September 2, 1981), saying that it has been used in this manner continuously. Smith asks how Combs could continue to use his property for the business within the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Hinkley told him that Combs could apply for a Home Occupation Permit, but that the restrictions would only allow 2,000 sq. ft. of floor space and 1,000 sq. ft. for outside storage purposes, in addition to other stipulations regarding signage, screening, setbacks, etc. November 11 Smith writes a letter to Hinkley reiterating that the property has been in continuous use for storing junked vehicles since 1979. Three personal affidavits to this effect are enclosed with the letter. Included with the letter is an application for a Home Occupation Permit. Smith writes that Combs had been informed that no erosion control permit would be required since the newly cleared area for storage of more motor vehicles was less than an acre. November 22 Smith writes to Hinkley to state that to meet the concerns of the County, Combs contacted a Kernersville firm that buys and crushes motor vehicles. He was told that the market was very bad and that they were not taking cars at that time. . COMBS REZONING REQUEST Page Three Smith inquires about an appeal to the Board of Adjustment and states that time (30 days) is running out. c. November 25 -30, Hinkley researches the history of Combs -s land 1991 use and building tenure, and finds: 1. The effective date for zoning in Bingham Township is September 2, 1981. 2. The 6 -acre parcel (TM 6.37B..6A) was purchased by J.B and Doris Martin on May 5, 1979, from Roscoe and Evelyn Atwater. 3. The Combs purchased parcel 6A on February 9, 1984, from J.B. and Doris Martin, about 2 1/2 years after the effective date of zoning. 4. The Combs purchased the 12 -acre lot to the north (TM 6.37B..6) on January 22, 1991, from James J. and Betty R. Copeland, about 9 1/2 years after the effective date of zoning. 5. The Corporations Division of the N.C. Secretary of State Office reports that it has no listing for Westside Towing or Wayne Combs Automotive, Inc. 6. Combs has no County Dealers Tag, Dealers License, or business license. 7. Combs does not list his business or his automotive tools and equipment with the County Tax Office. 8. There is no business telephone listed under Westside Towing or Wayne Combs Automotive, just a personal number. 9. No business telephone has been installed. Sources_: Orange County Zoning Ordinance Orange County Tax Office, James Copeland and Gail Jones Southern Bell Telephone N.C. Secretary of State, Corporations Division r �� 64 COMBS REZONING REQUEST Page Pour November 27, 1991 Notice of Appeal to the Hoard of Adjustment of the orders given the Combs in Certified Letter of October 31, 1991, sent by Hinkley, is submitted for the following reasons: �. A home occupation permit application is pending to repair automobiles. 2. This property has been used continuously since 1979 for the storage of junked motor vehicles. 3. No erosion control permit was required since there was no clearing of more than an acre of land. December 3 -12 About 125 junked motor vehicles are crushed and removed from the property by Shredded Products Corporation of Montvale, Virginia. The vehicles were sold for a reported $4806.60. December 27 Smith writes a letter to Hinkley which includes a proposal based on the meeting of December 18 and a statement about the cleared area. Provisions of the proposal were: 1. Grant Combs a Home Occupation permit to repair automobiles. 2. Allow storage of no more than 100 junk motor vehicles on an area roughly 1 1/2 acres. A photocopy of a 1987 aerial photo with the proposed area delineated in red was included. The following is quoted from the letter: 1. Mr. Combs has already plowed a recently cleared area, and planted oats to meet Orange County's erosion concerns, and will continue to keep this area planted. 2. Mr. Combs has gone to great lengths to meet the concerns of Orange County in this matter. 3. Over 200 cars have been removed from the property. COPMS REZONING REQUEST Page Five 4. There has been only one complaint, which was anonymous, and the over- whelming majority of neighbors have no complaint with Mr. Combs. December 30, 1991 The Board of Adjustment is informed of the Donald Wayne Combs Appeal (A -1 -92) and scheduling for their meeting of January 13, 1992. January 8, 1992 The Board of Adjustment is informed that the January 13, meeting has been canceled due to the request of the applicant that the case be considered at the next meeting, scheduled for February 10, 1992. C. January 15 Eddie Kirk and Hinkley contact the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and the N.C. Highway Patrol, to inquire about the towing contracts and arrangements that Combs states he has with them. Kirk hears from the Assistant Town Manager of Chapel Hill that Westside Towing has a current agreement with the Police Department. c. January 20 Hinkley hears from the Carrboro Town Manager Bob Morgan, the Public Works Director, Police Department, and Chris Peterson in the Clerk's Office. They state that Carrboro has no contact with Mr. Combs, and it has no written contract or agreement with Combs or Westside Towing. "Picked -up cars are stored at the Town's Public Works Yard. Ben Callahan, McFarland's, Hatley's, and Regan's Garages have been handling Carrboro's towing for years." January 21 The Development Review Committee makes recommendations on how to proceed in the case to go before the Board of Adjustment. • • COMBS REZONING REQUEST Page Six January 23, 1992 Hinkley checks Planning, ASCS and Soil and Water Conservation aerial photography to determine the accuracy of Combs's claim that the property has been used continuously for storage of junked motor vehicles since May 1979 when it was purchased by J.B. and Doris Martin from the Atwaters. No evidence is found of. vehicle storage as late as 1982. March -April 1987 photographs show some 55 -60 vehicles stored on the premises (6.37B..6A) already owned by the Combs since February 9, 1984, and 40 -45 vehicles are stored on the parcel to the north (TM 6.37B..6) owned by James J. and Betty R. Copeland. Combs purchased parcel 6 from the Copelands on January 22, 1991. February 1 Notice of Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment of Orange County is published. February 3 With Combs's permission, Hinkley takes photographs of the site for use at the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing. Some 150 vehicles remain 'on the premises. Three workers are seen in and around the garage. Six cars and a pile of tires remain on the newly cleared lot. Oats have been planted. February 5 The Board of Adjustment is informed of its upcoming meeting of February 10, 1992, at which time the Combs Case would be heard. Notice of Public Hearing before the Board of Adjustment of Orange County is published for the second time. c. February 8 Hinkley hears from the N.C. Highway Patrol that neither Wayne Combs Automotive, Inc. nor Westside Towing are on the "approved list of wrecker service." I COMBS REZONING RgQUffST Page Seven February 10, 1992 Hinkley receives from Smith a copy of an Agreement for Wrecker Service between the Town of Chapel Hill and Westside Towing to be in effect from July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. Liability insurance, in the name of Wayne Combs Automotive, Inc., was issued by Village Insurance Agency, Inc. The insurance certificate holder is the Town of Chapel Hill Police Department. Hinkley also receives from Smith a copy of a letter to Combs of Westside Towing from the Chapel Hill Police Department, dated December 17, 1991, stating, "Effective immediately abandoned vehicles will no longer be stored at the Chapel Hill Police Department Compound Lot. Abandoned vehicles shall be towed to your company's storage facility..." February 13 The Board of Adjustment hears the Combs Appeal. February 17 Kirk sends a letter to Combs stating that after hearing the Combs appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment was "..not to adjourn the meeting, but to allow it to remain open for a period of nine (9) months." It was stated that during this period the applicant should proceed in a manner to resolve the situation with the opportunity to apply for rezoning of the approximate area used for storing junked motor vehicles on the effective date of the zoning ordinance in Bingham Township (September 2, 1981). February 20 Hinkley sends Smith, at his request, by Facsimile Transmission, a Memorandum sent to the Planning Board by the Planning Staff on May 6, 1981, giving the "List of Proposed Non - Conforming Uses of Land, Uses of Major Structures and Premises, and Structures." Listed for Bingham Township were MDK, Nello L. Teer Asphalt Plant, J.W.'s Place, and Tumbleweed. ss COMBS RESORTING REQUEST Page Sight March 24, 1992 Smith requests that the rezoning hearing be postponed until the third quarter. ,Tune 11 Smith notifies Hinkley by memorandum that the Combs would like to have their rezoning request heard at the public hearing of August 24, 1992. July 8 Smith calls Hinkley to confirm that the rezoning request will be heard on August 24. August 7 Hinkley and Kirk inspect the premises and post a public hearing announcement sign at the entrance to the property on Ferguson Road. It was found that Mr. Combs had again begun to move junked motor vehicles onto the newly cleared and highly eroded area behind the main portion of Combs' salvage operation. Some 20 vehicles were seen on the new area. It was noted that the planted vegetation had died off and erosion was again taking place. Hinkley called Smith to direct Combs to remove the vehicles immediately and to replant and maintain vegetation on the area. JRH 8 -20 -92 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO*- ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Z -3 -92 BRENDA CAROL AND DONALD WAYNE COMBS APPLICATION FOR REZONING GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Donald Wayne Combs 1300 Ferguson Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 LOCATION: REQUESTED ACTION: PURPOSE: LOT SIZE: EXISTING LAND USE: Located on the west side of Ferguson Road (SR 1948) between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) and Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942), Tax Map 6.37B..6A. Approval of Existing Commercial -5 (EC -5) Rezoning Request To correct an error in the Zoning Atlas. 1.84 acres or 80,180 square feet. Westside Towing or Wayne Combs Automotive SURROUNDING LAND USE: NORTH - Single- family residential, forest. EAST - Residential, Ferguson Road. SOUTH - Single- family residential and forest. WEST - Forest. C 70 MEMORANDUM Z-3 -92 Brenda Carol and Donald Wayne Combs August 18, 1992 Page 2 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN: Rural Buffer /Rural Residential ZONING: The property is presently zoned Rural Buffer, Protected Watershed II, and University Lake Watershed. The intent of the Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) District is provided in Article 4.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Inten The purpose of the Existing. Commercial -V (EC -5) District is to provide a district to be used only during the application of zoning to previously unzoned townships to accommodate existing commercial uses or in zoned townships to previously zoned commercial property which is not located in areas designated as Activity Nodes by the adopted Land Use Plan. b) Annlication Criteria This district will be applied to existing commercial uses in unzoned townships and previously zoned commercial property located in areas not designated as Activity Nodes in the adopted Land Use Plan. This designation shall only be applied to property used for existing commercial at the time of application of this ordinance. The following is a list of permitted uses in EC -5: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H5 Mobile Home dwelling H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P4 Bus. Passenger Shelter P7 Church P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S3 Animal Hospitals; Veterinarians S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S 10 Farm equipment and sales MEMORANDUM Z -3 -92 Brenda Carol and Donald Wayne Combs August 18, 1992 Page 3 S13 Greenhouses (no on premises sales) S14 Greenhouses (on premises sales) S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S24 Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair (Body Shop) S25 Motor Vehicle Sales Rental (new and used) S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S33 Printing and Lithography S39 Restaurants: Carry Out S40 Restaurants: Drive In S41 Restaurants: General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips /Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of 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) S44 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond the Boundaries Of The Zoning District. High Volume Traffic Generation S45 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, 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 S46 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond the Boundaries of the Lot With Medium Traffic Generation (200 -800 Trips /Day) No Storage Or Display Of Goods Outside A Fully Enclosed Building S50 Storage of Goods, Outdoor S51 Storage and Warehousing, Inside Building S53 Wholesale Sales 71 7 `11EMORANDUM Z -3 -92 Brenda Carol and Donald Wayne Combs August 18, 1992 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 P3 Buildings; Portable P22 Transmission Lines +_ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLI.%A 27278 t•' � n CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT I, James R. Hinkley, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about Thursday, August 6, 1992, I sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on Monday, August 24, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. on the request for rezoning of Brenda Carol and Donald Wayne Combs of a 1.84 -acre parcel located at 1300 Ferguson Road in Bingham Township from Rural Buffer (RB) to Existing Commercial -V (EC -5). The Notice was sent to 16 property owners who hold title to 21 parcels which lie within 500 feet of the Combs parcel requested for rezoning, a list of whom is attached. WITNESS my hand, this 24th day of August, 1992. ATTEST: tyOTA/p} k\+0;ek Puj+uc rouNt`� X&fies R. Hinkley, Zoning Officer zl"LA't' j - ��� Jae A. Garrett 7,1 74 SUBJECT: O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 24 1992 75 Action Agenda Item # (7 2(b) PD -2 -92 HEARTWOOD AT BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN PHASE III (Modification of PD -2 -86) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Application vicinity Map Staff Memorandum Planning Staff Recommended Findings Certificate of Mailing PUBLIC HEARING X Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed modification for an additional phase to the Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Planned Development. BACRGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Planned Development Housing designation for 19.534 acres of land located north of the existing Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain development off Mill House Road (SR 1725). The proposed addition would contain 9 lots and receive access through the existing development by the extension of Heartwood Drive and Pathway Court. It is known as lot 26E, of Tax Map 19 in Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning of the property is RB (Rural Buffer). The proposed zoning is PD -H -RB (Planned Development- Housing -Rural Buffer) . The applicant is proposing to use the existing community well system for water and have individual septic tanks for sewage disposal. The property is located in the Rural Buffer area as designated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed addition constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1986. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed addition of the 9 lots complies with all the findings (see attachment) required by the Zoning Ordinance. Conditions have been included in the Planning 76 Staff's recommendation to insure compliance with all State and local regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Article 8.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within.45 days of receipt of an application. The 45 -day period may be extended up to 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning_ Officer's Recommendation The Zoning Officer has not received information which would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the application does comply with the specific standards and required regulations concerning the modification. Provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the affirmative on the general standards, the Zoning officer recommends approval of the request for modification to the Special Use Permit for Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain subject to the following conditions added to those placed on the Special Use Permit in 1986. 1. Septic easements shall be provided for lots 37 and 38 (in the common area) as indicated on the site plan. The easements and their conditions shall be contained in the development restrictive covenants or other documents. 2. Prior to beginning construction of the roads, submit final grading /erosion control plans for review and approval by Orange County Erosion Control. No decision on the application is made by either the Planning Board of The Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 5, 1992. (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE:_? / (p / 'I2 2 92 APPLICATION NUMBER: PD - -- I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article X r 8 _ of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for ,4r? —[,app Q G/� n AL CCs WP" The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: '/iCE'J—( ZR i1'10'2TK OD S�'OiJc,jl Orange County Tax Map_ ( c) _ Block 2 C Lot(s) /— 9 Township C=tf.Ai2EC HfL Zoning District(s): B Lot /Parcel Size: 9-3tt acres or O p square fe=y Number of Existing Buildings: / Gross Floor Area: /� l,JfL�- G+CrS_ square fee Number of Proposed Buildings: — Gross Floor Area: ?69 On square fe Water Supply: Public (Specify) X /r-7 Community Individu Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Community On SIT-6- lndividua School District: hr-!.� p r _ C'oGryu Fire District: hF�J P� General Land Uses in Area: rSi el-L71,4 L Critical Areas: nCvciE Stream /Drainaeeway filome= Flood Prone .=�rez 411E Watershed (Specify) _ _ /70f7F Historic Si Other (Explain) ,¢ ;''L oc1c d C /ZoPP /m 5.S B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: North point, scale, and date. Extent of area to be developed. Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. 17011E Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum. ` 1/ Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) ZI MR Flub C OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy with the property in question clearly marked. The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. Application fee as set by the Orange Count}, Board of Commissioners. Traffic impact stud}, as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. APPLICA ' T SIGNATURES) 7 / (�' / '72-, DATE NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request: rrr rw. wrrrrwwrrrrrrrwr .r..wrwrrwrrrwwrwrwrwwwwwwwr •wwwwwwww�wwrwwrrw..w.rrrrr.. FEES: Amount•5 �zo y Date Paid: % / .�' / ``!a Receipt r 9 hn5Q ccoP�rf -rte' .2 �a T- 4 2s� t July 6, 1992 To: Orange Co. Planning Staff Attn: Eddie Kirk Re: Phase III Heartwood Subdivision Please receive for your review and information the following preliminary plan for Heartwood Phase III. We propose using 19.534 acres of Dickinson land for 9 fee simple lots. Lots would average 1.3 acres in size and the balance of the 2 acre minimum, approximately 5.74 acres, will be in common land. There will be an area around the lot arrangement set aside for a trail easement, where residents can have full access to all common areas. This easement will also allow the farm and the Community Building access to Duke Forest. The addition of the 5.74 acres to the Heartwood Common Land brings the total common land up to 13.55 acres, which already include a swimming pond with trails. water garden, and water falls and fountains, also a picnic shelter with play structure, and a dock and an amphitheater. There is over I01.960 SF of improved recreational space and the required space is 74113 SF. There is also an additional acre of recreational space set aside as community garden space and a 1/2 acre .park below the swimming pond. This has turned out to be one of the nicest developments in Orange County. The single family homes to be built here will be in the current Heartwood style and be priced for compatibility with current Heartwood home values. We propose the extension of Heartwood Drive for ease of traffic flow, sighting, and to minimize the impact on the home at 6402 Heartwood Dr. We have on file a preliminery letter of approval from Joey Hopkins NCDOT. For aesthetic purposes, we wish to preserve the quartz rock outcropping in the middle of Phase III and have designed the road and set aside common land accordingly. At the June 7th general meeting of the Heartwood Landowners Association the Homeowners and members unaminously approved Phase III to be added to the Heartwood Community. The addition of further phases of development involving Dickinson land is allowed for, by right, in the covenants of Heartwood Phases I & Il. For that reason and for the protection of all residents, current and future, Heartwood Phase III will share the same covenants as Heartwood 79 all Phase I & II. The water distribution system is already owned by the Homeowners Association and the wells have been on Dickinson lands. With the transfer of Phase III common land to the Homeowner's they will own that well. We have NC State approval to cover all proposed development in Phase IIL. The original water proposal was for 3 duplex lots, 2 residents and a conference center. We have modified the design for 9 single family. lots and have adequate water available. Easements for septic are noted on part of the common land for lots 37 and 38. Part of the remaining Dickinson land on Mill House Rd does not have an adequate amount of perkable soil. An additional site approved by the Orange County Health Dept. was needed for the 8.41 acre parcel. Since this is all Dickinson land, it is necessary to define the area that could be used for the 8.41 acre site prior to any lot sales. Respectfully submitted, 6�2 Sp ncceDickinson L4Yickinson Y I SEE 1957 AC. MAP ►9A 6394 (PEna1, PERRT, —ATF_$) 28 36 AC IJ _ 0150 IC 4 gIAC. 3931 EA6J LEgFj_rr £CnCr A!r £S: 4C. 3e j 2 n' ((���''6""��E1/ � 3 4 C. / % / -286 W. 26nC.G„E / / / / I 2601 _J44 1 SEE KAAP 1913 y (]72 27A � I` 11 74 A: iera,9rN000 ar 8C4Cxjv000 Arr I F4 10 01 AE51g / I � l 8 16.96 A-- I,�1 4 =2oZA- 2511 5144 2 C9�C •ZSG c nor, •: � � � 7°56^ is G'5rt "� (G5� 5 j7n� 20 • °V 2174 8776 (js� { -: (25L1 F iRc n� HEARTWOOD AT BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN PHASE III Applicants: John Hartley Spence & Lyn Dickinson Proposed Zone: PD -H -RB 82 11\ r b t •ILL MOu S! .6 ... '125i W I� V o� - lio g a R li 2A~ !1 � T nd — q C� J ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT +� 306F REVERE ROAD `� HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNER II DATE: AUGUST 10, 1992 SUBJECT: PD -2 -92 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS: John Hartley, Spence and Lyn Dickinson 6407 Mill House Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 LOCATION: North of existing Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain Development West side of Mill House Road (SR 1725) STATUS OF APPLICANTS: Owners REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of Planned Development - Housing -Rural Buffer rezoning and Special Use Permit PURPOSE: To allow the addition of nine (9) single family dwelling units. LOT SIZE: 19.534 acres or 850,901 square feet EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant, wooded land SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING: North - Residential wooded land, zoned RE. South - Existing Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain development, zoned PD -H- R1. o�t MEMORANDUM PD -2 -92 August 10, 1992 Page 2 East - Emerson Waldorf School, zoned RB. West - Vacant, wooded land zoned RB. LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Buffer ZONING: The property is presently zoned RB (Rural Buffer). The intent of the Rural Buffer (RB) district is provided in Article 4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Rural Buffer (RB) District is to provide locations for rural residential developments and agricultural, silvicultural or horticultural uses which serve to buffer or separate more intensively planned and /or developed portions of Orange County. Development within the Rural Buffer (RB) District is at very low densities [the minimum lot size per dwelling unit is two (2) acres) and relies on individual wells and ground absorption systems for domestic water supply and sewage disposal, respectively. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Designated by the adapted Comprehensive Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. 2. Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years. FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: PD -2 -92 HEARTWOOD AT BLACKWOOD MOUNTAIN - PHASE III (MODIFICATION OF PD -2 -86) The Special Use Permit for Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain was approved in 1986. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance states that modifications to Class A Special Use Permits (other than minor changes defined by 8.7,1) shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners following a public hearing. The findings listed below are those required by the Zoning Ordinance and used in approval of the current Special Use Permit. ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.6 - Application submitted on forms No Submittal includes application providing full and accurate description ,x —Yes forms, site plan and supporting of proposed use, including location, documentation. appearance and operational characteristics. 8.8 a) - Seven (7) copies of the site —x —Yes No 28 copies of the overall site plan prepared by a registered N.C. land _ plan and schematic site plan of surveyor or engineer containing: the proposed Development were provided by Holland Land Surveying. 1. North point, scale and date _x —Yes No Shown on the site plan. 2. Extent of area to be developed —x—Yes No Site plan indicates extent of _ area to be developed. 3. Location and width of all easements No The rights -of -way of Heartwood and rights -of -way within or •.,_x_Yes _ Drive and Pathway Court are adjacent to the site shown on the site plan. 4. Location of all existing or —x—Yes No All structures are shown. proposed structures on the site _ 5. Location of all areas on the site _x _Yes No The Flood Insurance Rate Maps subject to flood hazard or inundation _ and the Orange County Soil as shown on flood maps or soil maps Survey does not indicate soils subject to flooding in this area. 6. Location of all water courses on ,x —Yes No All intermittent streams and the site, including the direction _ direction of flows are provided. of flow A lake is also shown on the existing Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain property. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 86 ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued, PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 7. Existing topography at a contour —x —Yes No interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, —x —Yes No screening, gates, parking, service T and storage areas 9. Access to site including sight —x—Yes No distances on all roads used for access 10. Elevations of all structures —x —Yes No proposed to be used in the development 11. Names and addresses of owners —x —Yes No and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board of —x—Yes No County Commissioners PLANNING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Topography is shown on the Yes No site plan. There are no fencing, screening, Yes No gates or service and storage areas indicated. Proposed parking would be provided at each residence. Existing roads are proposed Yes No to be extended. No new sight distance information would be required. Approximate elevations are Yes No indicated on the site plan Provided with application. Yes No $520.00 application, fee paid Yes No on 7/13/92. ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates Non-compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: 9) Method and adequacy of provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service b) Method and adequacy of police, fire and rescue squad protection c) Method and adequacy of vehicle access to the site and traffic conditions around the site _x —Yes No Applicant has provided copies of Yes No the approved plans for the Public Water System from the Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. The original plan called for duplexes in this area instead of single family residences. The new Plan calls for 9 single family lots. Orange County Environmental Health has located a suitable location for septic systems on each lot. Lots 37 and 38 will be required to have an easement into the common area for the septic fields. _x—Yes No Letters from the Orange County Yes No Sheriff and Emergency Services were provided. All agencies will be able to provide services to the additional 9 lots. —x—Yes No The development has access to Yes No Mill House Road (SR 1725). Roads within the subdivision will be extended to provide service. MA �8 ARTICLE 8.8.23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Developments ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance;.-"No" indicates Non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 7.4 indicates the application must first 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 then 1 ' = 100' nor more than 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) Manner in which proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan —x—Yes No _x —Yes No Yes No _x—Yes No _x —Yes No Overall site plan provided at a scale of 1 " - 100'. Phase 111 site plan provided at a scale of 1"=50'. Description provided on site plan. N/A - No error alleged. There are no changed conditions indicated. The original application and site plan indicated this area was for future development. Property is located in a Rural Buffer area which allows cluster single family residential development at the proposed density provided certain criteria are met and a Special Use Permit is obtained. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS 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 Planned Development - Rural Buffer designation. The criteria for the Rural Buffer district are set forth in Article 4.2.1 and are as follows: a) Designated by the adopted countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. b) Urban services, including water distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years. —X —Yes No —X —Yes No The property is designated as Rural Buffer on the County Land Use Plan and Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County Water and Sewer Policy prohibits the extension of water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer except to address public health emergencies or for public facilities. Under those exceptions, water and /or sewer lines are sized to serve only the purposes for which they are extended. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No gc 94 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Developments. These include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to major streets and mass transit facilities and designed so as not to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts. 7.4.2 So located with respect to water, sewer and storm drainage facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost. and So located with respect to police, fire, and rescue services, and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning. 7.4.3 Site suitable for development without hazard 'from flooding, erosion, and soil subsidence of slipping. —x—Yes No Access is provided via existing streets in Blackwood Mountain off of Mill House Road (SR 1725). The addition of 9 lots will have minimal impact on these streets. —x—Yes No The proposed development will not have access to public water, sewer or storm drainage facilities; therefore, no higher net public cost will result. —x—Yes No Letters regarding adequate service provision have been received from the Sheriff's Department, and Emergency Management Services. —x—Yes No Soil survey /topographic maps indicate there are no streams affecting the development. There is one area indicated as an intermittent stream on the site plan which drains into the existing pond in Phase I. r � PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 7.14.3 sets forth -site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships' are as follows: a) 1 . Access points provided to encourage smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substantial traffic is discouraged. a) 2. Safe and convenient routes provided for pedestrians and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and controlled. a) 3. Visibility provided at intersections (pedestrian and vehicular) in accordance with Article 6.$. a) 4. 100 -foot open space provided along perimeter of PD district where no intervening open space is provided. a) 5. Yards, fences, walks, or vegetation provided to screen off undesirable views, lighting, noise, etc. Parking/loading areas and refuse collection/ storage areas screened. _x—Yes No Access will be provided by extending Heartwood Drive and using the cul -de -sac on Pathway Court. The extension should provide a smooth traffic flow. _x—Yes No Since there is no through traffic, vehicles speeds are slow, allowing for safe pedestrian circulation. Also the pedestrian trail is located behind the lots in the common area, _N /A_Yes No There are no internal vehiclular intersections in Phase 111- The pedestrian crossing is proposed to be marked. Sight distance is adequate at the intersection of Heartwood Drive and Blackwood Mountain Road in the existing development. _N /A_Yes No N/A - The applicant has open space. _x—Yes No Entire tract is presently wooded. Only single family residences are proposed. q7 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 499 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements a) 8. Maximum building height _X—Yes No complies with standards set forth in Article 6. 12.3 and Article 5.1.1. a) 7. Signs to be erected in _N /A_Yes No accordance with Article 9. Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows: b) 1. Streets, drives and parking _x —Yes No areas provide safe and convenient access for dwellings and emergency vehicles, and do not create small block sizes. b) 2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or less _x —Yes No dwellings provide direct access to parking /service areas. b) Streets serving greater than _N /A_Yes No 50 dwellings provide access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. b) 3. Walkways form safe, convenient _x—Yes No system of access to dwellings, facilities and off -site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet. Maximum building height in RB _ district is 25 feet. According to Article 8.2.1, a height of 2 additional feet are allowed for every foot of additional front and side setbacks provided. The proposed single family houses would meet the height requirements. There is no sign proposed. Heartwood Drive and Pathway Court will provide convenient access for dwellings and emergency vehicles. Each house will provide a drive and parking area. Not applicable. No system of walkways is shown except the trail easement in the common area. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No W ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, (Continued) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reouirements Walkways used as play areas _x—Yes No Since there is no through traffic, Yes No or school routes by children vehicle speeds are slow, allowing located and designed to minimize for sate pedestrian circulation. contact with vehicular traffic. A pedestrian crossing where the Crossings appropriately marked trail crosses the road is proposed and safeguarded, to be marked. b) 4. Protection of visibility - See a)3. and b)3. above. b) 5. Open space and spacing between _X—Yes No Open space requirements are Yes No. buildings - See Article 6 met. Only single family standards. houses are proposed. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non-compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD -H -RB designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1 .1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per dwelling _x—Yes No The overall lot area shown Yes No unit - 87.120 sq. ft. on the plan averages 90,832 sq. ft. per lot. b) Minimum lot width - N/A —x—Yes No The minimum lot width is Yes No not applicable for Planned Developments. c) Required front setback - N/A _x—Yes No The required front setback Yes No is not applicable for Planned Developments. d) Required side and rear setbacks _x—Yes No Required side and rear setbacks Yes No N/A are not applicable for Planned Developments. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (continued) PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements e) Maximum building height - _x—Yes 25 ft. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 8. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS No Maximum building height is 25 _ feet. According to Article 6.2.1, a height of 2 additional feet are allowed for every foot of additional front and side setbacks provided. The proposed single family houses would meet the height requirements. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No ARTICLE B - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non - compliance) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Reauirements Article 6 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 6.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system, a) Minimum gross land area - 174,240 sq. ft. b) Maximum floor ratio - .058. Maximum floor area permitted - 138.563 sq. ft. c) Required minimum open space ratio - .84. Required minimum open space - 2,008.226 sq. ft. d) Required minimum liveability space ratio - 0,75. Required minimum liveability space - 1,793,059 sq. ft. e) Required minimum recreation space ratio - .031 Required minimum recreation space - 74,113 sq. ft. Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions ". _x—Yes No Applicant's new site contains 19,534 acres or 850,901 sq_ ft. The gross land area is 2,390,746 sq. ft. for the entire development. _x —Yes No Maximum permitted by ordinance is 138,663 sq. ft. The total proposed floor area is 138,549 sq. ft. _x—Yes No Applicant's plan indicates 2,252,083 sq. ft. of open space. _x_Yes No Applicant's submission indicates - 2,034,918 sq. ft. _x—Yes No Applicant's plan indicates 101,960 sq. ft. 91 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 96 In accordance with Article 8.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners. shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for Special Use shall be approved: (1) The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted; Yes No (2) The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property); Yes No (3) The use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Yes No I 97 LI N DY PEN DERG RASS Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, x;7278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732 -2431 Chapel Hill 942 -6300 JULY 14 . 1 992 Residence Phone: 929 -5535 r Mr. Marvin Collins, Director Orange Countv Plannin;e Department Revere Road Hillsborough. North Carolina 27278 Re: Providing Law Enforcement Services Heartwood Subdivision Addition Blackwood Mountain Dear Marvin. The Oranee Countv Sheriff's Department can /will Provide law enforcement services for the 9 additional homes planer) for Ilearfwn�d on Blackwood Mountain. Service for these homes will not require additional personnel, equipment nor cost for the department. These homes will be responed to on request and routine as we patrol the area- which would he twO to three times drjiI iiinc expended for these homes should be insienifi. cant. Si �ere1 Lindv Pender ass. Sheriff cc: Spence Dickerson MUG JAMES G. MARTIN GOVERNOR THOMAS J. HARRELSON SECRETARY ORANGE COUNTY dµSU7f° a 11- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Graham. Nur•Lh Carulina 27253 -0766 Julv 13. 1992 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Drive Hillsborouzh. NC 27278 r DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JP P.E. STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA70R Subiect: Preliminary Plan fol. "Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain" off of SR 1725 (Mill House Road) Dear Mr. Kirk: Attached, you will find a copy of the preliminary layout for the extension of Heartwood Drive in the subiect subdivision. This letter shall serve as notice of preliminary approval of this layout. It will be necessary to submit two sets of plans to this office for approval before construction may begin. If you have anv questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours very truly, - &L; r 9e-11 �4 T. J. Dyer Dist ct Engineer cc: Spence Dickinson TJD /JRH /jrh An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer ' 14't c Orange County Recreation and Parks Department Post Office Box 8181 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 q Mary Anne Black, Director MEMCrFef-1h 2L§ TW Eddie K i FROM: Mar yAnne DRTE : July CO, RE: Courtesy nk, Planning Department B. hlcors��YY.. 1992 Review: Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain, Phase III 99 Life. Be init. I have reviewed the Preliminary plan for Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain! Phase III. The nine lot subdivision would require a dedication of nec•r•eat i on /open space if such sites were found to be designated on the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the property ' i n question. No such sites am. designated for this property, and so payment- in-lieu of dedication is required. I will present my findings to the Orange County Recreation 5• Parks Pd'vi sory Council at the next scheduled meeting or, Pugust 41 1992, and will immediately forward to you any additional comments they may have. MAMfpb1 Offices located at 300 W. Tryon Street, Hillsborough. NC Telephones: 919 732.8181 • 919 967 -9251 • 919 6847331 • 919 2270031 • Fax: 919 7324743 100 TO SUBJECT ILM 1<7 u L-l-/ / 1:1; _ I / 111 6�- 15 CL)_ L -A-n:3 Jn1G F , SPEED MESSA FROM DATE n.k �!I N/c_- � VtAI vS SiG,VED ORIGINAL wilsonJones • VADE IN .. dm900 Duoi��+4 w -� 101 State Of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division or -Environmental Health Public ' ater Supply Section P.O. Box 29536 • Raie -g'n, No —r+ Carolina 27626-0536 ielcpnone (919) 733 -2321 James G, Martin, Governor William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Mr. Spence Dickinson, President Heartwood, incorporated Route 8, Box 516 -C Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dear Mr. Dickson: April. 14, 1992 Richard K. Rowc Dircczor Re : Water System Addition Heartwood Subdivision, Phase II Orange County I.D. #03 -68 -189 We have received a letter dated April 1, 1992 from your engineer Duane K. Stewart, P. E. regarding the referenced project. Your engineer has verified that the construction of the referenced project has beer, completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved under Division of Environmental Health serial number 91- 02026, dated June 28, 1991. This completes our approval of this project. If we can be of further service, please call us at (919) 733 -2460. Very truly yours , ff � W- E. Venrick, F.E., Chief Public Water Supply Section WE V / JCL / th CC: Debra B . Benoy, , Regional Engineer , Orange County Health Department Duane K. Stewart & Associates, Inc. Utilites Commission Post -ft"' brand tax transmittal memo 7671 a cr Gagex . T. P I FI'Ortl w max* _.PneRs,7f F *x� 102 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 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 August 7, 1992, 1 mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the request for a_Planned Development in _Chapel Hill :[ownshiR for an addition to Heartwood at Blackwood Mountain and designation of a 19.534 acre parcel from Rural Buffer to P anned Development - Housing -Rural Buffer (PD- H- RBA,,, 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 7th day of August, 1992. EDDIE KIRK ZONING OFFICER O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 24 1992 103 Action Agenda Item #_C 3(a) SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE ARTICLE 6.7.2 - ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE 8.8.28 - MOBILE /MANUFACTURED STRUCTURE ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING x Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Proposed Amendment Extension 2582 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment to add a new section addressing Mobile /Manufactured Structures as Class B Special Uses in the Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R- 1), and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. BACKGROUND: The Planning and Inspections Staff has recently been presented with the issue of whether to allow mobile/ manufactured structures to be used as accessory structures to residential uses. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow mobile homes to be used as accessory structures. Whereas manufactured structures and mobile office structures are constructed differently than mobile homes and are not intended to be used as residential units, these types of structures differ from mobile homes and would be appropriate to use as accessory structures. This amendment would specifically set up mobile /manufactured structures to be used for accessory purposes as a Class B Special Use Permit and provide specific standards that would apply in Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R -1), and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. Utility buildings are currently allowed as accessory uses in residential districts and would not be affected by this amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an 104 application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case, though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer prepared the proposed Zoning ordinance text amendment and presented it to the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board. The proposal has been amended as recommended by that Committee, and the Zoning Officer concurs with the changes as recommended. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. No decision is made on the proposed amendment by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Amendments initiated by the County are not subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of Commissioners. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends,that the Board of Commissioners adjourn the public hearing until 7:30 on October 5, 1992 at the County Courthouse, Hillsborough, N.C., to receive the Planning Board recommendation. w PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 4.3 - PERMITTED USE TABLE ARTICLE 6.7.2 - ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE 8.8.28 - MOBILE /MANUFACTURED STRUCTURE ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: ,x, Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High Middle x Low Comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To add a new section addressing Mobile /Manufactured Structures to the Zoning Ordinance. Mobile /Manufactured Structures would be classified as a Class B Special Use in the Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R -1) and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. IMPACTS /ISSUES: Mobile homes are not allowed as accessory structures in residential districts, however, recently the Planning and Inspections Staff has been presented with the issue of whether to allow mobile /manufactured structures, as opposed to mobile homes, to be used as accessory structures to residential uses. Whereas manufactured structures and mobile office structures are constructed differently than mobile homes and are not intended to be used as residential units, these types of structures would be appropriate to use as accessory structures. This amendment would specifically set up mobile /manufactured structures to be used for accessory purposes as a Class B Special Use Permit and provide specific standards that would apply in Agricultural Residential (AR), Rural Residential (R -1), and Rural Buffer (RB) zones. Utility buildings are currently allowed as accessory uses in residential districts and would not be affected by this amendment. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Article 4.3 - Permitted Use Table (see attached table) 10t Me Article 6.7 - Accessory Structures in Residential Districts Article 6.7.2 - Mobile homes, as accessory structures to residential uses, are prohibited. Mobile /Manufactured Structures may be _permitted as accessory structures in the AR, R -' and RB district with the „anplicati,on and approval of a_ Class B Special Use Permit from the Orange County Board of Adjustment, Article 22 - Definitions Mobile Manufactured Structure Accessory - A subordinate structure,, the use of which is customarily incidental to the Permitted use of the principal building. These structures may include mobile office and manufactured buildi;Mnas that are inspected and labelled by,athird party who is approved_bv the State. Utility buildings, nubile homes or manufactured homes ^7c.�_1ld not be included as a mc�bb a manufactured structure. _ _essory_uses include, but are_not limited to: 1) storage ,unit, and 2 home occupation- The mobile manufactured structure shall not be used as a residential unit and may be 2ermitted as accessory structures in the-AR, R -1 and RB district with the aRplication and a roval of a Class S Special Use Permit from the Orange County Board of Adjustment. Article 8.8.28 - Mobile Manufactured Structure Class B 5 ecial Use 8.8.28.1 - Additional Information In addition to the information required in Subsections 8.2 and 8._8 ,__the following shall be submitted as part of the_anplication: a. A description of the exact type and size_ of structure planned, including the proposed use. b. Site Plan showing the location of the exi,stinca single - family unit and the proposed mobile/manufactured,structure. C. if a home occupation is proposed, requirements as indicated in section--6.16.6 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. d. If proposed, approval of the Orange County Health Department for water an} spweracre disposal facilities, or the approval of ti-e apprQpripte agency from which sanitary sewer and water _will _ be__ supplied . 8.8.28.2 Standagds of_Evaluation The following specific standards shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: A . The site plan shall show the boundaries of the site, _ the_ location of existing_and proposed structures, driveways and parking areas, if proposed. 10 b. If a me occu atiorr is Droposed, the s e f'c standards in Se 6. 6. must be c m 1'ed wit he ome occupation apRlicAtion shall be submitted to and eviewed LDY. the orange County Planning and IngRections Department_ C. The proposed mobile manufactured structure shall meet all a cab a Nart Carolina State Building Codes. *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 1.08 N 1fl H mmmrT -+ ❑ I ° .I.I .'.I I n m — H M w I!1 ,G d v C d E b C d E i I a•. I i i i L I. 1 I S I I I � • � I i � I � i m • l a , t i. I• Ipp i I . Im d• • I I i i � i r� l m l a I` I` I` I` I` (m � I 1 I �� I I • � x I Im , I W J C• I• �• i• i• I• I I W i � i• i Q, U U ry m I ; s r I• I • I• I q I I I W l a m l I i i� I G m I• U I w i • I • I` I I I• I• m I ; I � l I C 4 l a • l a � I ` I p7 I• I m I • q I I U .-- I I d I C • U C C Y •r.UU (a La U i z • a IW r r I� I f•4 W m �I N rC W I• I I i I I aI I I m i a m i Ile wcaiu a I• i i I im i I� I v 0u m • I a I• . l a 1• W C a q 11 11 M 1 Imo; Y _ I a m • i I IW I I c I ;m I I, a N 1fl H mmmrT -+ ❑ I ° .I.I .'.I I n m — H M w I!1 ,G d v C d E b C d E i I a•. I i i i L I. 1 I S I I I � • � I i � I � i m • l a , t i. I• Ipp i I . Im d• • i i � i r� l m l a I` I` I` I` I` (m � I 1 I �� I I • � x I Im , ry m I ; s r I• I • I• I q I I I W l a m l I i i� I G m I• • I I• j a i m I i I I q I I m l a I< l I m l a • l a � I p7 I• I m I • q I I .-- I I d I C Y I I Q) I ..1 C Lr rc T le I� I v 0u rY �o ya E E ( I ro Imo; Y _ I R+J I •.,w ly W Co. D l a i. d IU •+ 1• I O O I d E I R i - p q R d I Ie e 14 d 11 d° d dm� a 7• k ~ O p I .• y ..r A i d cop d C C 0 F I w V d rc a .dl m zm a C 7 r��dN D I I,R a b N 0 # F J O Y I S d W +.I I O Ia •+ 7 l D S O�� Y E ,' 1 7� w— d al d ri r a C, I CI 4 V R d R 1. a+ R I x �a I d 0 .+ .r R -- 6 U w ^ C ^ u v r U C 1, 1+ 4 C v _ D a U •+ I C �+ I P m rc +.+ D 0 I R ro U U ro IV ti+ tw V M a R 0 O +� 'C 0 M C e I d I� d 7 E C I 0 Z G W C7 r 6N C H E.- -UldiZ k. C fe E= O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 24, 1992 Agenda Abstract Item # C 4(a) SUBJECT: MINIMUM FARM SIZE - VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ------ -- DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: % Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment which would change the minimum farm size required for participation in the voluntary agricultural districts program from 155 acres to 80 acres. BACKGROUND: When the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance was enacted in March, the minimum size of an agricultural district was set at: 1. At least 155 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or 2. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 155 acres. Since the adoption of the ordinance, 13 applications have been received by the Planning Department. Of these, all may be certified as qualifying farmland, but only three applications contain sufficient acreage (at least 155 acres) to be designated as a voluntary agricultural district. A fourth application may be eligible for designation, but questions exist regarding ownership and size of the farm. A fifth application involves 150.5 acres and is only 4.5 acres short of qualifying for designation. The rationale for using the 155 -acre threshold was the figure represented the average farm size in Orange County according to the 1987 Census of Agriculture. Historically, Orange County and the counties surrounding it have demonstrated a general 114 trend toward increasing farm size. The same holds true for counties which have adopted PDR programs (wake, Forsyth, and Mecklenburg) and those with voluntary agricultural district programs (Buncombe and Rowan). Average Farm Size (Acres) County 1987 1982 1974 1969 Alamance 122 118 108 103 Durham 103 135 140 113 Person 212 171 129 131 ORANGE 155 151 139 124 Chatham 117 115 129 119 Caswell 184 163 141 132 Wake 128 125 116 111 Forsyth 75 67 69 62 Mecklenburg 103 107 118 121 Rowan 131 134 125 110 Buncombe 87 73 77 62 Buncombe County, with an average farm size of 87 acres, requires a total of 100 acres of contiguous qualifying farmland for designation as an agricultural district. Rowan County requires 200 acres and has an average farm size of 131 acres. In both counties, two or more farms totaling 100 and 200 acres, respectively, may form a district if the farms are within one mile of each other. Orange County's ordinance requires that the farms be contiguous. The enabling legislation [G.S. 106 - 738(1)] requires that an ordinance must provide for the creation of districts consisting initially of at least a number of contiguous acres of qualifying farmland or a number of qualifying farms deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners. While the 155 -acre threshold was adopted, suggestions were made during the public hearing process to set the threshold at a minimum to recognize farm operations such as those which raise specialized produce (squash, green beans, sweet corn, cucumbers, cantaloupe, tomatoes, strawberries, and pumpkins), livestock (sheep, goats, and horses), and flowers. The 1987 Census of Agriculture bears out this suggestion, including the comment that there are more smaller farms with greater amounts of acreage in large farms. 311 Farm Average Size Number Acres Farm in of in Size Acres Farms Farms (Acres.) 1 -9 31 109 3.5 10 -49 126 3422 27.2 50 -69 75 4316 57.5 70 -99 63 5288 83.9 100 -139 58 6677 115.1 140 -179 37 5951 160.8 180 -219 32 6225 194.5 220 -259 10 2415 241.5 260 -499 58 21165 364.9 500 -999 26 16551 636.6 1000+ 6 8989 1498.2 Another suggestion was made to allow designation if the family earned at least 50 percent of its income from the farm operation, regardless of the size of the farm. Such a provision, however, would not be consistent with the standards set forth in G.S. 106- 738(1). More recently, the use of the "median" (half above /half below) as opposed to the "average" has been recommended by a citizen. Based on 1987 Census of Agriculture data, this would place the median farm size, in terms of number of farms, at approximately 80 acres. If this standard were adopted, this would mean that half of all farms (eight of 13 applications -- 62 %) would qualify for district designation. Based on the current threshold of 155 acres, only 30 percent of all farms (four of 13 applications - 31 %) would qualify for designation. One concern related to the threshold issue is the number of potential applications which might be received and the staff time required to process them. The charts accompanying this abstract indicate that the applications received to date have generally followed the same distribution of farms in the county. The 13 applications received, however, only represent two percent of all farms. Even if participation was 30 percent, this would mean that the potential number of applications (with an 80- acre threshold) would range from 80 to 100. If spread out over several months, that number of applications would seem manageable. 112 RECOMMMAT I ON : Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that Section V.C.I.a. and b. be amended to reduce the minimum required acreage from 155 to 80 acres. The change would recognize the role that smaller farms play in the agricultural economy, and, by permitting two or more contiguous farms to join together, allow farms as small as 40 acres to participate. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposal be referred to the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than September 22, 1992. 11.3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Voluntary Farmland Preservation Ordinance REFERENCE: Section V.B.l.a. and b. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —X —Staff Planning Board BOCC . Citizen STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: —X—High Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To reduce the minimum required acreage for designation as a voluntary agricultural district from 155 to 80 acres. The change would recognize the role that smaller farms play in the agricultural economy, and, by permitting two or more contiguous farms to join together, allow farms as small as 40 acres to participate. IMPACTS /ISSUES: When the Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Ordinance was enacted in March, the minimum size of an agricultural district was set at: 1. At least 155 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or 2. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 155 acres. Since the adoption of the ordinance, 13 applications have been received by the Planning Department. Of these, all may be certified as qualifying farmland, but only three applications contain sufficient acreage (at least 155 acres) to be designated as a voluntary agricultural district. A fourth application may be eligible for designation, but questions exist regarding ownership and size of the farm. A fifth application involves 150.5 acres and is only 4.5 acres short of qualifying for designation. The rationale for using the 155 -acre threshold was the figure represented the average farm size in Orange County according to the 1987 Census of Agriculture. Historically, Orange County and the counties surrounding it have demonstrated a general trend toward increasing farm size. The same holds true for counties which have adopted PDR programs (Wake, Forsyth, and Mecklenburg) and those with voluntary agricultural district programs (Buncombe and Rowan). Buncombe County, with an average farm size of 87 acres, requires a total of 100 acres of contiguous qualifying farmland for designation as an agricultural district. Rowan County requires 200 acres and has an average farm size of 131 acres. In both counties, two or more farms totaling 100 and 200 acres, respectively, may form a district if the farms are within one mile of each other. Orange County's ordinance requires that the farms be contiguous. 114 The enabling legislation [G.S. 106- 738(1)] requires that an ordinance must provide for the creation of districts consisting initially of at least a number of contiguous acres of qualifying farmland or a number of qualifying farms deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners. While the 155 -acre threshold was adopted, suggestions were made during the public hearing process to set the threshold at a minimum to recognize farm operations such as those which raise specialized produce (squash, green beans, sweet corn, cucumbers, canteloupe, tomatoes, strawberries, and pumpkins), livestock (sheep, goats, and horses), and flowers. The 1987 Census of Agriculture bears out this suggestion, including the comment that there are more smaller farms but greater amounts of acreage in large farms. Farm Average Farm Size (Acres) Size County 1987 1982 1974 1969 Alamance 122 118 108 103 Durham 103 135 140 113 Person 212 171 129 131 ORANGE 155 151 139 124 Chatham 117 115 129 119 Caswell 184 163 141 132 Wake 128 125 116 111 Forsyth 75 67 69 62 Mecklenburg 103 107 118 121 Rowan 131 134 125 110 Buncombe 87 73 77 62 The enabling legislation [G.S. 106- 738(1)] requires that an ordinance must provide for the creation of districts consisting initially of at least a number of contiguous acres of qualifying farmland or a number of qualifying farms deemed appropriate by the Board of Commissioners. While the 155 -acre threshold was adopted, suggestions were made during the public hearing process to set the threshold at a minimum to recognize farm operations such as those which raise specialized produce (squash, green beans, sweet corn, cucumbers, canteloupe, tomatoes, strawberries, and pumpkins), livestock (sheep, goats, and horses), and flowers. The 1987 Census of Agriculture bears out this suggestion, including the comment that there are more smaller farms but greater amounts of acreage in large farms. Farm Average Size Number Acres Farm in of in Size Acres Farms Farms Acres 1 -9 31 109 3.5 10 -49 126 3422 27.2 50 -69 75 4316 57.5 70 -99 63 5288 83.9 100 -139 58 6677 115.1 140 -179 37 5951 160.8 180 -219 32 6225 194.5 220 -259 10 2415 241.5 260 -499 58 21165 364.9 500 -999 26 16551 636.6 1000+ 6 8989 1498.2 Another suggestion was made to allow designation if the family earned at least 50 percent of its income from the farm operation, regardless of the size of the farm. Such a provision, however, would not be consistent with the standards set forth in G.S. 106- 738(1). 115 More recently, the use of the "median" (half above /half below) as opposed to the "average" has been recommended by a citizen. Based on 1987 Census of Agriculture data, this would place the median farm size, in terms of number of farms, at approximately 80 acres. If this standard were adopted, this would mean that half of all farms (eight of 13 applications - 62 %) would qualify for district designation. Based on the current threshold of 155 acres, only 30 percent of all farms (four of 13 applications - 31 %) would qualify for designation. One concern related to the threshold issue is the number of potential applications which might be received and the staff time required to process them. The charts accompanying this abstract indicate that the applications received to date have generally followed the same distribution of farms in the county. The 13 applications received, however, only represent two percent of all farms. Even if participation was 30 percent, this would mean that the potential number of applications (with an 80 -acre threshold) would range from 80 to 100. If spread out over several months, that number of applications would seem manageable. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: a. At least 155 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 155 acres. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: Section V - APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFYING FARMLAND AND VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS B. REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 1. An agricultural district shall initially consist of: a. At least 80 contiguous acres of certified qualifying farmland; or b. At least two or more certified qualifying farms, contiguous to each other, which will create a district of not less than 80 acres. 116 AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW: 7/8/92 - Recommended for public hearing. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REVIEW: 8/3/92 - Approved advertisement for 8/24/92 public hearing. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION: a* LL w O is o ujF- 3 � a H � 0 � tq C } m Uv Z € 5 LL. Q N% W 00 cc LL 0 0 0 0 0 o c c� r07 N N .�- ;uaO-Aed 0 0 O O O w O O O 0 0 W) a 0 co N O N O w N *' N c cm as � m a c M U. O O a m � O V O � � T m a 111 115 119 DISTRIBUTION OF FARM ACREAGE BY NUMBER OF ACRES ORANGE COUNTY, NC - 1987 Farm DISTRIBUTION OF FARM ACREAGE Percentage of Farms Below - - - - -- SizeAcres BY NUMBER OF FARMS Percent ------------------------- ---- ----- ORANGE COUNTY, NC - 1987 in in of Farm Size Number ------------- Percent ------------------------------------------------ --------------------- Percentage of - Farms - - - -- Below Acres in of of 50 70 100 140 180 220 -Acres Farms Total Acres Acres ------------------------------------------------- Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 -9 31 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 10 -49 126 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 24.1% 50 -69 75 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% 70 -99 63 12.1% 6.5% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 12.1% 100 -139 58 11.1% 8.2$ 8.2% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 140 -179 37 7.1% 7.3$ 7.3% 7.1% 7.1% 180 -219 32 6.1% 7.7% 6.1% 220 -259 10 1.9% 260 -499 58 11.1% 500 -999 26 5.0% 20.4% 1000+ 6 1.1% 8989 11.1% Total 522 -------------------------------------------------- 100.0% 30.1% ------------------------------------------- 44.4% 56.5% 67.6% 74.7% 80.8% Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture 31.8% 39.4% Source: ---------- 1987 Census of Agriculture --- - -- DISTRIBUTION OF FARM ACREAGE BY NUMBER OF ACRES ORANGE COUNTY, NC - 1987 Farm ------------------------------------ Percentage of Farms Below - - - - -- SizeAcres Percent ------------------------- ---- ----- ----- ---- - ---- in in of 50 70 100 140 180 220 Acres Farms Total -------------------------------------------------- Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1-9 109 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 10 -49 3422 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 50 -69 4316 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 70 -99 5288 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 100 -139 6677 8.2% 8.2% 8.2$ 8.2% 140 -179 5951 7.3% 7.3$ 7.3% 180 -219 6225 7.7% 7.7% 220 -259 2415 3.0% 260 -499 21165 26.1% 500 -999 16551 20.4% 1000+ 8989 11.1% Total 81108 ----------------------------------------------------- 100.0% 4.4% 9.7% 16.2% 24.4% 31.8% 39.4% Source: ---------- 1987 Census of Agriculture ----- --- --------- -________.._ 120 NUMBER OF FARMS AND LAND IN FARMS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1987 AND 1982 Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture Percent Percent Characteristic 1987 of Total. 1982 of Total 1 to 9 acres .....farms 31 5.9% 45 7.5% .....acres 109 0.1% 186 0.2% 10 to 49 acres .....farms 126 24.1% 154 25.7% .....acres 3422 4.2% 4168 4.6% 50 to 69 acres .....farms 75 14.4% 66 11.0% .....acres 4316 5.3% 3840 4.2% 70 to 99 acres .....farms 63 12.1% 63 10.5% .....acres 5288 6.5% 5246 5.8% 100 to 139 acres .....farms 58 11.1% 73 12.2% .....acres 6677 8.2% 8459 9.3% 140 to 179 acres .....farms 37 7.1% 40 6.7% .....acres 5951 7.3% 6324 7.0% 180 to 219 acres .....farms 32 6.1% 40 6.7% .....acres 6225 7.7% 7836 8.7% 220 to 259 acres .....farms 10 1.9% 15 2.5% .....acres 2415 3.0% 3487 3.8% 260 to 499 acres .....farms 58 11.1% 71 11.9% .....acres 21165 26.1% 24698 27.3% 500 to 999 acres .....farms 26 5.0% 28 4.7% .....acres 16551 20.4% 18672 20.6% 1000 acres or more ..... farms 6 1.1% 4 0.7% .....acres 8989 11.1% 7659 8.5% Total s .....farms 522 100.0% 599 100.0% .....acres 81108 100.0% 90575 100.0% Source: 1987 Census of Agriculture .r W a W � U ; a w LL o O m Z os v m� a �c m � U 2 € W m W cc LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M e� N N %d O �t1 4USOJUd 0 0 0 T. m 0 0 a4 0 N M3 N N N Im CL cv a m i m Q w_ a O A Li w C A m A Ci ti 7 CY) r" A } D 7 A i v- 0 O 121 •jn., — L 122 r- 1 DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANT ACREAGE BY NUMBER OF FARMS ORANGE COUNTY, NC - 1987 Farm Percentage of Farms Below Size SizeNumber Percent Percent -------------------------- ----------------- - - - - -- in of of 50 70 100 140 180 220 Acres ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farms Total Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1-9 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 -49 4 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 30.8% 50 -69 1 7.7% 2.9% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 70 -99 2 15.4% 8.0% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 15.4% 100 -139 1 7.7% 5.0% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 140 -179 1 7.7% 7.5% 7.7% 7.7% 180 -219 1 7.7% 9.1% 7.7% 220 -259 1 7.7% 260 -499 260 -499 1 7.7% 500 -999 500 -999 1 7.7% 1000+ 1000+ 0 0.0% Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total 13 100.0% 30.8% 38.5% 53.8% 61.5% 69.2% 76.9% -------------------------------------__---------------------------------- Source: Agricultural Districts Program Applications DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICANT ACREAGE BY NUMBER OF ACRES ORANGE COUNTY, NC - 1987 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Farm Percentage of Farms Below Size Acres Percent ------------------------------------------------ in in of 50 70 100 140 180 220 Acres Farms Total Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 1 -9 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10 -49 159 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 7.9% 50 -69 59 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 70 -99 160 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 100 -139 100 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 140 -179 150 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 180 -219 182 9.1% 9.1% 220r -259 228 11.4% 260 -499 284 14.2% 500 -999 684 34.1% 1000+ 0 0.0% Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2006 100.0% 7.9% 10.9% 18.8% 23.8% 31.3% 40.4% Source: Agricultural Districts Program Applications 12 4 5 ee-aot //l7�) Ile- recaelbl, Central Carolina Physical Therapy Associates, Ltd. 400 Crutchfield Street 1 924 Ruin Creek Road - Suite 104 5107 Orchard Drive -Suite 103 Durham, North Carolina 27704 Henderson, North Carolina 27536 Durham, North Carolina 27713 (919) 479 -5066 (919) 492 -2504 (919) 544 -3185 August 21, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Carey: As a homeowner in Orange County, I am distressed to learn that the University Station Amendment is even being considered. The reason I chose my home was for the natural beauty surrounding it. I frequently have deer in my backyard and enjoy the calls of the owls at night. Because of its beauty and sparse traffic, this area still attracts botanists, birders, and cyclists from throughout the Triangle. A golf course will not substitute for this area's natural beauty. The proposed living density not only does not preserve the rural character of the land, but adversely affects traffic patterns and threatens water supplies. I urge you to oppose the University Station Project and preserve our county's unique and beautiful landscape. Sincerely, Cherie Rosemo d Buley 2823 Old NC 10 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 /dw AV- oo'� Ain TIERREICH FARM PETER & MARTHA KLOPFER RTE. 1, BOX 184 DURHAM, N.C. 27705 A� c— v� '::VV '/(f eo;:�7� AW X, 'ov W4,4-et' DAY- TIMERS RE-ORDLH NQ. 2364—Proled in USA August 24, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing as an individual who is a board. member of KDS Corporation. KDS Corporation has recently purchased 25 acres in Orange County for the purposes of establishing a development in which housing and commonly used space will seek to preserve the natural features of the land. On Friday August 21, I received a letter from the Orange County Planning Department regarding the public hearing scheduled for August 24 on the proposed amendment to the land use plan for the -area referred to as University Station (CPI - 92). Given the short notice for the meeting I have not had adequate time to research the proposed amendment, the time to discuss the issue with the remaining board members of KDS Corporation, nor adequate notice to make plans to attend this meeting tonight. However, as an individual, I would like to offer a number of initial observations. As a citizen previously involved in the 2001 Land Use Plan for Durham and the Southwest Central Durham Planning Advisbry Committee, I am cautious about proposals for major projects which require a significant amount of planning resources and city /county services that have not been subject to adequate public discussion and input.. Ideally, the 1981 Land Use Plan for Orange County should serve to shape the vision developers have for proposed projects rather than the land use plan being revised and amended significantly to fit the needs of developers. To date KDS Corporation has sought to develop a plan which conforms to the existing plans for Orange County and we have found the Orange County Planning Department to be knowledgeable and helpful to us in clarifying both the current zoning and the vision that the land use plan is intended to cultivate. Currently, I lack adequate information by which to thoroughly evaluate the specific proposed changes, however, my initial response is that I do not support the proposed amendment. I have spoken with County Planner Mr. Gene Bell about the proposed project and will be seeking to educate myself about how this proposal relates to the current 1981 Land Use Plan. I would urge the public, the Planning Department and the County Commissioners to weigh the significant impact such a project as - University Station will have on the Land Use Plan and subsequent development in the county. In the future, I hope there will be additional opportunities for public debate (and adequate notice for such meetings). Prior to purchase of the land KDS Corporation representatives spoke with the Orange County Planning Department about planned projects for the area surrounding the property we now own. This project was not mentioned to us during our inquiries and therefore we require further information regarding these plans. I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments Sincerely, �Ii7 Healy Burch AvOnue, Durham, NC Property owner, Murphy School Rd., Orange County Q m TRIMINTE� P R O P E R T I E S TO: Orange County Commissioners and Orange County Planning Board FROM: Connie Shuping, MBA, CREA* RE: Addition of 9 lots to Heartwood PUD DATE: August 24, 1992 In my opinion, the addition of more lots to Heartwood Subdivision will not in any way reduce property values or the quality of life for those already living in Heartwood. Instead, the following benifi_ts are likely to extend to the area: • In the neighborhood analysis portion of the standard Uniform Residential Appraisal Form (Fannie Mae Form), the subject neighborhood is evaluated and is considered more desirable for compatible properties and protection from detrimental conditions. Developing adjoining property into an extension of the neighborhood is a means of protecting it from less desirable uses. • Due to a change in subdivision requirements since the original, development of Heartwood, the additional lots will need to be larger on average than the earlier phases. These larger lots, having a higher value, are likely to have larger, more expensive homes built on them. This will increase the overall price range of the area and benefit all the existing homes. • The cc;r,;ron area would be approxamately doubled in size, which would increase the amenities far all residents of Heartwood. • More homeowners would be contributing to maintenance of the common areas; the increase in size of common area would likely not result in an increase of maintenance costs. Therefore homeowners dues per resident should decrease. I will be glad to discuss these comments with you. Feel free to call me at 929 -7100. *I was certified by the National Association of Real Estate Appraisers in April, 1989. Since that time I have performed true fee appraisals for area lending institutions, general contractors, and individuals. 1129 Weaver Dairy Rd.•Timberlyne Center•Chapel Hill, NC 27514•(919) 929 - 7100/683 -8030 .t KPC'U S•21 -9 I 1 '0o on► Lee & Trish Rafalow 4512 Powder Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 August 18, 1992 Noses Cary, Chairman Orange County Commissioners Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Public Hearing, CP -1 -92 University Station Land Use Plan Amendment Unfortunately, we will be out of town during the subject public hearing on August 24th, so we would like -to register our concerns about the proposal via this letter. In reviewing the proposal for a rural village, we found ourselves drifting back into a simpler time where small, isolated communities nurtured and supported the residents. Clearly, the combination of the widely -felt frustrations with the problems of our current society and a nostalgia for an earlier time is very appealing. But let's make an effort to separate the fantasy -- and the marketing -- from the facts and the risks. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan will create additional traffic; it will create significant economic pressure for other changes to the Land Use Plan; and it does not conform to the intent of the Plan. In their plan sketch dated 6/92, the Amerivest /Kenan /Cogswell Group state that the proposed planned community and site meet the spirit of the criteria outlined in the latest draft of the Rural Character Study. But is this site suitable for the 10 -year transition from rural to urban? Although this hearing seeks public comment on a plan amendment and not a specific proposal, in submitting a sketch of their plans, the developer.offers a staged implementation of a rural planned community that can be examined to help understand the potential impacts of the proposed plan amendment. The proposed development will not be formed overnight with 1326 units, a population of roughly 3000 people, support services and jobs within that community for those people and public transportation to neighboring communities. Instead, it will start with 100 -150 residential sales per year and no viable commercial activity, except perhaps a golf course, in the early stages of development. At what point will it reach a critical mass to support small amounts of commercial use: a convenience store perhaps or a Fearrington -style boutique? At what point after that will it reach a critical mass to support competitive support services: a grocery store, a drug store, a bank? At the same time that these neo- traditional villages have been gaining favor in the development industry, Wal -Mart, Office Depot, Home Quarters and other super stores Public Hearing, CP -1 -92 University Station Land Use Plan Amendment have been gaining favor with consumers. There are no schools mentioned in the proposal, and although they suggest site set - asides for churches, a day care center, community centers, and a light rail system, at what point in the development timetable do these services become economically viable? And, if and when competitive business services do become viable within the subdivision, how many and what kind of jobs will be created? This proposal does not create a "self- contained" community. Traffic . It seems a safe conclusion that a lot of trips will be made by the 3000 or so residents commuting to and from their jobs, going to the store, school, church. etc. during the 30 -year transition period. In addition, any business activities that do occur within the proposed development will no doubt employ people from outside the immediate neighborhood. All of these trips will be taken on two roads: New Hope Church Road and Old NC 10. Both of these roads are designated as major thoroughfares in the transportation plan, but there is no plan for significant upgrades to these roads. One must also ask if the additional growth in this area risks resurrecting the plan for a northern Freeway with an interchange at Old NC 10? Economic Pressure. Although the planned population density for this subdivision does not reach critical mass to support business services within the "village" until late in it's development timetable, the population growth will create significant pressure to provide business services at strategically located intersections within the surrounding rural area. Likely locations for such pressure include the New Hope Church Road intersections with I -40 and nC 86 and the University Station Road intersections with Old NC 10 and US 70. Alternatively, if adequate parking is provided within the "village," it may serve as a commercial center for the surrounding areas. And, of course, once established, whatever the growth patterns. they will not change. Even vigilant elected officials, staff and citizenry may not successfully resist all of the .plan change proposals that might arise from this proposal. In reality, the proposed development risks creating urban sprawl rather than protecting the rural character of the County. Intent of the Plan_ The proposed development does not comply with current open space densities specified in the Plan. Even though it has not been approved yet, we can also examine the intent of the current draft of the Rural Character Study. Borrowing phrases from the Declaration of Independence, the study committee makes a bold -- and laudable -- attempt to find innovative ways to preserve the rural character of the County and still protect and maintain the property rights of rural landowners to profit from their real estate investments. But the studv committee is also very cautious in their implementation recommendations. �. ,., ti Public Hearing., CP -1 -92 university Station Land Use Plan Amendment They refer to a "trial- period" approach reflecting the fact that these rural planned communities have not been proven in the United States. In keeping with the cautious approach suggested by the Rural Character Study and mindful of the risks outlined above, we believe that any experiments with rural planned communities need to be located such that the natural economic choices made by residents and the businesses supporting them reinforce the intent of the plan; that is not the case in this proposed plan amendment. Sincerely, Lee & Tr sh Rafalow et WE CL _ ` A September 10, 1992 4112 Powder IAHI Road _ Chapel Hill, NC C`' Orange County Planning Board % Ms. Joanna Bradshaw Orange County Planning Dept. 306 Revere Road Hillsborough, NC. 27278 and Orange County Commissioners % Ms. Beverly Blyth Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Planning Board Members / County Commissioners: SEP I i 19j I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development called University Station, and to request that you vote against changing the Land Use Plan to allow urban development in our rural areas. I have been a resident in the Powder Mill neighborhood for four years and a resident of Orange County for 18 years. The primary issue for me is .maintaining this area as rural in nature rather than urban. Adding 2000 to 2500 people in this 665 acre tract would drastically change the nature of the area from its present state, and the nature of the development here for the past 15 years. My rough estimate of the density in the develool2ed neighborhoods along New Hope Church Road is one house per 8 to 12 acres (and that's the developed areas - not counting the farms). The proposed development is 20 times this, and indeed would seem to be after Chapel Hill and Carboro the most dense area in the County (I say "seem" as I don't think Hillsborough as a whole is as densely developed as the proposed site). This land could be developed at a density of as high as one house per 3 -4 acres without changing the rural nature of the area, and without causing the road and school problems associated with adding 2500 additional people. r-... w `-i The Rural Character Study program seems an excellent way to help plan for maintaining the rural character of this area. Approval of this project would preempt this Committee's work before it had a chance. I think it's essential that the public's response and ideas to his program are heard before approval of projects that may make it irrelevant. Lastly, I must say that I am disturbed that the developers suggest that individual financial pressures are relevant to this decision. Thank you for listening to my opinion Sincerely, Michael Warner r- ; Orange County Planning Board C/O Joanna Bradshaw 306 Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 September 10, 1992 Dear Ms. Brodshaw, ,341-5FA SEP I � 199 U �V I am writing to express deep concern over the rapid pace of events surrounding the county's consideration of University Sta- tion Development_ Two years ago my wife and I held a meeting in our home at which our neighbors met the group of developers in- volved in this project_ The developer asked us what type of development our neighborhood would support on the land in ques- tion- We very clearly stated that the rural character of this area was important to us. We used the Stoneyereek Neighborhood as an example of what we believed was a supportable and responsible plan. We are deeply disappointed with the HIGH DENSITY direction University Station has chosen to follow_ Our input has been ig- nored, and currently the developers are attempting to "end run" the logical procedures the County Commissioners and the Planning Board have put in place to protect the wonderful rural character of our community. We urge you to act against allowing University Station land to become "transitional" and out of the control of our county elected officials. We support the work of the Rural Character Study Committee. It is imperative that this committee be allowed to complete its assigned task prior to signing off on a project as far reaching and vast as University Station. Do we need to remind you that University Station will become the fourth largest community in he county? It is simply not fair to local residents to have a project with such major impact be rushed through your evaluation process. Rey points of concern about University station include: 1) Once this land is converted to ten year transitional, control is lost should the University Station project fail and different developers pick up land. 2) 1326 units will eventually lead to road expansion in our area which will negatively impact the current rural character. 3) New Hope Elementary will be forced to serve a single community rather than draw from a large and diverse pool. 4) Environmental effects of such high density development are un- certain. Ecological impact would be far less dramatic in a Stoneycreek style development. 5) The desirable rural buffer between Hillsborough and Durham will be lost given the high impact of University Station. 6) Questions arise over the ability of Hillsborough to plan and serve the rapid increase of its population by 50%. 1 R, , , ,.h, 1 Please note that it is not our intent to voice objection to planned development in Orange County. Just remember that we have the right to control the size, scope and eventual results of these developments. Lets just walk before we run. Signing off on a project this large will have negative impact, and change the community for good! PLEASE BE CAREFUL WITH OUR FUTURE! M91pt Since , Carolyn R. Warner William B. Strom 3809 Stoneycreek Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 732 -5456 'jam : O.C. COMA IssV M .V W 2 .� i -. __ ,v. ,.. �.,._ h �R1 .F r , Orange County Commissioners c/o Beverly Blythe Hillsborough, NC 27278 September 9, 1992 Dear Orange County Commissioners (please distribute): I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the land use plan and the University Station (CP -1 -92) development. I have lived on Powder Mill Road for four years and in the Chapel Hill area for the past fifteen years. I understand the necessity for growth but am opposed to the size and density of this particular project. My preference, and the density that I believe would best serve the New Hope Church Road area, is for one home on a two to three acre lot. I believe this goal is obtainable if the Rural Character Study Committee is given time to evaluate the needs of our area before a development plan is given the go ahead. My opposition is directed at the extremely high density proposed by the University Station development and the heavily increased traffic that would result on New Hope Church Road and Old NC 10. 1 believe that the proposed golf course, by any definition a "developed" area, would certainly not take the place of an "open space" and would attract additional people and traffic to an area that would already be densely populated. I have the same concern for the public park which would bring in people from outside our communities and also place an increased burden on our roads. Additionally, I believe that it is premature to turn our rural area into an urban one. Defining the New Hope Church Road area as urban will be a public statement that will have a lasting impact on this area before the Rural Character Study has had a chance to complete its task. I am writing to request that you vote "no" to this proposal and others like it. Change and growth are inevitable and it is our responsibility to ensure that it occurs with the best possible results for everyone. Decisions which are made in the interest of a quick resolution for those wishing to sell land and those wanting to develop it are short sighted. I support long -term, planned development that accommodates the wishes and needs of the greater majority. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. Sincerely, A-4&& Elizabeth B. Craven 4112 Powder Mill Road Carmine and Elizabeth Prioli 3923 Stoneycreek Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 919 - 732 -8650 October 1, 1992 Orange County Commissioners Orange County Courthouse Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear County Commissioners: We are writing to recommend that you not approve proposed plans for the University Station development. When the Amerivest group requested a zoning change to begin construction of this project several years ago, we met with Ceil Mullins,. Marvin. Collins and others several times in an effort to understand and make a fair, informed judgment about the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a plan. At that time, we were not convinced that a development on the scale of University Station was in any real way compatible with the rural character of the area that so many of us have worked hard to maintain. Nothing that we have seen or heard in the latest round of discussions has altered our earlier thinking. In fact, the presence of New Hope Elementary School has emphasized the fact that, among other things, the area's road system cannot bear much additional traffic and certainly not the 2,000+ residential cars and service vehicles that University Station would attract. We have frequently said in public hearings and in private discussions with county officials, planners and developers, that we are not opposed to all development. But development must be carried out in ways that minimally effect the rural character of Orange County. University Station is simply not that kind of development. We urge you_ _ not to approve it or any zoning change that would invite other developers to think about traumatizing one of our last natural and neighborhood resources. Thank you for your attention and for the continued sacrifices that we know work as a County Commissioner demands. We appreciate your efforts. Sincerely, Carmine and Elizabeth Prioli a 1 . � J e .r .. ' � � l.. .r .. ' � .. ,' � � •�, U. P September 30, 9192 'J I 4112 Powder MimRoad Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mr Moses Carey Orange County Board of Commissioners PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr Carey: We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed development called University Station, and to request that you vote against changing the Land Use Plan to allow this urban development in our rural residential area. We have been a resident in the Powder Mill neighborhood (on New Hope Church Road) for four years, and a resident of Orange County for 18 years. There are several serious problems with adding 2000 to 3000 people to the corner of New Hope Church and Old NC 10 that I'm sure you will consider - traffic, schools, and other services. The primary issue for us, however, is maintaining this area as rural in nature rather than urban. The proposed development would drastically change the nature of the area from its present state, which is basically rural residential. Designating this area as urban will seriously weaken the idea of a rural residential buffer between Hillsborough and Durham, and will encourage urban development to link the two cities over time. We are not against development, and disagree with Larry Reid that you're "choking development" irr Orange County by not designating an area as urban that has been - planned as rural residential. The area'could be developed more like the present developments in the area (or even higher - up to one house per two acres) and still maintain the rural character of the area. Such density would both be harmonious with present development, and continue to serve as a buffer between the existing urban developments. The Rural Character Study program seems an excellent way to help plan for maintaining the rural character of this area. Approval of this project would I JR preempt this Committee's work before it had a chance. We think it's . essential that the public's response and ideas to this program are heard before approval of projects that may make, it irrelevant. Please vote against approving a change to the plan allowing this important rural residential area to be developed as an urban area. Thank you for listening to our opinion. Sincerely, Michael Warner and Elizabeth Craven .Af 4019 Stonercreek Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 September 24; 1992 Mr. Donald Willhoit Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O.Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Willhoit: I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of Orange County, about the proposed change in the rural character of the area southeast of the Town of Hillsborough, and the potential development of this land into a densely populated island of uncertain growth and impact within Orange county. This area is now commonly know as the University Station development. I am opposed to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the land use plan - which could result in the University Station (CP- 1--92) development - which was discussed at the August 24, 1992 public hearing. I am particularly opposed to a plan which is being driven in order to meet deadlines imposed by owners of land options. I strongly request that the Orange County Board of Commissioners maintain this area as R -1 Rural Residential, Agricultural Use, & Resource Conservation and that this area not be considered for designation as Ten -Year Transition, and hence projected for change from rural to urban. To me, the latter would provide a blank check for undesirable, high - density development. Once this change is made, many undesirable actions could ensue - leading.to an eventual annexation of the area into the town of Hillsborough, which to me, is a very undesirable eventuality! I recognize that the development plan proposed as University Station by the Kenan Amerivest Cogswell Group is only a proposal at this time, and that a definitive plan would have to be presented later along with a rezoning request - possibly in November, 1992. However, I feel that any action taken in the near future to change the rural character of this land will open the door to many, even unknown possibilities. Not even considering what these unknown, future possibilities may be, I do want to comment on the plan as presented at the August 24 hearing. I find it unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. TRAFFIC: Mr Cogswell paints the picture of University Station as a serene community with residents staying within the village, and commuters using bus or train transportation to get to work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The plan calls for 1326 units, with a mixture of apartments, condos and single houses. (Remarkedly, the plan keeps changing, is seems, depending upon what can be tolerated.) With each of the now proposed 1326 units having one to two automobiles, the development will have something like 2000 vehicles. As one speaker noted during the hearing, there are essentially three exits /entrances from /to the development: University Station Road, Old NC 10 or New Hope Church Road. The latter would be the primary access to Rt86 & I -40, leading to Chapel Hill, Research Triangle Park or Raleigh, and is our main concern. Assuming 60% of these vehicles would use the New Hope Church route, and they would be leaving /entering during a 2 -hour commuting period, e.g. 7--9 in the morning, a straight forward calculation shows that there would be one vehicle passing stoneycreek Rd. - or the new school - about every 6 seconds! I have a difficult time entering New Hope Church Rd. today from stoneycreek Rd. because of a severe curve in the road which limits the visibility to 50 -75 feet! This potential increase in commuter traffic - along with trucks going to & from the "village ", and golfers to & from the new golf course -- will make the traffic situation impossible and extremely dangerous. Please come and visit the site and make your own conclusions. Please consider this substantial increase in traffic - carefully! r -2- 2. SCHOOLS: The proposed 1326 units will obviously add a burden to the Orange County educational system. What will this burden be and how will it be handled? Even at an average one child per family, the system would have to accommodate an extra 1326 students. Where will they go, and how will they get there? (If the latter is by school bus, we have an even greater traffic problem than noted above.) The new elementary school at New Hope Church & Rt 86 was built as a model to serve a large part of Orange County. With the proposed development, this school will be swamped and no longer serve its purpose. Please consider this major education problem - and all of its secondary ramifications - carefully! 3. POLICE & FIRE PROTECTION: At an average of 3 people per unit, the development will have to deal with some 4,000 people! What protection will be provided to these people and where will it come from? What effect will this increase in population have on the surrounding communities with respect to' crime? We certainly do not see beneficial results! Please consider the ramifications - carefully! 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: With the proposed development being next to a section of Duke forest, what will be the impact on the forest and surrounding area, i.e. on wild life, trees & plants, etc? Two speakers made an interesting point at the hearing concerning the use of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals on a golf course. Are these chemicals toxic to the environment, and where do they go? Will an independent environmental impact study be a part of the consideration? We hope so. Please consider the environmental implications - carefully! I have highlighted above, four of my concerns about the change in the land use being considered, and the proposed University Station development. There are probably many more concerns which could be voiced. Please understand that I am not opposed to future growth and development; however, they must be well planned and not result in turmoil. I moved into and built a home in a new development. This development has about 0.26 units per acre; the proposed University Station has almost ten times this density (2.14 units per acre). Can some advantage(s) of this high density use offset the concerns, as exemplified above, and the turmoil which may result? I THINK NOT! I understand that the Rural Character Study Committee is developing several plans for future growth of the County. I also understand that Mr. Rose has developed a plan for the Hillsborough /Orange County transition which is viewed very favorably. I do not know the details of these plans, but I believe that they should be considered before the proposed University Station development proceeds any further. Proceeding too rapidly with the latter could seriously jeopardize some well thought out plans for the county. How much time are we talking about for the presentation of the plans being developed by the Rural Character Study Committee? A few months? Surely we can wait this short period of time, and not be stampeded into a course of action dictated by the schedule of land option availability. I hope that my thoughts on this subject will help you in your considerations. Sincerely, � Roy�Roth ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon Stephen H. HaMotis Verla C. Insko Don Willhoit MEMORANDQM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Beverly DATE: September 28, 1992 RE: STONEYCREEK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING 732 -8181 968 -4501 688 -7331 227 -2031 644 -3004 (Fax) I received a call from Callie Warner of the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association. She asked that I put in writing information about the meeting she is hosting at her home of all the people in her area. She expects at least 50 people to attend and has tried to reach all of you. The meeting will begin at 6 :00 this Sunday, October 4th. Her address is 3809 Stoneycreek Road -- 4th driveway on the left. They want to discuss more than just University Station. They want to discuss the Cooperative Planning Agreement with Hillsborough, long -term plans for the county, etc. She is at the beach all week but you can leave a message on her answering machine. Her telephone number is 732 -5456. YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY 1 Peter M. Pickens 3004 Cool Spring Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 September 25, 1992 Dear Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners: Please vote against the proposed University Station development which, unfortunately, was recently approved by our seemingly pro - growth - oriented Orange County Planning Board. I know there is water and sewer available now, but this village golf course development is no more right for Orange County today than the retirement golf course development proposed on the same property in 1989 - which was rejected btu you, hopefully because of your committment to the good of maintaining a rural buffer between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Surely you believe that this goal is just as imperative now as it was then. And this newly proposed development, despite its many lures, is even worse in concept than the previous one, because it now includes not just high density condos and apartments, but businesses and office buildings as well. I believe that this proposed village golf course development -if approved -would irreversably smear any real distintion between urban and rural, commercial and residential in this part of Orange County. As I wrote you back in 1989, Ten Year Transition status for this huge development is not a good idea and not in the best interests of the health of Orange County. I hope you still agree. Sincerely, 4'�� October'1_, 1992 Mr Moses Carey, Jr. Orange County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr Carey : We are writing to you to express our profound. distress about the proposed change in the rural character, of the area known as University Station to accommodate high density 1300 unit development. We are opposed to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the land use plan . We believe that this plan is being rushed to allow meeting deadlines imposed by the developers, disregard- ing any other concerns. We are aware that the Planning Commission is working toward development of regulations which would provide a benchmark by which future proposed developments can be evaluated. But it appears that to accommodate the developers some members 'of the Planning Board are not willing to wait for this process to be completed. We urge you not to follow their approach. We are not against development, but we believe that there should be room for a rational approach to it. What appears to be happening with the so called University Station Development does not follow that path. Our main concerns, that we hope you will take into consid- eration are as follows : 1. Environmental impact : A 1300 unit development will severely stress the existing balance and alter irreversibly the rUr3i character of the area, which being adjacent to Duke forest supports a wide variety of trees, plants and wildlife. The development =-will have about 0.26acre per unit as apposed to present housinct- density of about 2.14 acres per unit. We have to'expect,.:that,.there will be heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers on the ro Died l within landscaped development areas. This of course will urun off into local creeks and is likely to contaminate surface water. We hope that environmental implications will be carefully eval- uated. E1 r 2. Traffic : It has been suggested that at least 2000 vehicles will be added to the traffic, which would result in one vehicle per six seconds passing Stoneycreek Road and the new elementary school on New Hope Church Road. Even now, we have a difficult time entering New Hope Church Road because of poor visibility. We can just see that the increase in traffic on this road will turn it into a potential death trap. The developers will not be responsible for this outcome, but we hope you will give it due considerations. 3. Police and Fire protection : If we assume three people per unit, the new development will have about 4000 people. What protection can be provided for them? What will be the effect on crime in the area? We hope that this will be considered very carefully by you, before you make a decision that will affect our lives. 4. Schools : How many children will be added to the Orange County school system from a 1300 unit development ? Will a new school need to be built to accommodate the additional 1300 children if we assume just one child per household ? Certainly the new model school on New Hope Church Road will not be able to absorb them . We hope that you will consider this very carefully before making your recommendation. These are our main concerns. We have bought land and built a home here because we were attracted to the low density of housing and the rural character of the area. This does not mean that we are against further development. But we like to see it happen in an orderly, well thought out fashion. Damping the highest density development in the county at our door stop in a hurry, in an effort to secure development for its own sake will only result in turmoil and will jeopardize any future attempts at an orderly process. We hope that you will consider our point of view and that YOU will weigh the pros and cons carefully before making a deci- sion in this matter. 4 -Sincerely, e_�� Alice Michalish "'�[�"` Zygmunt Michalish 2227 Graystone Lane Chapel Hill, NC 27514 A 0 I I S a44/G r , � WL).,rj I IV, I ml� C 1pl,Fp �'n 47), //' w Lu4vA---1 mod' a^x �✓� �aaa� r se tem - - - -- - - -; p 2� 6 Ls To: Orange County Board of Commissioners SEP 3 0 jgq� From: Peter Klopfer 4801 Friends School Rd. ' Durham, NC 27705 (Orange County) Re: Transition Zone Ammendment for University Station I note with regret the Planning Commission's action on this matter. I fully appreciate the Commission's preference for a centrally orchestrated development over helter- skelter construction, but I submit that these are not the only alternatives, It is also possible to maintain altogether the rural character of the area that lies between Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Durham (of which the proposed University Station Transition Area represents a major portion). Approval of the Universitry Station project will inevitably transform this tri- community area into another megalopolis, with only scattered small parks to remind our grandchildren of what what once was and might have been. It has taken years to develop a County -wide land use plan, The ink is not yet dry and already this major waiver (which is what is entailed) is being sought. If you concede it, do you really doubt that much else of the Plan will withstand developers' assaults? I urge you to remain the responsible stewards of our County that you have been, and preserve what remains to us of our heritage. S T ON EY CR E E K N E I GH S ORH O O D A S 3600 Bluestone Court Chapel Hill, NC September 10, 1992 Orange County Commissioners c/o Ms. Beverly Blythe, County Offices Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Orange County Commission: I am writing you on behalf of the Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association to express our opposition to the proposed University Station Project. We fully realize that development is inevitable, and our group will not summarily reject all proposals to build near our homes. During a recent, well- attended meeting we carefully considered the current proposal and its ramifications. All present agreed that the attendant risks far outweigh the advantages. Obvious weaknesses of the proposal include: (1) the density is too high, far in excess of guidelines advanced by the Rural Character Committee and unacceptable to people living nearby; (2) the town of Hillsborough, which would likely have jurisdiction over the area, lacks the capacity to plan and service such a large development; (3) the enormous impact on area traffic has not been addressed; (4) the county's model school might well end up serving a single, privileged community; and (5) declaring the area "urban transitional" could easily prove disastrous, enabling very high density development if the current plan is later changed. For these and other reasons, we strongly oppose the current proposal. Please do not vote in favor of this plan, or any other proposal that compromises the rural character of our area. Sincerely, I 14"A_ Bret C. Williams, MD President, Stoneycreek Neighborhood Association g? qaa ALAN D GEIFERHELD 4304 POWDER MILL ROAD CHAPEL HILL, NO 27514 MOSES CAREY, CHAIRMAN ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS- ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 | DEAR MR. CAREY % AM WRITING CONCERNING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT : CP-1-92 UNIVERSITY STATION, AND WILL TELL YOU WHY I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I PURCHASED MY LOT ON POWDER MILL ROAD AND SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT MY HOME IN 1988 FOR ONE MAJOR REASON. THE RURAL SETTING. I MOVED FROM CARY TO GET AWAY FROM THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT; TRAFFIC, NOISE, CONGESTION, AND HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS. BEFORE BUYING MY LOT ON POWDER MILL ROAD, I LOOKED AT THE EXIST- ING ZONING AND SAW THAT THE AREA WAS COMPRISED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING THAT PERMITS ONLY ONE HOME PER ACRE, AND SINCE ALL LAND ISN'T SUITABLE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, THE DENSITY WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY BE LESS THAT ONE HOME PER ACRE. I BELIEVE THAT MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS MOVED TO THIS AREA FOR SIMILAR REASONS. --THE' PROPOSED- CHANGE INCREASES ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY TREME LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BRINGING IN WATER AND SEWER, VELOPED, COULD BE DEVELOPED. THE DENSITY OF HOUSING THAT IS WDOUSLY, SINCE AS IT IS TODAY, A CAN NOT BE DEVELOPED. ALSO, BY -AND THAT PRESENTLY CAN'T BE DE- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REMAIN AS IT 18. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SINCERELY, ALAN D. SEIMHELD * Re laces A enda Pa es 33 - 34 TABLE 4.3: Permitted Uses Permitted Use A = Class A Special Use (Article 8) 6 = Class B Special Use (Article 8) Day Care Facility, other than Large Day Care Home (1) (5) (6) Day Care home, Large (6) Dwelling; Single - Family, w /wo efficiency apartment Dwelling; Two - Family Dwelling; Multiple Family Dwelling; Mobile home Family care flome Group Care Facility Residential Fiotel (Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories) Rooming house Temporary Mobile Ilome (Custodial Care) Temporary Mobile Home (Use during construction/ installation of permanent residential unit and for 30 days following issuance of Certificate of Occupancy) (2) Tourist home (3) Accessory Uses I Class I Kennels (3) Class 11 Kennels /Riding Stables (3) Historic Structures Non - Residential /mixed use (1 ) Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) - Recreational Facilities (Profit /Non- Profit): Golf Club t Golf Club Countryclub Source: Orange County Planning Dept., Zoning Ordinance FdUse K1 IKL I KJ 1 1<41 IRS I R13 B B B B B B B K1 IKL I KJ 1 1<41 IRS I R13 B B B B B B B • * # * • # � r • * a ♦ r B B B B B B B A A A B B B B B B B B A B B B b B nB B 11R21R31R41R51RB1R13 (2) 1i TABLE 4:3: Permitted Uses = Permitted Use A = . Class A Special Use (Article 8) B = Class B Special Use (Article 8) *Rev1aM_Aggnda Pages 33 - 34 Land Use Plan "Category �1 tee. I? roc N a ce e ec �e Airport, General Aviation, Heliports, S.T.O.L. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 Rl A Botanical Gardens & Arboretums Buildings; Portable B B B B B B B Bus Passenger Shelter Cemetery B B B B B__Bj B Church Community Center B B B B B B B Governmental Protective Services (Police-& Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments' Land Fills (2 Acres or More) A Land Fills (Less Than 2 Acres) B /Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks B 8 B 9 B B B Parks, Public & Non - Profit Schools: Elementary, .Middle & Secondary Transmission Lines B� B B B B B B Universities, Colleges & Institutes ` Governmental Facilities & office Buildings Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations Camp /Retreat Center (3) i B Greenhouses (No On Premises Sales) ` Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses Public Utility Stations & Sub - Stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water & Sewage Treatment Plants A A A A A A A R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 RP R 13 d U C �a c =o D c .E 0 N CL W O a _c 'c c FE a- 0 U W CM c �o 0 0 0 (1) hh _ IN^ I.A':� s .YM.. Ni 9i5, M PRI y' r' , S Ih e 1 x r„ 1 I - J ii NOR 'p!�b _ I. _ „I r {, 'hl SI o _ nti w °JL . _ _ _ _ _ - - - rll �I ri l•',ry ,rl � III I I 4. _ - _ _ _ ,y ti ; y - iwh j` I V. _ IN^ I.A':� s .YM.. Ni 9i5, M PRI y' r' , S Ih e 1 x one man _ „I Aou►nt cJ4eftmoK deapao chunch 4511 Old NC 10 C-014rtbant- (J10011 0a,0inn 27700 Office: 919 - 383 -2982 October 7, 1992 Board of Commissioners Orange County Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 Dear County Commissioners, JERRY L. HARPER, SR. Minister I was disappointed that you delayed the decision on the University Station development. I feel it is a very such needed development. I feel it would be a boost to the overall economy of Orange County, including additional tax monies. It would provide jobs for a number of people. As people move into the houses, it would provide additional revenues for area businesses. And it would provide growth for area churches, such as the one I serve. For me, I see it as a great opportunity for growth and ministry. I, therefore, urge you to approve this project that work might soon begin. In Christian Love, - 1194, err S. Ha Xr,' Sr. r, i., � t - - I t , d u , t --, -70 .!,ob 4111 tv, AL t 1.1 w z 1.1'... till'... i 't..b i- t3 L.I. Lf 1,J k 7 o i Fiji., 7.: c.).4'.' I I September. 14, 1992 4019 Old NC Ten D t,i r h ei rn, NC, x)77 0 5 To both: Orange County Plarining Department Orange County Board of (,,ommiF4sioners Hjllshn.r-,ough, NC, 127,`78 Dear Sirs: This letter is in response to CP-1-92 University Station and the proposed airiendment to the. Land Use Elemerit Of the c"cl.,11pi-ehensive, Plain. We would like to than , k the, Orange COUnty Planning Department for informing those Of Us beyond the 500-foot limit that a public hearing was to be held on 8/24. Indeed, a project of the size and scope described would affect many, Our letter is two-fold in purpose. First, we wish to respond to the issue of the proposed amendment. We understand that this is the f0CUS of t-the Planning Department, Presently. Secondly, we ei sh to comr.-ent on rJ Some Of our feelings about the proposed development. �Ve­ imagine that r,h-;57, -is Premature from the Planning Department's view, but not from the Board of Commissioners. "�e _.. vot ' e a strong,; NO to an amendirtent to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan has only had a brief life �:t tljir-, point. Oul' - recol-ection of its coming into existence was that of a rnalic_,.r and S C 1-1 SS, 1. 01) S, lengthy Process Of MeetiC]R's, thoughts, arguments, that - and other ';,,restlings by mar-ly of u-s in Orange I Co. that eventual -L y C-1-ili-ninated in the Plan. Now there _are tJ-1,Ds,..t 4ug;n: -sti i. _ e ng Lill anienilr."..ent "befor-e any time h.-HS Passed Cnr the present ?1.an tt---) ld(­ I h"e- ) rx" , C-; ":, - tor_ t h rural and urban Opportunity to work tC,gether. _)m, r resTDonse is "NO". We have i,nany re_a_7, on ; i7or finding the ' development cai'led "University Station" reprehensible. (By the way, a commi..inity "University Station" presently exists and was here long before we came here). We will attempt to list these in an orderly manner and hope that You will consider them seriously. Ne find the su-ggestion that the development ,,till be a rural villag-e i 11 character is Planned coamunities ire fine ideas and all communities should be Planned. 1100 housing plus with all the acouti -ements in the 'Plar' on 600 acres is h,trt rural. In. t1;e people t"hat live on ant-I around Old ?�C Ten PrestEntl�)' h,-avt--_ a rural community, all-E -it not a vi is1ge. ThiS VIOUld "e, z fT'ectively dest..roYed by the pro v C Onges T_ i on 'ei_t l u P f i 1-1 i t I y lrr-tCl to an entire enlar; ;errient anti change of charaeter from the rural roads we now have. it is difficult enaugh as it i:s, to r r0S—, the z�oad to have a ;•onversat -ic-In wits r_,ur.- nei>~hbnrs and scime-t.i.Me.S the traffic din is so great You have to yell to be heard from a t-,ouple, of feel- away. As indiva,ted in the last. :statement., another ma..ior objection is not i:_ist the fact tr1<at what i:; proposed is r-lot rural village in (.:har actr:r but that traff.i.c_ will be horrendous with the number of families designated. This might be partly ycc,��,i =.able if, as in Fearrington (which t.kie paper r, c. _kravFrly cornparF�,) the plat was on a maJor highway. That is not theE- case. With -the 7 "Wo tna. Ql- rO,"ris, Rt. 7() and Rt. 85, f r-tyvelitlr; the -sai -ie path to Hi we hardly need for Old NC Ten to beconie the sauce. The need for that will be ].tir'.vitable with culmination of the propo�;al . (Presently, We :-our -it r�.rl average of h cars per liiinute during rush hour on Old Ten). University `�tatiozl :Toad, Act. Hermon Church Road, and especially, New Hope ChUrc:h Read will be likewise affected.. Roads ' beyond these will obviously be affected alSb. We all know that the future to Old. Ten and surrounds is t--.hat of growth. 1 would 'think none of us wish for unmitigated growth. 'Phis d eve. IOpiiient speaks of controlled growth but is a wolf in i.a- ib's garb. Its real purpose is financial gain for the - perpetrators. We DO NOT need another golf course in the area. We 170 NOT want one i_I:l our comrijuni-t,- Golf courses use maJor qu, -ntitier-; of pesticides--that is t:ht'� worst of it-and they encourage traffic. The proposa,'i. talks of Stony ('reek and its r'elatlt!Il kll�ipr' == :l::llt:` >' t.CD the goat Thr wi � touted as dl i� - a galling Point. f_-:uUrsewc are devoid of wildlife, flora in particular. This plElce as descrlbe✓ ] •c. is- arlathe^ cG:t. cf hnrnes cles'ignct_l to elite. er -'.t� t.cit✓ lit 6'h-at Orange County deeds' f =r a tax- 'base is �,reii- -planned indus't�ry ancl, business, not high property taxes. r ,"1e- "leed a-ffo1'•d- a?'-,l• k1Ui11eS for the ,iian,,, fallrS �+,r�l�] -( ��ff -c -rd that �i Cann Jt '. w � r't':.tlil in the Proposal r11.ggests tI.-lat. The folks: we 1know �rc:_lzld t.ki: - neighborhood don't have t is ,,ie to play 1 - - h - s - r a.'.Yr c ", f �tI -zd ,�t�:t:�_ .. _';fire to sit iI -1 tt fancy `ouse. They are husy r_,Ut f:t "2Cllt7 � :y lob r7 I' El;l "'rl lr,toe' .K Talking -:bout 1;7C,S. where are all of t:le:aC I.'eSllit'IIt:3 �(J1I19 I.') tN`[rk: For the majority, they cent ai r,ly wi l; not work in ?.':ie `)OO -atl-re .plot. They will travel long distances t,� -1 heir present .fobs or they will need to be provided with jobs in the greater area. The 600-acre corimunity will riiccrt the real needs of very few. Our knowledge of -E:(,ple from years of observing .-:,- ;gges•t,;s that the' ozie trip saved to the local market will be- negated by ren trips elsewhar-e -t.he i - - - �.�,y -h ;- tt.ri�-t. the chur.•ck -,es of penr�] � - .k- ,talc�e;s, the privat=e sc -hool, the, f`VOred d01 =' Qr. 11 -, tC)WtJ, It-ld ctS it, . ,_1 many' bored ,11.1:3t to get awa:,7 C r,dless- l y. rti�e guess this p -:aragraph f 1- 1-s well with the one Oil tr i=11_ i 10, 'act d,--)es the one before -t.h i . _ - Thre,e- :sr,pr•i ert -2. %partment configurations c..ert zin1Y in not blend in wi t.kl the terrain. The impact of several thousand people on the Hillsborough - Orange Ca. community may .sound like money corning in. It will be lost in terms of service expenses- schools, water, gas, sewage, roads ... this list goes on "Crime in the cities, traffic corljestion, pollution and the decay of the urban infrastructure" need to be solved where they are, riot through escape. Bring them out into the county where present residents have to deal with them, too.... that is what is actually being said here. We could add to our list of objections to the "University Station" proposal but this will indicate our direction of thoughts. The plan was drawn up to sound absolutely drearny. Please, read between the lines. Please do not put the thought of the increase in property tax ahead of more realistic thinking. There really are very few decent points about this proposal and we implore you to vote against it. When a real proposal comes along for those six hundred acres, we will la. sten. Its. ccj,..ild be done. C'�c r-e1.v, � -- Barbara jW r'obertson Robert. F. Robertson