Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-2001-9a_, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 6, 2001 Action A enda Item #~~~ SUBJECT: Sunrise Springs Subdivision -Preliminary Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning 8~ Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1) Resolution of Approval Page 4 Eddie Kirk, Planner I I 2) Application Page 8 Extension 2582 3) Vicinity Map Page 11 4) Preliminary Plan Page 12 5) 6-2-99 Planning Board Minutes Page 15 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 6) Agency Comments (DDT; EH; FM) Page 19 Hillsborough 732-8181 7) 6-7-00 Planning Board Minutes Page 24 Durham 688-7331 8) 10-3-00 Draft Commissioner Minutes Page 28 Mebane 227-2031 9) Erosion Control Chronology Page 32 Chapel Hill 967-9251 10) Revised submission booklet Page 40 11) Booklet includes Acoustic _ Engineer statement 12) Additional staff comments Page 68 ITEM TABLED ON AUGUST 15, 2000 and October 3, 2000. On February 20, 2001 information was requested on the following items: 1) Drainage 2) Road 3) Buffers 4) Landscaping ****SEE MEMOS STARTING ON PAGE 75 RESPONDING TO THESE ISSUES TO STAFF'S SATISFACTION. ***" The following items addressed previous concerns: 1) Lot Size- Meets 2 acre minimum in Rural Buffer 2) Noise from I-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 z 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 your 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 Approval, if the board so decides. The enhanced landscaping and berming suggested by the applicant, in my opinion, will sufFciently ameliorate the impact of the development. PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Sunrise Springs Subdivision. BACKGROUND: Request - Preliminarx, 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 I~0 in Chapel HNI Township. Existin and Pro osed 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 (No designated streams on the property ) • 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. Develo ment 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 stomp 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 - • Item tabled for additional infom~ation at August 15, 2000 meeting • Fourth Action: Board of County Commissioners to reconsider the Preliminary Plan continued from the August 15, 2000 ,October 3, 2000 and February 20, 2001 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 aone-year extension from the Planning Director. 3 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adreinistration Approval, per the attached Resolution of Approval. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date Mazch_6~2021_ Name of Subdivision Sunrise. Spa~z Owner/Applicant Dr. Wall Die The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Sunrise Springs subdivision preliminary plat, dated October 26, 1999 and last revised November 1, 2000 containing 91ots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Sunrise Springs Road shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standazds of the North Cazolina 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 same other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of Sunrise Springs Subdivision can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. 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. B. Roads and Access 1. Sunrise Springs Road shall be constructed to standazds ofthe North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50' right-of--way with 5 faot utility easements on each side, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. OR A letter of credit ar escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to secure construction of Sunrise Springs Raad to the standazds ofthe North Cazolina Department of Transportation. An estimate ofthe construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guazantee 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 mad construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. An erosion control plan for construction ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe intersecting street. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated an 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 tries that will be opaque and grow to a height of at least 30 feet. A homeowners association shall be established to provide for maintenance ofthe buffers to County standazds. 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 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 pazkland 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-vehiculaz 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 awned 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 cleaz cutting on any lot, except as maybe minimally necessary for the construction of the residence, any required out- buildings, driveway, Yazd, gazden, play azea, or as may otherwise be required by good horticultural or forest management practices. Further, to the extent practical, clearing for. all other azeas shall not exceed an azea 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. 5. 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 l . 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-6-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 Cazolina 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 APPLICATION FOR PRELli1~NARY PI,A,~T APPROVAL ' MAJOR SUBDIVISION 4RANaE C4UN'I'Y ' • ~ DazE~ mss ~ a~ ~aa~r ~rx aYr.~ ~ • SLl'BDIVISION NADdE: ~ 5~lwi~(S C SPi~.+~r~bs SJ6 pi,J~,e;~ LOCATION: ~ 5ct /o~Q,~~ ~ ~a , [s,Q r 73~ - - ~~_~.~.~.~ O~NER/DBVELOPER: DR. w p ~ ~ L, ADDRESS: 'Oo a ~~ 1`ELEPHOfiiB NO.: ~b -3~Y~7 . G~+r~m.. ~~k NG . i~S7y. . A6ENT/CONTACZ: -~+ wr +•1 .. a r ~ ht!. ~ ,TRL.>3PFiG1~1E NO: ~I y9 - /l,_ 73 ,~ - ~ A. sLJ1VEVlARY IIYFORMATION: Oran$e Co~ogr Tax Map 81oek ~,_ Logs) ,~ Z~ Tip • Zonfn~ Dlstiico(ax ut~. d~~; , . Taral Niimbar of Ae~x ~l._ 3,3 ..." ""'- Total Nvmbet of Loo: ~` Arse La! Sizc z~ 1-~gnlmw~n Loi Slay . ~s "."- NumbedType ~' Snw~ (~~ ._ N~w~ - f Pmpaaod) 1 FF W ~ F~~TP~iblia (s~ao#y) ~ ~ ~ SFa~ Aire. Warteweb~ (') ~~ x I~rid :iehaol Dts~rkt ~+-Flee D ~ l~t~o ~ Cim~rYt Lead Uses in Area: /,y.~~, /M~r S i Mitts. ArMiw iMte ~'. ~ .rwT~ir~ir~ru. ~,,. ~~t ~r C0~1 rl Ul-I 1 aeeeamlawsys ~+s Sood praeta a ~ e ward fir) aw srta other;mtplsi~ a 1s:lue prope~ey m be aabdlvlded a~- tinder "brm tt=s vslae mc~doo~n"7 Yes No _~C ,. i!'~ra, tha-yO`r-mge Coimt~r Tic OS~a. Su~bdiviaiaa a~td~ ProPm'4r ~7- ~~ peYm~ oPd tea ~~ ttaa Vaht! ~ 8. AiL ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ W~fi ~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ `1 ~(~W~, ilafl ~o lp ~,,/ /~ ~~~a~~t~ iH~~~~~~~~i _ • ~ elatae ~ addtraa oto~rnrs(a) ~ ~ ~ ~ ae~ a~a~ ~~ b lld . ~ a f~, seteedc l~ by niDtae~ (1lodter t!o° oanee,~ ~ ~ loestla~ aes! wideh of adat~g ae i~.. ~ gtmao ~sae~Ya~r. laadsespe peopoaed b (fie, u . - aelebeat ar sehime~ addrasts, region ~ ~ seal eo^de, eoe.) ~ ~ d~Ca+m a ~ ~ a~ etarek aeratr - aaaw and ade d nwnben» ~[„ daa of plan peoon and ~ otrvad acrd apps ~nqc ~ ~ ~ aeeeage ~ srreee d~ua-off v d d b k d M f b ~ ~ ee oo an o m e ~ P~ P~P~Y / ~Yp0. ~,1~~. valvas. rata aWd ro osed a:rbs otiann ~ ~ _ desar~6ed veldt beatfngs and p p g , 8 ~ cttli-aeo. sima and bra dis laaaa~ and, of allrys, sid ~t .~,.~.. ~,~rrt,~ rr.,~ end acer~~oG et ~ t~~ ~ s~ste~fs aad ~ `~ ~ borizant$l •aligemeat, centerline radh and ~enmal crirve dais oo all propose streda ptrmatuat~ featmn such as baildings dies, h laadmarlca - ad~o3m~ lot layeaa~t names of adjeaini qty owAars. If subdivided, pim came; plat 6oalc dt p comber, and pedmeser tot mambeta. laantioa and ~siae oP lob of raarfeaed developegeat poomdal~and nomrla~n a pint regarding sans. ~~ ~ derma aad/or reemtiex • s~ and tme3istuQbed areas ~ in81m ' p~apaaea (dloated in water suPP~ idatida8ed~aamnm! arses and vn'ldlik aorridotx G OTElER $Li~1VII'xTA~. REQLiRE~Ni~ 1. 'Ia-arty~!!vi (~ eaopiaa agt6a Prr plan ~. One !lrll cis eaopy of m Oeaeoge Coe~gr'!ya map (witb tit paroeb involved e~arlyr macloe~. r1~A, : 3. ~Vhara mum6Qipa1 ere OWASA aawa~r i;e not ava3ls>da, ~ ~P!- o£the Preellmin*ty plat Heahh _ Departm~t appeeovalldadal flat earl iot sfaowat th~saon. ~l k 4. ~Vhae s peiiraee road is p~oposed~ n wr~m isy- the applia~ a hlalher anehearixed ~radve which seb ~ theme filar s peivaae egad (:a Semeeiaas N~-'~• 1 atme Grmpe Canagr 5eibdlvis R~lamlona} ~/~ j. AtnciliaC- doamaano. is drab llo~. peepated ~.acratrlPmp with Section VI of"btb wbieh assure complatkm aad/ee mainemarice ai ®prov~ segteireed by thla Oe. Snoh dowmama may lacfuei~ but not be Ilmitad for a prlraaa taae~ asa~aooe ag~memt aad aetiolas olioeaorpae~atan eered c~tlve ~ p to a haenavwnaes a:,oelmiaip. TM~se mtq- bs ragaind a: asesa~ey as evid ~ t!u ardinanas requae~ ace being met 6. Fs+m - i4'~ pWf i~AO peq lot (caster tit der Peeliminaey aM Fioa1 ~ ~ ~7e t ~ * '~' S1 O..a ~/~• 7. Ittlss ad6dlviaion aoemim 10 lac err mere, t>t! ~Dearorirag iapoemaelat sbaD be snbmimed with doe applicstic a. ~liar~~ m bailda~ b. N®bat alLoueai m ba btn~ ~ eaeds yer~e mtei! baitdont - . e:. A~eige peiee a~6atsas io~dudieg lo~tce each year ao betildoat T, tlaa appliamt, hey ems that the applieatioa is aamFta#* arid aa~ea~e . T ~ ~ w ~i~~ i g ~~T;yJi YISi ~ ~ A i~~Gi1~.7 ~~ . DATE ns~rc ~c PHILIP POST ASSOCIATES iV~,~oRarrnuM To: Eddie Kirk Orange Couaty Flooring From: Phil Posy Philip Post dt Associates, Inc. 3ub,~ect: Sunrise Road Subdivisiaa Date: Msrch 9.2000 31901 BO'1.H0~~030900.K Enclosed is the cwapkte prelimitttaty Plat appli~catiatt far Suraiae Springs, tag to tha Coatxpt Plan rommenca we received npoe: Concept P1sm appr~a~val oo Juas 2. ]999. Neighbors asloed abatrt pccas~ we have sha~vrt'the pxoposed bases plavemant an the Iota, which dea:onstrate haw we will saw trees. Alsv~, the cleadn3 limits inr the roadway ara y~y mmarnal. Neighbors asloed about stornnaater raaaf~ Our t at the Concept Plan aaeeting was that we would nae the new roadway (` ;Stator A'7 to iz~a+oept sheetflo~v caning taa~rds tha drainagevvay and radirect that wader aawards I~ we have done this as the fatal plans. Tits design fbr 3tr+e~ A takes all shaetflow and ditch water ib~ station 2 + 04.76 bacl~c towards i-40. This.iacludes inta+capdgg stone of the dtatuag+e off Suttrlse Road and sanding it back to I 40. T'he Z3 yea; flow thwugh the 1$" RCF pipe under Street A is 9.40 ~. which is leas than the pze-dcvala~pmettt 2~-ymr flaa- do d:a draiaagea-ay. Neighbors sated abort the 40l~aot septic easement and fonx maam. we have alimiaa0ed the mpdc t artd fot+x main i~ rLe plans may, lnelndipg the associated cleas~ has beta eliminated. Neighbors salted abort two sepdc aysp:ma a®lot S. we have eliminated one lot snd reduced the subdivision fibm 91ota t4 S lots and is the process we will only have ~ (i) aepac systsat an oath lot, aa~ludiag lot S. Neighbors aakaed about aarveas>nts. Covattmts will be adoptal by this svbdivisiaa, Neighbors . salted about accros of all lots to Street "A". The plan shows all horses oriented with dives off Strew "A". There will be ~ v w off Sutn~ise Roped. 19 V ~i ~~ '' ~ • 7 K~ . -E ~r ~ °~8p _~~ ~ I ' E ~ i , ~S68a C ;F ~ ~~ ~ xgoxg ~ ~ ~ -a I I $°' e' = ~~r- I . __ ~: A - ! !1 .1 .~..~. M `,: ~Y. E~ ~ ~~~ • ~, ~*~. ,.; ~ ... ,~ . M ~ 1 -.. .. •.. C D F ..,-~~ - • • P t~ J 11'~~~,' = ;1 '1'r' „~ `~, ~~ m .~ ~ ~~~~ \ ~ ~ ,~.,~ r1;, f ' J' f-1 ~py~y ?'" `~~~ ~p I ~ I ~ ~ e ~ 1 ~ 4 l~ L ~ ~:4 ~•ti/~ - ~ - .,,: ~, s ~ ~ ~~ x !pp ~C o 9 I E .E \ i 7; e. ? ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~ Hi ~d ~ ~ g ~ t qR ~ E 3 [. ' ~ gge4 ~ C~ ~ c " ~~~~~ F 6 7 ~ ~ F o~~~r; ~ ~L sl sw.c • - °"'~ """°' °" SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION I ~ - ~a...,~.~ ~. e,.emu...~ ''r, °"~'"-~"~`- w~EUUU~rcr Pur PHiuP PDST a~ wu. wcwe a~• .,,-,~.: ASSOGiaTES ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ __.---.... _y__f~.~__.. _ ...__. _ ~, -.- --__ _ --._. .:I~ 'x'•45 ~' ~ I: _~,~ ~ .sA .: ~ _ ~,s Y ~: ~, y `,,,: e. A~ y 2r I ~a 6 TI It I 6J: C a st ,~ r 'l ~08~ . I~~~~ ~ i~.au. ~ ~E~6 I$i '~ ~~ r i i i• F 13 ~ - _. ~ _ - 3 ~ ~ .. _' 1 y.pGw ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a, ~ ~ J . ~ ~~ , . 1 _ Fi y~ 5 y F~ ~I 1`,a`_` m~ R- ~` ~° - ~ 6 g.a i ~., g ~ _ _ 'fie ' ~ g ® ' . 9 ~ ; ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~.\. ~ ~ `-^m1~ . ~~` ~~ ,~`' ~~ ea ~"~ s Fe I \\\ ~ \`\ \ ~ ~ l ~ _ l`\~. ~,~ \, s ~/ _ ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ ._ t~~p~ :2~~~3 ~ I Iil @R 1~ . ~~~ ~~a R'~ ~v ~ .. i ~h" ~~ _. tiy~- \~' ," '% ~` /• _ `\. :de RYK ~ SP '}!~ 3x ~ gga Y~~ F 4 u s ~ ~ a#~aai € ~ f Q ~ E. ~ ~ ~ ~ - o~a~~e `- ooosa a c ~ Y rn~~~n v3 ~F E ~,B F e F F z 6 ~ ~ n .°. ~ra,..r:. i 3? yff ~ ~~ 7~ REVS~F~ ~ .-.r ~ "- e. SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION ~, ~ - ax~~ ° - '""4 "`~ ®°= N ' - ' I,AINSGIPE # BUFFER PLAHIING PLA . - -~a~~ -:. PNiu WIC POST ~ ,~. w iiei. n- sroo•ex-v+e~ ASSOCIATES n: ~~ E~ '''w~ n . ti+u:e:-! 1 .. ~~ i ~ :III ~ ~n ~~ 4 M ~ 2a ct r ~ ~1i A .f ~i ~ ?' ~n!¢ v_: X ~~ P~ C~ E~ I 1 v ,'•G 14 ~L9i~f ~,N;,v'~L6re0td ~ --,='~; - __ ~r ••~i(m'2+~1 ~_`~ 1 ~~ ~~ -= r' o O \ ' RR I 'w F~/~ 11 j~ T n~;G it ~ ~ vo • ~ i ,~~¢ ` r= •-~-;.,-`':..` `~', ~ - - - - \,~p.~'!iA`~;'' ' `j~'• _-fir-`- ~ ~ -.r • l:.• r i J'` ,~, ,~, f 1 ~ y V • ~_- i ",f'/'~r 1, ~ ~ s "~ ~. ~' ,\~'• ~~' !y //-. iii ,~ ~.'4~e~J-~,'i'i.~.n'1~•~ r -.-. ~ ~ E/ ~' ' . .` r.. ~' ~. ~:~.~' s tor. •'~''`~t", ~~'.; ,'~ ;~!,. 1 ~ ; ~-----~.,~`~~b r,,~~;/` /;: ~ ~ _ :~__ ~ r ~ - ~-~,~ ~~\~7. __ ~rw~%"~' `,~.^,~`.. Y~~ RAC ~,~ \ ~ ~-, 1F5G •~^o_ .r'~'~i~, .t,., .eater--,a: I~~ ~`"$ ~p~i~F e a p~~ ~~~ ~ ~t~~ ~± ~, g a~~ ~:, ~y~ R ~ "` 'T a vG o ~"~""~ - --- ~m~._~ SUNRISE SPRING SUBDIVISION ~;°~~~~~ ~~ PWIUP i -- - _ n~ma; xa.wme~.,., ~ ~ ~ ¢ POST ~ .,~,,. "~, ~Ip{'~ wi.MO ~.m~3. ~ DRAINAGE ~ ERDSION CONiROI PU1N ~O"~ d~ ~ "', ;~'" ~i~~^ 025 On~n [hn w,~„„„ - ASSOCIATES ,^,11,x; 1E s c. Historic Preservation Commiiasioa No report available. d. Ordiaanct Raw Committee No meeting. e. Shaping Orange Conoty's Fatnra No sport available. Selkirk asloed what is the current status of the Biryeb Transpormtion Plan Component (amerulaaaat to the Contprelieusive Plari~ Barrows responded that the Plamiing Hoard made the rewmmeadation. Lincoln comtnemed that sire will double speck to sea if the Hoard of Cornmiasioaers approved this acrd let the Board know. AGENDA Ti'EM #e: SitTBDMSIOI~iS a. Concept Plan . (1) $mtire Rand 9dbdiviq~4a • (9 Lata -Chapel Hill Tawnshtp) by Eddie Kirk. ~.~ _ ca.~t >~ Applicant; Dr, wally Diahl. Nine (9) residential Iota proposed oa a 21.62 acre tract. The avesa~ lot sine is 2.09 ecr+es. The propeety is located along the west side of 9tmcise Road (SR 1732) just north of I.40 in Chapel l~il Township. Cnnditlons - Brlsti~ Currant xanit~ is Rural Buffer. .. (Flmttble De~veloporeat is not appUcabk in the Rural Buffer.) The prvparty is aoc is a proox~ted w-atetahed. P~ Fe~atanx . Two aaaZing ~ainageways on the pcopeKy. The she is entirely wooded with mixed hardwoods. Adjseeatt Iced U~ Property to the north ~ wooded. Property to the westand east has berm developed in aiagle fancily residential lots. C i Roads: Access is 5flm Suwise Road (SR 1730. 16 Hue's: A 30-foot type A landscape buffer is proposed along Sunrise Rod, (The typo A buffer is composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, Forming semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructivna from the ground to a height of at least 30 feet,) Water Sewer. Private wells and septic taalta. A septic easement is proposes! on Lots 5 and 6 to serve lot 7. D~1S31?I~4p~~,..5ehedulR. g#I~etion Plan:tLsg Board• Flrss Action: P4ming Board to consider Concept Plae Optiops: l . Aetiaa within tarry-five (45) days of this meeting; ~. ~ withip such further time cansevted b in writing by tha applicant. 3. If the Planning Board fails ~ net within tlm specified time period, approval is duacted without conditions. 4. Ig approved d:a applicant shall have one (1) year b prepare aced file a Pr~elhr:izlary Plat applicatiop. Tf a Pt+~limittary Plat has t:oc bean sulattitted within the specified time limit, the Concept Plan shall becaae null aced void: ~ffReeommeedstJo~ 'r'tes Planning Staff re~meads approval of the Concept Plan for Sunrise Read Subdivision. Sallcirk sawed that the preperty is in a really well wooded area. Ha asked with 2 acre ~ the way the houses are tD be placed, would a good pert of the ~c-peity be 1QR with trees. Phil Pest, engineer, responded Yea, He stated drat tha road would be a very nanaw corridor and would use oph- a small portion of the Iet He stated'that there would not bd much clear cutting cad the ores would remain nicely aoudad. Harrows asked how big is tha parcel to the north of the property. Kirk responded that the snbf act parcel u Zi acres cad atxordiag to the teat map the aacthern property is approximately 30-35 ayes. Barrgevs asked if the s4ff would recommeted stub-trots. She statad that this area tanks like skit of col-de-sacs. Kirk respooded that tJtee+e are cul-de-ants already to lire west and east. Ha stemd drat t~ property tv the nordt has quite a bit of fivntsge un VV6ttfield Road. He mated that staff did pat iiyal a need for another connector tb Whitfield since this property is near the ~dop of Sunrise Rand aced Whitfield Read. 1Noads that tl>aro does ant seem m be any ~hical detail information on the application. Kark responded that doe topographical information is pot required vtt a Concept Plan. Pest described the topographical a~ on d:e map. He pointed ant the goad soil at+ras, tha hilltops, slopes and the drainageways. He also pointed out the wooded 17 yes and no. He pointed out where the top of the hil! and toad would be and where the water would be intercepted. Ha noted that some of the water that will not ga down t4 the drainageway will be intercepted by the road and scut towards the interstate highway. Woods naked Post about the second drainageway where an easement has also been placed. Fie stared that there must be~a force main where sewage will be moved Gan bt '~ to the area on lot S. Fie asked how the second draiaageway would be prevented from being cloggal up by the force main. Pmt responded that this is a we11 defined draiaageway with a very small amount of wamt flowing through it. Fie stated that ix is very narrow and shallow acid will be buried about 3 feet with a very modese flaw. Al Dodsat stated that he lives at the bottom of the drainage. Ise expressed cQetcern wide the proposed desinageway. Fie cored that the road near his bay was upgra~d several years aga and the State weal Elam a 1Z-inch drainage to a 3b»b~ dam, w~~ ~ ~ a trem~endoess amaemt of wamr. He noted that when the humcaree came dervagh they bat a lot of timber (hardwoods aesd plrtea) bs that area. Ike seared that be3 is not opposed m the subdivision but to vonc~erned tls~ the ~Ys ~Y ~~ flooding co hie property. Port commenced that tlsair plm is co cossvert same of the water away Elam the property. Hatay Kraus stated that she is concerned with the 40 foot septic ems. ~ She noted dsat the cleatveg far thin easement would dramatically s$ert the view grate her bade door. Port raaponded that there would be very light ~ done which would be on the order of ~ far a driwrway. Ha poir~ed neat her property on the map sad scud that dte essmnent would be near the flat western corner of her prapergr. Fie stared that they have dasigosaed a avrridar about 40. feet with a vary nice huffier being mainm~ined within ?0.25 feet of the property lice. Ise reioerateet that the area is heavily wooded and wilt s burr that sine thaare will be, a trice separation. Fie noted that thin. area has s drain than is moderately sloping. Kraus asloed ;f it would be a gravity fed drain. Post responded as that h would be•s pe~stue3 sitteadiop. Krater arlced if this was commas far devebpa:: do desigq such ~ Pont ~P~~ y~ ~~ it is cx>mmon praGdtyro that the good soib era sharbd. Docbcas asked if bt y would axommodate iwo septic tanks Post ceapnnded that h want acoudly be bt 5 drat would have two systeetts plw the hoes:e site. Kxvin Huger stated that he has had experience with lair where t~ waste leaves the house cad goes through a strip of land other that where the system is and his a~penarce has been that thin provides morn leeway for the developers co ga around the tees, eos. Fk rimed that a~arould have very little impact m the lead itself. Ha pointed out that the developers are very diligent about trying co save large trees. 18 are planned. Post responded that he would say yes although covenants have not been discussed. Barrows shed about the open space and landscape buffers. ICitk responded diet it will be vn the recorded plat and there wi11 be declarations, which will clean that there is a 100-feet buffer next bo the intcrstaxe. Also, the parcel directly to the west of this subdivision has a l Op-foot buffer with ttx bufl~r included in the lot. Barrows asked if the recommcndadon made by staff that all lots access the Arbdivisioa roads be uacluded. Kirk responded that this Could be added as a condition Of approval. ~1rsoTloN: Kara moves approval. seconded by welfare. woods recommended that wta;a thv applicatrt brings the plan back m have a more con$rrmed analysis of the increase of the swrmwater runoff to sine drainage ditch and perhaps a portioa of the force mom could be designated as clearings shove it vors: v~o~. b. Pnllminsry Pls. (1) Bradford Ridge Subdnvision (Z2 Leta -Bingham Towaship) Preser~ioa by RobertDavis. Consideratlion of the Prdlmionry Plan for Bradford Ridge Subdivision. (Caecepc approYed as Savoy Park) . Appllas~ Kevis; Huggins, agent for Chrisavphar Road Realty, IrK. Subdivision fbllovvs the ~onservxtlon optiw of ftexiWe development. 2x single-family lob an the 69.49 acres tract, 29.89 nixes to be maintained as op®space (4Z.'19~6~ Aver4gh lee sine is Z.93 scree (exclusive of S.acro dedication). 'The property, locaoeed is Bimgbam Tamwmihip apP17- 60Q feet east of Chestaut Ridge Church Road (SR 117.5 is soatth oil and fi+a~ts on, Borland Road (SR 11Z6~. An intermitta~tributary (per UsGS maps) to Carte Credo maandexs along the eastern side of the tract. Zoning ~ ~ . Agricultw al Residential (AR) and Catty Crcek Frotxt~ed Watershed (maximum impetvions smrfaee coverage is six (6j percent). Adjacent land uses: sittglo-family residential and agricultural. Physical Descripdon: . 19 ts~ 9ee~sot are aeer~~ ~ Apri127, ZOOQ ~ xAlt~~ p g 1 ~ ram, u~ Rosemary L. Summers, MPH, DrPH ` ~ Cw~q Bond of Hentd~ 1a"'~ H• mod. Vie (~mr o '~ ei,.a'' Health Direetor ~ Gam, eaad o/ H«~ EavievameadAe~ Diviwve ~••° 3os~c ~ pa ~ etei ~ ' ~ Ro" r~ ix~~~or ae>~,~.rtc :rare B.e~-B~oa ~, >~ cet~ rsz~siei.,~o Fix, ~ ~" v~hL a~wNmame oma~e ~ ~ ~'°°` ~.~, ., soy. i srrE Evaluation 5ummaay ~: SZJNRISE SPRINGS CHAPEL HIL~it TowAShip Map 119 Lot 16H Map Date Apaii I4, Z000 •~ 1 600 CiPD Z 600 Q~PD 3 480 C3PD 4 ~ 480 CrPD s ~ ~~ 6 ~ ~ 480 (8aD ~ 480 ~ $ 60o c~D 318ALTAW T C~1AL sz3AU.ow rRExNCa corivaNrlolvAt. SEtALLOW TRII~ ~DriAL W/Pt111~ ul.~- sz~wrow Ca],rvsrrrtox~t,w s~cLOw r cnrlvm~rrtaovAi, w~rn-~ vzrRa stow Cotiw]~rt~rr~c w~ 1~ 0 ~~~y (~ (~ ~ ~ )applied fear by floe pe~,y ownar oc de~elop@ Tire design saw fora ! Pwaposed ~ locations sea peo~ded by tl~e pe+apeerty owaer ae dwelapar as ra+~red by iSA NCAC i$A .1900 - .1969. (lire ] Rules got Sawaga "I~eatmeos sod Ditposai Systems) tha Ce~proc m~ ~ p~D ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aim plea or pLt sabm Tl~ bloelced ueas oat tbue ~ plea a~e tba limim of the pravisioaally anitable soils r armed by titre Osage Couu~- It sbwuld be taped mat atl lots havfmg 8 ca®ventianal-type dial i'~d wit6 ~p Rae ravie~ried at a ~m oFavery fire years t ~~ ~ sa d by IS A NCAC l aA .1961 ~ of Sewage Syaoetas~ '' e • Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Syatetns ara placed is areas wish 24 iachea or mare of provisionally suitable characurisd~ inch soil cap is placed ovar the trenches. Shallow ?rencla Conve~aal Syateema are placed, in areas with 30 ia~chos or morn of provisionally sui~bk cl>aractaristics. Coaventlaaal Systems are pkeed, is arias with 36 items or mme of provisiaAally atutable Wis. ,; ~i .. 21 +~=~ , ~Y SrarE o>; NoRrH CAZtoravA 1~EPAR'T1V~N'T OF TR.ANSPORTATTON JAMES $. HUNT JR DAVID McCQY GOvEtWOR ' i 3 May 2000 . ~ StiCR$'1'ARY o~-wc>+ Covi~rr~r Philip N. Poe: Philip Posc ~ Associams a01 Providenca Road . chapel Hill. Ne z7s to 9l9 499.2600 SUBJECT: k"ia^1 Plan Approvak Sunrise Spring Subdivision tasted ofiSunrise Rand near Sunrise Road (SR 1733) - - Deae Mr. Posr; - ~Thia of~lce has completed its review of the subject's proposed final plans for cotrtpllancr with evet+ent l~ptt=ment of Transportation minimum subdivision We wish to adv~ that the final plans received at this office are herrby approved, ptnsuant m rids ~ ~~ otfbe will Rgttlfe you m malts the oRmeNdevebper aware of the fbllowieg r~ betbn spy cornvuctian. 1. d K m aQy.coastrv~ian of any near access or alttx~ticn of any exiadng t+~t within the eight of way. the to o~ a~~ ~ ~~ m ~ a permit with thin ofl~ce. It b ttu raapons~ility of the owtKNdaveloper i'~-~ ~ Duritt~ dK ~ ix b t6s ~1hY of the owttw/devebper m provide v~ cacti fl,~g thaz the deaiaage. at+d sending atttistlq fire approved design otmide the Stats+s tight of way. . 3• When worklt; widtlo the Sttmrs risht of way. the owner/developerwill cantaotthe Graham Dl:rrict Office belbre sash oohs lbgowiag Pbaser {A) Drams, (B) Gradia& (C~ pldcmgntt otbaaa..(p) Paving, sad (~ Seeding. t:ailueie co nadfJr ehis ofl~e betoee each phase otconsauadoa mq- ju~r v cadEied acid sighed by a 4. In accordance with the General Stamts l36~102.Z, new roads nee not eligible tar the State Mainteaaace system unless certain t+equirenssnts are rnat: At1 explatuafoq of these requirtsttsnts ~ be on pag~t 13.11. and 1 S of the enrrent (January 2000) NCDt7T Subdivision Roads Wtattwl. Parekular amatdon shoeW be placed va itwaa 3 (peddon for additioa~ 5, 6, and 7 (occt~ied housing requiretnau), l0. t 1,12. and 13. P• 0. BOX 764 GRAHAM, NC x71$3 PHI 336-S7Q-6533, FAXM ~36.870~8'f3 2 • Final Plan Review Sunrise Spring Subdivision (Cont'd) y 5. Any sees within the State's right of way and/or easements diswrbed during the conaauction and/or main~nance shall be repaired tv the satisfaction of tlu District I;nginQer or his representative. 6. Before planting any landscape within the right of way, the encroaching parry shall submit an application far a planting permit to this office. The permit tonal be approval prior w it~usiling any plants, 7. It is the eesponaibility of the applicant m provide a copy of this ietm and rhesbove-referenced documents m the owner/develaper so they may by fLl1y informed. if ~~ u have ari Yo Y 4uestions, fuel five to call Mr. Michas! Venable or me at (33l-~ 570.6833, Sinessrely~ Q . ~,,,,_, . _ T. A. ICaIIaRt, P.E DISTRICT ENQINBER Attachments cc: 1. M. MI!!s. P.E. Division ~ Orange County Planning TAKIMSV/msv SPA00SIS.DOC __ /. 23 . 9.1•i Ca®mimicedoas ?.4 Hoar wag Pow 919.732.8161 ~ 933-?.600 24Hogr Fay MaehIDe 919-967A026 Orange County Emergency Management ~ . P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough North Carolina ' 27278 M• 4 ~ s~ Emergency Medical Sa~ri~ Mira Mara6al Disaster B-aspo~ 919~6~+~-3030. 968.2050 ~ Fs9t Machine 919968-4066 TO: EDDIE Imo, PLAI+II1aTQr DEPARTI41F,Nf FROM: l~ TAPP, DBPU'fY DIIt~CfORIFIItB MARSgAL M66 RE: gUNRt3E SPRTNG3 SUBDMSION DATE: APRIL 25, x000 We have reviewed tha prrly plan, of Su~rlse ~prIngs Sobdivislon and Snd the plan acceptable. Pleasa send m a ~ o~tba Plan, ~ appeoval, ~ ~. Ifyon Head additia®ai aq plmse call, aaQ F-7-00 P?ANNING BOARD MINUTES ~ 2:Duriag deliberations and considaatioa of the application the Board may defer a considcratian at aay pout to pursue additional analysis acrd review. 3 3.If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the Cousrty Comtaissioners the applicant shall have 4 one (1) year to prepare and file a Final Plat or to request a oae-year won from the S Plaaning Director, 6 7 F~ANCIAL II1~ACT: Fiscal hpact Analysia (aged) s 9 ~~olv~a~r~ATlox: ~,g a, 10 -- . Plaon~gg,3~ ,. ... 11 A~pSproval in accordancd with the attached resolution. 12 13 7.`id vodx appdcatiOn forwarded to County Commissioara~s with Planning Hoard 14 minute, Onb-. Is li Approval io accordance with the attached resolution. ly (includes ltaoalul3on 5.6. Regninnamt far a leR tuna lane an Jane Feuy lLoed.) li 24 19 Preston eslned how the ndghbora becanLe satisfied with the ~pn Oftbd flan lam bdcauae ?A soma ofthem were upsdt bc£ore. ~ . 21 Y2 Klm Icy, the developer for'l~e.woo~da~ avid that the pay resldem~t that was a8bcted by ?3 the tuna lane was Mr. Delos 4'Daaial. Ids pestmz wtyuld have boon e~oachdd ~ by 7,4 NCDOTs orig~al s~$catiOns. Ms. Haesy met with 14~ilae Vdaabl~ who was District as Engia~ear of NCDOT at the time, and he agreed to a ~~ ceder ~ ditch width. Mr. 2a b'Daaiel waa satia5dd with thg ~ All a~ftba other nd$hbars are also ~sfied with 71 ~ thia. - aa . z9 MOTIQI~i: Katy moved to accept the stai'Ps reca®mondatton ~r the 30~ Prelimaymary Play of The woodlands incl 3 t Jaaoa Fe~eiy hoed becausd both ° tba kfk rum land oa patties Nava sgroed to ib 3~ cono®. Seaouded by Goading-limy. 33 3a 3trayhorn verified #Lat Mr: 4~Daniels eamd m the Board of County Commissioners' meeting and 3s that there was agtrement to tba kfr flea lane. 36 37 VOTE: ~ . 38 "' 39 (2) Snmiae Springs ~ ~ (Chapel Dill Township - S Lam) . 41 42 Fddie Kirk made the pron. 43 ~ PDRPOSE: Conaid~tion of the Preliminary Plan foot Sunrise Springs Subdivision. 4~ . a~ BACKCROVIVn: 47 west - Pretiminarv 25 t • Eight.(8) residential lots proposed on an 1$.8S-acre tract. 2 • The average lot size is 2.~5 acres. 3 • Minimum to Actual Lot Size Ratio (M"1'AR) is 1.03. Minumum lot ~ is 2:0 acres. OYo 4 common area open space provided 5 L~atio° . The ~ Tis located siong the west side of Swuise Road (SR 1732) just nortJi of INFO is l avv~aship. 8 Fzfst~~nd~1~.5. ~1e^ to •• Curren! inning is Rural Buffer (Fladble l7avelopment is•not applicable in lire Rural Buffer). 11 • The property is not in a protected warershed. 1Z P6yaiarl Features: 13 • Two es~ng ways oa thept+vperty. 14 • The sine is entireay wooded with mRt:d hardwoods. ' 1S Ad3acent Land Use: . 16 • Propeety tiD the north is wooded and undeveloped. . 17 + Propergr to the wgat and east has been developed is singla~ily re,idential Iota. 18 .Proposed: ~ ' i9 RQadsS 20 • Acoaas is ~ Suctrise Road (SR 1732 ~ ' 21 • Slob will access the acwv public road„ fo be cansaocted tv NCDO? ~. ~ mss: 23 • A 30-foot type A lartdats:pe buffier is proposed along Suarlse Road (The typo A buflbr its 2a composed of dew and/or e~sg~eo vegae$tion. forming semi-opaque iat~aiizeat vlsusl 23 obstru~cdons $nm floc givtand to a of at least 30 tweet.) 26 • A l0afoot type F landsc~e buflbY is proposed along the Ia~pe. 27 water-sews: . 2s • Private was and septic tanlm 29 30 • 3t Planning Bored: _ 32 • Fast Action: Concept Plan approved by ttle• Planning Board June 2,1999 with a concern 33 raised about Rana the properly. 34 • Sid A~ ~ . - 3s !. A~witbin two regularly scbe~led Ptaaning Board meetings, or eian tlter+eo$ 36 2. If the Prig Board ~ m a'" within tb~e speci$ecl dnu paiad, ~ fmaarded 37 ~ tD BOL"C with the Plmnn~ Board minutes and Planning 3taH'reQarummdatians aQd 38 cau~diti~l. 39 • Pnlimiaawy Pisa ~ ~ ~ of the Con~xpt Pltsr with a 30-foal storm ~ arrd silt fear ~ trap. • 41 a2 RECOMZV~NDATION(s): a3 Approval, i~ seeordan~ with the a!#aebed Rnoh>lloa of ~ ~ Approval. 4s a6 zs 1 Kirk pointed out that the Concept Plan had nine lots and the Prel3maaary Plan has eight lots. ?he z ninth lot has been combined.,with as existing lot There am now ao its for septic 3 systems. 4 s Preston said that she was pleased to see landscaping information about the buffers. She is 6 coacaaed that some ofthe plar~ that'axe along Sunrise Road are going to suffer and probably 7 die. She wishad it had been a mixed planting and not just the cypresses, She was a1s0 ~P~ t that t~ landscaping was already done when the Planning Board had not yea approved the plan. 9 She is also concerned about the storm draihage easement that ~goea all the way through the site, to - under the road, and through lot seven. Sb~e asked whet it:would actually do do lot seven, 11 12 Facie Dod9oa, who wor]cs with Phil Post, said that tyre was only a pipe ~ the right-of- 13 way undo the road The easanent aarvss lot seven follows the natural drainage area through the la lot. The house ao lot seven is located nest the setback lice in ardear m tsloe advatnage of suitable is soils for a~grav~-ty-feed septic system. 16 17 Barrows asked far ~Scadon on Preston's concerns about the planting. . 1$ 19 Preston made rexEe:encs to the agwda abstract and said t1:at mapka cad water oaks were nQt ZO suitable to go underneaxh power lines. She: said that the planting should not be up oa a berm. 21 ~ Benedict said tbat the applicatt bead aQ approval to do the plaodng before the Playing Board and 33 the county Commieslonara approved the snbd~ivisia®. He said that the applicant had no vested ~ rights ~ g the plan until it way approved He said that the board could suggest mined ~ planting :clasmas a-ithout beams, and this ceutd be one of the ~ l~ approval of the a6 projext. . r as MOTION: Prasiori moved m accept the staffs xa'nommeatdatian to a~p~prove the ~ meaty Plan for sunrise speiags wlth the change that the type 3o A buflhr along Sumiae Road is m be teca~ m be mixed 31 playing of small, deciduous tees cad small ~ a berm. 3a~ade~d by Katz. ~~ ~'' oat on 33 34 3trsyhorn agrees wlth the ticat of the plants, but he thinks that the berms should stay 35 because they peovi~da privetcy. Preatou cxplsinled hav+r berms could cause the trees t4 die. 36 37 F.raie Dodson said tb~et f31e intent of tba berms was for noise cowl bexaase of how close the 38 subdivision is 14 I~14: He aakad if the berms csuld stay cad thv cypresses Bald just be 39 i1ltCispersed with othoc trees. 4Q al Katz asked about the responsibility of the developer in maimtaiving the buffer in the furore. 42 . 4a F.alie Dodson said that the wan~anty peaiod wan genarally one year. ' ~ 4S Katz is opposed to the: beam because the planL~ would die. 46 47 Qoodvvia said that he thinks it is micramanagiag to say that berms can or cannot be in a 27 1 The board agreed to compromise and ask for mixed plauntng, with no mention of the harms. y 3 Benedict said that in the Resolution of Approval, some additional language could be added that 4 the Homeownet~a Association would be perman'eatly responsible for the maintenance of the s buffet itt accordamce.with the County staa+dards. 6 7 Than wan a i~riendb- amendment to the ®ot%a to take ont the mendoa ofthe berms. 8 9 Benedict said that harms could be shaped so that irrigation of the plaafs is ltot ns much of a to problem. .. ._. 11 12 Harrows has a problem with malting the ~Iomeowne~s Association responsible f~ the buffer 13 right away. She said that the landscaping shOUld be well done initially so that the l~oa+aers la arc just taaia~iaing and not pLC]ang up pieces. 13 16 17 18 19 30 31 Z3 u 2s 2b Chair Allison said that there are landscaping raquiremen#s and they would ba done conzctly. VOTE: AGENDA Tl'EM #9: MA1'l'EliS HEARD AT JPA PVBLXC HEAR~iG (4I1Z/~AO~ s. ~ JOII~iT PLANNIIYG AREA LAND USE PLAN A1VII6NDMENI'S (1) JPA-I~UU~Amerkao Stone Company (Z) CRI-00 Amain Stone Cempa~- Unanimous ~ Bem~diCC made the p~rrsattatiou. He showed the area subject to the land use pion apmemdnneats on as a map. 'The 5rst itiem is as aaxndnn~t'ea the joint planning stns arhere Cattbora Chapel Dill, as and wage Coua~gr must decide ~ emy changes to the joist land vas map. In this rasa all 30 authorities would have m agree to chma~ga the mtisting lead use to an ova use that could 31 allow the acpansian ofthe quae:y won. 'Ihe saaond part of the peocess bas ro dD with mn 3a ~ amp to the Orange Cou:uy C . Play If thsr item is approved in the jams 33 plaoatag area, thm Orange Coumy bolts at its own ca ~ plan sad ~c it to a land 34 use desiigr~ian that would be c~aosiatm# with the use of the In this case, 3s Orange Cowriy w~ be ~~~g a change m a rural industrial node; which allows ad~cttve 36 uses. Ifthe tmid ~1 node is approved, the appli~nt will have tD casgn just to Oraalge 37 County fat a 3peeial Use Permit to expend the e~sdng Special Use Permit m allow the 38 ~ ofthe grarrl- sad the eveatu~al tesecvois. Chapel Bill has reconnmanded appsOVal td 39 the joist plea mtd Carrbaro)sas not yet appto~-ed the recommeadati~ort. The Board ofCouaty 4o Commissianecs wiU be mahttg a decision oa hme 29d`. ~Ha~vaver, the joint planning ameadmmt al cannot oocnr without the Town of Cairbaeo'a approval. ~ . 42 43 Benedict said tbffi there were comments fi~om the apponeaq on the ehaoging 4a roquireme~mt that weK accursiag. Sta$ did soma research on ~ aitexia, aad one of the 4S 'bases for the eh$nge has to do with, either an error is the plan or changing conditions. Benedict 46 su~minarized a chart of changing conditions in Orange Coutlty regaardiag popuhmoa change, 4'] IIICrCBSC Of water demand Sad ding tack supply. ThCre have beat no changes to the 28 REGULAR MEETING October 3, 2000 RAFT d. Sunrise S rin s Subdivision - Prelimina 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 I-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 far 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 I-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 an the narthem 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-saw 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 aase, there should not be the additional access paint. 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 Ran Holdway and Dr. Rasie Summers to find out information an these types of septic systems that are permitted by the State. Public Comment Betsy Kraus expressed cancems about this subdivision. Her main concern is noise from ISO. The trees in her neighborhood serve as a very efFcien# 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 Brawn asked about the creek and whether it is a spring fed creek. Craig Benedict said that the staff looked at USES 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 jab 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'/z acres will be cleared from this 22-acre tract. There will be 84°~ tree coverage on this tract. ~o 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 comdor. 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. Nori 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 I-40 is different according to th® level of atmospheric conditions. He said that in order for the citizens to have a fairiy 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 twathirds 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 10000 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. Norl 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 4f 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 PLANNIIITG & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 8181 306-F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 `~.r~e n e ~, ~' • u ~ a r~~~i l~e~~~+' EROSION CONTROL DMSION Carrboro & Chapel Full 968~SD1 Durham fi88-7331 FLllshomugh 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Telephone Extension 2388 Fax (919)644-3002 October 10, 2000 Mr. Wally Diehl, DMY 100 Banks Drive Chapel Hill, N.C.27514 Re: Sunrise Springs Subdivisian 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, Mllce 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. S' rely~~ ith Rosemon osion Control Officer Cc: Ernie Dodson, Philip Post & Associates 33 Memo To: Craig Benedict, Planning Director Memo From: Keith Rosamond, 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 groundeover removed, and a culvert had been installed along the low area of the property. The culvert is approximately 124' Lang 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 groundeover of pipe straw. ,The areas disturbed are relatively consistent with details shown an 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 Stap Work order was issued at the site an 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. 6`" or T~. 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 al! 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 an December 20, 1999. The fees were also paid on Dec. 20s': 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 u or 22°x. A sediment trapping device had been installed below the outlet of the culvert. The device consisted of series of stave filters. An inspection of the site was made in early 7anuary 2000. Grass had come up. The quality of the groundeover 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 groundeover 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, 2000 I 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 Ivlr. 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. lA-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. Stonn 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 S, 2000 I revisited the site. Soil preparation was being done in advance of seeding 'and improvements to the sediment trap were being made. On October 6's, 2000 I 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 ]VIr. Diehl and E4ie 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 COXTiVTY PL 1 ~ G & INSPECTIONS DEPARTI~IE1~iT P05T OFFICE BOX 8181 30frF REVERE ROAR HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLLYA 27278 ~~,^{r w e r° ~ Y ~ ~ ~ r-rrl E-t•~~~ r EROSION CONTROL DIVISION Cturborv & Cltapd FLII %8501 Dutltam 688.7331. Ht7lsharvugh 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Tdephgne Extension 2588 Fmt (9l9) 644.3002 October 4, 2000 Mr. Wally Diehl, DMV 100 Banks Drive Chapel Hill, N.C. 27S 14 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Re: Sunrise_Springs Subdivision To the person Conducting this Land-disturbing Ar!i.~ r. •';' The purpose of this letter is to inform you that•='°. '~_: County Sedimentation and Erosion Control Or;~~ ~' a 2, 2000 deadline for taking action to make impro;, letter. sent you on September 15'x, 2000. If this site is not brought into compliance by Friday $5000.00 a day"for every day the site is in violatioi were requested. In order to get the site into comp! - Install the sediment trap as si - Take steps to improve the qu in order to restrain erosion Due to the controversial nature a Sincerely, ~~ ~ eith Rosemond rosion Control Officer Cc: Ernie Dodson, Philip Post d pS FoR11 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Item No. Z 169 681 035 1995 ~~ o m ~~ o w ~• 4 m ~ ~ o ~~~ A f ..•~~vA v 1V f c ~ l~4 ~ ~1U _1 - - ,..t._...__. . 5~2~1'J~,q: c~ Complete items 1 and/er 2 for additional services. ~ Complete items 3, and 4a & b. i • Print your name and address an the reverse of this form so that we can 7 . return this card to you. m Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. r Write "rietu; n gaceipt Reques[ed" on she mailpiece bebw the article number • The Aaturn geCeipt will show La whom the article was deliv O delivered. Bred and the date m 3. Article Addressed to: ro 4a. Art ~ ~ ~1~~~ c /~ R• ~ G °°,~~ s ~ ~ ~ y I m ~ ~'~• m s~ ~~r: 0 ~ it ~~t7 a- ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ w r~ ~m q a~ ~ I also wish to receiv following services (for an feel: ~• ^ Addressee's Add Z• ^ Restricted Delive v ~~,~ ¢b• Service Typ@ r~ `~ ~~ ^ R istered r~, ~~~ ~~I ~~ ~ r Certified J ~~~ ~~ ^ Express Mail ~ 7• Data of Deliver x 5h. /Signature (Addresszel r~ ~i 1 1 (7 ~ I1 { /'1 L ~l 1~ . B. Addroe~es•.. n _ ~~ti ^ Insured ^ COD ^ Return Receipt ;r t 3E Agents, officials, or other qualified persons authorized by the County will periodically inspect ~e-sees ' ~ land-disturbina,1aetiv_ities to ~etexe ensure: compliance with the Act, this ordinance, or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to this ordinance; ~~°- *~-° ~°*~-•~~-• ~- L--~- 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 app~e~a~l. B6. Authority to Enter Property and Conduct Investigations and Inspections No erson shall willfull resist Bela or obstruct an authorized re resentative em to ee or a ent of Oran a Coun while that errson is ins ectin .or attem tin to ins ect a land-disturbin activi under this section. The Erosion Control Officer shall have the power to conduct such investigations as ~} deemed reasonably necessary to carry out l~s 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 far 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 leis their official duties. 1~C. Notice of Violation If, ~ ertie~ 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, s~ ' , a notice of violation shall be served upon that person. 'Fhe notice ma be served b an means authorized under G.S. lA-1 rule 4. .The notice shall s eci a date b which the erson must com 1 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 com 1 with the Ac this Ordinance or rules or orders ado ted ursuant to this Ordinance. However, no time period for compliance need be given for failure to submit an erasion 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 com 1 within the times ecified is sub'ect to the civil and criminal enalties rovided in this Ordinance. ¢. 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 orcontinues gland-disturbing activity for ('•~Tvty n„~,,,.,a..r~~~rrnv~,re~~~.rc,,rr,e~nnn a..- 3 §lA-1, Rule 4 ~' §lA-1, Rule 4 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE $lA-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 party seek- inot othexwise be ~g service against you will apply to the court for the relief sought. :nce be served by ,~ This, the day of 19 may be served by i4 (Attorney) (Party) on in rem or quasi ~ (Address) ess by publication - (j2) Proof of service. -Proof of service of process shall be as :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 dili- ~ 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 presum tion that the person who ale 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 rson of fences warranting suitable age an,d 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- ahall (i) designate fed by proof that the person who received the receipt at the :ed and the title of addressee's dwelling house or usual place of abode was not qtly 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 ~ 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 ense to such plead- are delivered to the address. iotice, exclusive of (3) Publication. -- Before judgment by default may be had on of the first ppublics- service by publication, the serving party shall file-an a$i- •equired to be filed, davit with the court showingg 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 ~3) Service in a foreign country. -Where service is to be. ef- fected upon a party in a foreign country, in the alternative service of the summons and complaint may be made (i) 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 (u) as acted 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- ~Y, and 'upon 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 ~inst 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 ofViolation 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 hloV 20 a0 Ofi:00p Philip Post s~ Associates 919 453 6548 39 PHILIP POST ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM To: lyddie Kirk- Urangc County Planning Departrrlent From: Phil Pest- Pnct and Assac.intes, Ira. Subject: Sunrise Springs Subdivision Date: November 2U, 2IXx) FAK: Ga43cx~2 lrlasmuch as 18 feet of paving wewld be necessary in a SU-foat Class "A" private roadway, a.nd likcwisc 18 fcct of paving would be necessary in a 50-fool public roadway, it is my professional judgcrnent ay 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 iF my opinion that there will bo no substaurtaal cxtra dcaring or extra disturbanec required for the public road, which has been required by the County Staff. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 401 Providence Road P.b, Box 2134 Chapel Nill, NC 27514-2134 0319) '323 1173 ray ai a~~aFnn E~ti~b;+ A 4( SQNRISE SPRINGS SIIHDIVISION 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) 929-19$4 41 CONTENTS i i i Too~ic : Pages Lot Size 1 Noise from Y-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-l0, 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 ~a TABLE OF PHOTOGRAPHS Page i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fig. 1: From entrance to proposed development 3 looking south--southeast Fig. 2: Planted berm adjoining entrance to 3 property Fig. 3: View of the southern boundary of the 4 property adjoining I-40 Fig. 4: View of berm with plantings to serve as 5 sound barrier along southern boundary Fig. 5: Berm created as sound barrier with 5 Leland cypress Fig. 6: Berm along southern boundary of Lot 1 6 near Y-40 border Fig. 7: Berm along I-40 on Lot 1 6 Fiq. 8: Source of occasional spring 7 Fig. 9: Erosion control along roadway $ Fig. 10: Additional view of erosion control 9 Fig. 11: Erosion control for silt and runoff 9 Fig. 12: Erosion control to stabilize roadway 10 Fig. 13: Broader view of erosion control efforts 10 Fig. 14: View of proposed road and cul-de-sac 11 Fig. 15: View of cul-de-sac with Lots 4, 5 and 6 12 Fig. 16: View of tree protection along Lot 5 12 Fiq. 17: Tree barrier along boundary with Lot 7 13 Fig. 18: Tree barrier -- Lot 7 boundary with 13 neighbors to the northeast Fiq. 19: Original advertising sign 15 Fig. 20: Advertising sign as modified, 15 ALEXANDER SC MILLER, L.L.P. AtTORNEYS AT LAW 1526 EAST FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 202 POST OFFICE 60X 3200 $YDENFIAM B. ALEXANDER, JR. CIiAPEL $iLL, NoETH CAROLINA 2761b-38DQ DONALD A. WILLIAMS STEPHEN B. MILLER OF COUN8E4 1919) 929-1984 FAX (919) 929-1990 E-MAIL: ALEXMILLERLAW~MINP$PRIN6.COM VIA HAND D LIVERIC November 17, 2000 Mr. Craig Benedict Director Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC .27278 RE: Sunrise Springs Subdivision Dear Mr. Benedict: ~ I write to submit additional material for the consideration of your planning staff and the County Commissioners as they review the 1 pending application for the approval of the Sunrise Springs 1 subdivision. Since the hearing before the County Commissioners, we have attempted to address a number of the concerns raised by your 1 staff, the neighbors and the Commissioners themselves. A meeting 1 was held with your staff on the property to review the clearing, erosion control measures, proposed plantings of trees, and noise 1 abatement issues, among other items. Dr. Diehl, Mr. Philip Post 1 and I have conferred further, and are now providing for your consideration a revised application, along with the enclosed 1 additional material, for your consideration. 1 S e. At the outset, let me note that the subdivision has 1 been modified to include all nine lots. Dr. Diehl's personal lot, which is the largest of the nine lots, will be encumbered by appropriate restrictive covenants and included in the homeowners' ~ 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 I-4o corridor. A significant concern expressed by M 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 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 ^ 43 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 I-40. The property ~.n 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 n o t e h e r e t h a t t h e 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). 45 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 T-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 i i i i Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 5 47 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. Craig Bened~.ct November 17, 2000 Page 6 Fig. 6: Berm along southern boundary of Lot 1 near I-40 border Fi.g. 7: Berm along I-40 on Lot 1 1 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 ~ 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 Ruoff. It is my ~ understanding that, according to the applicable maps, as well as ~ County definitions, the property does not contain a perpetual stream. At best, a spring may be found which, on an intermittent basis, provides for same 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 ~ obvious, there was no water flowing at that time. Nonetheless, ~ provisions have been made in the revised plan for a 30-foot-wide drainage easement suitable for any off-flow that might be generated ~ 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. 49 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. Gr din Histor and Erosion Cot 1 s es. 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, r r- • i r r r 1 1 Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 9 . ~--, 1 K` Fig. ].1: Erosion control for silt and runoff 51 Fa.g. 10: Additional view of erosion control Mr. craiq Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 10 • '~. .• •.1r~~''r'1`.~;Y,~~•^~_ - ~ .1~~'• ~• x'44• - ... _i:' ~~ rte: 6 G ~ .L .. . Fig. 12: Erosion control to stabilize roadway Fig. 13: Broader view of erosion control. efforts 53 Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 Page ii Future Clearing, Protection of Ex'sting Trees,,_ and_Rest~ictive Coe n 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. ., _ . ..... _.a- - - -!:~ ~--'-5TH' .~ .-- .~.,~:~ Fig. 14: View of proposed road and cul-de-sac r r r r N M r r r r Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 12 Fig. 16: View of tree protection along Lot 5 Fiq. 15: View of cul-de-sac with Lots 4, 5 and 6 _ .. .-~- ~ . -• ~~--.. r - . ,~~- - ....~'~-- .~ ~- ,r...--...... -. -M _~ .. '~`'''~=~~~+w..r14 ...~•~ar'':....~_~.,~r..,-~ ;~1zilK'~,:,~+~; nc~. ~- ..rte ~ tii ~,' - - S5 Mr. Craiq Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 13 Fig. 17: Tree barrier along boundary with Lot 7 Fig. 18: Tree barrier - Lot 7 boundary with neighbors to the northeast S6 Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 Page 14 mree Protection: Rest~i~tive 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 lantin s. 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 Confus~o~ Rec~ardinq Status of 5ubdivi_s_ivn Ap~ov_al. 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 ..a 1 1 I Mr. Craig Benedict November 17, 2000 I Page 15 Pickett/Sprouse regarding the marketing of this property. 1 I 57 Fig. 19: Original advertising sign Fig. 20: Advertising sign as modified 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. 1 ~~ ~ Sydenham B. Alexander, Jr SBA:jb ~ Enclosures cc (via hand delivery): Dr. Wallace J. Diehl ~ Mr. Philip Post Mr. Mark o~Neal ~ File ,# 1939.000 Ex I~'~ b ~~- ~ Stewart Gl coustical Consultants s9 Post Office Box 304fi1 919-7$1-$$24 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 aze 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 azea 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 I-40 corridor and have investigated them. It is my professional opinion that the development as planned will nat 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 hiU and ridge on the Sunrise Springs property rising about 40 feet above the roadway of I-40. 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 aver the ridge, even if all the sound reaching areas beyond came over the ridge. However, other paths of sound transmission aze more significant to the northeastern community. 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. Far 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, T am submitting this statement as a notarized affidavit so it may be properly considered part ofthe formal record before, the county commissioners in lieu of any live testimony. Sincerely yours, STEWART ACOUST ONSULTANTS Noral D. Stewart, Ph.D. Sworn to aid subscribed before me, this the3 day of November, 2000. ~l , Notary Public ~~'~ JO/r ~~ ~.Y. _ •_y y My commission expires: ~e'7 ~ cc: Dr. Wallace Diehl Mr. Phil Post Mr. Mark O'Neill ~k i ,P, a ? t ~ ~. r ~~,~~; °lrB ~1~ ,: ~c,~s Mr. Sydenham B. Alexander, Jr. StewaYt Llcoustical 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 Cazolina State University at Raleigh Graduate specialization in acoustics and noise control, Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Seta 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-O1 Professional North Carolina Chapter Chair 79-50, 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-CON$1, 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 wnsultant 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 standazds 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 Stewart LZcoustical 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 azchitectural 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 $ngineering. 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 hazd 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 aze 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 azchitectural acoustics, occupational noise, and environmental noise among our clients primarily in the Cazolinas 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 lazge 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. 62 We also strive to control costs for our clients by doing and chazging far 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. -Stewart Glcoustical Consultants Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com Raleigh, NC 27622 919-7$1-$824 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. Naral D. Stewart, is an internationally recognized leader involved in the study and practice of acoustics since 1967 and consulting full time since 1981. Mr. Jae Bridger has been with the firm since 1993 and provides strong support in azchitectural 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 ar 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 lazger 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 far reducing noise and noise exposure. Some employers without such problems strive to create a better atmosphere with easier communication. Our mots are in occupational noise control. Our experience in some traditional industries of the Cazolinas and Virginia faz exceeds that of any other consultant. We can help clients develop and implement acost-effective noise control program for their particulaz situation. We concentrate on noise control. We do not offer audiometric services or other hearing conservation services. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE We aze 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. 63 Member Firm -National Council of Acoustical Consultants Stewart Llcoustical Consultants Post Office Box 30461 nds@stewartacousticalconsultants.com Raleigh, NC 27622 919-781-8824 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS BUSINESS & INDUSTRY Aetna Insurance Company AT&T Blount,, Inc. Bristol Myers Products Co. Burlington Industries, Inc. Carolina Power & Light Company Corn Products Company Crosland Land Company Eveready Battery Company Exide Electronics, Inc. Federal Paper Board Company General Electric Company Guilford Mills, Inc. Highwoods Properties Hoechst Celanese ICI Americas, Inc. Ingersoll Rand Company International Paper Company ITT Telecom, Inc. (Alcatel) Kobe Copper Products Merck Phamaceuticals North Hills, Inc. Nortel Norfolk International Terminals Parkdale Mills, Inc. Perdue Farms, lnc. Philip Morris USA Pulaski County Speedway ' R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sara Lee Corporation ~ Summit Hospitality Virginia Fiberglass Products, Inc. ' Weyerhaeuser ~ Winston Hotels ~ GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ~ City of Raleigh ~ City of Virginia Beach Durham County I Harnett County Public Utilities ~ Lee County I Mecklenburg County Engineering N. C. Dept. Envir. Health & Nat.Res. N. C. National Guard I Wake County INSTITUTIONS & SCHOOLS American Industrial Hygiene Assoc. Cape Fear Medical Center Carteret County Schools Christ Episcopal Church Congregational United Church of Christ Duke University Medical Center Galatia Presbyterian Church Highland Presbyterian Church Louisburg College Meredith College North Carolina Baptist Hospital North Carolina State University University of North Carolina Wake County Schools Wake Forest University ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS Applegate Architects Arcadia Geraghty & Miller Balzer & Associates Bass Nixon and Kennedy Cherry Huffman Architects Carley R®dfaot Zack Dewberry & Davis Edwards Carrington Associates Hager Smith Design Innovative Design Lehmann Mehler Hirst Thornton Associates Motley + Associates O'Brien/Atkins Associates Odell Associates, Inc. O'Neal Engineering Perkins and Will Rife and Wood Architects Shriver and Holland Associates Small Kane Architects The Roberts Group The Smith Sinnett Associates Walter Robbs Callahan & Pierce LAW FIRMS Beaver Thompson Holt & Richardson Canstangy Brooks and Smith Fuller Becton Slifkin & Bell Maupin Taylor & Ellis Weinstein & Sturges 54 .•~.. ~ _-... l! - ' ' , :} ~ •~~ ' .raw .ter.. ~ ~ ...ayw.. . l a Q • .\tJ r ~f~L-~ ~i~ ~~~ ~ \\\11111«~~~~'~~ ~t~`~~~ti~~~ ~r~ ~ . ~.... ~,~ .«. Cwti ;+ T~.rr~ ~ ~'~ 4 ^~ . ;.ee ate. Ca+rRr. «~. ~ ~., a~.n. aewr ~ ACOrfi w 1g1s, Nsus M M nw ~ ~~ ~w r+M A~ 1N . ~~~eanaan ~. ~ mar dr~.a~ / . ~. ~v+~~,rw, ~~.~, a~r.~.w ~, ~ ~~7"D d~Lj • _ _ -_ _ .rte 1 ~ •. ~! ' .a,i ,r.. r.y~• .w~.q~ ._ ~. ~.. H. ~~. ~i.~a .ter ... , :1'-. '-`~'R ~.~--~ ~•[:e=~ ..~..~f-_ ~r Jam/ -, ..« .- • • ~. • ~•'~: ~` ... ..aRy..~ r ~~.~ 0 r • i~ ~ ~~~~~`~~__~..f//i~iY't~lL~~t~=~-U~+w' I~r ~: ~~~~rJ!11rr'~~~\11\1~wl~J~l~t\1 r~ ~~ .. ~~•r• ~ . ~ r. ~~ ~ sue' ~~ON M - - ... .~ ,~.~ ~, ~.,.. ~ ~,.~,, ~ ~.,.~, . __ ~ ,, ~ Goy ~ ~yw y~ Oragr Goer, Mfr K Gompiipi lei ~. ~L Y1/ ~Irf OIb~C ~ • - ea+N nee~ei ~ pa. Vs~ d wr ~ ~ Mwyr e~Ifa~ rW rM 101eM ~ rww~f~r alO~C p7r1+Mr M+Ofll~llaw tOeMi~~ i~011M b~ alMrwlMr f~ ~eFoYse d M1f Tw ~~ ~ ~ I/OIIMY~0~1 Mn1rR~0 ER X11{ HMO. 71M ~O~1nd py II{ I1~011y Cam!! iiFf1~! nr ~'4Pa~r IR •ef Myp~~ etiNylnM in 1r11~ ~. E. )UDSON PICKETT, MAI - R08ERT M. SPROUSE, MAI ~I~~~~~~/~ ~~~~ .Y IOHN T. KEPLEY W. VERNON AVERETT, CCIM JERRY 1. CAMBIA, MAI lea/ Estes te, I ~Cs MARK E. MICOL MARK N. O'NEAI. CCIM 3805-A University Drive Pos[ Off-ce Box 52118 purham, North Carolina 27717 Telephone (919) 493-0395 • Fax No. (919) 493-1523 October 31, 2000 1ZE: 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 azchitectural 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 I 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. I Sir. 1 I I az N. O'Neal ' MNO/lanc ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING ~ INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director eoNn~i aI e' Administration ~~ , ~- ': 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~r ~ P O Box 81$1 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us '~°~~b ~..~~~°' North Carolina, 27278 MEMQR.ANDUM 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 regazding 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. e M STA-E ~~ , S~'r.I~,.Z~ ~'~~ ~~~~. 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 I-40 and SR-1732 (Sunrise Rd) David McCoy SECRETARY Per our conversation, [have attached construction plans showing Control Access R/W (C/A) and R/W highlighted along SR 1732 (Sunrise Rd.) and 1-40. As the. plans indicate, C/A ends along the I-40 corridor with existing R/W to be maintained along SR 173?. If you have any questions, please contact me at 336-570-6833. Attachment cc: J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer SDD/sdd MEMO 1 O l l2.DOC P. O. BOX 766 GRAHAM, NC ?7253 PH# 336-570-6833, FAX# 336-570-6873 -- .,, I, ,,, I _ ` I _ n ~ \ C' ^ I ~ ` 1 I ~ ~ i- TI .D In 1 T - I ~ ~~ , if. ° Z 0 D ~~ ' I 1 M ,• , r,l r Il G ~ r r) ~ , 'd / A J_ "' ~ n cn y a' ~:• c c ~. 1 ~~.,~ u q .. r ~\ I la y) n .. t .1 7I UI • ~ /rt - v 3 n -~,~ r O , p r~'I p .r c ~r 0 1t1 r A ~ , •, C, •) 1,,. -~ f" :' i / ~' ~ / i~l~i ~ 11 1 ~!r c + ~ ~. ~R ry ~ , ~ ~~ rr ~{•I u.~~ ~/ r.l..~d Idl_ll L *~SF; ,p. ~~ ~~_ ~~ 1nm,r i ~ v~, err h, ,~/~ r"r.~~.'1 it h ~ ,.n i~ i~ ~ ^ ~R4 ~ ~ ~ ~r t• !•I I 1 j< ~ uj ti..j;F. ~,, ~I ~ . O ~r•~a.,.p~ ,. ~~ ~n \ 1~~ n. ~-~~I_ ~ 'r// ~ 1= 0 rx w Jl ~ „ C1 ~, P~~~r! O.LO 1 O' , y u~ .•I~ _ ~~ ~~ , ~~_ P i ~ y n f7 p ~ a ~ ~ Or ,' O~, n, -_r~`r ~`'~ *j. \ o h'I c rr' 6 ` ~ ~'` =~ ~I~~~ a / ~ ^ N O I` /y t` ~' I ~ ~ TI nl 2 ~ ~~~ ~ 1'9 f 1~. ~ ~ t. u~l ZZ fl .y ~i~ r~Z r`4,r . •~~ i (rn~ ~S~.; ~.1, ~ -~ `!' ~~ ~r ~ fi m S ~ nl ~ - 4r _+~~ - ~ .~r ~ • ~F !'ice - Iv~f•lU,i ' ~ ~~ m ~~~~ j r~•~ ..~~ : ~ ''~ !~-. ,~' -.~ . ,.Q 540 :•.; . u N O ~ r :n I/ ~ - ,` ~. al, c jJ n I I -.~ 7' >r'/~q ^r• ` ?~ •,• `y' ° ~T~ a 111 b ~NJ• 1 ~' ~ I ,1n ~ I ~~_ ~ E '.~ ~_.1_~~ \ ~(.\` - •1 ~.y y~ ti \•~ c~\ :~ 1 C Z Carr 9ai9~~ ,7~) / ICI -y.~.c<,. ,_ C• .M1 \ r~~~c` `.ur° r U l~ll) `~ ~~ I it ~aF ti •;~ rte. r ~. ~ .y .f\n ,. ~:~ / Z I 2 ~ ,ttiv vs I ~ •II~~ ~ ,~ p' U ~ \ _+ ~ hl ~ Z ~ n m II \~?.I I O '~ jya ~cn+ A ~I n 1.1 - 1 Gp A ~17y •~r~ or IC ^_ A•l7 in O ~o .J ~' ~~ \ I iri 1;1 .~ c ,~ 1. lli~ r'~ Vi 1(1.1, I / ~LL• ~ r4 ~iC'. ? Ir ~1 r. O ri,,n f ~ ,. ~ . ~, 1. • ~) ..._ .c a ~~'? b ~ - n, iii l~~ f~l ~ W ,il`li~ `~ X11 ~ ,,,fit ~ - \,~ ` tip r~ ~;' ~ ~~'n~ ~+- ;off ~ I ~ ^~ ~ ~ n ~a I •, ~ "F •~ ti, o ~ .~ I : 1 • ~ cn rr~ ., `I, , n u' 'u z I 1' , (b ~,( ,~ / I 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ,, 1a II ~ I ~~ (~ / Y ~ /~ 9)~5~~645 `h 11 ~~I~~~s! p `~~I • q ~. ~ tb .. - ~. ,_,.• ~ •. y.._-----'-'....._.. .-'-~-~-_•---. ..._ - q~!?Ap~~~!'f~r.;h,.,~ _~...-~,•,Y. a.r.aa,~r.:.:~t•.: rNr -,f- _... ~1$`:;M4ti:':L~J!S':eenanf~rwrx:nwrr.w.rnr_, .........-- ~ .~- ...,., ~~"'~~~ ~~a~~ X ~~ ~~ I ~d~ x c •a a u~ao_u I ~ O 0 ~-•a X a ^I~ , 0 15 ~r.ra'0 I'I 1 ~ a,e•rr'•~r I . a I I •rrr,0~ I U ur•:a'm~w: o . -t ~ o ° i I I o ~ rr.rr~ T ' r71•oo'ty•r ~ I I 9 c e~ - o ~ . ~ o ssr%~ ~~ i 4,r'r I ~r I ~ ° x i ; ° 1 r ~ ~ ~ w = ~{irrM,rr sar•ss aU r ~: p'G v~Fo.l~10~~ ~~r`strY~lr.la~ ST 'm•os'ss~lr 1 ~ ~ ~ I o`°xvi Q. ;j O G~ ... ~~ , :~, ~'Y 11- ~ ~wr, ~ ~ u a o i, _ , ~J l.A ~ o p ~ ~° 1~ v CJ -u. ,o..,o ~L. ; 3 ~ ~1 ~ ~ . ~ .,~a.LQ < - cn ~ a~rr, / ro'''D•~'° °~.°~ e..° In •rb, ,_~~ Y yl ~ "~'~+~ I/yp D .[• ~~~ ~~u ~ 0 '° o d l ~ ~Y Idi•°"o ~ ° ~ ~,~~~,-l, Q / • ~ l I ~ d ~:Co p / ~,: a,- ~ I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ o ~~ I o ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~o .~~ 1 ~ .o "O.I.d o = ~ C a _ ~~~ -~ ~[ / O 6. p ~ ~® ~~//``/r I _ u e / y f yq~ ~ o ~ ~ C ~ til L 1 , r° ~qi~ dJr•~,~~y \ , 1 ~ I ~ / - 1 ~ ~ b 7 ~ ~ ~Ay / ` ' .~ K ,^ , ~ ~ / 1 aaryr'~r tub I ~ 4 M ~l ~ ~ ~ _ t 1 /n ~ ~ I v ~e RE TA/N ~ I n EXISTING R/rv •= 1 h o °y ~ ,~ 17f.~r.4' pI to s-~ ~rl I V' • a M~ - I .; LINE TU SHt:Er 5 x ccGnro T~~N p ~ 17J~~f\). om -o a ~ 1= c ~r•-+op~ m 7~ i i i . 1 0 ' a~a•r/ rs• X (~1 ~b ! ~rf >p ~~ ~ . ~~ Rl ~ .. a ' _~ r r.. n r rn r R N P~ ~~ 9 14oy~ ~ E e 2i$S6$ I~ ~ ~ ~~ a$a>31• ~ ; g~~3 _ ~ c>:r• v a,a` 3f i.~J ~~ ~~ a N 's • - (• \ I ~•.\ ~ ~~~ Lt'R ~~~ `~. r~ ~ .~ ~P 1 ~ ~ .~ ,- 1 r, •- 9 -~. t ~? ' ._ ~ ~t\ ~ .. y ~' ~ -- ~c\, ~~ Fv p SS \ _ ',sy. - 1 l Y ~ ' . 1 ~~ ~u ~ '~ 1 1 / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c. fir. ~;%~ F§ ~~ ` \ -- ~ ~ / l,~ ~ •. / ~ ~ ~ y k~r ~ 1 *~fni -.. . ~ ~ .; ~ I .. Fi. ~ - ._ ,y ' ~ F~ t ~ 1 '.h ~~~ a Y p f . ` III C~.A ~ ~ 2 ... ~. ~S~ I ~ ~Y ~ , A~ . ~f. I•' .rf' La - 6'~.~ ~ ~ ~ \•.~ fl ! 1 \ ~ y ~ t 1 I ~ ~! -, . , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ i ~ ~ e ~ ~ . / C i ~ ~~ ~ ~ r°°r~- ~ .. j' ~ ~ ~ ~ psYS~' ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. _= i g ~ ~`~3°° - - ~~~ umm n ae °'""' "'~'°' - SUNRI5E SPRINGS SUBpIVISION 's~''`~+ "'"'m° ~ . ._-~ ° ° . s~ _rc=-~a _ ~n wiin O~~~MO~ • t I u.e J 1 • ~+ ~ POST .o-_...e.~..w~ , .e : ~. ~ =i`-~. q .~....- _- A N ~. ~ i~i Nam .~6~1o- GN: _.. - - ~~, /~ ~. - - ~~.G.l~/ r ASSOCIATES ._.~_.M r.. sn.~ .c na1 a 5 35~~ 4;s= 7_ 4885 ~ ~ ~~~ 4g81i~ s ~p~} R a - ~~ ~ o } ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~}~ J ~~ ~ ~ ~~` ~s ~ ~. _. --. . ~` F6 ~'~ ~ rs ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ; ~ ~ -a ~" ~~ ~ ~ jf~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~' ~ • c~tiy~ l J ~ 4 \' ~, Y `r .~ 4~ \ ~ `? ply/"~f'.~~ ~ ~`.~ ~ I r ~. ~ ti ~Q: ~ ~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~~~~ ; ~ ~~gg~pp~ ~ 7~RF 8~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~~ .~ ~- SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION «~"'~~ PHILIP ."~°~ ~w 3 ~~ 9 q ' ~ , ~~ I I ~~ i "i I ' ~~ i ~• ~ _ ~~ :~ 4 9 ~~ ~~ 1 i r ' ~': I ~ !~+: • ~:: ~ ,;.,.. ~ y. ""; i@ 1 ~ ! . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ rR~~ E i ~ ~~ s~ ~1~-~ ~~ '1 ` ~ .1 ' •,~, .~ ~ ~ w~ \1 , +v~ X11 .~^ u, ~• u ~x ~. _: ~~. ~n~~u:, ~~ -1 r. ~ d Er;'~ ra nr.. ~~ _ yy~~'~ ~ ~ y ~s~~~~ I ~~ r...._ ~ fib) ~ - ~ _p. '`~~,p~ ,~~~r r~ ..„ \\\, ~~ ~ • • ~/ / ti~ ti ~ f \ .~ ~ ~ srrcq ; ~' ~~ ~' rsrx~ ~~€~E EitE~f ~ . c``~ llitii ~~~ -` { r~r ' ~~ i i~3 ~ ~ l~i-~~ prim € ...... ~~r`~ ~ ~ .."... ~9 s ~ .~.. ~ _ SUNRISE SPRINGS SUBDIVISION IIM ~'""_'°m°'~~ ""~ ~0`°'~'"` lAND5CAPE t BUFFER PlAHTINC PUIN ~I 7e l -~ r _ _ _ .~_ __ .~ _ ~ - } __ ~ __ ._ -_ -- f r 1 ;m; ~~ ~ ~~ ~ e~.ms PHtIJP POST '" "~""' ""° a..+ w, w a~~. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 8~ INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director L"an'P or e' Erosion Control Division ~~` ~°p 306E Revere Road (919) 245-258$ u ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us '"~<<e ~.~~~~'~ North Carolina, 27278 '~~~ ~~ To: Craig Benedict, AICP, Planning Director From: Ren Ivins, Erasion Control Supervisor Date: February 22, 2001 Subject: Sunrise Springs Starmwater Requirements I met with Mr. Dodson in the field in January of this year and suggested the following measures to what I believe is his satisfaction. The Proposed Sunrise Springs site was inves#igated and is still in compliance. This memorandum is intended to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the Developer in providing both peak flow reduction and velocity reduction in and to an existing wet weather drainage. The Developer will install a "level spreader' on the proposed Sunrise Springs side of Sunrise Road. This is a low profile, unobtrusive minimum disturbance designed to redirect storm water out into the woods as sheet flow rather than concentrate and channelize in the drainage way. After the stormwater leaves the site, it will eventually reach an existing 30- inch pipe under Sunrise road that naturally discharges to a property owned by Mr. AI Dodson. The developer will pay for and install an energy dissipater consisting of Rip Rap stone on Mr. Dodsons side of Sunrise road. This is designed to reduce the velocity of stormwater being discharged via the pipe to a flow rate that a vegetated (grassed) swale/trapezoid channel can convey across Mr. Dodsons properly. A Rip Rap apron design by Phil Post and Associates is attached. The swale/trapezoid channel is Mr. Dodsons responsibility and he intends to conduct this work to correct existing drainage, problems on his lots. This office has prepared five channel designs of various widths and depths capable of handling the full flow of the pipe once the energy dissipater is installed. Calculations for trapezoidal channels are attached. 75 G:\Ivins\carrespondence\memotocraig i~ REBAR CONPACTEb BACK~q.I. fl.ExiBUe BucK PLASnc a sPEClfl~n EIEVAnON SILT FENCE OR POROUS OEOIE%71LE fABRIC DRAPEp OMER PIPE AND TRRENpiED M ON soiN sroEs COMPACTED 9ACICFILL ~~4 STAPLE AT 4' INTERVALS, B' x 1' U~STAPLES. any; EJU571NO GRWNO LE~4. SPREADER MAY SE ROUTED ro AVOID TREES. ROdcS. E1C., AS LONG As 70P Is Ic~i Ar coNSrANr aEv,-npa. PIPE & FABRIC LEVEL SPREADER NOT TO SCALE a + ~ '~ ~' TEMPORARY dIVERSION GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE -.. 1 i i~ l' I 1 ~ i ~~ ii it 1' 7b 1 1 1 1 1 I I I ~ ~ ~ ii ii i `~' I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 i I ' C~ I I 1 1 ~ I 1 - 1 1 .~ I I I ~ ~ I ., I I 11 ill I I 1 1 1 1 \ X 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 I,1 I I I I 1 ~ 1 X 1 1 j l l ~ 11.1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ r 111 I1j1 II ill illi 4 I I 111 11j1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 j j 1 I I 111 1111 II I I 1 1 I I ~'I 1 ~ I 1 ~ iii iiii I ll ~11~ ' I 1 I 1 11 I1j1 11~~ 1111 ~ ll ~j~~ 1 11 1 l ~ I..1 i ~ II 11 I II 11 I 1111 I1j1 1 1111 II11 1 1111 1111 1 II11 1;;1 1 11 1j ~ ~~ il'i 1! 1111 I~~1 ~1 ~~ illil~ 1 - 1 I cn 1 iii il~i°il~ 11 11 1 ~~ iii ~ I I 1 1 ~ 1;;.. iii ``, I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11~~ 1111 II ll li~`~ miiii ill ~` °11,1 lily ~~ l l i 1 \ 1 1( 1 1 1 , ~ 1 1 1 1 1~ \ , I 1 ~ I I ~ fill i `~~ ` I ` I.1 i i ~~ ~~ `. I l l l ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ 1 1 ~~ `~ 1 1 1 1 `~ Q 1 1 1 ` I I 1 ~ ~ 111 ~ C.T ~ 1 I l\ ~~ ~ I I 1 I 1 1 ~~ ~~~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ -~ I ~ I I ~ ~ _ `~_ _~ .Ian 18 01 03:22p Philip Post & Associates 919 493 6548 77 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel ~ Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Sunrise Rd. Culvert Comment: 30" Culvert (existing) Solve For Full Flow Capacity Given Input Data: Diameter.......... 2.50 ft Slope ............. 0.0333 ft/ft Manning's n....... 0.024 Discharge......... 40.54 cfs Computed Results: Fu11 Flow Capacity....: Full Flaw Depth........ Velocity.......... Flow Area........, Critical Depth.... Critical Slope.... Percent Full...... Full Capacity..... AMAX @.94D........ Fronde Number..... 40.54 cfs 2.50 ft 8.26 fps 4.91 sf 2.14 ft 0.0310 ft/fit loo.oo ~ 40.54 cfs 43.61 cfs FULL 2~2. open Channel Flaw Module, Version 3.3 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, rnc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Jan 19 01 ^3:21p Philip Post & Rssociates 919 493 6548 •78 PHILIP POST &. ASSOCIATES" INC. ~oB l- oD t•a (~izaPE~r•/ ~_ets~ p~ Engineers/Planners/Surveyors per ~ 4 0~ 4b1 Providence Road Suite 200 CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514 aa~cu~nrEO By fG C~ Q onr~ d ~ + o (919) 929-1173 (919) 493-2600 (919) 850.9662 (336) 273-7711 CHECKED BY pq~ ~IP~AP '~,1J~RG, +SS+PaToi~ p~$~c~l~ p , _. 30"' GMp ~C-a~+~Tir~C~:~ uWa~~ Su~~t~i~~ 1~1. l-o.P'C lS t~ N KnY~Vsl~l ~ U T ; Ae Pf'EAfzS ~l"~ ~"r ~ T: 4a u' Lp i~.~ ~~~o' , r~r': 3 3..~~f LlSE 3.3~.~' AS v~lor~ST Ca~E; SE~~ Ft~o~Je~A~'TS:{z..~N[aL~~-S ATTACNF~ . ~l~ Llr: F~4+"J VE LaC lT~ A"C '~, 33 ~~ = . $ , 2 ~ rrps F~2ol-~ ~~ ~, 4 ~ ~0~.1~E - ~ ~PRo~I ~IDTF};D6v~1NSTRE~~±"( ~~.lp = p+a.4~;I._-2.5':-F-a.~~5'~^~~g.5' "4T f'IF~ auTL~T~ 1 .5 xp-;~.~x~.5'~ ¢" . ~rdN.E TH ic~NE~S ~ 12" cr,~gss ~ rz~~ fro F! "I' TE ~ y~(i4~P ~ I~l v S Id:4P~ A Pita ~•1 To GH drv ~I E (~ I'~ i " ~~S{Cate .+~ Lo-~C~ x ~', kII.DE AT P(~E,f3.5 1nIIDE AT CQlnluSr2~QM ~rJD x12"71~f1C ~l~4SS 1 R+P.RI~P `,,~~~s ~~ s ~ un~~~~~~',' .~ tH ~ ,, ~[i . ~ F~ Q ; SEAL " ` 1)23:472 , 79 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING S INSPECTIONS DEPARTAAENT POST OFFICE BOX 8181 3p6-F RE1/ERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727$ e~wlt a/ e ~ 'i ,~ s+ b ~ 17 3 ~~~~ e~~~~~~ EROSION CONTROL DIVISION Carrboro & Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Telephone Extension 2588 Fax (919) 644-3002 Dired Line 245-2588 Jan. 11, 01 Mr. AI Dodson 7214 Sunset Drive Chapel Hill, NC Re: Trapezoidal Channel Design Dear AI: - I calculated that your 30" pipe of corrugated metal would have a MaxFlow of about 30cfs (cubic feet/second) and a flow velocity of about Six feet per second. Several. stable channels at 1 % slope are possible based on side slopes of 2:1 • Bottom Width Oft Eft 8ft 10ft 12ft Depth 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 Velocity(FPS) 3.0 2:8 2.6 2.4 2.2 Almost all grassed swales at 1 % slope are stable at up to 5 fps so any of the above designs should be fine. Sincerely, lrau Reynolds J. (Ren) Ivins Erosion Control Officer II Acting Supervisor G: uvi ns\corrospondence $( ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 8~ INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director ~syair °/ e~ Administration ,~~~ + '"P~ 306E Revere Road (919) 245-2575 ~_ ~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAx) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us ~°r=b ~.~°~~"' North Carolina, 27278 '~--~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director FROM: Eddie Kirk, Planner II . DATE: February 21, 2001 SUBJECT: A: Private Road B: Stream Buffers C: Landscaping in Sunrise Springs Subdivision Follownp to Board of County Commissioners February 20, 2001 meeting. ISSUE: Private road. The issue was raised in the County Commissioners meeting last night regazding the possibility of a private road in Sunrise Springs Subdivision. The proposed subdivision does not meet the criteria for the justification of a private road as referenced in Section IV-B-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Public roads aze encouraged by county regulations. I have attached a memo from Phil Post dated November 20, 2000 regarding the difference in the grading and clearing of a private and public road. The difference in the amount of cutting and grading that would be done at the entrance where the slight rise is now. I believe this is the azea the neighbors aze concerned with. ISSUE: Stream Buffers. Stream buffers aze required when a stream is designated on the USGS maps as an intermittent or perennial stream. The drainage azea through this property is not a designated intermittent or perennial stream therefore a stream buffer is not required. A tota130- foot, drainage easement is usually applied to drainageways of this nature. The developer has agreed to place a 30-foot conservation easement on each side (60 foot total) of the drainageway which is in excess since no minimum is required. ISSUE: Required Landscaping: The Orange County Subdivision Regulations require a Type A 30-foot buffer on Sunrise Road and a Type F 100-foot buffer on Interstate 40. The Type A buffer requires deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, forming semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructions. The Type F buffer requires predominantly evergreen vegetation that is opaque. These azeas along with the existing vegetation remaining in the buffers and Leyland Cypress to be planted more than satisfy the requirements for a Type A and Type F buffer. 8] PROVIDED IN EXCESS: The attached tree inventories show a 25'x25' azea of trees in the buffers on I-40 (A) and Sunrise Road (B). The additional plantings as indicated on the attached site plan schedule show Loblolly Pines and Eastern Red Cedars to be planted 10 feet on center at the base of the berms to supplement the existing buffers. Inside the subdivision along Sunrise Springs Road there aze existing trees in the front setback azeas which will be supplemented by proposed redbuds and dogwoods to be planted for ornamental purposes. In addition we will ask for maples to be planted 40 feet on center. r: ~~'~Nnv 2Q 00 O6:Odp Philip Pos7r a RssnCi~~es PHILIP . Pos-r _ ~ ASSOCIATES ME1I~ORAN~]UM • To: Lddie Kirk- Urdngc County Planning Daparhntnt From: Phil Pct- Prfcr A»d AssaCiatcs, loc. Subject: Sunrise Springs Subdivision Date: Novcrnber Z(1, 2IXm • 815 493 6548 FAX: 6443UA2 Inasmuch as 18 feet of paving would be rteccssary in a SCl-Foot Class "A" private roadway, and likewise I $ feet cf paving would be necessary in a SQ-Foot public tv;tdway, it is my prafcss~iotu~l judgement as an enginetr 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 pmvide a public roadway Cnc this aubdivisian, it is my opinion that there wil! be na aubatzmtial extra clearing or ezlyd disturbance required far the public road. which h~ been rCquit~ed by the County Staff. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS $: 401 Providence Road ~~ ' P.Q, Box 2134 ~:I,and 1.1111 All"! 77R'7A_3~9A k ~:` ~~- J_. .~ 5"PAVE ~;~/ 10"PINE .y • ,r ' - 6"PINE SCALE: 1 "m 5' ~ 3"F " ~ 1'PIIVE 3•'p • 1 PINE 1:•"PINE~1 "PINE ~ "PINE 1 "BEECH ................ . ...-....... ...a..-...........-.....-....-...... - - 2"PINE -r'a L ,~ 2"PINE = 1 "PINE , .-....... ........ q,'.ASH ........ ............... ..... 5"ELM ....... 6"PINE 1 "PINE ~1"PI ~I "PINE 2"PINE 2"MAPLE 3 "ELId ' ~ 14"OAK t O'MAPLE C 1"MAPLE :.. ...................r-~...........- ~........ --- ..-......--... • - -.................... 4':ELM 3"q'SH ~• ~~ 2"PINE ~ . 1 "PINE ~ 83 1~ ~, z o / ~' ~~ t ~~ ~~ \ ,- ,\ ` -- ~~~ PL ~ ~1. -~ _ . - LOT-3 ~ \ ~, ~ ~~ ••~..~ .._..,~ I.OT- f ZONE ;~ \ ~ 2.03$ A ~\ , •` . ` ~ 1~ 1 1 ,. ~ ~ ; . ... ~ I , ZONE ~ ~ ' LOT-~2 i ' I ~ 2.000 AC. i • ~ ~~G ~ I i I ~ ~. ~F. ~o. I ` ~' 'ox PI.~WTING \ >.::..> ~ , , . s~ I.OT-1 ZONE .,.f,f 2.002 AG. • ~ .... ~ ~ ~ `.• f ~_; ~ \ ~' J ` /• t ~ • ~ r O ' ~ . TREE INVEN ORY ~ N7S $ ,50~ '. ~j ~~~~ ~1~,~, / . AREA A W ~ 177 yk~ / Gj '/ ~Qe` ; . LOBLOLLY PINES P ss' Q 14 EACH 10' O.G. TREE INVE ORY ~ ~1~ A r~ ~Q AREA B /' w ~AR~eS~ ~s~w ~~b~ c~n~ Q ,/ „o• 8 '+ ~ ~ U C MMON/SCIEN TFIC NAME PLA~,.NTING SIZE ~. ~' •., S1 31 ~~ Redbud Tree Cercls Canadensls ~, S2 32 Whlte Dogwood - Cornus Florida S3 'Cherokee Princess' 14 Loblooy Plne S4 Plnus Taeda 20 Eastern Red Cedar SIRE 7 PLA 7 NG LA ~~ Q~LT TYPE ~ 1R CH ~ A-1 Redbud and Dogwood A-2 Redbud and Dogwood B-1 Redbud and Dogwood B-2 Redbud and Dogwood B-3 Redbud and Dogwood B-4 Redbud nad Dogwood 1. 5' Ca l I per 5' He I ght 3p' He I ght 4' -5' He t ght S IN NO7E~ Matched Spec 20 Gal. Cont Matched Spec 20 Gal. Cont S Gal. Conta 10' o. c, B&B, 10' o. c. U BE Alternate, 20' o, c, 15' Alternate, 20' o. c. Z2 A t ternate, 40' o. c, 6 Alternate, 40' o. c. 7 A t ternate, 40' p, c, 5 Alternate, 40' o, c. 9 Total Trees 63 EXISTING TREE CANQpY LINE PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK LINE