Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-09-1999 - 4ORANGE COUNTY BOARQ OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 9, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. ~ _. SUBJECT: Durham Urban Growth Boundary DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1) October 12 memorandum to P. Lamont Ewell from Norman Standerfer 2) August 25 memorandum to P. Lamont Ewell from Dick Hails INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict ext. 2592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham Mebane 732-8181 968-4501 688-7331 (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive a written report regarding the City of Durham's Urban Growth Boundary BACKGROUND: On Wednesday, November 3, 1999, Planning Director Craig, planner Karen Lincoln and County Engineer Paul Thames met with Norman Standerfer, Durham Planning Director, and Dick Hails, Durham Planner to discuss Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and how it affects Orange County. Please refer to the attached memoranda from the Durham Planning Department to the Durham City Manager. In the August 25, 1999, memorandum, Figure 2 (page 14) shows the "Orange County Future UGA Study Area" included in UGB. The 1995 Durham Growth Plan which is now being reexamined, only requires a dialogue or discussion to be initiated between county and city managers. The discussion will likely include the impact upon Orange County's EDD and if any residential lands should be included in the UGB. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report for information only at this time. f 2 City of Durham, North Carolina ~ ~ ~ ~ R October 12, 1999 Memo To: P. Lamont Eweli, City Manager Through: Gregory A. Bethea, Assistant City Manager From: Norman Standerfer, Planning Director Subject: ~~Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendments Executive Summary The City Council's. Public Works Committee requested additional information about the proposed Urban Growth Area (LIGA) boundary amendments in southeast Durham. The proposed amendment could reduce the UGA by as much as 3,860 acres (representing~about 380~pazcels)~ depending on which option is selected. This change fully implements the recommendations in the Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan. It encourages development closer to the existing utility service area and discourages "leapfrog" development: Committee members wanted to ensure that property owners in the UGA contraction area be adequately notified of the proposed change. The Planning Department intends to notify property owners in the azea by newspaper advertisement and an individual letter sent to property owners via regulaz US Mail. ` Background At its regular meeting on September 13`", the City Council's Public Works Committee asked for some additional.information about the proposed amendments to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. Committee members wanted to clearly understand the nature of the southeast Durham area UGA contraction. They also wanted to ensure that property owners in the UGA contraction azea be adequately notified of the proposed change and their opportunity to comment at any scheduled public hearings. The,foIlowing information about the proposed UGA changes is supplemental to the information included in a memo from Dick Hails, Interim Planning Director to the City Manager, dated August 25,~ 1999 (attached). . A. Southeast DnrLam UGA Contraction The present UGA was adopted with the Durham 2005 Comprehensive Plan and slightly amended in the early 1990s. The present UGA encompasses about 179 square miles, . representing about 60 percent of Durham County. By comparison, the City of Durham encompasses about 93 squaze miles, or 31 percent of Durham County. The following table summarizes the proposed UGA boundary amendments. . The~purpose of the Southeast Durham area UGA contraction is to implement the policies of the Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan. A central theme of the 2020 Plan is to encourage ~~ /. in-fill and new development in areas closer to the central city. Contracting the UGA in this area encourages new development at the edge of present utility service areas and discourages in a `leapfrog" pattern. Public sewer service is available out to Mineral Springs Road at present. The area between Mineral Springs Road and Doc Nichols Road presently has no sewer service. The proposed southeast Durham UGA contraction area generally encompasses Iand between Doc Nichols Road and Olive Branch Road. Three options are presented for Council consideration and were described in detail in the August 25,1999 memo to the Council: • Option 1, Maintain Present UGA: Maintain the UGA boundary in its present location. • Option 2.~ Contract UGA to Doc Nichols Road: This option fiilly implements the • UGA changes recommended by the Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This option for UGA contraction would remove approximately 3,860 acres in about 380 parcels. • Option 3, Contract UGA to Mid-Way: ~ This option represents a compromise between options I and 2. The UGA would be pulled back, but not as much. This option would remove approximately 1,660 acres from the present UGA, representing about 120 parcels. Most of the land is used for rural residential or agrieuhural purposes or is undeveloped; most of the land is zoned Rural Development (RD). Summary of Proposed UGA Bounda Amendments Number of • Parcels Size Durham County - ~ 85,790 299.0 Sq. Mi. 191,360 Acres City of Durham 62,600 92.9 Sq. Mi. 59,450 Acres Present UGA ~ 178.~~ . Mi. 114 330 Acres Proposed Changes • Russell Road Expansion ~ 200 ~ + 0.9 Sq. Mi. +.570 Acres . Hamlin Road Contraction 30 - 2.8 Sq. Mi: -1,790 Acres Southeast Area Co~ptraction Option 1 ~ 0 0.0 Sq. Mi. ~ 0 Acres Option 2 380 - 6:0 Sq. Mi. - 3,860 Acres . Option 3 ~ 120 - 2.6 Sq. Mi. - 1.,660 Acres Page Road Area Contraction 50 - 0.2 Sq.~Mi. .-140 Acres Southwest Durham Expansions ~ I50 + 2.6 Sq. Mi. + 1,650 Acres East Durham ansions 110 + 0.3 S . Mi. + 230 Acres Proposed UGA (with Option 3) ~ 176.9 Sq. Mi. ~ 113,190 Acres Net Chan a -1.8 S . Mi. -1 140 Acres B. Notification of Property Owners Prior to any City Council public hearing on these UGA changes, the Planning Staffwould notify property owners. General notification would be through a newspaper advertisement. However, in the areas where the proposal is to contract the UGA, about 460 property 3 .~ .~ . -- 4 owners would be mailed a letter via US Mail"indicating generally what is proposed, the impljcations for the property owner and a contact for more information. A sample letter is attached. Recommendation The Planning Staffrecommends that the City Council receive a report aYits October 25,1999 Public Works Committee meeting and set a public hearing for November 15, 1999 to heaz citizen comments about the proposed Urban Growth Area amendments. The Staff also recommends that the City Council: 1: ~ Amend the UGA to .incorporate the Russell Road Area UGA expansion, the Hamlin Road Area UGA contraction,.the Southeast Durham UGA contraction (Option 3) and the minor . UGA changes, all as descn~bed above; and 2. Direct the Administration to initiate active discussions with Orange County regarding appropriate azeas in Orange County for Durham City to provide sewer, water.and other urban services and for which Durham's UGA would be expanded. Attachments Memo from Dick Hails, Interim Planning Director to Lamont Ewell, City Manager, dated ~ August 25, 1999 • Sample Letter to Property Owners in.Proposed UGA Contraction Area cc ~ Kathryn Kalb, Public Works Director Nav Gill, Finance Director Terry Rolan, Environmental Resources Director 3- v --° City of Durham, North Carolina August 25,1999 Memo To: ~ . ~ P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager. Through: Gregory A. Bethea, Assistant City Manager From: Dick Hails, Interim Planning Director ~~.~- Subject: Public Hearing=Urban Growth Area Boundary . Executive Snmmarv One important tool for managing the City's physical growth is the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. The UGA represents the area where the City intends to allow the extension of public sewer and water services, and where the City eventually intends fo annex. The UGA amendments implement the changes proposed in the Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan, respect service area agreements with adjacent murricipalities and implement policies for watershed protection. Three major amendments are proposed. • First, the UGA boundary would expand in the vicinity of Russell Road in northwest Durham. to take advantage of improvements in the water distn~bution system. This expansion would not push the UGA farther into the Little River Reservoir drainage basin. • Second, the UGA boundary would contract in the vicinity of Hamlin Road in northeast Durham to exclude portions of the Falls Reservoir Critical Area. This would not contract the UGA boundary in the Ellerbee Creek basin where the County is presently surveying the location of the Reservoirs' normal pool. Third, the UGA boundary would contract in southeast Durham in the area between NC 98 and US 70.. The intention is to prevent a pattern of "leap frog" development, i.e:, new . development away from the edge of the present City limits. Three options are offezed for City Council consideration, including maintaining the present UGA, contracting the UGA to the line identified in the 2020 Plan and contracting to a line mid-way between the two. In:addition; several Honor amendments are proposed to take advantage of new development . opportunities with little impact .on planned utility services. The Planning Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the amended UGA boundary, including the northwest expansion, the northeast contraction, the southeast contraction (Option 3) and the minor amendments ,all descn~bed in the report and pn display maps. ~ . Background For years, Durham has used the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary as a tool to manage its physical growth. The Durham 2020 Comprehensive Plan defines the UGA as the portions of Durham County (and the edges of surrounding counties) that are appropriate for urban and suburban land uses. The UGA represents the area around the City that can expect public sewer 6 and water services provided by the City at some point in the future. Likewise, the UGA represents the area that the City will likely annex in the future. . A. UGA Policy and City Council Goals .~ ~ ~ ~ . Durham's urban growth policy is simple and direct: prohibit the extension of public vyater and sewer utilities outside of the UGA. The City Code makes exceptions for extensions~to schools, industries and propertfes.with existing health hazards from failing wells or septic .systems. The fundamental purpose of the UGA is to communicate to community leaders and citizens where the City prefers to grow. The 2020 Plan's Community Growth Map shows the UGA, indicating the boundary between future urban and suburban neighborhoods and rural areas. The UGA and urban growth policies directly support three of the City Council's adopted goals: • To improve the livability of the City by managing the City s growth, protecting and preserving the environment and maximizing use of public infrastructure. • To provide economic development activities that increase citizen access to high quality jobs while increasing the City's tax base. • To support the success of the community goals by maximizing the effectiveness and ef~ j`tciency of the City s workforce, programs; facilities and financial assets. Establishing the UGA formally communicates to property. owners and developers the... City's preferred location for urban land uses and future extension of public utilities. This information assists developers in particular in planning for private development projects related to housing and employment centers. The information also helps managers of public services and facilities plan for logical extension as the City grows. The UGA also protects sensitive environmental resources, such as drinking water supply reservoirs, by directing growth elsewhere. In addition, the UGA increasingly delineates service area boundaries or municipal boundaries of other jurisdictions. B. The 2020 Plan A central theme of the 2020 Plan (adopted in December, 1995) is to stimulate new development in and around regional transit corridors and to encourage less reliance on auto travel. The 2020 Plan generally encourages future growth closer to the already built-up 'areas of Durham County and away from rural and sensitive enviroimnental areas.. It also 'recognizes that some continued suburban growth is desirable and inevitable because suburban areas continue to be attractive choices for many citizens. However, the 2020 Plan calls for a UGA boundary that doesn't~expand significantly as a way to encourage . ., development in more central areas. The 2020 Plan identifies one area for UGA expansion and two areas for UGA contraction, and these are described in~Section E. below. C. Setting the UGA Boundary Durham desires to manage a logical expansion of the City, providing opportunities for developing its tax base.while protecting sensitive environmental resources. Since the.mid- 1980s, Durham lias relied upon several general policies in establishing the UGA boundary, including agreements with surrounding jurisdictions; public service ei~ciency and water supply watershed protection. These three policies identify limits and opportunities for 2 , • :~ . 7 Durham's future expansion. (See Figure 1, Durham Urban. Growth Area.) Administering the UGA policy requires that where possible, the UGA boundary should be set along property lines so that individual pazcels aze not split. 1. Agreements with Adjacent Jnrisdirtions.. Durham has several annexation~and . .~ service area agreements with surrounding jurisdictions, including Cary, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Morrisville and Raleigh. These agreements provide clear guidance for all of the jurisdictions involved, as well as for property owners and developers,~about who will provide public water and sewer services. The UGA, representing Durham's . ~ ~ long term growth and annexation areas, should respect these.agreements and should not encroach into azeas that Durham has agreed would be served with public utilities from surrounding jurisdictions. 2. ~ Efficient Public Services. A fimdamental principle of managing a' city's growth is to encourage new growth contiguous to the existing city rather than promoting "leap frog" development. A pattern of leap frog development is generally inefficient to serve with police, fire, sanitation, transportation and other public services. For . example, police cruisers and sanitation collection vehicles might have to travel through undeveloped areas outside the City in order to reach and serve other areas within the City limits. The UGA boundary should be set in order. to promote logical, contiguous development adjacent to existing service azeas. This principle also supports more in-fill and central city development, where public facilities are akeady available. 3. ~ Water Supply Watershed Protection. Durham is situated in the middle of four . water supply reservoirs.. To the north, Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir are Durharr~'s raw water supplies. To the east, Falls Reservoir provides raw water for the City of Raleigh. And to the south, Jordan Reservoir provides raw water for the Town of Cary, other communities and perhaps Durham in the future. Urban and suburban development close to the reservoirs pose threats to their water quality. The Durham Zoning Ordinance establishes Watershed Protection Critical Areas around and close to the reservoirs. Critical Area designation involves development limitations designed to prevent water quality degradation. Around Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, the UGA boundary has been set to avoid~most urban and suburban development in the Durham County portion of the reservoirs' drainage basins (including both Critical and Protected Areas). Around the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs, the UGA boundary has been set to avoid most urban and suburban development in the Critical Area. . E. Highlights of the Proposed UGA . The 2020 Plan proposed three major strategic amendments to the UGA boundary, as descn~bed below. (See Figure 2, Proposed. UGA Changes.) In addition, a recent review of the UGA boundary by the Planning and Public Works Departments suggested several .other minor amendments that would capture economic development opportunities with relatively little impact on water quality or public services. Several other areas are also designated as _ 3 v 8 future UGA expansion areas. One of these areas was suggested in the 2020 Plan, while other resulted from recent discussions. All of these proposed changes are shown on two maps attached to this report and.on large display maps prepared for the City Council presentations. ~ ~~ 1. Russell Road Area UGA Expansion. The UGA boundary set in 1986 was established ~at an elevation of about 600 feet above sea level. At the time, the City's water distribution system was unable to pump water above that elevation. Since then, a new~water tank has been constructed in the vicinity of Russell Road in northern Durham to allow water service to a higher elevation. The proposed expansion of the . UGA in the Russell Road area is recommended by the ZO20 Plan and would include . about 300 acres. This change does not move the UGA line any further into the drainage basin of the Little River Reservoir (except to include parcels immediately at the ridge line). 2. Hamlin Road Area UGA Contraction. The present UGA boundary in the Hamlin Road area extends from the Red Mill Road interchange at I-85 generally along Red Mill Road north to the Neuse River. However, in the early 1990s, the location of the normal pool of the. Falls Reservoir was redefined, moving the critical area for the Falls Reservoir farther west. The 2020 Plan recommended contracting the UGA boundary in order to exclude the land area that was newly defined as critical watershed protection azea for the Falls Reservoir. The Gorman Community Association brought to the attention of the County that the US Army Corps of Engineers used a different methodology to locate the normal pool along Ellerbee Creek than was used for other Falls Reservoir tributaries. With the Corps cooperation, the County is in the process of conducting a survey of the normal pool location on this tributary. The location of the normal pool of the Reservoir affects the location of the watershed protection critical area and, therefore, the preferred location of the UGA. The Staffrecommends not moving the UGA boundary in the Ellerl~ee Creek basin until the survey is completed and the issue of the normai. pool locaticn is resolved. : ~ .' ~ _ However, the Staff also recommends contracting the UGA in ffie portion of the Hamlin Road area that does not drain toward Ellerbee Creek (i.e., the area within the Eno River basin). This contraction represents approximately' 1,800 acres,.though 1,550 acres are owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 3. ~ SoutLeast Durham UGA Contraction. The Southeast Durham area has become the focus ofrenewed development interest in the past year or so. Certain portions of the area currently lack sufficient public services to support urban development, especially roads, parks and utilities. However, the strategic location of the area between eastern Durham and northern Raleigh, as well as its close proximity to RTP, signal its desirability for future development. a ~. 9 The 2020 Plan calls for a contraction of the~UGA in the area~between NC 98 and Leesville Road in order to prevent leap frog development. However, since the 2020 Plan was adopted, the development potential in the area has changed in two ways. First, Durham and Raleigh have successfully completed an annexation and service . area agreement for a portion of this area. The agreement indicates which of the two . jurisdictions should provide public utility services to the. area (see Figure 2). In accordance with the agreement, Durham will provide utility services for a~portion of Wake County and Raleigh will provide utility services for a small portion of Durham County. Second, private property owners along Doc Nichols Road have expressed . interest in securing sewer and water services to support development of several large , tracts. The Staffbelieves that this and other nearby potential development activity represent a significant expansion of residential tax base in the area. Aside from respecting the annexation and service area agreement boundary, the City has several options for locating the UGA in southeast Durham. These are explained below and shown in more detail on Figure 3, Southeast Durham UGA Options: • . Option 1, Maintain Present UGA. Under this option, the UGA established in . 1986 would be maintained in spite of the change indicated in the 2020 Plan. The advantages of this option are that more: property is within the UGA and those property owners are able plan'for eventual development of their property with public utilities. The disadvantages of this option is that development of sites closer to the center of Durham is discouraged to the extent that suburban Iand is available for speculation and development. Premature development may be encouraged closer to the UGA edge rather than immediately outside the present utility service area. This option does not acknowledge the recent service azea . agreement between Durham and Raleigh. The present UGA line: does not violate - that agreement in most places, although it also does.not take.advantage of the agreement. • Option 2. Contract UGA to Doe Nichols Road. Under this option, the UGA would be contracted from Kemp Road and Virgil Thompson Roads to Doc Nichols Road, as indicated in the 2020 Plan. The advantage of this option is that in-fill development is encouraged. Vacant and developable property located closer to the center of Durham and already inside the UGA is more attractive if the supply of UGA land is less. The disadvantage of this option is that less property is available for speculation and development: •. Option 3, Contract UGA to_ Mid-Way. Under this option, the UGA would be contracted to a line approximately mid-way between its present position and the line indicated in the 2020 Plan: This would include within the UGA a small . drainage basin associated with what has been called Earthquake Creek, where recent development interests have been. expressed. 4. Minor UGA Changes. In several locations, minor expansions of the UGA are proposed. The purpose of these ~is to provide for logical development of land that is immediately adjacent to theUGA and could be provided with utility services . ~ relatively easily. These proposed.minor UGA changes aze as follows 5 r 10 • Expand the UGA from Scott. King Road south to the Duiliam County line (approximately 450 acres). • Expand the UGA east of Farrington Road to include about 150 acres of private property south of the South I?urham Water Reclamation Facility and about 300 acres of US Army Corps of Engineers land. ~. Expand the UGA southwest to include land along.both sides of Farrington Mill Road (excluding Jordan Reservoir Critical Area) between Barbee Chapel Road and the Durham County-Chatham County line. • Expand the UGA east of Fletcher's Chapel' Road in eastern Durham to include several new small residential subdivisions (approximately 250 acres): • Expand the UGA in northeastern Durham along I-85 to include an area around _ the Gorman Baptist Church. 5. ~ Fnture UGA Study Areas. Given the growth limitations imposed on Durham by our agreements with surrounding jurisdictions and watershed protection policies, it is important to identify area for study of future UGA expansion. Several areas have been identified and are mentioned below. •~ Eastern Durham represents on of the few areas where the UGA could be expanded. UGA expansion could be considered.out to the Watershed Protection Critical Area for the Falls Reservoir. This possible future.UGA aiea is shown on Figure 3. . • To the west of Durham; a portion of Orange County near I-85 and the Eno River represents a second area for, possible future expansion of the UGA. The City will initiate discussions on this matter with Orange County officials in the coming months. This possible future UGA area is also shown on Figure 3. The Staffwould recommend that the Old Oxford HighwayButner Federal Correction Institution area and northeastern Chatham County area be examined for possible future UGA expansion. Both of these represent only limited~potential, since very little land is available outside of watershed. protection critical areas. 6. Possible Watershed Protection Service Area. For several years, Durham has generally embraced a policy that watershed protection critical area should not be served by public wastewater treatment services..The concern has been that public wastewater treatment services would generate demand for more intensive land "uses that are usually associated with threats to water quality. Stormwater runoff from construction activities, hard surfaces and manicured Lawns has the potential for' delivering significant levels of pollutants to water supply reservoirs. Prohibiting ' public wastewater treatrnent services and allowing only development supported by on-site individual septic systems helps avoid these threats to water quality. However, in Durham's notoriously poor soils, relying on septic systems may also pose a threat to water quality: Northern and eastern Durham have numerous residential subdivisions that were originally developed using septic systems and alternative on-site systems. Many of these systems have failed and, over time, failure of many more could be expected. In order to actively anticipate and address potential future water quality problems, Durham could consider identifying in strategic 6 ~' 11 locations, "watershed protection service areas" and offering limited public wastewater treatment services. ~ The objective of extending sewer pipes in these areas would be to con-ect water quality problems in existing development and not to support new development. ~ _ Alternatives A. Do Not Amend the UGA Boundary. This alternative would not assertively implement 'the UGA changes called for in the 2020 Plan. It would allow extension of public utilities and suburban development into certain small portions of Durham. County targeted for watershed protection. This alternative would.leave in place the UGA adopted in 1986. B.. Selectively Amend the~UGA. This alternative~would involve adopting only a portion of the UGA amendments identified in the 2020 Plan and by City staff. C. Significantly Enlarge the~UGAr This alternative would involve ~a policy approach significantly different from what the 2020 Plan proposed. This policy approach would more actively encourage suburban development by including more land at the edge of the UGA into which public utility services could be extended. D. Significantly Reduce the UGA. This alternative would involve more aggressively limiting suburban development in certain locations in order to encourage new development o?~Y in regional transit corridors. Financial Impact Amending the UGA boundary has no short term financial impact. Over the long term, ari overly large UGA allows early extension of public services that would likely result in some inefficiencies in providing those services. L~ewise, a small UGA may artificially constrain the natural growth of the City's tax base and limit choices for suburban neighborhoods. EOEA Implications There are no. EOEA implications associated with amending UGA boundary. Recommendation The Planning Staffrecommends that the City Council set a public hearing for September 20, 1999 to hear citizen comments about the~proposed Urban Growth Area amendments. The Staff also recommends that the City Council: 1. Amend the UGA to incorporate the Russell Road Area UGA expansion, the Hamlin Road Area UGA contraction, the Southeast Durham UGA contraction (Option 3}and the minor UGA changes, all as described above; and 2. Direct the Administration to initiate active discussions with Orange. Countyregarding appropriate areas in Orange County for Durham City to provide sewer, water and other urban services and for which Durham's UGA would be expanded. 7 ," Attachments ' Figure ~ 1, Durham Urban Growth Area . " Figure 2, Proposed UGA Changes .. Figure 3, Southeast Durham UGA Options cc Kathryn Kalb, Public Works Director - ~ " Nav .Gill, Finance Director ' Terry Rolan, Enviro~ental Resources Director G 8 l . ~ ~ 12 " 1 Urban Growth Area Lake ~Michie and Little ,~ River Reservoir City of Durham Jordan Reservoir 13 Falls feservoir ' Figure 1, Durham Urban Durham City-County Planning Department G~'01M~h Area ~~~ ~ August, 1999 .~ 1d i RrtsseD Road Area UGA Expansrori Durham-Hr~sborough Service Area Agreement Boundary Orange Co. Future t1GA Study Area ...., G~~` ~~ R°Sa~ Torrn of Chapel Hill f ~~ Hamfm Road Area UGA Contraction Eastern Durham Future UGA Study Area Southeast Durham UGA Contraction ~ UGA Optan 1 ' UGA Option 2 UGA Option 3 Durham-Raleigh Annexatron and Service Area Agreement Boundary Durham-Cary Annexation and Service Area Agreement Boundary Present Urban Growth Area ® Future UGA Study Area FjgLll'e 2~ PI'OPOSeIj Proposed urban Growth Area Watershed Protection Critical Areas UGA Cflanges Corps land ::,~ ~', a,,.•'' ~ Pra""i"g DeparhneM o 0.5 ~ Mdes ,n. Augusf.1999 N c i 15 UGA pti (Curt nt U S . t a y UGA ption 2 (2020 Plan Recommendation) ~ o us 0 ~a ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- UG/~Op n 3 ~ a'~ ~ (Staff Rec mm dation 0~ ~~ ~~ Durham's Service Area in Wake Co. Raleigh's Service Area in Durham Co: Durham-Raleigh Service Area Agreement Boundary Figure 3, Southeast Durham UGA Options `'~, 4 ~~ `~ ~ Dirhao Gly'Counly ~a~b ~ Pig Departrnent 0 0.5 1 M7a ~ ers°` A{g1u~ 1999 N 16 .:... r " .. '... i Durham Cmi/~oaniy Planning Department ~ '~~ Phone: (919) 5604137 Fa~c (919) 5604641 . www.a:durham.ncus/pianning Sample Letter October 12,1999 Deaz Durham County Property Owner, The City of Durham has for years used an Urban Growth Area (LJGA) boundary' as a tool for managing its growth. The UGA boundary encompasses an azea outside the City to which the City will eventually allow the extension of public utilities. It also represents an area that the City deems appropriate for urban or suburban density development and that the City would eventually annex. ~ . The City is presently considering some changes in its UGA boundary. In several areas, the UGA boundary is proposed to contract, so thatproperties inside the UGA today would be located outside of the UGA. Your property is in one of these areas. The implication for you is that if the proposal is adopted, you would not be allowed to extend City water and sewer to your property. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the location of the UGA boundary. You aze invited to come and express your opinions about the proposed changes. The public hearing will be conducted as part of the Council's regulaz meeting on ,1999 at 7:30 PM iti the Council Chambers, Durham City Hall, 101 City Hall Plaza, ~Durhain, NC. ~ _ For more information about the proposed UGA boundary changes, please contact Keith Luck, Senior Planner, at 919-560-4137 x244, email kluck@ci.durham.nc.us. Sincerely, Norman Standerfer, Planning Director ~. ~.