HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-20-2001-9f?-
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2001
Action A ends
Item #
SUBJECT: Sunrise Springs Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT:- Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Resolution of Approval Page 4
2) Application Page 8
3) Vicinity Map Page 11
4) Preliminary Plan Page 12
5) 6-2-99 Planning Board Minutes Page 15
6) Agency Comments (DOT; EH; FM) Page 19
7) 6-7-00 Planning Board Minutes Page 24
8) 10-3-00 Draft Commissioner Minutes Page 28
9) Erosion Control Chronology Page 32
10) Revised submission (Exhibit A) Page 40
including Acoustic Engineer statem ent
11) Controlled Access Information Page 68
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eddie Kirk, Planner II
Extension 2582
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
Chapel Hill 967-9251
ITEM TABLED ON AUGUST 15, 2000 and October 3, 2000 for additional information on
following items:-
1) Lot Size- Meets 2 acre minimum in Rural Buffer
2) Noise from 1-40 Corridor- Acoustic Engineer statement included in booklet
3) Entranceway, Sound Barriers, Berms, and Additional Plantings- Additional info. with revised
submission
4) Possible Stream and Related Water Runoff- Erosion Control measures taken
5) Proposed Septic Systems- Each lot will contain onsite septic system
6) Grading History and Erosion Control Measures- Discussed in revised submission
7) future Clearing, Protection of Existing Trees, Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners'
Association- Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners documents to be reviewed by County
Attorney
8) Potential Confusion Regarding Status of Subdivision Approval- Sign changed at entrance
The Planning Staff received a revised submission to answer the above concerns and met with
neighbors.
9) Fines and Penalties - In regard to fines and penalties associated with the Sunrise Springs
project, the following information is provided for the Board's consideration. The Erosion
Control fee for this project was doubled. This amounted to a $1250.00 fine for starting
work without a permit. In addition, a mitigation program-of augmented landscaping above
county code requirements was agreed to in the amount of $25,000.00 or more. This
compensates for trees removed in excess of the minimum required to construct the road.
The outline of this mitigation response is mandated by inclusion of the subdivision
support document dated November 17, 2000, which will be part of the Resolution of
i 2
Approval, if the board so decides. The enhanced landscaping and berming suggested by
the applicant, in my opinion, will sufficiently ameliorate the impact of the development.
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Sunrise Springs Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
Request.- Preliminary Plan
Applicant: Dr. Wally Diehl
• Nine (9) residential lots proposed on an 22.606 acre tract
• Average lot size is 2.407 acres
• Minimum to Actual Lot Size Ratio (MTAR) is 1.2. Minimum lot size is 2.0 acres. 0% common
area open space provided.
Location
Along the west side of Sunrise Road (SR 1732) adjacent to and north of 1-40 in Chapel Hill Township.
Existing and Proposed. Conditions
Existing:
• Current zoning is Rural Buffer. (Flexible Development is not applicable in the Rural Buffer)
• Property is not located within a protected watershed
Physical Features: .
• Two existing drainageways within the property boundaries
• Entirely wooded with mixed hardwoods
Adjacent Land Use:
• Property to the north is wooded and undeveloped
• Property to the west and east has been developed in single family residential lots
Proposed:
Roads:
• Access is from Sunrise Road (SR 1732)
• The entire subdivision will access the new public road, to be constructed to NCDOT standards
Buffers:
• A 30-foot type A landscape buffer is proposed along Sunrise Road. A Type A buffer
description is 'a buffer composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, forming semi-
opaque intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least thirty (30) feet'.
• A 100-foot Type F landscape buffer is proposed along the Interstate. A Type-F buffer
description is 'a buffer composed of predominantly (at least 75%) evergreen vegetation that is
opaque to a height of at least thirty (30) feet'.
Water-Sewer:
• Private wells and septic tanks '(Subdivision Regulations requires an additional 20,000 sq. ft.
above the minimum lot size if an off site septic system is located on the lot)
Recreation:
• Chapel Hill District Park
• Dedication of land would be = .14 acres
• Payment in Lieu = $4,095.00 (9 lots X $455)
• No. dedication is warranted because no county recreation area or conservation area has been
identified at this time.
Development Process. Schedule, and Action
Planning Board:
• First Action: Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board June 2, 1999 with a concern
raised about drainage from the property.
• Preliminary Plan addresses concerns of approval of the Concept Plan with a 30 foot storm
drainage easement and silt fence sediment trap.
• Second Action: Planning Board unanimously recommended Preliminary Plan
approval June 7, 2000.
• Third Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider the Preliminary Plan
e Item tabled for additional information at August 15, 2000 meeting
• Fourth Action: Board of County Commissioners to reconsider the Preliminary Plan
continued from the August 15, 2000 and October 3, 2000 meeting.
Options:
1. The Board shall consider the application within a reasonable amount of time.
2. During deliberations and consideration of the application the Board may defer
consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review.
3. If Preliminary Plan is approved by the County Commissioners the applicant shall
have one (1) year to prepare and file a. Final Plat or to request a one-year
extension from the Planning Director.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration
Approval, per the attached Resolution of Approval.
i
4
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date February 20, 2001
Name of Subdivision , Sunrise Springs
Owner/Applicant Dr.-Wally-Diehl-
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Sunrise Springs subdivision preliminary
plat, dated October 26, 1999 and last revised November 1, 2000 containing 9 lots, subject to the
fulfillment of requirements specified herein.
Sunrise Springs Road shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to
standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution
authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of
the public generally, the offer of dedication of Sunrise Springs Road. This acceptance by
Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Sunrise Springs Road shall be without
maintenance responsibility. This road shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time
as it is accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some
other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of Sunrise Springs Subdivision can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair
area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health.
2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of
improvements shall be included in a document describing development
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall
also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is
available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental
Health.
5
B. Roads and Access
Sunrise Springs Road shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, within a 50' right-of-way with 5 foot utility
easements on each side, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by
NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of Sunrise Springs Road to the standards of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must
be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to
the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect
110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed
to do business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. An erosion control plan for construction of the road shall be approved by the
Orange County Erosion Control Division for review and approval prior to
Planning Department signatures on final plat.
3. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place, or a copy of
the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
4. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision road. No access point shall be
located closer than 50 feet to an intersection.
5. Record a 5' non-vehicular access easement along the entire length of Sunrise
Road with the exception of the intersecting street.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department. A 30-foot Type A buffer, as defined in the subdivision
regulations, shall be installed along Sunrise Road. The Type A buffer shall be
constructed to be a mixed planting of small deciduous and small evergreen trees.
A 100 foot Type F buffer shall be installed along I-40. The Type F buffer shall be
constructed of at least 75 % evergreen trees that will be opaque and grow to a
height of at least 30 feet. A homeowners association shall be established to
provide for maintenance of the buffers to County standards.
6
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
D. Drainage
1. Locate drainage easements as required following review and approval of the
Erosion Control Plan.
2. Drainage culverts shall be sized and located as required by NCDOT and the
Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
E. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of $4,095.00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment in
lieu of parkland dedication.
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. drainage easements as required by D.1. above.
b. 5' non-vehicular access easement along the entire length of Sunrise Road
with the exception of the intersecting street.
3. Minimum building setbacks shall be as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. The
setback requirements shall,be stated on the plat, and in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. The owner/developer shall submit to the planning staff and the county attorney,
for their review, appropriate restrictive covenants for this subdivision. The
restrictive covenants shall cover all nine lots including the lot proposed to be
owned by the developer, Dr. Diehl. The covenants shall contain appropriate
provisions for the establishment of the homeowners' association and shall have
specific language prohibiting. any clear cutting on any lot, except as maybe
minimally necessary for the construction of the residence, any required out-
buildings, driveway, yard, garden, play area, or as may otherwise be required by
good horticultural or forest management practices. Further, to the extent practical,
clearing for all other areas shall not exceed an area that would substantially affect
the surrounding community, the privacy of neighboring lots, or the likelihood of
erosion. The homeowners' association will have an architectural review design
committee and the covenants will contain language granting to the homeowners'
association the authority to specifically enforce these restrictions.
7
S. Meet requirements in booklet attached as Exhibit A entitled: "SUNRISE
SPRINGS SUBDIVISION Revised submission to the Orange County Planning
Department November 17, 2000."
G. Certifications
1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall
be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-d-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Sunrise
Springs Road has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans
have been approved.
4. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
Signature of Applicant
Clerk to the Board
I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant
Date
8
APPLICATION FOR PRELI1WARY PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUMMON
ORANGE COUNTY ' .
DATE 1 _I- I
PUAn TM GR tPRW MM WLV)
StTBDMS10NNAME: S?aQtS6 fP&061-9 5J6#?i,dt5%od ?„?..._._...,
LOCATION: 5a &4sar QU *a CS4 t 73-) d o AA* at 'T.40
OWNEMEVELOPER: Q I N b. ..,.,.......:,,?,_. ?
ADDRESS: 0 ANKS Pin-it TELEPHONE NO.: „9U - -3-0 7
Grime,.. +i4L& we . 2704
AGENT/CONTACi: Ei it A TELEPHONE NO.: x'39 // 73
N61,14P 6sr it fts a Aft ? iru-:
A. . SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange Coma Tax Map Block Lags) ,...25P Towwwp _,gkL4ft-
Zoaing Dlstws): EULA-L ddg%ft
Total Number of Acres 21-113
Total Number Of L ots: _8__ Average Lot Sizes 2.07 Mbd9mum. Lot Six Z. so
Numbafrypt of Suuctutcs: (wdstb2s) NGws (prop=* MW AI 5-i. 61A ISM w F r
Linear Fete in Strcatx 7 Aaron in Open Space: WOOL ' ter, _?
Wooer Supp>y: Publk (ape*) Camom?mity Individaa
WL"WeDlspaaal: „?ublio (,#*dry) Camammky x h divldua
School Dbai= ?...._, , QNff& Fire Di vi= r4wfa
Gonad Land Uses in Area: G Adn SZO&AL /MoD erl? C.a r:Uel i
Ciritir?l Ares: ?! 't? stiraat/drairvagev+re - - t Jet _ flood prone
V9de Wdushed(species Aidoic historicsiees
odor (explain)
Is *a prop&W to be subdivided =cc* under "firm use vdlue amakm"? Yea ? No _AX_. If "yes,"
to== the Or p Canty Teat GfAL Subdivbion of the property may require payma t of did taxes u
Y6 use -, `' Om
taxanou."
B. All plats muae W aabmind on sheet w smaller dw one inch equals ewo4madred 69 (1"-200*) and ao lar@
one lash equals twemy feet (1"0201) and must amain the Wowing kfmrmadon:
a,
9
?. horixtanral?li?rment, centeriiae rod
and general curve data on an pmpo;
strrlets
P=a= features such as bulldutg
cemeteries, historic badmarks
adjam4 lot Iajront names of adjas
p!~opetty owner. Ifsubdlvkd,
subdivision plat mime; plat book &,
mtmber, and Whom lot numbers.
lotion and sire of loa of makctec
development potenpal-and nomdon
plat regarding same
d? Sgcmwater detention and/or retentic
*a and undiswrbcd areas for h ft
pmposcs ('if located in water supply
idowflled naatral areas and wildlife;
cmidon
.G
OTHER SUBMtxTAL REQURENlI" M
1• TWMriSve (Mapples of tba PMHmiMyFlat
One Phll sire can of= Oramga Coemay
Tear reap Oft CIM Pam MWK-sd deafly =M 4
AlA : 3. Whore municipal ar OWASA nearer is not available, a cow of the Preliminary Plat irrdlCa ft E am
Depawn approveUdoaiai far each lot ahrsarn theracM
41k 4. Where a private road is propoabd, a wrlttera stanont by the VPlle art or his/her auftrized reprove
which sea forth the jaid5catim Aw a private road (see section N-B.34-1 of the orange Colony SuMvi
dJh S. Auxiliary docrmae M in draft f?, prepared ia.aecar+daoce Wbh Section V1 offs Ordinance Which W=
compledan and/or ? of bspmven.mm rnqubW by this Ombam such damnerres may lncluc
but not be limited to, a P&M ttiad mainuumuce and a:dlales of incorpearaIIon and reeve
coveaw ft Pwaft8 to s hameowners a mx ixdm Thee doonmem may be raquiiad as nasxssary as evu
that the ordbmce requ6•rmcus are bias met:
46 Fee w 3470 plus SSM par lot (core foe for Preliminary acrd F'mal Play. ?'jo + . f S1 O. as
01*• 7. If me snbd3vIdm c onsaies le lea ac more, the ba;wbg batormatlort shall be wed with the applica d
a. Naaaberotym to bmWout '
b. Numbs aftmes m be built dIt iq mob yew urtll bWWmm
a. Avm p Price afhoom ima oft ler fw each year to buWax
I, d w applicant, b mby on* dM the ftegoing application is complew and at au .
• r
APPLICANT'S sM,TVRE OWNMVS SIGNATEME
fo•- ?-6-9?' "gyp"?4 ???
10
PHILIP
POST
ASSOCIATES
MEMORANDUM
TO.. Eddie Ki* Orauge County Planning
From: Phil Pour Philip Post & Associates, Inc.
Subject: Sunrise Road Subdivision.
Date: March 9, 2000
$1901BOx,14M &M 900A
Enclosed is the complete preliminary plat application for Sunrise Springs, responding to the
Concept Plan comments we received upon Concept Plan approval on June 2,1999.
Neighbors asked about trees; we have shown the pwposed bow plat on the lom which
demonstrate bow we will save truss. Also, the cleating limits far the roadway are 2M minimal
Neighbors asked about starxnwater nm*M Our statement at ft Concept Plan meeting was that
we would use the new roadway ("Street A") to intercept sew coming toms the
draiinepway and redirect that water towards 1-40.
We have done this an the final plans.
The design for street A takes all 31=dlow and ditch water Am station 2 + 04,76 back towards
I-40. This includes W=captmg some of the age off Sumise Road and sending it back to I
40. The 25 year flow through the 18" RCP pipe under Stied A is 9A0 cfs, which is less than the
pie-development 25-year flow going to the drainagearay.
Neighbors asked about the 40 foot septic went and farce main.
We have eliminated the septic ease?t and fume main from do plans entirely, including the
associated cloning has been eliminated.
Neighbors asked about two septic systems, on lot S.
We have eliminated one lot and reduced the subdivision from 91ots to 81ots and in the process
we will only Dave aM (1) septic system on each lot, including lot 5.
Neighbors asked about covenants. Covets will be adopted by this subdi 'vision. Neighbors
asked about access of all lots to Street "A". The plan shows all houses, oriented with drives off
Street W. Thew will be po knwo off Sunrise Road.
??i
V
10
m
r
'Y
F
a
e
I
s
i
?o
I pad I ??? III .?.
12
m f 3 /v?
r. t Lo
i
f
8 I
o
1
1 ' JIB ,1 ?'???
req. y f?
l??ry? ???1; I
r??T FFe
4
I e
? a
? c e ? s ? c
I?? >x
- q K f x?nsax-
I ? -
.IS t
'W- I SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
oc= A"'"" °
mw-- aflm - -?
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PHILIP ?
03
auo cmae
T
POS
f 070:0-n73
I
AssocIATES ar uwm w. r ?..?
It
' E rvOF I
rv?
i -?y+ Ydd p 1 ---.•-.
S
y
F
ITa. ? i
- is I7
it
p R ` R
F
0
2rf
???\. ` Fa RI
l_` \ I!.
Tnlu U FA?! rS
MELL f
_ eQa"c"a@ ? E
£ ovvvs
r ?nnnnn ?oF c? ?? ?
3 sn €? ?a
13
e_
F1
PV ?R •? .I 1 ?? lF
r
/,: I7
6
xc.?r ••.rca"`='°e. SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PHIUP
ip
POST
LANDSCAPE SUFFER PNG PLAN &
LccnFILTCC OII?W-
»r.i
?;v?
m
%
cap y,
, . ? ' I j /, Y!? ?,? III !? ',,\ 11 1\ I (? ?. h .,.T _ '•' J '.Y ? ? \ 1?1
I ? ? dr ( ? i 1 I ^ r / ? ?\,\ Ili ?i /, % /r/r ? I ! •? ,• _ _ - ???
§C. 1
' ?`. ,:'?- ?-? .? ? it ,, ? ! ?;' / i?/'ir/?'%?'i? [!•) .f ,?`;^'? 4• ?? ? r I
?? C ?`:•?>.. p? d?. I 11', ! (?,'r /?%',?r,'f V ry. 't r 1 `\ 41
n????\__- ,`S?, I IIt' ?t" ? i iii .I%?,r /??/ ?6?, ?'• \>\ a 1 \.+ .'/1 I I I
Qom`-\\?'A/?? ? ??, TI?\e""tl ''_ ? '???__.?_. _ - - ?.i? f/' rl`.'??•', ?; n ; ! ,{`1.,,, ? ,,'I ? . '-.. 'I iVN
%I ( /•
L' V
Maui'
\;; :?? ?. \\ \??fj1 `?ate--'•-- ,•%??!? ? .e'' " / ; j ( t7 ;?'I Ii ? , ? ,, t `\ - \ ..,, lP? H; ?,; " I
`'?.\ --?..\\y\\\"`?\?t`J ?-?-F •' ? ? 1 1' ?f?l it \'l \\ \I -?Q ??rr?S/•
;?? ??,• `, \C? -\?. ',,?,p:' :' lii •?1 , ?i, I II I t \ ..`t ?1 .\/?? "'': ? ? r?-'m
t ? ?,- • 1"1? f _! • ? f r'l I ?' / ?l ? ? I I ,, `' ? v \ l?._.....-.. - ?.7F / .-.r-..,?: ' ? .._ .,.. _.
4.4
c9 Cl ;?,;` ? ? i, / Ill i i ?• ! / '?!
_ s `,,r \arti. / •.\ i %'• / I Pry
co C-,
? m I,\\\? e,. ` rpm; ? , rpm Y ../_(? r y ? ! ; " ? ,' 3• I,??,
T = i•r. , Iii `j? i? _ i ?x??-? ~ ' / ' l r!,-...f" ?i^' p`
fIr ?, yei B 'IR ?? B
SUNRISE SPRING SUBDIVISION "+`-PMWP ++??
== ?R „ m rw - dry; M e,
POST
E 11J p??a
.'?:? m em.Tm v I?O? ? & (c1Glanal-i
"em` - pµ1 IO?@1-- '-' OJ-Xeoo w'wO?C;
DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
• ? ? ASSOCIATES Ip;,,„ °• ""
• ?:?r?. ?.? _. ... __ _.._.., ..... aRan6C CPlHTy. WC a-/z^JIe•r
- 1 r
? f
r.
c. Historic Preservation Commission
No report available.
d. Ordinance Review Committee
No meeting.
e. Shaping Osage County's Futm
No report available.
Selkirk asked what is the current statue of the Bicycle Transportation
Plan Component (amendment to the Comprehensive Plan). Barrows
responded that the Planning Board made the recommendation. Lincoln
commented that she will double check to no if the Board of
Commissioaws approved this and let the Board know.
AGENBA PrEM M., SU13DIVISIOM
a. Concept Plan
(1) Sunrise Rand Subdivision
(9 Lots - Chapel Eiilk Township)
Presantationby Eddie Kirk,
nest - C
Applicant; Dr. Wally Diehl.
Nine (9) residaadal lots proposed on a 21.62 awe tract.
The average lot sine is 2.09 acres.
The property is located along the west side of Sunrise Road (SR 1732)
just north of 1-40 in Chapel FU Township.
Current zoning is Rural Buffer.
(Flemble Development is not applicable in the Rwal Buft.)
The property is act in a protected watershed.
Plrysiesk FesiMM
Two existing drainagaaays on the property.
The site is entirely wooded with mixed hardwoods.
Ad*eet Land Use:
Property to the north is wooded.
Property to the west and east has been developed in single family
residential lots.
Cogdditiaa - oa
Roads:
16
Buffers:
A 30-foot type A landscape buffer is proposed along Sunrise Road. (The
type A buffer is `composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation,
farming semi-opaque intemhittent visual obstructions from the ground to
a height of at least 30 feet.)
Water-Sewer:
Private wells and septic tanks.
A septic easement is proposed on lots 5 and 6 to serve lot 7.
lJMWgpmentJ!MNs. Schedule. an a don
Planning Board:
First Action: Planning Board to consider Concept Plan .
Options:
1. Action within forty-five (45) days of this meeting:
2. or within such .furthertime consented to in writing by the applicant.
3. If the Planning Board fails to act within the specified time period,
approval is dented without conditions.
4. If approved the applicant shall have one (1) year to prepare and file a
Preliminary Plat application. If a Preliminary Plat has not been
submitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall
became null said void.
StffReconimndadon
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan far
Sunrise Road Subdivision.
Selkirk stater dais the property is in a really well wooded area. He asked
if, with 2 acre lots, the way the houses are to be placed, would a good
part of the property by left with trees.
Phil Post, engincer, responded yes. He stated that the road would be a
very narrow corridor and would use only a Mall portion of the lot. He
stated that there would not be much clear cutting and the area. would
remain nicely wooded.
Barrows asked how big is the parcel to the north of the property. Kirk
responded that the subject parcel is 21 acres and according to the tax map
the northern property is approximately 30-35 aces.
Barrows asked if the staff would recommend stab-outs. She stated the:
this ar+r"a looks like a lot of cul-de-sacs. Kirk responded dw there are
cul-de-sacs already to the west and east. He stated that the property to
the north has quite a bit of frontage on Whitfield Road. He noted that
staff did not feel a need for another connector to Whitfield since this
property is near the intersection of Sunrise Road and Whitfield Road.
Woods. noted that there does not scan to be any topographical detail
information on the application. Kirk responded that the topographical
information is not required on a Concept Plan. Post described the
topographical arm on the map. He pointed out the good soil am, the
hilltops, slopes and the drainagowvays. He also pointed out the wooded
yes and no. He pointed out where the top of the hill and road would be
and where the water would be intercepted. He noted that some of the
water that will not go down to the drainageway will be intercepted by the
road and sent towards the interstate highway.
Woods asked Post about the second ftnageway where an easement has
also been placed He stated that there must be -a force main where
sewage will be moved from lot 7 to the area on lot S. He asked how the
second drainageway would be prevented from being clogged up by the
force main. Post responded that this is a well defined dminageway with
a very small amount of water flowing through it. He stated that it is very
narrow and shallow and will be buried about 3 feet with a very modest
now.
Al Dodson stated that he lives at the bottom of the drainage. He
expressed concern with the proposed drampway. He noted that the
road new his home was upgraded several years ago and the State wont
from a 12-inch drainage to a 3&inch drainage, which will accommodate
a tremendous amount of water. He rioted that when the hurricane cams
through they lost a lot of timber (hardwoods and pines) in that area. He
stated that he is not opposed to the subdivision but is concerned that the
drainageways may cause flooding to his property.
Post commented that their plan is to convert some of the water away
from the property.
Sctsy? Kraus stated that she is concerned with tie 40 foot septic
easement. - She noted that the clearing for this easement would
dramadcal y acct the view from her back door. Post responded that
there would be very light pons on done which would be on the order
of clearing for a driveway. He pointed out her property on the map and
stated that the easement would be near the far western tamer of her
property. He stated that they have designated a corridor about 40 feet
with a very nice buffer being maintained widga 20.25 feet of the
property line. He reiterated that the eras is heavily wooded and with a
buffo that size there will be a nice separation. He noted that this.area
has a drain that is moderately sloping. Kraus asked if it would be a
8mvity fed drain„ Post wgxmded no, that it would be•a pressure
sduatiou. Kraus asked if this was common for developers to damp such
systom& Post responded yes because it is common practice that the good
soils are shared
Dodson asked if lot 7 would iodate two septic tanks. Post
responded that it would actually be lot 5 that would have two sysmms
plus the house site.
Kevin Huggins stated that he has had experience with Iota where the
waste leaves the house and goes through a strip of land other that where
the system is and his experience has been that this provides more leeway
for the developers to go around the gees, etc. He noted that it-would
have very little impact to the land itself. He pointed out that the
developers are verv diliaent areas triAnd M --- nom,..,. 4--
.18
are planned. Post responded that he would say yes although covenants
have not been discussed.
Barrows asked about the open space and landscape buffers. Kirk
responded that it will be on the recorded plat and there will be
declarations, which will claim that there is a 100-foot buffer next to the
interstate. Also, the parcel directly to the west of this subdivision has a
100-foot buffer with the buffer included in the lot.
Barrows asked if the recommendation made by staff that all lots access
the subdivision roads be included. Kirk responded that this could be
added as a condition of approval.
EMOTION: Katz moved approval. Seconded by Walms.
Woods recommended that when the applicant brings the plan back to
have a more confirmed analysis of the increase of the stormwateer runoff
to ow drainage ditch and perhaps a portion of the force main could be
designated as clearings above it.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Preliminary Plan
(1) Bradford Ridge Subdivision
(22 Lots - Bingham Township)
Presentation by Robert Davis.
Considetation of the PrNimiaaey Plan for Bradford Ridge Subdivision.
(Concept approved as Savoy Park) .
Applicants Kevin Huggins, agent for Cwr Road Realty, vac.
Subdivision follows the conservation option of flexible development.
22 single-family lots on the 69.49 acres tract.
29.89 ages to be maintained as open space (42.796).
Averagh lot sine is 2.93 acres (exclusive of S-acre dedication).
jgation
no property, located in Bingham Township approximately 600 feet east
of Chestnut Up Church Road (SR 1125 is south of, and Fronts on,
Borland Road (SR 1126). An intermittent tributary (per USGS maps) to
Cane Creek meanders along the eastern side of the treat.
Dung SIN itions
Zoning
Agricultural Residential (AR) and Cane Creek Protected Watershed
(maximum impervious surface coverage is six (6) percent).
Adjacent land uses: single-family residential and agricultural.
Phyakal Description:
19
Y
• 8181
HilfAmush, NC 27278 Betty
?tA?4pac
April 27, 2000
Imp (9=k Mzult4 :'Btvmtmnt
loanrh
ee F. MdN chak Rosemary L. Summrs, MPH, DrPH
Board of Healrh lane H. Smdsaimed, y? Cheir . Health Director ?. Ca" Board of Haalrh
*mww
8er?onmerrd z3eoUah Dcvbiop w,•
30&c V. Road, on Sax PM HOW"* Dfwia"I)bw r
.,al y
Fhww (9191732.8181, =M FAX I
Aw:mu (91 9684501 (91 686 7331
SOEL / WE Evaluation Sumerwy for.
SUNRISE SPRINGS
CHAPEL
? TowmhiP MOP 119 Lot 16B
Map Date Ap 14, 2000
b - Mgu ow T E9 M
1 600 GPD MALLOW OW TRENCH COrNB[MMAL
2 600 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVMMONAL
3 480 MD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVE4TIONAL WARM
4 480 G PD ULTRA SHALLOW CONVENTIONAL WMMU
5 480 CPD MALLOW TRENCH CONVS MCWAL W/PUhe
6 480 GPD ULTRA SHALLOW CONVENTmONAL wAvu p
7 480 GPD CONVMMONAL
8 600 GiPD SIMILM TRERM CO OYPEN TMAL.
1T 0 gsatloaa/day (GPDN ( 480 (,YPD ) p?0 °`raer arc davilaper Tt1G desi Bow fora 1
Proposed how PmVided by the propat
Rules $arSea y awara developer as required byy 15A NCAC 184,.1900..1969. cm
raBe TreOtloent and D>wspotal SyO=).
The d=p
C ufMmm ? p=p It are s1>hjjert to dMP based q= the RVH=dm and site plea or plat saber
The?? areas ar< the a ft P? are the liIs Of the provisionally sWuhle 5013 as evalnamd by the Orange County
It should be noted that Q Iota having a coaaveatta01-OP drain field with p=p ere rcv%wed st a stn of every f" ym 1
bMth drat as required by 15 A NCAC 8A. 1961 (Mahmmawe of Sewago Systems).
20
•
Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 24 i=bes or more of Mvisionally suitable chasactedstics
inch soil cap is placed ova the trenches.
Shallow Trench, Conven*ml Systi= an placed in areas with 30 inches or more of provisionally suitable characteristics.
ConV=dO al Systems are placed in arras with 36 rather or move of pravis MUUY Suitable eh WMdg.dcs.
ti
2
STATE of NoRTH CARouNA.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAITON
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
15 May 2000
DAVID McCQY
SECRETARY
ORANGE COUNTY
Philip N. Post
Philip Post do Associum
401 Providence Road
Chapel Hilt NC 27S 14
919493-2600
SUBJECT: Final Plan Approval: Sunrise SprinS Subdivision located off Sunrise Road
near Sunrise Road (SR 1732)
Dear Mr. Pons:
This office has completed its review of the subject's proposed final plans for compliance with current Department of
Tr.tnsportation minimum subdivision construction standards. We wish to advise that the Enrol plans received at this
office are hereby approved. Pursuant to this approval, this office will require you to matte the owner/developer
aware of the following requirements be&m starting spy cortstrvctim
I. Prior to arty .consstyction of any new access or alteration of any exisft access within is required to securr a the right of way. the
to obtain a pemtk permit with this office. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer
2. During the amtruukK it is the responss'biiity of the owneNdeveloper m provide verillaaiion certifying that the
roadwaY do dmV, and seeding satisfies the approved design outside the State's right of way.
3. When woridpg within the State's ri* of way. the owner/developer will CO=ct the Graham District Office
before each of die following pha= (A) Drainage, (B) Grading, (C) Placespeat of base (0) paving, and (I.)
Seeding Failure to notify this of&e before each phase of construction may j=Ify veriflodon earcifted and
signed by a banal mgkww.
4. 'in accordance with the General Statute 136-102.2, new roads are not eligible for the state Maintenance system
unless certain requirements are met: An explanatiatn of these requirements = be found on pages 13.14. and
15 of the cur= (January 3000) NCDOT Subdivision Roads Manual. Particular attentioa siattld be planed on
items 2 (petition for addition). S. 6, and 7 (occupied housing requirement), 10, 11, 13, and 13.
P. O. BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC 2nM PH# 336.370.6833, FAX# 33"7&Am
22
Final Plan Review Sunrise Spring Subdivision (Coned)
•
S. Any area within the State's right of way mWor easements disturbed during the construction and/or maintenance
shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the District Engineer or his representative.
6. Before planting any landscape within the right of way, the en=aWno party shall submit an application for a
planting permit to this office. The: permit must be approved prior to installing any plants.
7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a copy of this letter and the above-referenced documents to
the owner/developer so they may be folly informed,
5
If you have any questions, feel free to call Mr. Michael Venable or me at (336) 570.6833,
•
Sincerely,
T. A. Kallem, P.E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
Attachments
cc: J. M: Mills, P.E. Division Engineer
Orange County Planning
TAr-JMSV/msv
SPAOOSISMOC
• 9.1-1 CommuoicartOns
24 Hoar 'OVatamg Pojut
919-732-81610 933-2600
24-Hw Fax Machine
919-967.9026
ti
Orange County Emergency Management
P.O. BOX 8181
ffilbborough
North Carolina
27278
EMc*Mgy Medical Saevim
RM Mariad
? bus Mffieria]x
919-644-3030 + 968.2050
AdmWswdw F" Machine
919-968-4066
21?
TO: EDDIE M PLANNWO DEPARTMM
FROM: NM TA", DMYM DMWMRMM MARMAL k"/
RE: SUN'RW SPRINGS SmvirmoN
DATE' AM 25,2M
We bava reviewed the perry plan of Sumin Springs Subdlviaion and find the plaa
s AgMbbL Please send us a copy oft to plan, upon approval, four ditbuti=
If you need additional ink, pkm on me.
i'.
f
A-7-00 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
3
5
6
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.During deliberations and consideration of the application the Board may defer
consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review.
3.If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the County Commissioners the applicant shall have
one (1) year to prepare and file a Final Plat or to request a one-year lion from the
Planning Director.
FINANCIAL BRACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis (attached)
RECOMMENDATION: PIE Wag ftff
?lamina S
Approval in accordance with the attached resolution.
in
'fie vote: application hrwarded to County Commissioners with Planning Board
minutes, only.
Administratio
Approval in accordance with the attached resolution.
(includes Reosludon B.6. Requie+ement far a left turn lane on Jones Ferry Road,)
24
Preston asked how the neighbors became sad with the consnrudioa of tine tun lane, because
some of them were upset before.
22 Kim Henry, the developer for The. Woodlands, said the the primary resident that was aflWed by
23 the turn lane was Mr. Delos OD= W. Iris pasnuc would have been encroached upon by
24 s NEnonm CDOT o fN sp e cations. Ms. Henry met with 1? Venable, who was Distnat
time, and he agreed to a narrower shoulder° and ditch width lbir.
26 O` M01 was satisfied. with the adjustment. All of the other neighbors are also satisfied with
27 this.
23
29 MOTION: Katz moved to accept the staffs rexommeadation for the
34' Freliminary? Plan of The Woodlands including the left turn lame on
31 Jones Perry Road because both parties have agreed to its
32 constnwdon I Seconded by Gooding-Ray.
33
34, Streyhorn vcdfiecl dw bb. OTMmels cane to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting and
35 that there wag agmci n- nt to the left tum lane.
.36
37 VOTE: vuy
39
39 (2) Sunrise Springs
40 (Chpel IR Township - 8 Lots)
41
42 Eddie Kids made the presentation.
43
44 PURPOSE: Consideration of the. Prebmirt+ Plan for Sunrise Springs Subdivision.
4s
46 BACKGROUND:
47 Reauest - Preliminarv Plan
25
1 • Eight-(S) residential lots proposed on an 15.85-acre tract.
2 • The average lot size is 2:05 acres.
3 • Minimum to Actual Lot Size Ratio (MTAR) is 1.03. Minimum lot sib is 2:0 acres. 0%
4 common area open space provided.
5 Location
6 The properly is located along the west side of Sunrise Road (SR 1732) jolt north of l-40 in
7 Chapel Hill Township.
8 P:aistlna and Pr_ ugua cadmns
9 Ejift
10 Current zoning is Rural Buffer (Flexible Development is-on applicrable in the Rural Buffer).
11 • The property is not in a protected wmrshe&
• 12 P" al Features:
13 * Two arising drainage ways on d* property.
14 + The site is enemy wooded with mixed hardwoods,
15 Adjacent Land Use:
16 + Property to the north is wooded and undeveloped.
17 + Properly to the west and east has been developed in single-family residential Iota.
is
Ptoposed•
19 Roads:
20 • Access is f am Sunrise Road (SR 1732).
21 • S lots will access the new-public road, to be constructed to NCWT standards. '
22 Buffers:
23 A 30-fnot type A landscape buffer is proposed along Sunrise Road (The type A buffer is
24 composed of deciduous andlor evergren vegetition, forming semi-opaque intermittent visual
25 obstructions from the ground to a heigbi of at least 30 feet.)
26 • A 100-foot type F landscape buffer is proposed along the lawstme.
27 Water-sewer:
28 • Private wells and septic tasks
29
30 elo d
31 Planning Board;
32 • First Aar: Concapt Plan approved by the. Planning Board Jane 2,1999 with a concern
33° raised about draimge from the property.
34 • Second Acdow
33 1. AotiaIIvhffin two regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, or m themA
36 1 If fCpbmidg Board f & to act within the specified time peuod, applies forwarded
37 to BOCC wkh tyre Planning Board minutes and Planning Staff recmamendations and
38 corlditiom
39 • Prey Plan addresses eoncans of approval of the Concept Plan v ft a 30-foot storm
40 drainage ememenat and silt fence sediment Urap.
41
42 RECOM UMATION(S): I' atwi?ag,Staff
43 Approval,, in accondance with the attached Raaeladon of
Approval.
45
46
26
i Kirk pointed. out that the Concept Plan had nine lots and the Preliminary Plan has eight lots. The
2 ninth lot has been combined.,with an existing lot. There are now no easements for septic
3 syst=s.
4
s Preston add that she was pleased to see landscaping information about the buffers. She is
6 concerned that some of the plants that are along Sunrise Road are going to suffer and probably
7 die. She wished it had been a mixed planting and not just the cypresses. She was also surprised
s that the landscaping was already done when the Planning Board had not yet approved the plan,
9 She is also concerned about the storm drainage easement that goes all the way through the site,
10 under the road, and through lot seven. She asked what it would actually do to lot sev=
I1
12 Emig Dodson, who works with Phil Post, said that there was only a pipe undawath the right-of-
13 way under the road. The easement across lot seven follows the n= W drainage area through the
14 lot. The house on lot seven is located near the setback line in order to take advantage of suitable
is soils for a•8ravity-feed septic system.
16 .
17 Barrows asked for clarification, on Preston's concerns about the planting.
18
19 Preston made rdaenoe to the agenda abstract and said that maples and water oaks ware not
20 suitable to go underneath power lines. She said that the planting should not be up on a berm.
21
22 Benedict said that the applicant had no approval to do the pla n6g bore the Plammiag Board and
23 the County Commisdoners approved the subdivision. He said that the applicant had no vented
24 rights of continuing the plan until it was approved. He said that the board could suggest mixed
25 planting schemes without berms, and this could be one of the conditions for approval of the
26 project.
27
28 MOTION: Preston moved to accept the staffs reconuaen116M to approve the
29 Preliminary Plan for Sunrise Springs with the change that the type
30 A buffer along Sunrise Road is to be reconstructed to be mixed
31 planting of small, deciduous trees and small evergreen trees, not on,
32 a berm. Seconded by Katz
33
3n, ' Strayhorn agrees with the composition of the plants, but he thinks that the berms should stay
35 because they provide privacy. presto explained how berms could cause the trees to die.
36
37 Ernie Dodsm mid that the intent of the berms was for noise control beemne of how close the
38 subdivision is tD 140: He asked if the berms could stay and the cypmsses could just be
39 interspersed with other trees.
40
41 Katz asked about the responsibility of the developer in maintaining the buffer in the fiAm.
42
43 Ernie Dodson, said that the wavanty period was generally one year.
44 .
4s Katz is opposed to the berm because the plants would die.
46
47 Goodwin said that he thinks it is micromaYlastins to say that berms can or cannot be in a
i
27
1 The board agreed to compromise and ask for mixed planting, with no mention of the berms.
2
3 Benedict said that in the Resolution of Approval, some additional language could be added that
4 the Homeowner's Association would,be permanently responsible for dw maintenance of the
S buffer in accordance.with the County standards. .
6
8
to
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
There was a h iendly amendment to the motion to take out the mention of the berme
Benedict said that berms could be shaped so that irrigation of the plants is rot as much ofa
problem. „.- ?.
Barrows has a problem with making the Homeownes Association responsible for to buftr
right away. She said that the landsc aMS should be well done initially so that the homeowners
are j maintaininS and not picking UP pieces.
Chair Allison said that there are landscaping requirements and they would be done correctly.
VOTE:
Unanimous
AGENDA rMM #9: MATrM EMARD AT JPA PUMUC EO AMG (4/12i"
ar ' JOMT PLANNING AMA LAND USE PLAN
. AIV?NDIVII.NTS
(1) JPA-140-Amerimo Stone Company
(2) C761-00 Amerimn Stone Company
27 Benedict made the;W - - - tatior:, He showed the area subject to the land rise plan amendments on
28 a map. The first item is an amendm= to the joint planning area where Ca rrboro, Chapel MU,
29 and Orange County must decide on any changes to the joint land use map. In this case, all
30 authorities would have to agree to change the existing land use to an eatiactive use that could
31 allow the expansion of tine quarry operatic. The second part of the pros has to do with an
32 amendment to the Orange Catmty C . Plan. If dw item is approved in the joint
33 planning area, then Orange County looks at its own comp ve pin snd'idua s it to a land
34 use designatkin that would be eonsisteot with the intended use of the pmpe dy. In this case,
35 Orange County wlll be considering a change to a rural ft&s W nodq which allows eve
36 uses. Ifthe rural WhaWal node is approved, the applicant will have to ==jug to Orange
37 County for a Special Use Permit to c Band the existing Special Use Permit to allow the
38 expansion of the quarry and the eventual reservoir. Chapel Hill has recommended approval to
39 doe joint plan and Carrbaro has not yet approved the rmommendation. The Board of County
40 Commissioners will be making a decision on Am 29m. -However, the joint planning am«eadment
41 cannot occur without the Town of Carrbwo's approval.
42
43 Benedict said that ft= were comments fmM the oWIIents on the cbimdng conditions
44, Nqui=MM 13:at viae occurring. Staff did solve research on =mdmc= aitnia, and one of the.
45 bases for the change has to do with either an error in the plan or changing conditions. Benedict
46 smmamariwd a chart of chmiging conditions in Orange County repWiM population change,
47 increase of water demand and decreasing rock sanely. Thm have bees no chanties to the
X28
REGULAR MEETING
October 3, 2000
DRAFT
d. Sunrise Springs Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
The Board considered a previously tabled item with additional information on
"Single'Access with regard to safety issues," "Connectivity with property to the north,"
and "Type F Buffer Description."
Sunrise Springs Subdivision is an eight-lot subdivision on 18 acres. It is
located along the west side of Sunrise Road (SR 1732) adjacent to and north of 1-40 in
Chapel Hill Township. The current zoning is rural buffer.
Craig Benedict summarized the changes that have been made to the plan to
address the concerns expressed by the County Commissioners. These are in the
agenda materials.
Commissioner Gordon verified that one of the reasons for not requiring the
additional access was that the traffic would cut through the neighborhood and it would
be a negative impact.
Several other questions of the Commissioners were answered satisfactorily
by Craig Benedict.
Commissioner Brown said that there was a concern about the noise level
from the highway and asked if there was going to be a certain type of buffer required.
Craig Benedict said that a type A buffer would be along 1-40 and Sunrise Road.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the rate of development in a rural buffer
and if development has increased. Craig Benedict said that in the rural buffer there is a
two-acre minimum lot size. He said that developments-were using up every available
piece of rural buffer land. He said that the land on the northern rural buffer is being
maximized to the highest degree. He said that at some point in the future there might
need to be some flexible development provisions in the rural buffer.
Commissioner Jacobs asked when discussing this subdivision with the
developer if there was any discussion about using part of the 4.5-acre lot as open space.
Craig Benedict said that based on the configuration of this subdivision there was not a
good place to have open space.
Commissioner Jacobs has a concern about having cul-de-sacs all over the
place east and.west of this property. He feels that there might be some utility in having
some transit connectivity through that area.
Commissioner Gordon said that there are good things about connectivity, but
you have to look at it on a case by case basis. She thinks in this case, there should not
be the additional access point. She said that there should be a plan for where the roads
are supposed to go.
Commissioner Brown asked about the shallow trench systems with pumps
and if this is pushing the level at which to get a septic system. Craig Benedict will work
with Ron Holdway and Dr. Rosie Summers to find out information on these types of
septic systems that are permitted by the State.
Public Comment
. Betsy Kraus expressed concerns about this subdivision. Her main concern is
noise from 1-40. The trees in her neighborhood serve as a very efficient noise buffer and
29
the developer has cleared for this subdivision and they now hear all the noise from the
highway. She would like to see a community built that maintains the assets of the
neighborhood. She supports lower density, which would result in larger lot sizes that are
common in this area and would be in line with what other developers are doing. The
developer will cut seven feet off the top of the hill as a requirement from DOT. She
asked that a noise abatement be incorporated into the development plan by preserving
the existing landscape.
Steve Herman presented a petition that was signed by eleven people from
Pine Tree Lane and is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. He read the
three-page petition. In summary, he expressed concerns about noise and endorsed the
use of noise abatement resources and the impact of the proposed development on
erosion and. water run-off on neighboring downstream properties. In conclusion, they
feel that the Sunrise Springs Subdivision plan has a number of substantial deficiencies,
which can only be remedied by a major redesign.
Phil Post, designer for Sunrise Springs, explained the roads on the map.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis about the clearing of
live trees and other vegetation without an erosion control permit, Craig Benedict said
that Erosion Control issued a letter six months ago to the developers informing them that
they disturbed the land without the proper permits. A violation has not been issued. The
applicant first claimed that the clearing was from Hurricane Fran debris and it was found
out later that the work was much more extensive than clearing debris. The applicant will
have to re-seed some areas and put some sedimentation devices on the property.
Commissioner Jacobs asked Craig Benedict why the information about the
violations was not reported as part of the information that the Commissioners received.
Craig Benedict said that he found out about the violations today.
Commissioner Brown asked about the creek and whether it is a spring fed
creek. Craig Benedict said that the staff looked at USGS maps and it was not shown as
a stream. When they visited the site, there was evidence of an intermittent stream. He
identified the stream on the map.
Commissioner Brown asked if a septic line would go across the creek and
Craig Benedict said that a pump system would go from the 4.5-acre lot, down the creek,
and up the hill to portions of lots seven and eight where there are septic easements.
There are no prohibitions to having pump systems across drainage areas.
Dr. Wally Diehl, the applicant, said that he wanted to live near his practice
and that is how he got involved with this piece of property. He said that when he walked
on the property, he wanted to do storm cleanup after Hurricane Fran. He said that his
grading contractor did more than he was supposed to do before the approval process.
When he was notified that he was out of compliance, he immediately came into
compliance. Two weeks ago, with the recent rains, he was told that his sedimentation
trap in the stream way was not doing the job any longer and something different needed
to be done. He immediately called his grading contractor who was going to fix the
sedimentation trap this coming Monday. He has met with the neighbors and will be glad
to meet with them again to address their concerns. He said that the subdivision has met
all of the ordinance requirements.
Commissioner Brown asked when Phil Post came into the picture and Dr.
Diehl said that Phil Post came into the picture in June 1999 when the concept plan was
submitted and approved.
Phil Post illustrated on a map where the clearing for the roadway took place.
He said that the contractor cleared the absolute minimum and that none of the house
sites have been cleared. When all the clearing is done, 2'h acres will be cleared from
this 22-acre tract. There will be 84% tree coverage on this tract.
30
Phil Post made reference to erosion control and said that they have taken
into consideration some special drainage requests from citizens who live in that area.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked Craig Benedict about the roadwork that had
been done before the County Commissioners approved the subdivision. Craig Benedict
said that this has been the practice in the past but it would not be allowed under his
direction.
Commissioner Halkiotis feels that it is outrageous that roadwork would begin
before a subdivision is approved and he is offended by this information.
Commissioner Brown asked if the road into the subdivision would be a state
maintained road and Craig Benedict said yes. However, if the road were a private road,
there would be less destruction of the land. Craig Benedict said that_the requirement for
a public road and a private road is a 50-foot wide corridor. He said that there would
probably be the same amount of clearing. The only difference is the sloping.
Commissioner Brown asked if this project could be built on a private road and
Craig Benedict said yes. The subdivision would have to have twice the lot size to justify
one of the criteria for a private road. There would have to be increased setbacks and
stream buffers, etc. to justify the private road.
John Link made reference to page two of the abstract and the
recommendation about deferring consideration of the subdivision to pursue additional
analysis and review.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the developers meet with the
neighbors and then meet with County staff to see if they can work out some of the
problems that have been identified. The developers may also want to consider working
with the Dispute Settlement Center.
Dr. Diehl asked if their sound expert could speak.
Norl Stewart, from Stewart Acoustical Consultants in Raleigh, said that he
understands the problems of the neighbors who were there before the highway was
there. Also, the sound that reaches them from 1-40 is different according to the level of
atmospheric conditions. He said that in order for the citizens to have a fairly perceived
difference in the noise level, there must be a change of about five or six decibels. This
would require a reduction in sound of two-thirds to three-quarters. Nothing that Dr. Diehl
plans to do is going to have very much of an affect on the noise.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown; Mr. Stewart explained
that when the source of the noise is 100-400 feet away, the atmospheric effects are
quite strong. He explained how the sound goes up and back down at different times
during the day. Anything that is done on the property would only have benefit during
limited periods of time when the sound is angled a certain way. He does not think that
anything can be done to make a major reduction or increase in the noise in the
subdivision.
A motion was made by, Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to table this item to receive further information.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The issues to be addressed for this item are noise abatement, private vs.
public roads, the septic system, the perennial stream that runs through the property, and
whether there are any restrictive covenants. Commissioner Halkiotis would like
information on a possible penalty package that can be put on this project.
Nod Stewart said that he made some measurements tonight at 7:30 in his
development area at various locations and on Pine Tree Lane near the intersection of
Sunrise Road and it measured 52-54 decibels. Chandlers Green measured 49 decibels
31
and Cheaslee measured 46 decibels. He said that these levels were not considered
noisy. He said that noise in his own community in Raleigh was at these same levels.
32
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 8181 306-F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
E,.Mr ?r o
Yw' s„
T
p 5Z
EROSION CONTROL DIVISION
Caaboro & Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031
Telephone Extension 2599 Fax (919) 644-3002
October 10, 2000
Mr. Wally Diehl, DMV
100 Banks Drive
Chapel Hill, N.C.27514
Re: Sunrise Springs Subdivision
To the Person Conducting this Land-disturbing Activity:
Due to improvements made to improve the efficiency of the sediment trap and also due to efforts made to
improve the quality of groundcover, Sunrise Springs Subdivision has been brought into compliance with
the Orange County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance. Therefore, this site is no longer in
violation.
I have suggested to Mr. Ellie Allen, Mike Ellington Grading and Landscaping, that this site should be
closely monitored to determine the success of the seeding effort and the efficiency of the sediment trap.
Please contact me at 245-2587 if there are any questions.
Please. do not have any additional work done at this site until the project has approval from the Orange
County Board of Commissioners unless it is work needed to keep the site in compliance with erosion
control requirements.
4 S' cerelyith Rosemon
rosion Co.
ntrol Officer
Cc: Ernie Dodson, Philip Post & Associates
33
Memo To: Craig Benedict, Planning Director
Memo From: Keith Rosemond, Erosion Control Inspector
Date: October 9, 2000
Subject Erosion Control Chronology of Proposed Sunrise Road Subdivision
Erosion Control received complaint that land disturbing activities were taking place at the site of the
proposed subdivision belonging to Mr. Wally Diehl. Investigation on Dec. 2, 1999 revealed that trees had
been removed, existing groundcover removed, and a culvert had been installed along the low area of the
property. The culvert is approximately 120' long and the diameter of the pipe is 36". A 6' to 8' high
earthen berm was also constructed along the I-40 side of the site. The berm had been stabilized with a
groundcover of pipe straw.
,The areas disturbed are relatively consistent with details shown on the erosion control plan. According to
the plan application, the entire site consists of 21.3 acres and the area disturbed is 1.64 acres. The property
is bisected by a channel draining west to east out to Sunrise Road (S.R. 1732). Almost all of the Diehl
property drains to this drainage feature. The steepest slopes above the drainage feature are 15 to 20 %
slope.
At the time on Dec. 2, 1999 that Erosion Control was investigating the complaint, the contractor had
completed clearing and was finishing seeding and mulching the disturbed areas. I was told the contractor
was preparing to pull off the site.
A Stop Work order was issued at the site on December 3, 1999. A Certified Mail Notice of Violation letter
to Mr. Diehl containing written notification that a Stop Work Order was mailed on December 3, 1999.
A follow-up inspection was done at the site on either Dec. 6d' or 7d'. Disturbed areas were covered with
mulch. No additional work had been done.
In order to resolve the Notice of Violation and bring the site into compliance, Mr. Diehl was instructed by
the letter of Dec. 3, 1999 to complete the following:
- Submit a complete application for Erosion Control Approval and Grading Permit
- Pay all required fees. Since there was a violation fees were doubled.
- The Erosion Control Plan must be approved and the Grading Permit purchased.
- Installation of a sediment control device to capture and treat stormwater from the disturbance.
The application and plan were submitted on December 20, 1999. The fees were also paid on Dec. 20d'. The
Plan Review Fee totaled $353.00 and the Grading Permit Fee totaled $836.00. Doubled the total paid was.
$2,378.
The Erosion Control Plan approval letter was sent to Mr. Diehl on May 2, 2000.
An inspection was made on either Dec. 21" or 22d. A sediment trapping device had been installed below
the outlet of the culvert. The device consisted of series of stone filters.
An inspection of the site was made in early January 2000. Grass had come up. The quality of the
groundcover provided by the vegetation and mulch was fairly good.
Visited site on September 14, 2000 after receiving complaint of turbid runoff below site. It was obvious
that improvements to the groundcover and sediment trapping device were needed. Some sediment was
observed in the channel below the disturbed area.
A letter was sent to Mr. Diehl on September 15, 2000. In order to prevent additional soil loss and potential
off site sediment damage he was asked to: (1) install the sediment trap shown in the sediment control plan.
'34
(This device would be more effective than what had been installed previously.) and; (2) take steps to
improve the quality of groundcover for disturbed areas . This letter was not a Notice of Violation. A
deadline, October 2, 2000 was given to complete the two items mentioned above.
An inspection made on October 3, 2000 determined that neither improvements to the sediment trap nor
improvements to groundcover had been made. I phoned Mr. Diehl and told him that enforcement action
would be taken this week (Oct. 2-6) if improvements to the sediment trap and groundcover were not
improved. I received a call from Mr. Diehl's contractor who told me that he hoped to be at Mr. Diehl's
property within the next few days.
On October 4, 20001 was instructed to send Mr. Diehl a Notice of Violation. He was instructed that in
order to bring into compliance the following would need to be completed by October 13, 2000:
(1). Install the sediment trap as shown on the sediment control plan
,(2) Take steps to improve the quality of groundcover for disturbed areas at the site
Mr. Diehl was informed by the October 4, 2000 Notice of Violation letter that he would be liable for a fine
of $5000.00 a day for every day the site is in violation beginning Sept. 15, 2000 if the site was not brought
into compliance by October 13, 2000.
In accordance with G.S. IA-1, rule 4, Mr. Diehl was informed of the violation by means of Certified Mail.
A photocopy of the Postal Receipt for Certified Mail and the Return Receipt are included with the memo to
document that the Notice of Violation was received by Mr. Diehl. A copy of the sedimentation and erosion
control ordinance section for Notice of Violation and general statute section are included as well.
On the morning of October 5, 2000 I met with Ellie Allen, Mike Ellington Grading, at site to discuss work
needed to bring the site into compliance. Instead of installing the silt fence type sediment trap shown on
the erosion control plan, it was decided to use a conventional excavated sediment trap with stone filter and
silt fence baffles. Storm runoff from the disturbed slopes on the site would drain through this device. I
requested the installation of a diversion ditch for the purpose of directing runoff coming from the south side
of the disturbed area into the upper end of the basin where it would have to filter through the trap. Later in
the afternoon of October 5, 20001 revisited the site. Soil preparation was being done in advance of seeding
and improvements to the sediment trap were being made.
On October 6d', 20001 made two inspections of the site. By the second visit seeding and mulching work to
stabilize disturbed areas was almost complete. Some. improvements needed for the sediment trap remained
to be done.
October 9, 2000. Received two messages from the contractor. I met with Mr. Diehl and Ellie Allen, Mike
Ellington Grading, at the site. I asked for several minor adjustments to the sediment trap.. Disturbed areas
have been seeded and mulched.
35
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 8181 30r F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
?,nnrr out
o
' yti *s
u sx
a
+;?rl i:a1•???
a
EROSION CONTROL DIVISION
Cartbero & Chapel 11•ill 9684501 Durham 68&7331. Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031
Telephone Extension 2588 Fax (919) 64¢3002
October 4, 2000
Mr. Wally Diehl, DMV
100 Banks Drive
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Re: Sunrise Springs Subdivision
To the Person Conducting this Land-disturbing
The Purpose of this letter is to inform you that
County Sedimentation and Erosion Control 01
2, 2000 deadline for taking action to make iml
letter sent you on September 15*, 2000.
If this site is not brought into compliance by Friday
$5000.00 a day for every day the site is in violatiol'
were requested.
In order to get the site into compl
- Install the sediment trap as si
Take steps to improve the qu
in order to restrain erosion
Due to the controversial nature o
Sincerely,
w
reqei.io-Rosemond
n Control Officer
Cc: Ernie Dodson, Philip Post 5
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Item No. Z 169 681 035
PS Fnn„ ,3o,%-
P.- -• w ,1_--raw.
S E;~iOE
c1) • Complete items 7 and/or 2 for additional services.
w Complete items 3, and 4a & b,
Print your name and address an the reverse of this form so that we Can
IL
7 . turn this card to you,
Attach this to
does not permit. rm to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space
?n
• Write "Return it
delivered. eceipt Requested" on the mailplece below the article number
0 • the 9eturn Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
10 m 3• Article Addressed to:
v - 40- Service Type
? R istered
to f ?? • 13 Insured
Certified
? COD
a ? Express Mail ? Return RecejF
7. Data of Deliyery Merchandise
? r'd nlgnature (Addressee),S ,k/? 1 ,
°•ro
ish
w
o?? c
i °, t77
i a Lt
L
I also wish to recei
following services (for a
fee):
1 • ? Addressee's Ad
2, ? Restricted Delivl
36
Agents, officials, or other qualified persons authorized by the County will periodically inspect th+4tes
of land disWr-bimg aeti*ity land-disturbing activities to awe ensure: compliance with the Act, this
ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance;
is b
whether the measures required in the plan are
effective in controlling erosion and sediment resulting from land-disturbing activity.
Notice of the right to inspect shall be included in the letter of approval of each erosion control
Plan appr-avak
B6. Authority to Enter Property and Conduct Investigations and Inspections
No person shall willfully resi dela or obstruct an authorized re resentative em to ee or agent of
Orange County, while that dson is ins ectin or-attempting to inspect a land-disturbin activity under
this section. The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to conduct such investigations as he may
maseaably deem deemed reasonably necessary to carry out his the duties as prescribed in this Ordinance,
and for this purpose to enter at reasonable times upon any property, public. or private, for the purpose of
investigating and inspecting the sites of any land-disturbing activities. No person shall refuse entry or
access to any authorized representative or agent of the county who request entry for purposes of
inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person obstruct, hamper or interfere
with any such representative while in the process of carrying out 16 their official duties.
E .. Notice of Violation
If, thr-eHsh , it is determined that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to
comply with the Act, this Ordinance, or rules, or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this Ordinance, eF
a notice of violation shall be served upon that person. The
notice may be served b an means authorized under G.S. IA-I rule 4.
a' . The notice shall
specify a date b which the erson must com I with the Ac or this Ordinance or rules or orders
ado ted ursuant to this Ordinance and inform the erson of the actions that need to be taken to comp]
with the Act this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted pursuant t this Ordinance. set fefth the measur-es
. However, no time period for
compliance need be given for failure to submit an erosion control plan for approval or for obstructing,
hampering or interfering with an authorized representative while in the process of carrying out their
official duties. An erson who fails to comply within the timespecified is subject to the civil and
criminal penalties rovided in this Ordinance. if d° - per-sea b°b land ` i fbi g ""'twit" fail .
Commentary: The following 3 subsections in this Section will be relettered to account for the
added subsection.
Section 22 Penalties
A. Civil Penalties
1. Assessment of Penalties
Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance or rules or orders adopted or
issued pursuant to this Ordinance, or who initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for
M-1, Rule 4 ? §1A-1, Rule 4 RULES of CML PROCEDURE §1A-1, Rule 4
specified in para- you are required to make defense to such pleading not later than
19 ) and upon your failure to do so the
mot otherwise be party seek-
:nce be served by ing service against you will apply to the court for the relief sought.
may be served by the y o '
on in rem or quasi 7151 (Attorney) (Party)
(Address)
ess by publication (j2) Proof of service. -- Proof of service of process . shall be as
pro rocess by publics- follows:
newspaper that is (1) Personal Service. - Before judgment by default may be
th G.S. 1-597 and had on personal service, proof of service must be provided
arty to be served is in accordance with the requirements of G.S. 1-75.10(1).
;here is no reliable , (2) Registered or Certified Mail. -- Before judgment by default
then in a newspa- may be had on service by registered or certified mail, the
is pending. If the serving party shall file an affidavit with the court showing
h reasonable dill- proof of such service in accordance with the requirements
: party at or imme- of G.S. 1-75.10(4). This affidavit together with the return
notice of service of receipt signed by' the person who received the mail if not
tted if the post-of- the addressee raises a presumption that the person who
de diligence. Upon received the mail and signed the receipt was an agent of
with the court an the addressee authorized by appointment or by law to be
n accordance with served or to accept service of process or was a person of
tances warranting suitable age and discretion residing in the addressee's
i, if any, regarding dwelling house or usual place of abode. In the event the
presumption described in the preceding sentence is rebut-
shall M designate ted by proof that the person who received the receipt at the
sed and the title of addressee's dwelling house or usual place of abode was not
fitly by the name of a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein,
be directed to the the statute of limitation may not be pleaded as a defense if
.r that a pleading the action was initially commenced within the period of
Ls been filed or has limitation and service of process is completed within 60
a date specified in days from the date the service is declared invalid. Service
ing sought; (v) re- shall be complete on the day the summons and complaint
ease to such plead- are delivered to the address.
iotice, exclusive of (3) Publication. - Before judgment by default may be had on
of the first publica- service. by publication, the serving party shall file.an affi-
•equired to be filed, davit with the court showing the circumstances warrant-
upon his failure to ing the use of service by publication, information, if any,
)lication will apply regarding the location of the party served which was used
f attachment, state in determining the area in which service by publication
e subscribed by the was printed and proof of service in accordance with G.S.
the post-office ad- 1-75.10(2).
substantially in the (j3) Service in a foreign country. - Where service is to be of
fected upon a party in a foreign country, in the alternative service
of the summons and complaint may be made W in the manner
prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that
PUBLICATION country in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction; or
COUNTY (ii) as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter roga-
tory, when service in either case is reasonably calculated to give
actual notice; or (iii) upon an individual, by delivery to him person-
ally, and'u on a corporation or partnership or association, by deliv-
son to be served]: ery to an officer or a managing or general agent; or (iv) by any form
iinst you (has been of mail, requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched
19 ) in by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or (v) as directed
The nature of the by order of the court. Service under (iii) or (v) may be made by any
person authorized by section (a) of this rule or who is designated by
order of the court or by the foreign court. On request, the clerk shall
17
9-15-2000 letter to Mr.
Diehl requesting
compliance
10-2-2000 Deadline for
Compliance
Notice of Violation
Letter 10-4-2000 sent by
Certified Mail
10-13-2000
Deadline for
compliance with
' NOV
9 Days
Liable for $5000.00
fine for every day
site has been in violation
if site is not brought into
by deadline given by NOV
38
Nov 20 00 06:00p Philip Post & Associates 919 493 6548
39
PHILIP
FAX: 644-3(X)2
POST
?r
ASSOCIATES
MEMORANDUM
To: Eddie Kirk- Orange County Planning Department
From: Phil Post- Pnst and Associates, Inc.
Subject: Sunrise Springs Subdivision
Date: November 20, 2(X)O
Inasmuch as 18 feet of paving would be necessary in a 50-foot Class "A" private roadway, and
likewise 1$ feet of paving would be necessary in a 50-Foot public roadway, it is my professional
judgctnent as an engineer that there will be no substantial difference in the amount of grading
and clearing required for the two types of roadways.
Therefore, since the County Planning Staff had requested that this project provide a public
roadway for this subdivision, it is my opinion that there will be no substantial extra clearing or
extra disturbance required for the public road, which has been required by the County Staff.
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SURVEYORS
401 Providence Road
P.O, Box 2134
Chapel Hill, NO 27514-2134
(919) 920 1173
,A. n% I-- ----
EX Y!4
40
SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
Revised submission to the
orange County Planning Department
November 17, 2000
Prepared by:
ALEXANDER & MILLER, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
1526 East Franklin Street, Suite 202
P. O. Box 3200
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3200
(919) 9291984
I
1
1
1
?
I
1
1
1
?
I
1
I
?
I
I
1
I
1
?
1
I
I
I
CONTENTS
Topic: Pages
Lot Size 1
Noise from I-40 Corridor 1-2, 7
Entranceway, Sound Barriers, Berms, and 2-7, 14
Additional Plantings
Possible Stream and Related Water Runoff 7
Proposed Septic Systems 8
Grading History and Erosion Control Measures 8-10, 11
Future Clearing, Protection of Existing Trees, 11-14
Restrictive Covenants and Homeowners' Association
Potential Confusion Regarding Status of 14-15
Subdivision Approval
Exhibits
A. Affidavit and resume of Dr. Noral D.. Stewart
B. Topographical maps
C. Letter from Mark O'Neal of Pickett/Sprouse Realty
41
TABLE OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Fig. 1: ' From entrance to proposed development
looking south-southeast
Fig. 2: Planted berm adjoining entrance to
property
Fig. 3: View of the southern boundary of the
property adjoining 1-40
Fig. 4: View of berm with plantings to serve as
sound barrier along southern boundary
Fig. 5: Berm created as sound barrier with
Leland cypress
Fig. 6: Berm along southern boundary of Lot 1
near 1-40 border
Fig. 7: Berm along 1--40 on Lot 1
Fig. 8: source of occasional spring
Fig. 9: Erosion control along roadway
Fig. 10: Additional view of erosion control
Fig. 11: 'Erosion control for silt and runoff
Fig. 12: Erosion control to stabilize roadway
Fig. 13: Broader view of erosion control efforts
Fig. 14: view of proposed road and cul-de-sac
Fig. 15: View of cul-de-sac with Lots 4, 5 and 6
Fig. 16: View of tree protection along Lot 5
Fig. 17: Tree barrier along boundary with Lot 7
Fig. 18: Tree barrier -- Lot 7 boundary with
neighbors to the northeast
Fig. 19: Original advertising sign
Fig. 20: Advertising sign as modified
s
a-a
Page
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
15
15
ALEXANDER & MILLER, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1526 EAST FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 202
POST OFFICE BOX 3200
SYDENNAM B. ALEXANDER, JR. CHAPEL Hna, Nonna CAROLINA 27515-3200 DONALD A. WILLIAMS
OF COUNSEL
$7EPNEN B. MILLER (919) 929-1984
FAX (919) 929-1990
E-MAIL: ALEXMILLERLAWBMINDSPRIMG.COM
VIA BAND DELIVERY
November 17, 2000
Mr. Craig Benedict
1 Director
orange County Planning Department
306F Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Sunrise Springs Subdivision
I Dear Mr. Benedict:
I write to submit additional material for the consideration of
your planning staff and the County Commissioners as they review the
pending application for the approval of the Sunrise Springs
subdivision. Since the hearing before the County Commissioners, we
have attempted to address a number of the concerns raised by your
staff, the neighbors and the Commissioners themselves. A meeting.
was held with your staff on the property to review the clearing,
erosion control measures, proposed plantings of trees, and noise
abatement issues, among other items. Dr. Diehl, Mr. Philip Post
and I have conferred further, and are now providing for your
consideration a revised application, along with the enclosed
additional material, for your consideration.
Lgt_Siz_e. At the outset, let me note that the subdivision has
1 -been modified to-include all nine lots. Dr. Diehl Is personal lot,
1 -which is the largest of the nine lots, will be encumbered by
appropriate restrictive covenants and included in the homeowners'
1 association. This reconstitution of the subdivision results in an
increase in the average lot size from 2.145 acres to 2.407 acres.
1 Noise from 1-40 Corridor. A significant concern expressed by
1 the neighbors has to do with the issue of noise abatement. Let me
note here that the applicable zoning ordinance speaks to the
concerns of a development "generating" noise. Nowhere, to my
knowledge, is there set forth any affirmative obligation for a
M developer to abate noise originating elsewhere. Nonetheless, in an
effort to further address these concerns, Dr. Diehl has retained
the services of Dr. Noral Stewart of Stewart Acoustical
r
41
44
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 2
Consultants. I have attached as Exhibit A to this material the
two-page affidavit of Dr. Stewart, along with three pages of
documents setting forth his credentials.
As Dr. Stewart indicates, the primary source of. the sound from
interstate 40 comes from two separate and distinct directions. one
path for sound transmission is found to the south--southeast of the
property. I have attached below a photograph taken from the
entrance to the proposed development looking to the south-southeast
(Fig. 1). As you will note, there is a clear and distinct path
directly to 1--40. The property in question is not owned by Dr.
Diehl, and he does not have any ability to construct any sort of
sound-deflecting foliage or berms. Dr. Stewart's report further
indicates that the sound originating from this area does not cross
or affect the homes to the northeast of the development. Dr.
Stewart has also examined, on a broader level, the overall sound
transmission for this neighborhood. In doing so, he obtained
topographic maps covering a distance of some 4,000 feet in either
direction of the proposed subdivision along the I-40 corridor. I
have attached copies of those maps to this submission as Exhibit B.
It is apparent that the majority of the sound stems from a region
to the west of this subdivision, and that there is absolutely
nothing within the boundaries of this subdivision that can be done
to affect the transmission of the sound from the source of the I-40
corridor.
Entranceway, Sound Barriers, Berms, and Additional Plantings.
There will be one entrance to the subdivision off of Sunrise Drive,
constructed to State specifications. I note here that the
requirements for a public and a ,private road are identical, in that
a 50-foot-wide easement is required for either type' of roadway.
The cutting of this roadway will in no way affect the transmission.
of the sound from this portion of I--40. As reflected on the
revised plans submitted by Mr. Philip Post, my client will be
adding plantings along both sides of the entrance to the proposed
subdivision (see Sheet C-5, Planting Zones B-1 and B-4). In fact,
the two berms have already been constructed and Leland Cypress are
in place along the tops of both (see Fig. 2).
4`.
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 3
Fig. 2: Planted berm adjoining entrance to property
Fig. 1: From entrance to proposed development looking south-
southeast
46
Mr. Craig Benedict
November. 17, 2000
Page 4
Directly south of the proposed subdivision is the interchange
with I-40. A photograph taken from the bridge crossing I-40 facing.
north into the boundary of the subdivision depicts clearly the
substantially dense foliage presently in place (Fig. 3). In a
further effort to provide buffer coverage, Dr. Diehl has agreed to
add plantings of loblolly pines and Eastern red cedar along this
boundary (see Landscape and Buffer Planting Plan, page C-5). The
buffer area on the southern boundary of the tract adjacent to 1-40
will remain heavily treed. Moreover, Dr. Diehl has caused to be
constructed a significant berm adjacent to the I-40 boundary, and
has caused Leland cypress to be planted throughout the length of
the berm. These trees, in the normal course, should grow to a
height of 20 to 25 feet. (See Figs.. 4, 5, 6 and 7 below.)
Fig. 3: view of the southern boundary of the property adjoining
I--40
4'
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 5
Fig. 4: View of berm with plantings to serve as sound barrier
along southern boundary
Fig. 5: Berm created as sound barrier with Leland cypress
48
Mr. crai.g Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 6
Fig. 6: Berm along southern boundary of Lot 1 near I-40 border
Fig. 7: Berm along I-40 on Lot I
I
49
I Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
' Page 7
As Dr. Stewart's report indicates, this subdivision, in and of
itself, will not have any consequential effect on the transmission
of sound from I-40. Dr. Diehl desires to provide the additional
' coverage in plantings by way of a further screening effect, and
through the variety of the plantings used, to enhance an
appropriate atmosphere for this entire neighborhood. Ultimately,
according to Dr. Stewart, the significant sound coming from the I-
40 corridor is transmitted along the southwestern boundary, where
the terrain is such that the highway is actually higher than the
I subject property and that of the neighbors to the northeast. There
is simply nothing within the parameters of this subdivision that
would affect, either adversely or favorably, the volume of sound
' from the highway.
i
Possible Stream and Related Water Run-off. It is my
I understanding that, according to the applicable maps, as well as
I County definitions, the property does not contain a perpetual
stream. At best, a spring may be found which, on an intermittent
I basis, provides for some water flow through the subject property.
Figure 8 depicts the location of the supposed spring in question.
This photo was taken during the recent dry season, and, as is
I obvious, there was no water flowing at that time. Nonetheless,
I provisions have been made in the revised plan for a 30-foot-wide
drainage easement suitable for any off-flow that might be generated
I by this spring. In addition, there will be no clearing or grading
through this 30-foot storm drainage easement in order to protect
the natural conditions and ensure that there will be no increase in
' runoff, either from the impact of the development or the natural
spring as it may from time to time exist.
Fig. 8: source of occasional spring
50
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 8
Proposed Septic Systems., it is my understanding that concerns
have been raised regarding some of the proposed septic systems.
The Health Department has carefully reviewed and approved the
proposed septic system for each lot. The shallow trench system is
a well-recognized system which is used routinely. By adding Dr.
Diehl's lot to the formal subdivision and the homeowners,
association, the, revised plats clearly identify the area set aside
for the septic system easement (see page C--2 of the revised plans) .
It will be necessary to pump across the storm drainage easement,
but once again the engineering for such a project. is absolutely
routine and has received the approval of the Health Department.
Grading History-and Erosion Control Measures. Concerns have
been expressed about the history of the clearing of the roadway for
this development. Dr. Diehl, has already paid double the required
filing fee as a penalty for an earlier lapse by his grading
contractor regarding the erosion control measures. Erosion control
measures were in place, but they were insufficient to handle the
unusually heavy rains experienced earlier this year - rains which
caused extensive damage elsewhere in Chapel Hill. When it was
discovered that the erosion control measures had failed, the
contractor took immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies. Dr.
Diehl personally met on the property with County officials. The
erosion control measures have been carefully inspected, and I have
been assured that the development is now in full compliance with
all County regulations, and that all actual and potential fines or
costs have been assessed and paid. Indeed, the erosion control
measures presently in place on this property exceed the standard
required by the County. I invite you to review photographs labeled
Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12 and-13 depicting the particulars.
Fig. 9: Erosion control along roadway
M
r
r
•
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
r
L
6
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 9
v. • t',
?zt
40
Fig. 11: Erosion control for silt and runoff
51
52
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 10
.. - . .? tea„'. ?? I. .? y°• ti• ?1 ? _
-• - - . ? ?? ? ... ... •?• _°?.r iY'?^: r'? .ice ?? i :?+, -
Fig. 12: Erosion control to stabilize roadway
0
Fig. 13: Broader view of erosion control efforts
5-
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 11
Future Clearing, -Protection of Xxist:Lng Trees, and--Restrictive
Covenants. Questions have been raised regarding the extent of
future clearing as houses are built in this subdivision. I think
it is very important to note initially that this tract of land has
substantial tree coverage remaining from the clearing that has
already been done, and stringent measures have been put in place to
ensure that, to the extent possible, maximum tree foliage remains.
Indeed, it only makes sense from the point of view of the
prospective homeowners that they retain their extraordinarily
beautiful homesites in the natural settings presently available.
I have included photographs taken recently which show the rough
grading of the present cul-de-sac. The first photograph (Fig. 14),
looking down into the cul-de-sac, includes a view of the road as it
has been stabilized with suitable erosion control devices. The.
photograph labeled Figure 15 clearly shows lot signs at the end of
the cul-de-sac with the thick tree coverage. Figure 16 is a view
to the northwest depicting the entrance to Lot 5, and the Figures
17 and 18 depict the thick tree barriers along Lot 7, which borders
the neighbors to the northeast.
Fig. 14: View of proposed road and cul-de-sac
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17,.2000
Page 12
Fig. 15: View of cul-de-sac with Lots 4, 5 and 6
54
Fig. 16: View of tree protection along Lot 5
rs." .?? ,vr.?-?.. ._.??a?=r??._.?_?::e?..a.ir+: Js?^ ? . f.+.?r:.: ?• • ..r.r,:,,ti ?Y ?., ?- . .. _ ?.
5!
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 13
Fig. 18: Tree barrier - Lot 7 boundary with neighbors to the
northeast
Fig. 17: Tree barrier along boundary with Lot 7
56
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 14
Tree Protection: Restrictive Covenants. In the revised plans
we have submitted for your consideration, areas have been
designated protecting the natural state of the tree coverage on
this property. (See Sheet C-5, in which the boundaries for each
and every lot have a highly restrictive buffer delineating the area
for primary tree protection.) Furthermore, the balance of each lot
has been encumbered with an area described as a secondary tree
protection area. This entire subdivision will be encumbered with
restrictive covenants which clearly spell out limitations on the
clearing of the natural vegetation. No clear-cutting will be
allowed on any lot except as may be minimally necessary for the
construction of the residence, any required out-buildings,
driveway, yard, garden, play area, or as.may be required by good
horticultural or forest management practices. To the extent
practical, clearing for all other areas shall not exceed an area
that would substantially affect the surrounding community, the
privacy of neighboring lots, or the likelihood of erosion. The
homeowners' association will have. an architectural review and
design committee which will be required to pass on.a proposed
landscaping plan prior to the construction of any residence and
pursuant to the restrictive covenants will have authority to
enforce these restrictions.
Additional Plantings. Finally, as an additional measure, Dr.
Diehl, in consultation with the staff of the Orange County Planning
Department, has agreed to provide additional plantings in six
specified areas along the interior of the subdivision. In each of
these planting zones, trees will be added to replace those removed
during the necessary clearing. The trees will include dogwoods and
redbuds, as specified on Sheet C-5 of the revised.plans. Please
note that that sheet depicts specific quantities and types of each
species to be added, along with planting sizes and heights.
Specifications further include the plantings of the loblolly pines,
Eastern red cedars and Leland cypress along the southern border
with I-40 and the southeastern border with Sunrise Road.
Potential Confusion Regarding Status of Subdivision A roval.
It has been suggested that there may be some confusion about the
status of the approval of this subdivision. I believe it is clear
in the minds of most people from the extensive media coverage that
this subdivision has not received the approval of the County
Commissioners. I have conferred with the marketing agents at
Pickett/Sprouse Realty and have been assured that in each and every
instance it has been accurately disclosed to potential buyers that
the developer is still in the process of seeking formal approval of
the subdivision from the County Commissioners, and that no
contracts can be accepted as final until such approval has been
received. In an abundance of caution, they have modified the
original sign advertising these lots for sale to indicate that the
approval of the County commissioners is in fact only pending.
Figure 19 shows the original sign and Figure 20 the current sign.
i
i
i
i
i
1
?
I
i
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
?
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 15.
Pickett/Sprouse regarding the marketing of this property.
57
Fig. 19: original advertising sign
Fig. 20: Advertising sign as modified
r
58
Mr. Craig Benedict
November 17, 2000
Page 16
I trust the information I have enclosed herein is of some
assistance in further evaluating this proposed subdivision. I have
attempted to address each and every one of the concerns raised by
the neighbors, your staff, and the County Commissioners. Should
you have any questions or desire further information or
clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look
forward to continuing to work with your staff. Thank you for your
gracious help to date.
sincerely yours,
ALEXANDER & MILLER, L.L.P.
f
Sydenham B. Alexanfler, Jr
SBA:jb
Enclosures
cc (via hand delivery): Dr. Wallace J. Diehl
Mr. Philip Post
Mr. Mark O'Neal
File .1 1939.000
t _ r
Exh?bw+ A
Stewart acoustical Consultants
Post Office Box 30461 919-781-8824
Raleigh, NC 27622
November 3, 2000
Mr. Craig Benedict
Director
Orange County Planning Department
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
RE: Sunrise Springs Development
Dear Mr. Benedict:
As I believe you are aware, I have been retained by Dr. Wally Diehl to address concerns raised by
various neighbors regarding the noise impact of the proposed Sunrise Springs development. At Dr.
Diehl's request, I visited the site and measured sound levels at various locations on the Sunrise
Springs property and other locations nearby.. I also have obtained and studied topographic maps of
the area. I have paid particular attention to the noise impact on the lots northeast of the proposed
development.
It is my understanding that this Sunrise Springs subdivision will consist of nine residential lots. I am
aware of the proposed landscaping provisions for the subdivision. It is my professional opinion that
the subdivision will not generate any significant noise. All homes generate some sound. However,
the general noise in the area due to residential activities decreases with increasing lot size. Since the
lots in the proposed development are much larger than those to the northeast, the sound levels due
to community activity should be less than existing levels in the existing community to the northeast.
I know of the concerns raised regarding the noise generated by the I40 corridor and have
investigated them. It is my professional opinion that the development as planned will not result in any
significant increased noise coming from the I-40 corridor either to the development itself or to the
.adjoining neighbors.
My initial visit and investigation revealed a very high hill and ridge on the Sunrise Springs property
rising about 40 feet above the roadway of I40. This strongly reduced the noise coming from the
highway due south of the property during my visit. Further analysis revealed this ridge is so high that
it would block sound along that path even during periods when wind or temperature inversions would
be curving sound over lower barriers. The small changes to the surface landscape would produce
insignificant changes in the noise coming over the ridge, even if all the sound reaching areas beyond
came over the ridge. However, other paths of sound transmission are more significant to the
northeastern community.
1-
6 C
Mr. Benedict Page 2 November 3, 2000
In a further effort to understand the situation, I obtained topographic maps of the area about 4000
feet by 4000 feet centered on the subdivision. This identified two dominant paths of sound
transmission from I-40 to the community northeast of the Sunrise Springs property. One is through
a low area from the south-southeast and southeast. For most of the homes northeast of Sunrise
Springs, this path does not even cross the Sunrise Springs property. Where it does for a few homes,
it is only a very small distance over an area that is not to be disturbed. The other path is from the
southwest over the Sunrise Springs property to the westernmost lots ofthe northeastern community.
However, this path is from an area where the highway is higher than both the community to the
northeast and the intervening Sunrise Springs property. The highest ridge in the path is near the
boundary ' between the neighboring lots and Sunrise Springs, in an area that will be undisturbed.
I trust this information will help your department and the county commissioners in evaluating the
appropriateness of this development. I am available and willing to provide answers to any questions
anyone may have, or to provide any other testimony that may be of assistance in this process.
Attached to this letter are a copy of my current resume and three additional pages about my company
and services so that you may be informed about my background and experience. Finally, at the
suggestion of Mr. Sydenham B. Alexander, Jr., the attorney for Dr. Diehl, I am submitting this
statement as a notarized affidavit so it may be properly considered part of the formal record before
the county commissioners in lieu of any live testimony.
Sincerely yours,
Sworn to aid subscribed before me,
this the3 day of November, 2000..
Notary Public
My commission expires: Z Z 1
cc: Dr. Wallace Diehl
Mr. Phil Post
Mr. Mark O'Neill
Mr. Sydenham B. Alexander, Jr.
STEWART ACOUST ONSULTANTS
Nora] D. Stewart, Ph.D.
- Vi
1k a Ra..s t
?,?•. A11800 spa
?''•r G'!DUN .?'
pn«nnn11<<;
Stewart acoustical Consultants
Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com
Raleigh, NC 27622 919-781-8824
Noral D. Stewart
Education: BSME (with honors) - 1969, MSME - 1974, PhD - 1981
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering,
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
Graduate specialization in acoustics and noise control,
Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi, Pi Tau Sigma
Technical, President - National Council of Acoustical Consultants - 2000-2002
Standards, President Elect -1998-2000
Vice-President - 1996-1998
Board of Directors - 94-96
& Member- Acoustical Society of America
Member - Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics - 96-02
Member - Technical Committee on Noise - 95-01
Professional North Carolina Chapter Chair 79-80, Sec-Treas 77-79, 83-91, Treas 91-96
Activities: Member - American Society for Testing and Materials, Comm. E33
Chairman - Task Group for sound isolation measurement, ASTM E336
Chairman - Task Group for environmental noise criteria guide, E1686
Member - Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Co-Chairman - 1981 National Conference, NOISE-CON81,
Papers review for Noise Control Engineering Journal
Member - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Papers review for various technical divisions
Member - Aircraft Noise Subcommittee, Transportation Research Board
Experience:
Consulting activities have covered the broad spectrum of problems involved in architectural acoustics,
community and environmental noise, and industrial noise control. Dr. Stewart is a native of North
Carolina familiar with the unique environment, industries and building practices of the region. He has
assisted architects and engineers in the design of award-winning buildings and has helped owners
correct problems in existing buildings. He is a leading noise control consultant to the textile industry.
`Dr. Stewart was the principal noise control expert for the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus
Conference on Noise and Hearing Loss. He has advised local governments on noise control
.ordinances and the resolution of noise problems. In 1985, he taught a national community noise
teleconference course for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Dr. Stewart has served
as an expert witness in Federal District Court, North Carolina District and Superior Courts, South
Carolina Administrative Law Court, and before arbitration proceedings.
A strong participation in technical society activities includes membership in the Acoustical Society of
America for over 30 years. He has served continuously on the local chapter executive committee since
1977. Dr. Stewart has participated strongly in the development of ASTM standards for architectural
acoustics and community noise evaluation. He has a record of over 50 publications, seminars, and
presentations to technical societies. He is currently serving as President of.the National Council of
Acoustical Consultants.
61
7 -
52
Stewart acoustical Consultants
Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com
Raleigh, NC 27622 919-781-8824
WHAT IS AN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT?
After Wallace Clement Sabine discovered the principles of modern architectural acoustics around
1900, he was sought for his advice on the design of new buildings and the solution of problems
in existing buildings. Fifty years later, the challenge of acoustical design for a new United
Nations headquarters brought the formation of a firm that became a model for the modern
acoustical consulting firm. Today, approximately 1400 individual members of the Acoustical
Society of America indicate a primary interest in architectural acoustics or noise. About half are
regularly available as consultants. Many of those involved in noise control are also members of
the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Most qualified consultants work for one of the
approximately 130 member firms of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants.
Acoustical consultants use a combination of scientific theory, experimental data, experience, and
judgment to analyze new problems and provide advice. Sometimes answers to common problems
can be immediate. However, most of the problems we face require measurements or mathematical
analysis or both. The diverse backgrounds, specialties, and services among consultants can make
it hard to find the best consultant for some projects. Acoustical consultants should be selected
based on a careful comparison of their qualifications and services with the needs of the project.
The work of most acoustical consultants is properly limited to questions related to acoustics.
Acoustical consultants are not usually fully knowledgeable of requirements in building codes and
other technical matters. Other professionals should be involved in projects as appropriate and
necessary.
WHY STEWART ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS?
The primary goal of this firm is to meet the needs for quality services in architectural acoustics,
occupational noise, and environmental noise among our clients primarily in the Carolinas and
southern Virginia. We concentrate full-time in acoustics and noise control. We are especially
knowledgeable of people, environment, traditional industries and building practices of this region.
We believe this knowledge of the region and our location near our clients is a major advantage.
We maintain advanced instruments for the measurement and analysis of 'sound. Our active
participation in technical, professional, and standards organizations provides contacts and current
technical knowledge of developments in our field.
While we specialize in acoustics and noise control, we are general practitioners serving the
primary' needs of the region. We. do encounter some projects requiring specialists or that are too
large for us to handle within schedule constraints. If appropriate, we can subcontract specialists
or other firms to assist with projects. If a project should be under the direction of a specialist, we
can refer you. to appropriate firms and people.
We also strive to control costs for our clients by doing and charging for only the work requested.
While we welcome and need larger jobs as our primary revenue source, we accept much-smaller
jobs than many acoustical consulting firms to serve the regional needs.
r .
Stewart acoustical Consultants 63
Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com
Raleigh, NC 27622 919-781-8824
Stewart Acoustical Consultants was founded in 1979 to provide, experienced, independent,
professional consulting services exclusively in acoustics and noise control. We investigate,
analyze, and provide advice on new projects and existing problems in buildings, workplaces, and
the outdoor environment. Clients include architects, engineers, industry, property owners,
schools, churches, attorneys, and government agencies. The president and principal consultant,
Dr. Noral D. Stewart, is an internationally recognized leader involved in the study and practice
of acoustics since 1967 and consulting full time since 1981. Mr. Joe Bridger has been with the
firm since 1993 and provides strong support in architectural acoustics and field measurement. The
firm offers a combination of training, experience, leadership, and instruments for sound
measurement and analysis that is unmatched in our primary service area.
ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS
Architectural acoustics involves assuring that the acoustical environments in buildings are suitable
for the use of the space. This includes room acoustics appropriate for speech, music, or control
of noise as appropriate, speech clarity or privacy as appropriate, sound isolation, mechanical
systems noise control, and sound systems. Demanding projects such as the music facilities at
Virginia Tech demonstrate our ability to produce world-class results on the most challenging
projects. We believe it is in our client's best interest to investigate all potential problems in a
building fully. A room with excellent room acoustics can be unusable if there is noise from an
adjacent room, a noisy mechanical system, or a poorly designed sound system. However, we can
and will work on only a limited part of a new design project in some cases. We also assist owners
of existing buildings who have problems. We do not seek work solely involving the design of
sound systems. When a sound system is required as part of a larger project, we recommend or
use the services of other independent consultants specialized in audio system design.
OCCUPATIONAL NOISE CONTROL
Most workplace noise control is aimed at reducing the risk of hearing damage through reduced
noise exposure. We assist industrial engineers to identify and develop controls to meet OSHA
requirements for reducing noise and noise exposure. Some employers without such problems
strive to create a better atmosphere with easier communication. Our roots are in occupational
-noise control. Our experience in some traditional industries of the Carolinas and Virginia far
exceeds that of any other consultant. We can help clients develop and implement a cost-effective
noise control program for their particular situation. We concentrate on noise control. We do not
offer audiometric services or other hearing conservation services.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
We are especially well equipped and experienced for evaluating and solving community noise
problems in our primary service area. An initial site evaluation can identify problems from
existing noise impacting planned usage or difficulty of quieting planned operations. A full
evaluation of existing situations requires a visit and measurements. Noise controls can be
developed in the design of new facilities.
Member Firm - National Council of Acoustical Consultants
U & ,
64
Stewart acoustical Consultants
Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com
Raleigh, NC 27622 919-781-8824
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY INSTITUTIONS & SCHOOLS '
Aetna Insurance Company American Industrial Hygiene Assoc.
AT&T Cape Fear Medical Center
Blount, Inc. Carteret County Schools
Bristol Myers Products Co. Christ Episcopal Church
Burlington Industries, Inc. Congregational United Church of Christ
Carolina Power & Light Company Duke University Medical Center
Corn Products Company Galatia Presbyterian Church
Crosland Land Company Highland Presbyterian Church
Eveready Battery Company Louisburg College
Exide Electronics, Inc. Meredith College
Federal Paper Board Company North Carolina Baptist Hospital
General Electric Company North Carolina State University
Guilford Mills, Inc. University of North Carolina
Highwoods Properties Wake County Schools
Hoechst Celanese Wake Forest University
ICI Americas, Inc.
Ingersoll Rand Company ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
International Paper Company Applegate Architects
ITT Telecom, Inc. (Alcatel) Arcadis Geraghty & Miller
Kobe Copper Products Balzer & Associates
Merck Phamaceuticals Bass Nixon and Kennedy
North Hills, Inc. Cherry Huffman. Architects
Nortel Corley Redfoot Zack
Norfolk International Terminals Dewberry & Davis
Parkdale Mills, Inc. Edwards Carrington Associates
Perdue Farms, Inc. Hager Smith Design
Philip Morris USA Innovative Design
Pulaski County Speedway Lehmann Mahler Hirst Thornton Associates
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Motley + Associates
Sara Lee Corporation O'Brien/Atkins Associates
Summit Hospitality Odell Associates, Inc.
,Virginia Fiberglass Products, Inc. O'Neal Engineering
Weyerhaeuser Perkins and Will
Winston Hotels Rife and Wood Architects
Shriver and Holland Associates
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Small Kane Architects
City of Raleigh The Roberts Group
City of Virginia Beach The Smith Sinnett Associates
Durham County Walter Robbs Callahan & Pierce
Harnett County Public Utilities
Lee County LAW FIRMS
Mecklenburg County Engineering Beaver Thompson Holt & Richardson
N. C. Dept. Envir. Health & Nat.Res. Constangy Brooks and Smith
14. C. National Guard Fuller Becton Slifkin & Bell
Wake County Maupin Taylor & Ellis
Weinstein & Sturges
t . ?xrt c? rr ?. .
O
G
•
L&O
0
?G+•.arN
Grq
A
Aii?
65
77
.r--r, ..r' .: .- , -_ •? -?•?r-. .• ",.-'rte- •`'.''"?.
U ?? _Y? Mw?+w?+.? 'raw ?r•? ? ...
????1 ?1I?V ¦ V 1 _ 4*41iRim w»is i!
mob..1
--- --? . •r..• nr.,.ti?WV[r??.¦1VnR1?Lli?1.Tf?4C`.?( //
_, .
sroe Xmo? '
. ?! ?O j M ..
or++q. ca.nr. eam? ? ? a^Nv?CO.ry.?i?l?l,.
aMS rift. U"m d Yw MEL wM1 MR?1? 010116
°a°?'w?,rrx'n. wl:san.wl? Z C0?1/7bJ1[j
it
l
r,.. •. ..=
.
: «_ ?`_•
• te . r.
-
a
El
I Ir_
o
L
XY%v
i
- .... _ r ., I I I1! i 1 top- INN AtI%U4tm(%L\W/.I/II//Al/)ll@?ff
The trap emism" owcft
r?..? Orange Counp, and k Canoed ftwo needed dead MM MW GOW of _
e.,..r aea?es 400413m. Useis d era ?P ?. never reel fIr - - -PAthe n?ard
ea f-?Ar op O?y IleWMIJon Sop= ihau cwmdd fe, ?Yaed
4w wrw i/OnwY?W1 cmimod OR wa NMO. TM ? oft N{ llgmn? CCh wmm anwm
no level resp -4dAy for ow fwderT~ "mos0 at Cor snew
L AI+r
E. JUDSON PICKETT, MAI
ROBERT M. SPROUSE, MAI
JOHN KEPLEY
W. VERNON ON AV
AVERETT, CCIM
Pickett/Sprouse T.
JERRY L. GAMBILL. MAI
E. MICOL
. O'NEA
Real Estate, Inc. MARK N N MARK
NEAL, CCIM
3805-A University Drive • Post Office Box 52118 • Durham, North Carolina 27717 • Telephone (919) 493-0395 Fax No. (519) 493-1523
October 31, 2000
RE: Sunrise Springs - Impact on Neighborhood Values
To Whom it May Concern:
Sunrise Springs will be a neighborhood designed for homes with a minimum of
2,500 square feet of heated space and must pass an architectural review process
for design and quality. The owner/developer intends to build and live in Sunrise
Springs, thus monitoring the details of the neighborhood as it develops.
In general, this attention to quality will enhance the value of the neighborhood.
Development of this tract eliminates the uncertainty associated with vacant land
and does so in a way that is consistent with the development pattern of the
neighborhood. Quality and certainty will boost the overall neighborhood value.
Since el .
Mar N. O'Neal
MNO/lcmc
1 1, 1
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 68
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
e,„n1r a? ?
+
u?
e
?'<<h ?nso?`°
306F Revere'Road
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director
FROM: Eddie Kirk, Planner II
DATE:. January 26, 2001
SUBJECT: Control Access along I-40 and SR 1732 (Sunrise Road)
I have received the above referenced information from NCDOT regarding the right-of-way and
controlled access along Sunrise Road from I-40. As indicated, controlled access extends north
on the west side of Sunrise Road from the intersection with the I-40 right-of-way for 149.90 feet.
On the east side of Sunrise Road controlled access extends north for approximately 170 feet from
the I-40 right-of-way.
The entrance road to Sunrise Springs subdivision begins approximately 300 feet from the I-40
right-of-way on the, west side of Sunrise Road. This is approximately 150 feet north of where
controlled access ends.
The I-40 right-of-way is indicated by dashed lines on the attached plan and requires a 100-foot
Type F buffer. The right-of-way for Sunrise Road is indicated by circles and requires a 30-foot
Type A buffer.
It w
?r?yd
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Eddie Kirk
From: Derek Dixon, Assistant District Engineer, Graha-
Date: January 12, 2001
Subject: Right-Of-Way along 1-40 and SR-1732 (Sunrise Rd)
David McCoy
SECRETARY
Per our conversation, 1 have attached construction plans showing Control Access R/W (C/A) and R/W highlighted
along SR 1732 (Sunrise Rd.) and I-40. As the. plans indicate, C/A ends along the 1-40 corridor with existing R/W to
be maintained along SR 1732.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 336-570-6833.
Attachment
cc: J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
SDD/sdd MEMO 10112.DOC
P. O. BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC 27253 PH# 336-570-6833, FAX4 336-570-6873
a o
1), 0.1.0
:.k
. T
A
ro
1
z ?
n
'71
" n• n
t:
ae
. 1'111
111.E 1 11 L
J F7
1 Ilk.
11,11 I'. •,f
?f l1
?(_
i TJ
Y ? 1!
1
11i
Ir ?ll
J
R' T
tc ? ?
np o
rr
h
L
h
I cn
c 1 , ?? ?I 1 n u z
a
o1 cn
cmn
fit
{
?I r 1
? ?
! i
~1i? ? er ems
.
?
4v L
?4 0 ?0 ?° 645 4-
2,ti
.. ? T y'}.yl n^?11»•- .._•.?_ . ._-?_ •.. ••__._.? ..- re+<, ???:?.'..??..? .w?•.. IY. Prf.?5•y?,i:.:!Y'.:11/?:. •. q:}•^ _.... _ _ _...^
r {I
0
n
I
70
it N
!
??m o
r L
G 1
N p
N
?,ti
I II I I lu`Ill
VIII
?I
X
r
N
x
m
`L
•v •
--1
?•1
m
0
on
• o
o- 5
x ?aa••9:;y 'r
-°
'.°
Bog,
• #+
IN
°;4-
X 15
9 p
245•¢a'•w I , u
_ 9 `
O° I I I p ?`
fea•20'O?iW: e, ?
C S
O o ? l I O a ?
r O '•
u.aaQ
afr•oo'?•w ? I I a
0 ° r o e
ase•o! r I 1 O x r i
e:r bbb r ,
ea.a?• 4,6
lfaya'!a•r ? b•... vFpi .? Q °_•axTe!??.N
.. °i D v'I' V ? m :e
tip
7' ri 49
C)6-YII_
a ?`1
xL:
,?= J v O
3 ?'3'?o-w x EI.?. rp?Ys?ao4•o Ui
N ? P
t N ?b'IP r
ci
l?jl? LO.r.P 1%P .L p'c
At
agyr? l X .?? ? ?
a a d 1•n • •n•rn
lI l /o ! ? 'G ° o
mob ? .o Io Ira ? 2
C)
x
/? I I O 1 r°•??,ra• m
` f
ll-3t ;r l -a- aQ res. aa.
•iY41•y -
RE THIN '
333
EKI STING R/ W ?} 1 p
ssf•eo?en•wA F'I /f 1??
a I ; _
MA E
SHEET
X
CCFEn_0
A !n
f•I ru
A r[)
w00a
ijW8Q°-'
- ?I Q 0a
?.
• rrl I {
1=
x7
UI mr-,o>mj?)
V?lmro
?n
N
a
p ? a
o a
fn
0
r
0
x ?
P .I
•.IG
1
71
.,
A
N
2; ;<•? '
a gg653 I
I ??
? 17?
I \
. 12ig'SlSB I? •
F ?w??;
rl
I
S J
ry _
E
i
I aw
1 ?
\ I ? 3
- •
.•
'
sae W
:.?ti
`??' .-
I ? 1
G I ;
r
w, f g? 9
SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION
PHIUP
POST
aa.. ,• . nc :rn.
.nnnn?•x n ?]] MrN [µ s??w1
4 G-
t
..
a
r
i`
yr.
y's[
q
S}8
R$$S ?
4' a
s r
a
! Ei t
foil e
%Samv SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION /60
1
l ?`' r !
? r
11-1
?vf
T
I
-
09
'
j4
f \ ;V?
9 r ?
>t
p J ?n .
a e 1
?7 a 1>
'?f MaL Ana ?, p•.?., ? ?t. [ "?a?. C,' ?Y:_ ?:'ti: I:'I??1 y,?bpa a 5? . 1 I`a
4 r ?..N i• ,'.??A? .ta r?l4l?; ,, •I ?l , ?liul? r ?ly?, ?• I.. • ?
'' ?•" '?? ? `?s ill it T I I.I ,?," : . . ., I ? a.a '4 ? :` \S•` ? 4T?
? '„'.• f r?' I?IN% .mil: •' ' 1?r. '?9? ?}??L
`?a\ art ' ? r ? • rd;? ' ????.. ??, I,;r., Sri I ! ? ` ?1
? r 1??•' ?• a ,.:?yr§,q?},<e?.???f !,?', 1
:?'• ? ti?,' 'L.?3 •IXn, •?k??•??s"??W asx ?H`a:a. • '??
I h r h Y' IM?i ? 1
1,
oll ?q :?, ? '1?; `I;5?1,L ?1 ? i 1, :?'r3j:•.' • .. e , : .?'?'P?+ I ln;, ? r
\ L y `.
y§ o
t
® saaap f' ? ?
MILL
j Hint
¦ mm
Ta?? ? ? ? ?nr?^?PI
Y 1? w.?.r was-" µ ? .LU.II°?` ??? tiiV?t ?
9 SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION f$ PHIUP
POST
p awl Ib. rc a»L?
I&MMPAIM L aliraC N?UTIUr MIN \?dl,.. k rrMm.?z-r.r