Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-16-1999 - 9h ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 16.1999 Action Agenda Item # 9- h SUBJECT: CREEK WOOD -PRELIMINARY PLAN ACTION BY: April 17, 1999 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Resolution of Approval Extension 2582 Application Vicinity Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Preliminary Plan February 3, 1999 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732-8181 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the Creek Wood Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property is located in the Rural Buffer portion of Chapel Hill Township on the north side of Whitfield Road (SR 1730/1731) and on the south side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718). The total acreage of the tract is approximately 462. It is bounded on the west by the H.J. Oosting Natural Area owned by Duke University and on the east by Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) and Stoneridge subdivision lots and recreation area. New Hope Creek crosses the property at the northeast corner. Other surrounding land uses are residential. A 136-foot power transmission line right-of--way crosses the northern portion of the property aligned northeast to southwest. The tract is characterized by rolling topography that surrounds and drains toward several stream valleys. The Johnston Branch flows out of a pond on the south side of Whitfield Road under the road and north along the western boundary of the subdivision until it joins Old Field Creek as it emerges from the Oosting Natural Area near the central portion of the site. Old Field Creek continues in a northeast direction and flows into New Hope Creek at an oxbow near Turkey Farm Road. The 100-year floodplain on Old Field Creek and New Hope Creek is indicated on the Preliminary Plan. All three streams are included on the greenways strategy map in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as well as being suggested wildlife corridors in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina. The width for wildlife corridors recommended in the inventory is 100 meters (328 feet) on each side of a creek. Public roads are proposed to serve the development with a connector road running from Mt. Sinai to Turkey Farm road. NCDOT is recommending a left turn lane on Mt. Sinai. 2 Old Field Creek connects the Oosting Natural Area, 162 acres of Class 2 "Research Project Land," with wildlife movement along New Hope Creek that also flows through the Korstian Division of Duke Forest extending from Turkey Farm Road to Erwin Road near the Durham County line. The Oosting Natural Area as defined in the Inventory of Natural Areas also includes a portion of the bottomland and adjacent slopes on the Creek Wood property. The zoning of the property is Rural Buffer (Flexible Development does not apply in the Rural Buffer). The applicant has coordinated with Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) to propose a cluster subdivision featuring 641ots on 139.1 acres with 265.20 acres of open space, all of which will be purchased by TLC. An additiona158.60 acres adjacent to Mt. Sinai Road are reserved for future development. The average lot size is 2 acres; the minimum lot size proposed is 1.1 acre. The lots will be served by individual septic systems and a community water system. Seven lots will have septic easements. The open space is approximately 57 percent of the 462-acre tract .The minimum open space required is 92 acres (20% of 462 acres). Early in the design process, Triangle Land Conservancy identified the areas that were most critical to protect. The 265 acres that will be owned and managed by Triangle Land Conservancy follow the stream valleys described above including floodplain and adjacent slopes. The proposed open space also adjoins the existing recreation area for Stoneridge Subdivision. In conformance with the plan for the New Hope Creek Corridor in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, Triangle Land Conservancy plans to establish hiking trails on the property that will be accessible to the general public and to homeowners in the new neighborhood. The trail system will run along New Hope Creek and both sides of the downstream portion of Old Field Creek (see attached letter and map). The 139 acres to be developed for 641ots is located on the upland portion of the site. Access to the lots will be provided by a new public road system featuring a collector road with entrances on Whitfield Road and Turkey Farm Road. Approximately 37 lots will access the collector road from four cul de sacs. The Planning Board unanimously approved the Concept Plan for this subdivision under the name of the Johnston Trust Property on September 2, 1998. Two lots have been deleted and lot lines have been adjusted at the request of the Triangle Land Conservancy and to obtain Health Department approval. Otherwise, the subdivision layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan. On February 3, 1999, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Creek Wood Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval. Section III-D-3-d. of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations indicate the Board of Commissioners shall receive the Planning Department's report and the Planning Board's recommendation within forty-five (45) days of the Planning Board meeting at which the application is fowarded to the Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall take action on the proposal within forty-five days (45) days of the close of the County Commissioners meeting at which the Planning Board's recommendation is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Creek Wood Subdivision per the Planning Board recommendation with the conditions listed in the attached resolution of approval. 4 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date March 16, 1999 Name of Subdivision Creek Wood Owner/Applicant Sass Properties, Inc. The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Creek Wood subdivision Preliminary Plat, dated November 17, 1998, and containing 64 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads 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 Creek Wood Drive. Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton~Drive, and Forest Creek Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance. by the North Cazolina Department of Transportation or some other go~•ernmental body. Before the Final Plat of Creek Wood can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal, and repair azea, approved by the Orange County Dig ision of Environmental Health. Lots 3, 4, 6, 12, 26, 45, and 52 will require septic easements. 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 ~~ith 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 Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road shall be constructed to standards of the North Cazolina Department of Transportation, within a 50 ft. right-of-way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. r t OR A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to secure construction of Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road to the standards of the North Cazolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepazed by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The construction estimate must include a 10% contingency factor. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Cazolina. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Division. 3. Sight triangles shall be shown at each intersection as required by NCDOT. 4. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This. restriction shall be .stated in .a document describing development restrictions. and requirements to be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the signs aze in place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 6. Five foot sidewalks shall be installed and maintained as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 7. Turn lanes shall be constructed as recommended by NCDOT. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. The applicant shall secure installation of required landscaping through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost for required plantings and their installation must be provided. The estimate for landscaping must include a 10% contingency factor. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of 1 the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Cazolina. 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. 3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Whitfield Road and Turkey Farm Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Sald buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. A 50 foot buffer as specified in the contract between Triangle Land Conservancy and the developers shall be provided along the reaz of all lots located along the common boundary with the proposed Triangle Land Conservancy property. D. Drainage 1. A conservation buffer shall be provided between lot 29 and 30 as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 2. Locate drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of $29,120.00 (64 x $455 per lot) shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of pazkland dedication. 2. A document shall be prepared and submitted to create hiking trails on the TLC property that will be accessible to the general public and to the homeowners in the new neighborhood. The trail system shall extend down Old Field Creek to connect to the Duke Forest Oosting Natural Area to the west.This document shall be reviewed by the County Attorney and recorded with the final plat. 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: 6 a. drainage easements as required by D.3 above. 7 b. septic easements as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 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 prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. G. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declazation 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. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Boazd 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 ~;?EL111111VARY PLAN APPROVAL MAJOR SUBD1V1SlON 8,93 >; ORANGE COUNTY ' - - _. DATE:~1/13/98 PLrASE TYPE OR PRINT FINK ONLYI SUBDIVISION NAME: Creek Wood (formerly .Tehnarnn Trust Property) LOCATION: Boun_ d_ed h~ WF+; f; of ri Rnarl rn rt,P South._ Mt. Sinai Road to the North and Turkey Farm Road to the East. OWNER/DEVELOPER: sass Pronerties~ Tn ADDRESS: 5710 Oleander Drive. Suite 102rELEPHONENO.:(919) 313-1874 •W~nEt•nn~ Nr. AGENTlCONTACT: Rimlev-Horti ~ Assoc.. Inc. TELePHONE NO.: (919) 677-2082 ~rk Smn e A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tex Mep 16A Block Lotls) 2 & 2A Township Chapel Hill Zoning Oistricttsl: Rural Buffer (RB) ' Total Number of Actss: 459 2 AC ,Phases: _~I~A Total Number of Lota: t',4 _ Average Lot Sizs: 2 AC Minimum Lot Sizs: 1.1 Numbsr/Type of Swetures: tsxisting) Nnnt+ Knnwn (Proposed) S ngl e-F-~`>: w i gs Lineal Feet in Streets: 8 ,107 Acres in Open Space: 257 Acres Water Supply: Publie (specify) X Community Individual Wastewater Disposal: ~ Publie (specify) Community X Individual School District: C.hd; P1 R; 11 /Carrbore Firs'Oistrict: New Hope Rural Fire District General Land Uses in Arsa: R a c i ri pre t i a l Critical Areas: See Site__ stream/drainageways See Site Analysis flood prone areas na ysis watershed tspacify) Roads . Drives . BZdQS historic sites other (explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under 'farm use value taxation'? Yee_ Nom. If 'yes', please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may requae payment of deferred taxes under 'farm use value taxation'. B. Atl plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch squde two-hundred feet t1' ~ 200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet t1' X20') end must contain the fo0ovrng'infomzation: X ~_`~ subdivision name ~_ ~~=s?~' • zoning of tract and adjecsnt , ~ x ~?:<~ ~=~_ : Hama ~ address of ownerls) Properties _ - '°' `''"~ name d~ address of subdivider ~_ ~~~~~~ building satbadc fines by notation Gf other than owner) or typical lot layout ~+ X .......... name of surveyor, engineer. _$_ location and width of existing and c landscape architect ~ architect, proposed easements tdroinags, address. registration 1 and seal utilities, roads, ate.) m ~_ `'~~'~ Ititle! Preliminary Plan _~,_ ~~`_~'~~~ existing, Proposed end adjoining ~ X "s_v sesle~ north arrow righu-of-way including d"unensions at ~ ~«~,~SS~ date l'utdudinQ revision dausj and street names and state road ..~+ , X ~~?~ township, tax map-block-lot numbers. Lineal feet of road y w retereneas centerlines and approximate "i o X ':: Parent Pared •Identifieation ~ ausage of new street rights-of- ~ G+ . ~~' deed book and page +1.of property way .•07i w to bd subdivided' _~ ' ~ existing and proposed utilities, .m co ~^• ~ • . boundary described,wiUt bearings including type, sizes, hydrants. ~, and distaneas valves; manhobs ~ co ~ ~ :.~'x<..~s a' ford susage of the trees and ~ ~_ '•~ existing and proposed curbs. 3 ~ _ seteage of lots. including and putters and culverts, including ~ v Z! excluding area within rights-of- ~' d i L L X ::;~-~ well loeation end w dth of dleys. v N ~ e control cornet sidewalks, b~lce lanes. transit systems, and bus stops (please complete rwerae side) ~_ proposed lot lines with dimensions fot & block numbers phasing lines "• ~ topography at ten foot (10) ^"' intervals c _~ ~ water bodies, streams, floodway at and ftoodplains ~ ~•_ ~'~ ~`~'`•`{ susam buffers ~ ~' ~~~•~~ location and size of percale m v C •^'~ dedicated for public use, ~ `~+ recreational use or reserved in :~ w •*i o common, with purpose noted t•,, ~ :..• impervious surface data fif foeatad ~ ~~,, in water supply watershed) ~ X .,~,.w'.M vicinity map showing general .-, co a ra location of subdivision with streets C ~• end roads identified by State road ~ number and name ~ ~ X :`•`~:°~•%~> ~ landscaping end buffer at ct7 ~? '~ requirements v to ~r: ~A ?•>~~ township, corporate and sxue- territorial plenninp jurisdiction Tines which cross the property X -__., typical street cross-sections and intersection details includ~na design and width of trevelway and shoulders :~~r~: --~- honzontai alignment end general curve data (public roads! X • centerline radius on all proposal streets ~~ permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, historic landmarks X ' ~~^ adjoining lot layout names of adjoining property owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat book & page number. and perimeter lot numbers. location and size of lots of restricted development patentiaf • and notation on plat regarding ~/ ~A ~"'y~: same siormwater detention and/or rotantion sites end undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if located in water supply watershed) C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REaU1REMENTS 1. Twenty-five (251 copies at the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tex map iwith tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil), 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, s copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Oepetn:nsnt soils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon, 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (sea Section {V-8-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents. in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VL of. this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may indude, but not be limited to, a private road maintsnanee +M~a:rstent, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner s association. Those documents may be required as necessary ss evidence that the adinancs requiremenu are beinp.meL 8. Fse • $470.OQ~w 35.00 per lot (t fee for Preliminary and fine( plat). 7. If the subdivision contains l0 lots or more the follovrng information shall bs subn+ittad with the eppUcation: a. Ntunber of years to buildouL - Four years b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildouL - 16/Year c. Average pries of houses including Iota for each year to buildout. - $500 , 000 1, t pplicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate. ~ ~~~~; ` •IpF ./.I fir If. Je/~,t.~T../ T~''S ~„~ CtiW APP !CANT'S SIGNATURE r/ OWNER'S SIGNATURE ~~ OATS ATE 9 FEES: Amount 4 ~~ ~ Oate Psid ~ ~ s' 9 9 Receipt ft /7~ S ~o I ,~. TRIANCCL.E LAND CONSERVANCY December 18, 1998 Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: 10 office 1100A wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604 Mail PO Box 13031 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3031 tel 919.833.3662 fax 919.755.9356 Thank you for the opporttmity to review the preliminary plat for Creek Wood. Our August 24, 1998 comments on the conceptual plan aze still relevant to this version of the development proposal. In addition, we have several comments on changes which have been made to the plan since conceptual plan approval. SASS Properties has made several adjustments to the proposed property line between Tract B (open space) and Tracts A and C (cluster and future development azeas) in order to protect the natural and cultural resources on the property. These adjustments include: a) Providing ad itio al nrotPction to i_n_termittent ~ea_ms TLC and SASS Properties originally believed that the intermittent stream between lots 29 and 30 was located further south. The survey revealed that it actually cut through the back of lots 32 and 33 as shown on the conceptual plan. SASS Properties therefore adjusted the back lot lines of those two lots so that TLC will own a minimum of a fifty-foot buffer oa this stream when we purchase the land in Tract B. In addition, SASS Properties has agreed to establish a 100-foot undisturbed buffer on either side of the stream as it flows through lots 29 and 30. Although this 100-foot buffer is not shown on the preliminary plan submission, I understand that Jack Smyre of Kimley-Horn has explained that this was an oversight and that they intend to make this correction on the final plat. b) Prote g the Jo on Branch from heavy_..public use The Johnston Branch, a tributary of Old Field Creek in the southern portion of the property, is the most biologically sensitive portion of the property. Although TLC plans to lead periodic educational hikes into this area, we do not intend to build trails because we want to discourage regular public use. Under the conceptual plan, TLC was to own land to Creek Wood Drive. We asked that SASS Properties reconfigure lots 29 and 30 so that there will be no direct public access to that portion of the property from the road. c) Preserving rem inc of old ~3ct>~~es SASS Properties reconfigured lot 42 so that the chimney from an old house will be protected and accessible to all neighbors on neighborhood association land. [~) rlCVCIeA Decal 11 Dixon to Kirk December 18,1498 Page 2 d) Tree Protection Setbacks Although the preliminary plan indicates that the development will provide a minimum of a ten foot tree protection area on the back of all lots, SASS Properties has agreed to establish afifty-foot undisturbed buffer on the rear of all lots located along the common boundary with the open space area that TLC is to purchase. As expressed above in a), I understand that Kimley-Horn has already, discussed this oversight in the preliminary plan with you and that they intend to make this correction in 'the final plat. In the purchase contract with TLC, SASS Properties. has also agreed to include in the covenants of the neighborhood association that owners of individual lots will be required to erect plastic fencing to protect the trees within this fifty-foot buffer during any construction and installation of houses or other improvements on the lots. TT~C has continued to be impressed by SASS Properties's willingness to work with us to protect this important area. We support approval of the preliminary plan as it relates to our areas of expertise: natural areas, open space, and passive recreational azeas. Please let me know if you have additional questions. sincerely, Kate Dixon Executive Director _ _ _ 03!2111994 23:37 13365706873 NCDOT GRAFIRYrI DIS7 PAGE 01 12 _ - _. ,~ s St~T>r of NOR?H C~ROt.Il~IA DEFARTT~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3AMES H. HUNT IRS B NORRIS TOLSON GOVERNOR SECJt8TA1tY r~bt,:ary 9, lg99 ORANGE COUNTY Fddie Kirk Change Cauaty Planning 306F Revere Raid Hillsborough. NC 27Z'!8 919-732-$181 ext 2582 Subject: Preliminary Review Follow Up: Crct:k Wood Subdivision located off SR 1731 dt SR 1739 lacer IiQr. Kirk: This letter is a follow up to my Last correspondence dated January ZS, 1999. Since my last letter. the Engineer for the Aeveloger, Jack Stttyt+es, has marked the proposed entrance for the subject site. On February 5. 1'999, District Pecsottnel reviewed the site and found sight distance along SK 1730 adequate; however, the sight distance on SR 1731 was timitcd. For general safety and trttffc operational concerns, we wand recommend the tleveloptr provide a left turn lane >u this location. Wt would also suggest a right deceleration if right of way and funding is available. I[ you hove any fltnficr gtustioas, please contact Michael S. Venubk, Assistant District Engineer, at 336-570-6$33. SincE~+ely, T. J. der, ~.E. DISTRICT EN TJD:MSV:kww cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins. P.E. Mr. Jack Smyres P. O. Boat 766, Graham, NC Z'7?53-076f 6-11-1995 3.39PM FRAM OCT-13-2998 343 FEATHt UTILLTIES 919 a6@ 1'79A P_0Z/~ ~i~1i~r , = wi* osr,cr a-.~.~ } ~qr Nggr~ r,~wp~uw ae±i~ ~~Oll FAEE1 • (Qp ~:- w0'~ i!N{lYM~.~OB 11M QGtObef I2. 1996 1tr. ftDl t Sass Sass Properties. Inc. Qlearlder 3usil,less linter 571fl Oleander Drive. Suite 102 Milrington, NC 28403 Re: Coearolity Hells in Stoneridge/Sedgetield Subdivision Area Dear IM. Sass: You hart rtques:ed that Heater Utilities, Inc. tHeater) respond t0 seversl oOrKtrns that the Orang4 County Coielissionlrs haw roiatiw to ,your Rroposed Johnston Track Qtwloptdit adjacent to Stoneridge/Sedgttieid Subdivisions. Hester owns and operates ttw Coerunity Natty syste>w serving Stoneridgt/ Ssdgetield Subdivision. The water supply for these two subdivisions calves iron tour cawlnity Ne1is located within the subdivisions, It Heater enters into s contract with you to provide ester utility service to the Johnston Track Develop>.ent, we would require that ~ provide water production at at least one gallon per mnute Ems) for each connection in your developererrt. If the devtlope>ertt consists of 66 lots as rloN pla[rw:d. I would expect that you would rated one or two Ne1is to provide the required 66 ~. iRlen the well(s) to serve your proposed developtlent arc drilled. Heater would eorritor any of its existing wells Nhith are Nithill 500 feet Ot the nay wells to deterl~ine if any of these Hells arc cross connected, tie would not Qxpect an)r neN Weil drilled turtller ttgn 500 feet away to attttt our welts. In tact. I hive iNn incidlnces where two well: vn the sable Ntll lot are not intercoalected. 13 As a regulated Ytiltty. once Ne close on cur contract and the Hater systat is turned Dyer to t4eater, we would be responsi0le to replace any puap, storage. or water supply twetls) that tails. 6-11-1996 3:39PP4 FROM OCT-13-299 I4=44 ~gTER UTILITIES 919 460 1?86 P.03/86 Page Two - IM. Rolf Sass October' 13. 1998 Fur~ttrer~lOr't. as i regulated public utility. out' rritlr production and distribut'fon syste0s ire sub3ect to the rules, regulations and inspeetion of EPA, the North Carotir~ Utilities Caeaission and the North Carolina Depirteent of ErnironePntal Health. The North CaroliM labor' Oeparteent inspects our storage tanks. Our wells and the distributioA systee are tested vn a ~vnthly, quarterly and reariy basis for wer 130 contiwinints. I trust this lstitr Beets your needs- However. I wi11 be glad to Feet with ~ or the County Commissioners t0 further discuss this e~stter. Sincerely. ~.~ Rudy C. Shaw. Director Lung Range Planning 14 t~S/rt 6-11-1995 3:d0PM FROM OCT-13-1998 14=44 MATER iJTiLITIES 919 460 1788 P.04i06 1 5 RB (Bob) HEATER - Consultant s~n-~: coun~r r -w~wws- ~ -vraae~ . - seNw• sr~.« 20i Twaed GiaN Cary, NC 27511 . P'h. 9ii1~67~9114 October' 1Z, 1998 Oran0e County Co~^iissioners Hi 11 sborotl0h. NC Re: Proposed 66 lot Subdivision Referred to as ttw `Johnston Tract' Oear Cosaiasivners: i have been asked by 'Soso Properties. Inc.` and Nr. !toll Sass to write you in re0irds to tM posstb111ty that one or nro wells an the above- reterenced property Mould not dry up the wells on adjacent property owners an 'Turicsy Firs Road'" and the Stonebridge or Sedgefield Subdivisions. First, let Me say that no one can say with aKainty that one Mel! Hill not dry up another well. Flowever. I Can paint out tO you that, if Wle we11 serves 66 lots or 56 individual wells serves 66 1vts, the aaiourrt of Kater used Kill be the sale and the effect on nearby wells should be essant1a11y tht sous. furtiKrsore, the possibility of ContatAination of the water delivered is 111uCh l esS fros Orle Or two we115 on a pub! i C utility SySteal than Lhe Eft individwl wells. Thus. frost a health standpoirK. the public utility systaw that is tested iaonthly is Dy far safer. It has be~I u- eYperienCe aperatin0 over 460 coaaunity wells Mith itldlvtdual kells nearby that in only three cases have I krwwn of one at thlD aflectirg other wells. in two cases tt xas one casrsmity well and two hose wells. This was taken care of. with the owner's happiness. by connecting the individual hOSaOMeges m the Central systes. In the third case, one central Melt aftectad a prttral well on a diftw~ent utility and an agrtesent was reached as to how wuclf each system was to use. Thus, fror a practical sense. there should be na Concern where a vo^Mmity well or wells are used to serve a nu~Der of hoses Mi11 be detrisental to other wells neerDy. Eras a legal point, the U.S. Suprase Court ruled that in a case Khere one well wes drying w another that the first user has first C1ai^ an the water and the second user lust defer to the first user. 6-11-199b 3-40PM FROM bCT-13-i99B 14saS HEATER uT1t2T1E5 Qtg ~ Zug p,~,~ 16 Page Tiro Orange County Co^wissioners October i2 t998 In regards to the faiTt~ of s public utility's water supply. it is the sole responsibility ~ the utility to obtain rep}au~a+t ~. Ia the ono instano! viwte this F~paned tv sr. when I owned a public w~' sys;es. I piped titater to the sYsteet troa~ another approxia~ately iTE alias aay. If necessary. i woultt hairs P~'~sed property a?sere on M1tC1~ to drill a raptacenent well. Ibprt OMASA ra~r short of water a nu~ber of yaws ago. I drilled a nueber of weds for UNC campus ~ hospital to allow thes to have adquste ester. It is interesting to Hoff when surfaoa supplies start tQ fail. wales are uswtly in good supply and vice versa. Surface supplies depend on springs. rain. and storage trhfctt can gciidcly be affected by a dr'ou9ht. Malls depend on water stored in the rock and ground an0 talcs years to be affected by droughts and therefore are less libely w ae affiCted ay periodic droughts. IK concluston. you wtil be better off with the cerrtral systes than individual walls. Ny badcgrouc+d is as foilors: 59 years as a well ~i11er or ConSitltint; 33 years as a utility owner a coraultant; co-author of EPA's "Manual on Mater Me11 Construction." 21 ^orrths as a well driller instructor in tht U.S. Nave Ssa•Bees: vice cF~aireart end sea'e~tar~- of "JNdM seep Mall Standards" cdeaittee. developer asd d+aineen for 18 veers of National hater l~k1T Asaoc~iations certification prows which is wad by e~iny state as their license exa, past president of "N.C. 6r+ound Meter Association' and "National lister Me11 Association." and the first certified 'Master Meter ball tontractvr" in the United States and 16 years as a County Co~rissioner in Wke County. I hope this letter wilt answer your eonoerns you have. sincerely. /~~~ ~.~. N~ Conwetant 17 - - -- TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 306 NORTH COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HII.L., NORTH CAROLINA 27516 December 31,1998 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306-F Revere Road H~lsboroug~i, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: Telephone (919)968-2888 Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Chapel H~1 Planning Department to review and comment on the Creek Wood Preliminary Plat application for a Cluster Development Subdivision. We have no comments to offer at this time. We understand that the proposed subdivision would create 64 residential lots, a tract for future development, and a dedication of approximately 265 acres as Open Space in the Rural Buffer. If you have any additional questions, please call me at 968-2728. Sincerely, J. .Culpepper Development Coordinator JBC/mrk cc: Roger S. ~Waldon, Planning Director ---- -- ------ ----- ^-~ 18 V 1129 --- ----r--~ 1.__ ~ - ' ~` CREEK ~'VOUD - ~ '' ~ Applicant: Sass Properties, Inc. \. -\ ,~ S ~ _ ~ ~~. ! --~ r'y Zoning : Rural Buffer ~'~ ~. i ~a. Scale: f inch .4000 feet Qj North '\ l ~ r /u/ ~, ~ /• ~~' ~ / nu. • ~ •~ Ine v v CCL ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ GRP ~ 98 ~ 1~OPE ~ y ~. D. -- 1 ' x 'te 1 ~ , ~ ' L' • ~~ ~~' f~ ~~ ~•g~ SC~R~ L - RO. r 1113 P. ,~ ~{ !%°f'.i:il r+ ' - , 1718 _ +, r r ~! *"~ ` ` 0 . l1 1 f, f -~.. V'a~.r Y ~~.. P_ • ~('t J ~ ."r,.i~ / ~! r r '-~11 , •~ /'1'+'~~r !,l',.. .+ j ~ \~~ ~~ ( _..~.-:~ ' Vie., r,.'..J;.. ;r ` )'/t i•f r ( i~'! Y Jr~ l~ '!~ -~I ~;'~?-~ ,6J ~ y;~/fit i tl 1~ •~~. ::: t~ .f,; _ r ,!.'+~ - ~ 172, ~ ,!.~;Y r•:<. :Z1V ' 7 }s7, f• r~ ,!. ~f I ',.. ~ ')t 11 I/ ~ M1 :S •i ,' ,.~ ,. e ~ rat ~ ~ ~e :~ '•r J s J :.`.'0 n"~. l n•'•' _ .: °;,'-;r;. O I•~,-. '•~''• t, 1'!'f ~/'/-. 7/,~J fl ~, ~~ '1! ' !%t l~ A ~lS~ `'I'S\ Q~ ,. .•. w~sraa ~:;%"~J„%:~~j,; •i;~~'~;;f:. - •.~H~tFIELp RD. ~. 1835 an 12R ,:;~ f: ~;:•~; ~~'~~ 1836 7~ Oa ~o '!; ~N '1 K MILL RD. 41 / ' • ~!!' gP~ ~ Illti , 'CRY ~r ~ ;1 ~ +L',". ~`> 1727 '~'r W w. I ' y,r ~ II ~ ~lorlA d ~~ v, -~~ ac. / x ~ ' ~j, ~PUREFOY R0. ~ , , - -~ ~~ ~ ` "'~'A,, 18.96 ` `~,~ 1847 ' z 'Sp ~' ~~ RUSCH ~- S R0 34 ~ r \ ~~ ~_ ~ G n ~ ~~ 177? -~- ,- O r ~~ - ti 0 ~ ~ ~" -~ MOGAt'1 X 16N ~ ~~ ~ ~1 rye 1 ,~ ~ RD. ~ vu 1777 ~ ~.~" :~ L_r ~. t ~~ ~' = ~ o~ '~ • ~ ~.~.+~ /b Yom. ~ ~..,~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ sA o ~V~~ ~'S \ ~ ~~ ~~ r .:~ ! T - l~v~._ i~--.. -._ ~4 .~G" ,. r, ~ ,~~ ~ / ~ ~ ,,~a~ ' ~ ~ '' - ~ .,~ .' , ^"ter" y'',~" ', '•e " ~ ~ ~O ~87t ,~ ,\. _` ~ - +W -+~r{C.•. ~+„'R~(Yi. ,.co-.,.,., Y .,axe ,s w ~f. .- _ u~ ~ •...... x . ... ~ .i ~~~~/~w ri0~f.~.J u~'. 'idfiN!!~ }.. <.:~ O li , '. 19 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CREEK WOOD RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department January, 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Creek Wood subdivision contains 64 buildable lots and is located in Chapel Hill Township. The lots are accessed by new public roads which will intersect with Whitfield Road and Turkey Farm Road. The current zoning is RB -Rural Buffer. The average lot size is approximately 2 acres. Lots will be served by community wells and individual septic systems. Project build-out is estimated at four years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1999, with completion of the project scheduled for 2002. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be $500,000, including the lot. METHODOLOGY Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It calculates the financial effect of a planned development or new subdivision by considering the current costs and revenues such a development would generate if it were completed and occupied today. Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues. The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard Approach. While only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Per Capita Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of additional employees by service function that will be required as a result of growth. This method employs average county government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, an employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each service category and school district. The number of new employees are projected and multiplied times the average operating expenses (includes personnel, operating and capital costs) per employee. These average costs are then weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of the development. RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 20 Bureau of Economic 8< Business, Research -University of Florida Modified 4115/97 -Orange County, NC Planning Department SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: PROJECT: Creek Wood TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Beginning Year. 1999 Ending Year. 2002 Inflation Rate: 2.50% :HARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.51 Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.6; Non-Elderly: 100.00°r HOME SALES DATA:. Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes (3) by Year 1999 16 500,000 25.00% 2000 16 500,000 25.00% 2001 16 500,000 25.00% 2002 16 500, 000 25.00% 2003 0 0 0.00% 2004 0 0 0.00% 2005 0 0 0.00% 2006 0 0 0.00% 2007 0 0 0.00% 2008 0 0 0.00% SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE. School District: School Attendance: Orange County ( 0) Elementary School 57% Middle School 22% Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( 1) High School 21 SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA 21 BUDGET YEAR: 1996_97 COUNTY POPULATION: _ __ 105898 SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 8127 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT:. General Govemment Public Safety Public Works Human Services Education (School District) POSITIONS 108.60 142.95 50.00 264.07 1155.00 PER CAPITA 0.0010 0.0013 0.0005 0.0025 0.0109 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT Total 1155.00 0.1421 COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES Taxes -Other Than Property Intergovernmental Service Charges Miscellaneous REVENUES 4653250 9007481 3388055 1738939 PER CAPITA 43.94 85.06 31.99 16.42 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works Human Services Education (Recurring Capital) Non-Departmental. EXPENDITURE 6804231 7274334 2871690 17112641 874500 3163481 PER CAPITA 64.25 68.69 27.12 161.60 8.26 29.87 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE (S): General Government Public Safety I~ Public Works Human Services Education (Recurring Capital) EXPENDITURE 6804231 7274334 2871690 17112641 874500 PER EMPLOYEE 62654.06 50887.26 57433.80 64803.43 757.14 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES (S): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT County Government 14482314 1782.00 School District 4895081 602.32 State 26787400 3296.10 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE County Government 14482314 12538.80 School District 4895081 4238.17 State 26787400 23192.55 TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION: County Tax Rate ($) 0.8111 Per $100 Assessed Valuation School District Tax Rate ($) 0.1900 Per $100 Assessed Valuation Assessment Ratio 100.00 Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA 22 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS 16 32 48 64 64 POPULATION 41 82 123 164 164 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 6 11 17 23 23 Middle 2 4 7 9 9 High School 2 4 6 8 8 TOTAL 10 20 30 40 40 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Govemment 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.17 Public Safety 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.22 0.22 Public Works 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.08 Human Services 0.10 0.20 0.31 0.41 0.41 TOTAL 0.22 0.44 0.66 0.88 0.88 SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.45 0.89 1.34 1.79 1.79 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 HOUSING UNITS 64 64 64 84 64 POPULATION 164 164 164 164 164 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 23 23 23 23 23 Middle 9 9 9 9 9 High School 8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL 40 40 40 40 40 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Govemment 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Public Safety 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Public Works 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Human Services 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 TOTAL 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 SCHOOL DISTRICT 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES I ,SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT 23 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TAX BASE ($1000) 8000 16200 24605 33220 34051 REVENUES ($) Property Tax 64888 131398 199571 269448 276185 Other Taxes 1800 3690 5673 7753 7947 Intergovernmental 3484 7142 10981 15007 15383 Service Charges 1310 2686 4130 5645 5786 Miscellaneous 673 1379 2120 2897 2970 TOTAL ($) 72155 146295 222475 300751 308270 EXPENDITURES ($) General Govemment 2632 5395 8295 11337 11620 Public Safety 2814 5768 8868 12120 12423 Public Works 1111 2277 3501 4785 4904 Human Services 6619 13569 20862 28512 29224 Education 18301 37517 57682 78832 80803 Non-Departmental 1224 2508 3857 5271 5402 TOTAL ($) 32699 67034 103065 140855 1.44376 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 39455. 79261 119411 159896 , 163893 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TAX BASE ($1000) 34902 35774 36669 37586 38525 REVENUES ($) Property Tax 283089 290166 297421 304856 312478 Other Taxes 8145 8349 8558 8772 8991 Intergovemmental 15767 16161 16565 16980 17404 Service Charges 5931 6079 6231 6387 6546 Miscellaneous 3044 3120 3198 3278 3360 TOTAL ($) 315976 323876 331973 340272 348779 EXPENDITURES ($) General Govemment 11911 12208 12513 12826 13147 Public Safety 12733 13052 13378 13712 14055 Public Works 5027 5152 5281 5413 5549 Human Services 29955 30704 31471 32258 33065 Education 82823 84893 87016 89191 91421 Non-Departmental 5538 5676 5818 5963 6112 TOTAL ($) 147986 151686 155478 159365 163349 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 167990 172190 176495 180907 185430 I 24 SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 REVENUES (;) County 18301 37517 57682 78832 80803 School District 15200 30780 46750 63118 64696 State 33225 68111 104720 143117 146695 TOTAL (;) 66725 136407 209151 285067 292194 EXPENDITURES (;) County 18301 37517 57682 78832 80803 School District 6071 12446 19136 26153 26807 State 33225 68111 104720 143117 146695 TOTAL (;) 57597 118074 181538 248102 254305 NET FISCAL IMPACT (;) 9129 18334 27613 36965 37889 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 REVENUES (;) County 82823 84893 87016 89191 91421 School District 66314 67971 69671 71412 73198 State 150363 .154122 157975 161924 165972 TOTAL (;) 299499 306987 314661 322528 330591 EXPENDITURES (;) County 82823. 84893 87016 89191 91421 School District 27477 28164 28868 29590 30329 State 150363 154122 157975 161924 165972 TOTAL (;) 260662 267179 273858 280705 287723 NET FISCAL IMPACT (;) 38837 39808 40803 41823 42868 • SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS 2~ YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 HOUSING UNITS _ _ __ 16 32 48 64 64 POPULATION 41 82 123 164 164 SCHOOL CHILDREN - Elementary 6 11 17 23 23 Middle 2 4 7 9 9 High School 2 4 6 8 8 TOTAL 10 20 30 40 40 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.22 0.44 0.66 0.88 0.88 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.45 0.89 1.34 1.79 1.79 TAX BASE (61000) 8000 16200 24605 33220 34051 COUNTY BUDGET (6) Revenues 72155 146295 222475 300751 308270 Expenditures 32699 67034 103065 140855 144376 BALANCE 39455 79261 119411 159896 163893 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (6) Revenues 66725 136407 209151 285067 292194 Expenditures 57597 118074 181538 248102 254305 BALANCE 9129 18334 27613 36965 37889 COMBINED BUDGETS (6) Revenues 138880 282702 431627 585818 600464 Expenditures 90296 185108 284603 388957 398681 BALANCE 48584 97595 147024 196861 201782 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 HOUSING UNITS 64 64 64 64 64 POPULATION 164 164 164 164 164 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 23 23 23 23 23 Middle 9 9 9 9 9 High School 8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL 40 40 40 40 40 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 TAX BASE (61000) 34902 35774 36669 37586 38525 COUNTY BUDGET (6) Revenues 315976 323876 331973 340272 348779 Expenditures 147986 151686 155478 159365 163349 BALANCE 167990 172190 176495 180907 185430 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (6) Revenues 299499 306987 314661 322528 330591 Expenditures 260662 267179 273858 280705 287723 BALANCE 38837 39808 40803 41823 42868 COMBINED BUDGETS (6) Revenues 615475 630862 646634 662800 679370 Expenditures 408648 418865 429336 440070 451071 BALANCE 206827 211998 217298 222730 228298 SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 26 SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District• School Attendance: Orange County - NO ) Elementary School 57% Middle School 22% Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( YES ) High School 21% YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 6 11 17 23 23 Middle 2 4 7 9 9 High School 2 4 6 8 8 TOTAL 10 20 30 40 40 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 23 23 23 23 23 Middle 9 9 9 9 9 High School 8 8 8 8 8 TOTAL 40 40 40 40 40 SCHOOL CAPACITIES -ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS Elementary 3688 Elementary - 3922 Middle 2104 Middle 1897 High School 2665 High School 2110 TOTAL 8457 TOTAL 7929 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary 3928 3933 3939 3945 3945 Middle 1899 1901 1904 1906 1906 High School 2112 2114 2116 2118 2118 TOTAL 7939 7949 7959 7969 7969 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary 3945 3945 3945 3945 3945 Middle 1906 1906 1906 1906 1906 High School 2118 2118 2118 2118 2118 TOTAL 7968 7969 7969 7969 7969 p A ~ ~( r'1 r-~ r r-~ ~ ~ p U ~ y ~ 27 Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Section Five of Village of the Oaks Major Subdivision, with conditions listed in the - Resolution of Approval (copy of the Resolution an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Rachel Best, developer, noted that the question of disputed location of the County line between Orange and Alamance, is an ongoing question. However, from previous approvals, Ms. Best was proceeding assuming all of this portion is in Orange County. Allison asked if this plan must be submitted to Alamance County for approval. Hinkley responded that the developer has developed the tract according to Orange County regulations which, are considerably more stringent than those of Alamance County. Ms. Best responded that the project was approved in Alamance County as well. In regard to a question from Selkirk regazding the tax bill for Lot #5, Ms. Best responded that it has been agrced that this section is Orange County. She also noted that she owns an additiona190 acres in Alamance County adjacent to this tract. Ms. Best noted that this had been her family's farm and she is very particular about the way the project is developed. Lincoln pointed out that in cases such as this, the plats are recorded icm both counties. MOTION: VOTE: Stirayhorn moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Katz. Unanimous. (3) Creekwood (64 Lots Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Eddie Kirk. The property is located in the Rural Buffer portion of Chapel Hill Tawaship oa the north side of Whitfield Road (SR 1730/1731) and oa the south side of Mt. Sinai Road (SIB 1718). The total acreage of the trail is approximately 462. It is bounded on the west by the H.J. Oosting Natural Area owned by Duke University and on the east by 'I~rkey Farm Road (SR 1730) and Stoneridge subdivision lots and recreation area. New Hope Creek crosses the property at the northeast corner. Other surrounding land uses are residential A 136-foot tower transmission line right of-way crosses the northern portion of the property aligned northeast to southwest. The tract is characterized by rolling topography that surrounds and drains toward several stream valleys. The Johnston Branch flows out of a pond on the south side of Whitfield Road under the road and north along the western boundary of the subdivision until it joins Old Field Creek as it emerges from the Oosting Natural Area near the central portion of the site. Old Field Creek continues in a northeast direction and flows into New Hope _..~.. .+~ ~ i.~KVrs. U 28 U .J U u V tJ U Creek at an oxbow near Turkey Farm Road. The 100-year floodplain on Old Field Creek and New Hope Creek is indicated on the Preliminary Plan. All three streams are included on the greenways strategy in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as well as being suggested wildlife corridors in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina. The width for wildlife corridors recommended in the inventory is ] 00 meters (328 feet} on each side of a creek. Old Field Creek conned the Oosting Natural Area, 162 acres of Class 2 Research Project Land," with wildlife movement along New Hope Creek that also flows through the Korstian Division of Duke Forest extending from Turkey Farm Road to Erwin Road near the Durham County line. The Oosting Natural Area as defined in the Inventory of Natural Areas also includes a portion of the bottomland and adjacent slopes on the Creek Wood properCy. The zoning of the property is Rural Buffer (Flexible Development does not apply in the Rural Buffer). The applicant has coordinated with Triangle Land Conservancy to propose a cluster subdivision featuring 64 lots on 139.1 acres with 265.20 acres of open space. An additional 58.60 acres adjacent to Mt. Sinai Road are reserved for future development. The average lot size is 2 acres; the minimum lot size proposed is 1.1 acre. The lots will be served by individual septic systems and a community water system. Seven lots will have septic easements. The open space is approxunately 57 percent of the 462-acre tract. The minimum open space required is 92 acres (20% of 462 acres). Early in the design process, Triangle Land Conservancy identified the areas that were most critical to protecK. The 265 acres that will be owned and managed by Triangle Land Conservancy follow the stream valleys described above including floodplain and adjacent slopes. The proposed open space also adjoins the existing recreation area for Stoneridge Subdivision. The 139 acres to be developed for 641ots is located on the upland portion of the site. Access to the lots will be provided by a new public road system featuring a collector road with entrances on Whitfield Road and Turkey Farm Road. Approximately 371ots will access the collector road from four cul de sacs. The Planning Boatel unanimously approved the Concept Plan for this subdivision under the name of the Johnston Trust Property on September 2, 1998. Two lots have been deleted and lat lines have been adjusted at the request of the Triangle Land Conservancy and to obtain Heahh Department approval Otherwise, the subdivision layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Creek Wood Subdivision per the Resolution of Approval (copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Katz, noting that the surrounding neighborhood also has community wells, asked if there had been any consideration to tap into a different acquifer so there would be no concern with the well going dry. Jack Smyre, DG3Glff4 _ _. consultant for the project, noted that this was an extremely low density area. The lots in Stoneridge are two to three acres in size and the lots in this project are two acres in size. He felt this would not be a heavy water usage project. Then are two well sites reserved on the property. There is also a possibility of a tie-in with Sedgefield and Stoneridge system since then is a main down the west side of'ilirkey Farm Road. He felt the community well was, by far, a better solution than individual wells. Selkirk asked if a hydrological analysis done of the area so that the applicant knows what the aquifer is. Mr. Smyre responded that an analysis has not been done by ICimley-Horn & Associates. While the aquifer is unlatown, a letter has been received from the operator of the wells in Sedgefield and Stoneridge that there is sufficient water in the area. It is also the responsibility, should the well ever dry up, of the developer to produce another well or to dig the original well deeper to provide water. Ivlr. Smyn continued that there an a total of 251 lots in Stoneridge and Sedgefield being served by three wells which is approximately 831ots per well, while this project is one well for 641ots. Strayhorn asked about the line size, noting that there are water lines under the road. Mr. Smyre responded that he did not have that information but the County Engineer would be involved with the actual water system. Barrows asked about the location of septic easements for the seven lots that require easements. Mr. Smyre responded that the easements for lots 3 & 4 an located across the street on a corner lot that is owned by the Homeowners Association. Lot 12 has an off-site easement on lot 13 across the open space, which is a distance of about 400 feet. Lots 45 and 52 have easements on a lot that is also owned by the Homeowners Association (he indicated the location on the plat), and lot 26 has an easement diagonally to lot 29. These solutions/recommendations were prepared for the applicant by Allen Clapp, who is with the Orange County Environmental Health Department and very knowledgeable in this field. He felt these wen good solutions. Iv1r. Smyre referred to the Resolution of Approval and asked that Item C4 be amended to read: A 50 foot buffer, as specified in the contract between Triangle Land Conservancy and the developer shall be provided along the rear of all lots located along the common boundary with the proposed Triangle Land Conservancy property. MOTION: Selkirk moved approval as recotrunended by the Planning Staffwith the requested change in Item C4 of the Resolution. Seconded by Katz. VOTE: Unanimous. (4) Woodgreen (25 Lots -Cheeks Township) Presentation by Karen Lincoln. 30 .~ _,- ," , ~ / /_J'~%~' ~~ ' v Ae \ AO \ fi ~ ® ~ w~ L t~A L A0~ ~ , 1 u~ tr `1 `, ~•~ ', y •`~~~ I ~ ° ~° ~ ~ O ~ ~ ,,~\ ~. I ` LAO u AO I TRACT C ' ~ ~ ~ ~` \ \ `~ 39.10 ACRES ` . ~`,\ ~ 1~~,.. ~. ,. `. u ~ ` ~ t•~ „ TER DEVELOPMENT'~,t'°,`;,~'`~ ~',` \ ~ `7 ~`~ `.. ~ ® ~'v~ // ~ y ~ \ `\ ` ~ /1_ '~ \-/ ~1 ~\\ ~ , ~ i`, , 1 1, ~ \ ~ \ \ 1 \ `~ ` \ 1111 f % ~\l ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ '• ( / , ~ i. l r ~ ~~1~ 1 / / ,\ ~ / I ! / i f • ~ It ~.I( ~/ ~'. aI ; ~ , ' I >< ~ ~ r ~ ~ 1 ~_ ,, -~ ,~ ; i I~ .)orwsloty 1RUS,E w\ , I ~ i vAC~wr.-~. uai 1., I ' M iM~ c \ 1 111 I ( / 41`\ ., ! \i l i r % \ 1, RESIDEN71lt i ~'~~ ~~ 'W.M fRAN~~ ;' '_,\ 1~~ __. .,, v ~` ro` ~,~ 4 ,,:• .~ . >, ~\ ~ I I ~ ~ ~~~ o ~/ ~ • ~ v~. Ar !f onvta ran i ,u~xlwoRA RrPeRra( i~ '~.~ k ~' St i l •., ,i~E4 ,~ I ~ r ' ~~ ~^ ( i nK sueonnsa~ '~' . ••~~ j slo~itaioc)E '~'' J4s /. w. «.a © ~ ~ / _ Th• .lelnw Y. ,Ietin•ton Tru• ~ i rar.CharitabN t Educotiond L 110 r ~ ,Z WhCdiYn CYCN, SuR• 80( ~ \ , ~ ~~ ,/ CA•q~•••. MD 20815 ~ ~: T ` r ~ j Sea Pnp•rtip, 4it >° ' \ ' PROP08ED Ol•v~d0r 8u•ii•s• C•nefr / 3710 01••fWr Driv, Suit 1 t ~ / KCCE88 ,Mymtegt0n, Nertii Ceroflna 2 a: _ ~ 1~ ~ i ~~' ~!` ~~%~ I~ / ~ ~' v.o a t... y / R9 eiy(1, 'CZ~ -3068 u Ao ' \ TONBltil ~ ( - ~"u ~~` f ' ~\ `~DRIYa' ~ 1622 E N C HwyP.St .E. 1 % Durtiom, NC 27713 ' ' \ ~ (919) 381-0372 ti ~ f TAX MAP REFCRFN ' \ I 7.18A-.2 do 7.16A..2A t' ' ' I `!, ~~, DOA14 PG 180. Porch ID ~~~ u r/ 5r ~ 1 R fFER (RB) ` ~ ~~~ Ss~ 1 ~~sm~r~it:wo~cE Hstxt r~s v Ae ~ 1 ~ ~ .~ 1. cloak aplwtp .w.ta rwl t f~a, 9r~+r w ean•lrvdiRn tenaerw p oac ~/~v~~- It D•OQbnpl of T.onpartetan u ~ ~~ ' tlrpt~ p adAltien. to Me sl ~ ~~~~ ,~\ Rq~t-of-.oy .aeru .el w s J.i--l~--'J \ M a .n+..nwn .:din f 22'. LAO ~ ~'' \1 \\. 2 Pro•opd an-Rll• mnrmmlly ~~ryry [w IiKRd .iM RdRtiy a ~ ~ ~ ~ rrl•ii aRR9 TuMRy form Rope A0~ r'ORd'S~ID~ _ 1 s"l;wla .• a or M. ,'~ ,~ I F- Rya - .. s' .Id..e4. to w i«ol•d r^ ~r Sr•~4u6! ~~~ aaq a.R wR.er in. wrow t ~~ I ~ (/~~~~ s. utulw r,a~ w Ieeo/R0 unae f>•ROe.•d p.rexc none-or-.oy. \~I I TRACT A: N Fulun OR.aopmRni I' i \ SS60 by I 1I11AL SUBDIV150N a•..TSOep I - I 2.20 by Z ED: RB \ 1RACr c L ~,~ p RRadplia (C4wiRr 0«aewn.rt) TOTK 11QAQ .•290 \ Ir a rs. Row f>.tc ACfEAfY OT Kn R/11! 9.9 - . g~f7 TOTAL .w•[~ T ~. m5 - Bt / =J t'; s~l~ ~~ ~. ~ ~- ~, ~~1 _ _ ~ t - GO•e1 ~~RE9DENTIN. SUBgtASION tO i •~aan~ir gp(,~p,p {ne°1 ~` ZON@ RB R f-il 1 _...- "--~~" ~ --, . most ~ n.a...r RN• . rpR91n ua ~PROPOSEO CREEK WOOD ;ACCESS DEVELOPMENT/ LANDSCAPE PLAN CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN CREEK WOOD ORANGE COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA -__-__---- Kimley-H ------------ and Assc __-~___.-___. f9wa~i tt,t .-. • TRIANGLE_ LAND CONSERVANCY D 2 ~ ~ ~~7' (~ ~ " ~ I August 24, 1998 Emily Cameron Planner IULandscape Architect Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Deaz Emily: 31 office 1100A Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC 27604 Mail PO Box 13031 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3031 tel 919.833.3662 fax 919.755.9356 Thank you for giving the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) the opportunity to review and comment on the conceptual plan for the Johnston Trust property. As indicated in the "site analysis and design response," TLC has been negotiating with SASS Properties to purchase 257+/- acres of the Johnston Trust property for a nature preserve. I believe that we are close to finalizing a purchase contract for the land. The only remaining issue seems to be how to deal with hurricane-damaged trees that aze visible from the portion of the tract to be developed. As TLC's expertise relates to the preservation and enjoyment of natural land, I will limit my comments on the conceptual plan to issues related to those resources: Protection of Significant Natural Areas: The exact location of the 257 acres that TLC is to purchase was based upon a map (copy enclosed) that indicates azeas of five different levels of environmental sensitivity. The map was developed as part of a detailed biological inventory conducted in 1994 by Elizabeth and James Pullman. SASS Properties has agreed to sell TLC all of the land identified within the first two levels of sensitivity (shown as blue and yellow on the map) and much of the land of the -third level of sensitivity (red on the map). The land to be purchased includes the portion of site Nl 1 in the Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas found on the Johnston Trust tract. It will also protect the existing wildlife corridor between Oosting Natural Area and the Korstian Division of Duke Forest and safeguard water quality in New Hope Creek and its tributaries. egg Trails and Public Access: TLC plans to establish hiking trails on the property that will be accessible to the general public and to homeowners in the new neighborhood. The trail system will run along New Hope Creek and both sides of the downstream portion. of Old Field Creek (see enclosed map). Steps built into the bluffs will allow neighbors in the new development to reach the trails below. TLC does not plan to develop trails in the southern portion of the property. This area is the most biologically diverse on the property, particulazly in the seeps and bogs along the Johnston Branch, and we aze concerned that heavy public use would impact it negatively. ® rocyclad papei 32 Dixon to Cameron August 24, 1998 - ' Page 2 Community Well: TLC supports SASS Properties' proposal to link the new neighborhood to the Sedgefield community well or to establish its own system rather than individual wells. We are concerned that pumping from individual wells might impact subsurface water levels and dry up the seeps and bogs that provide habitat for raze salamanders and dragonflies. Stormwater Runoff: Because of TLC's concern about the impact of stormwater from the development, SASS Properties has agreed to consult with Dr. Nancy White, an NCSU hydrologist and expert on techniques to reduce stormwater flow. TLC believes that the 257 acres to be preserved as open space will not only protect the most important natural areas of the property but also provide a beautiful new location in the county for hiking and nature study. We have been impressed by SASS Properties willingness to work with TLC to protect this important azea. We support approval of the conceptual plan as it relates to our areas of expertise: natural azeas, open space, and passive recreational areas. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Sin erely, f i ~~ Kate Dixon Executive Director JOHNSTON TRUST AND PULLEY TRACTS 33 - - --Orange County, North Carolina T. _ , . . 6~' ~ ~! ; i - V ~~ ~ ~ ! ~r (`ice ~ ~ s~~~ ~r~~-/"• ~/ ~ iii/i/5~- .`p `. ~!j1~ \! I/ ~ ( , ,r /? !I `!! •--~~~. `~`~ ~'\`~ \~'~ 1\t .. ~i r / ~t t'-.~_ 1II j~~ ~ ~ Ir ~~ \~• __- 1 ~ v ~^f~j~~ ~f~~-~ ~ I{~~~-_",~~~~? i. ~ I ~: _ ~~ ! .._;~ ; a ~a ~ ~ ~, ~ P TRACT- •~~ ,` _ l Ii ~~ `~ •. ~.,, :: -----...~-= , i~ ~' •; " o , -~ , ~, ;; ~ p ~ ail ~' - ~-N"~, Mount Sinai Road ~ ` . % ~ -_ ` ` , ' ~ , - • ,mil ~, ; I ' I ' ; . ` `7 .estla~nc( o ~ 71 t ~`.~,~ ~'Parkin Lot-^~~•~Q Gard ~-so /', ~ ,, , - _; r' ~~~ JOHNSTON TRUST TRACT ~` ~ _ ,t`;,' ' <;°~~ ~p 7 ~ f d Loop Tra><l~•' ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '; Taller 1 „ `;~ • ~,_ ~ -~ '~i~~' ''~r~. , 79 ~ . ~~ , , ~ l..- r ___ / ! ~ _ •~~ r d~: : \ ~ •-~~ \ I 1 .cam `\ . <~ ); . ffield Road ~ r . ~ " ,~ ~ ~ n I +~; ~ , r ~ ~ 557 ~- i 11 ~ ~ '. I / ; •'" r ' - III ! ; .r ~ ~• - ` • ~ r ~ ,,- ,. jiff" _ - - II ~l~ . Ater ~ m `~' ~ • ! 1-~~ __ Land to be purchased by the Triangle Land Conservancy through the Help Save 'A"°I~ the New Hope Creek campaign Other land on the Johnston Trost tract to be developed by Sass Properties ~~wf I1 }' ' f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~RiAAtS / ll p ,/~ .,`, t ~~ . .718 ~ i ~' /•• ) ~ ; ~ ~ _ ~. ~~ \ ~ '~'j -r ~ ~~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1, _--~: ~~ `""'~ ~ Old Johnston ~~~~ ~ '~ ~t~ < t ~~ ~ --~ 1 ~ ~ r: ` `. ~ r r /~ .-- , ,..- ~~ (. ~ ~,~ _._„_,,,, ~r,..,..ti ~ ,,~ t .• ~ ,~ ~ 1 .- :, _w. ~~ , , ~ ''~~ s /-~~r - ~ • i ~ / '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~:~ i 4 _ •' ~/ ~ ~ ':aiz. ~ ` i `ti w ,{{~,, ~. ~` ,>> ~ • • /elf .k ..1~I ~ • , rti ~r~~ i f' ( 1 /~ i Il ~~ 1 / \ ~ kxx~ct ~ o~ Ttrv~ a~• ~oNN,t~h + /// ~, Cl: ~m8n U sy ~r /,~ ~ 75~~ 3~r RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • Date March 16, 1999 Name of Subdivision Creek Wood Owner/Applicant Sass Properties, Inc. The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Creek Wood subdivision Preliminary Plat, dated November 17, 1998, and containing 64 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. All roads shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of Creek Wood can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal and Water Supply Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic disposal and water and repair area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health. Lots 3, 4, 6, 12, 26, 45, and 52 will require septic easements. Lots created in this development cannot be connected to public water and sewer and public water and sewer will not be provided to the lots. 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 Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of 2 Transportation, within a 50 ft. right-of--way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. OR A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to secure construction of Creek Wood Drive, Creek Run, Wood Ridge Lane, Bridgeton Drive, and Forest Creek Road to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The construction estimate must include a 10% contingency factor. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Division. 3. Sight triangles shall be shown at each intersection as required by NCDOT. 4. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be stated in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as required in Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the signs are in place or a copy of the receipt for purchase of the signs shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 6. Five foot sidewalks shall be installed and maintained as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 7. Turn lanes shall be constructed as recommended by NCDOT. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping • 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. The applicant shall secure installation of required landscaping through a letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond. An estimate of the cost for required plantings 3 and their installation must be provided. The estimate for landscaping must • include a 10% contingency factor. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 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. 3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Whitfield Road and Turkey Farm Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. A 50 foot buffer as specified in the contract between Triangle Land Conservancy and the developers shall be provided along the rear of all lots located along the common boundary with the proposed Triangle Land Conservancy property. . D. Drainage 1. A conservation buffer shall be provided between lot 29 and 30 as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 2. Locate drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland Cash in the amount of $29,120.00 (64 x $455 per lot) shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. A document shall be prepared and submitted to create hiking trails on the TLC property that will be accessible to the general public. The trail system shall extend along New Hope Creek and down the northern side of Old Field Creek to.the western property line in order to provide connectivity to any future aquisition of the greenway system as defined by the greenway strategy map in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. This document shall be reviewed by the County Attorney and recorded with the final plat. • F. Miscellaneous 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. 4 2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. drainage easements as required by D.3 above. b. septic easements as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. 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. G. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-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. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. i~ ~.~ Signature of icant Clerk the Board I, ~HO~s ~ ,~f~V L~?2 ,accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant Date