|
• - • :•••• •...••••.,.-P":•,...v."--4-0-.:...•-;•,-•‘-r-->-K.e,,wn,:y.....-••,,,,N,TA,,iii7,4,Arovticr,.-1,-,744-1445. -;:•.-‘2,:•,-:.-.1.7.•:-:-.•,:- -*I.:- ...-.. -.....•-••• - .
<br /> k . .-,, ,._.-,,';'.V.:,'-;.'■r.',..r:ri:i;,•:14tr,`1,,';y11%.'0,:co:,.1)40,Mr-liv40,AIL,VT:r,S 1,,,.`;44%.5.,41,y;,,,07;:17t ..- • . .t-o, .-0. .7.....,i 4 i t• - .- :.:7.. ' . .• . • :
<br /> ',.4 •_.7•-•, - •-•:•,f' -•,:,:',:)••••••:4--.4;24:ei•-..-.14,. .,,,,,,,;:i:P.-4.:4..0-,e4g< tq-::?.:W, 04.1".-Vqkt7-k0,•;kal':!r:•''' -:;I-...'-•::.•-.•• • '- 4*,..1 "'•• '.''..'.- . • • . -.. •
<br /> '4, '••' , •- —''',''';.'' A. :.-,'•-'.1....-, :0•L''':•'',',:.:,"/":%.,'..01:•:':Ii4-..*,■;),‘'•;'%':"'•);:.Z-1'. .. • :• .i- l' •"I, --, ...,''-•'.-•' . ' -
<br /> ;:i - .. .:, •_•-• • •••.- -,-....:••••:.••=. --:-..--;,:•.:...- -..1=.:.-,,--:c.••.;:7-..-.:... ,•-••-•-•••.• .• .. •.. •........ • :-. •••• '•• • . ,... . .• 000071
<br /> - ..,,••• - •"-::•-;.,.-...,,,..--,.:.,.....;,:,,,,•-,;-:,:-... ....,. ..:,-...„....,. ...,:..„:,,,,.7,......•• . ....., • • .. .,... ,, .•. ;• . .... . , . • •
<br /> '''• .- .:' • .. ...•.• •. ..','+.'I.'.:..••• ..2:''''i.
<br /> JOINT:PLPINNING AREA LAND USE PLAN ., •
<br /> 4 ' :' - : - • : .. -
<br /> 1,1 .. ' '.-' • :.....:-.'',..::::;.:•.:.:-**`:;,:::'''',',''• ':,.' ',. • ,• : - :, . . ___, • • • ' • '"• " :
<br /> . ... . . . .
<br /> ' . ' * ••'': :.; '...: ;:.:::•.; '-- :....:r....:':;ALTSHATIVE.STRATEBY MAPS .. .• , — .. . - ,-:.-- - _
<br /> i 410
<br /> . . ... . . . , , •
<br /> 1 'Hill
<br /> , •
<br /> Ri• • , -....' . At the:December- 3, 1985 meeting .Of the•Orange County and Chapel Planning-. — -
<br /> vrr
<br /> -;t- Boen-dsj four alternative'strategy.maps were presented:which i I lustrated:•various•-;_- , • • • ...
<br /> -11: • _ development scenarios for*the Joi.nt•Planning Area. The•four• maps.sought to - • - -.
<br /> ',II ••L . identify those areas which twoilld be 'classified as urban, transition-and rural
<br /> buffer-wi.thout•identifying -specific band 207.year,growth areas. The_four-maps are .
<br /> .A.
<br /> 17,7. • .
<br /> Z70. -reproduced•In sketch form.on the following Pages. The.basic.premise-governing - -
<br /> each alternative is,, listed below. . • ....: -4- ' . : t -
<br /> 11" . . . . ' -. . • :
<br /> --Alternative4 - :IA" 'limits growth or the transition areasto the Bolin. Creek,
<br /> ', - -.- - , ----- :•:- • and Morgan Creek drainage basins where development can be- :, •-.,- -
<br /> served with.gravity flow sewer lines. .
<br /> ,=1 . ., -
<br /> # .
<br /> . ,
<br /> . . .
<br /> Alternative B--,:*"Elti allows some further development beyendthe-Bolin, and Morgan-- -
<br /> C — - - - -- Creek basins. but use e 1-40 as the growth limit line.tet-the.
<br /> ,--,- .
<br /> ;'.•,7,: :: . • - -- - -- northeast'and •permita development -to occur at the 144,0/14C---86- - --
<br /> "P'1, '.-
<br /> „ • interchange.. •. .
<br /> .re . .
<br /> ..0,. • . ' . . .
<br /> •;.i
<br /> , ._ i• Alternative C - "C" uses Duke Forest,- drainage tributaries and the Bolin
<br /> t• -•••• —'.
<br /> V- .:- • — - - -- :- • Creek- basin as the dividing ,line between rural buffer•and
<br /> •4i, • . • . . • -. transition areas. . .. • -
<br /> ..-= " • •
<br /> -Atternative-D- "D" places on transition areas"other than-the ,northern
<br /> i'••••!
<br /> -.O'.••• • i- . .boundary of the Joint Planning•Area. , . ' , . • - . .!.• •,, '-'-
<br /> • .
<br /> • * ' • • ' . . ' • . ..- -
<br /> In each alternative, University Lake Watershed was retained in- its'rural buffer--
<br /> cl ass i fi cation. Furthermore, the area south 'of Chapel Hi 1 I (Southern Triangle) was-'.- . • i .
<br /> -retained as rural buffer. Some- adjustment-was made i•n:the:#.Triangle" to.fol low the , _,. . - -
<br /> -Morgan Creek' basin line. . . -
<br /> . , , - - -
<br /> *7-
<br /> e - -- For'each alternative, population projections were prepared using an average ••
<br /> :••.1 density-of 4.5 persons per acre for transition areas-and one unit per two•acres for •
<br /> e
<br /> rural buffer-areas. Based on these figures, the,fo I 1 ow i ng population-estimates were
<br /> derived. . . .
<br /> ,-'-'1• . ,
<br /> •-', : .
<br /> A - 102,200 '' . ' .. . ' --- -
<br /> "
<br /> ....
<br /> 'It '
<br /> B - 104,800 .. • • .
<br /> .
<br /> 1•',;; ' C - 11445000, ' ' '. . _ ..
<br /> 1,1 D - 173,400 • . .
<br /> '
<br /> •,4, • ' • ,_
<br /> .0 * By way of•comparison, projections prepared by the•Chapel Hill Planning Staff • • ,
<br /> indicated a range of projections for Dhape•1 Hill Township from.86,000 to 120,000.
<br /> ,..
<br /> ,..
<br /> :•.r.,., • The alternative strategy maps are to be studied by the-Planning Boards and one'.
<br /> •it
<br /> ,,-''-• -*-
<br /> 'alter-native selected as most suitable. Using land use plan categories and locational•
<br /> At
<br /> "i4., standards, a more detailed Land Use Plan will be prepared by Staff. •
<br /> vi
<br /> NC • .
<br /> . •
<br /> ",,,.-• • . • . . .
<br /> . , .
<br /> 4-,.. • . . ----
<br /> • .
<br /> .?-, • . • . . . . • , . . ,
<br /> •,, - -
<br />
|