Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-22-1999 - 1a'00.3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 22, 1999 Action Agenda Item# / CL, SUBJECT: LAWRENCE PARK PD-3-98 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections. PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: A-Yes 3F No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lincoln Application Extension 2583 Agency Comments Vicinity Maps 4/1/98 Planning Board Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Public Hearing Notice Hillsborough -732-8181 11-23-98 Public Hearing Minutes (Draft) Durham - 688-7331 Environmental Assessment Mebane -227-2031 Fiscal Impact Analysis Chapel Hill -967-9251 Agency Comments (New) Traffic Impact Study Findings of Fact PURPOSE: To receive evidence and citizen comment on a Planned Development, Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning application for the Lawrence Park Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR 1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 70A. The current zoning is Rural Residential (R-1) with a portion in the Major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are residential, including Colonial Park zoned (R-4) and Colonial Hills zoned (R-2) subdivisions. The adjacent zoning to the north and east is R-1. Lawrence Road Baptist Church is located across Lawrence Road. The Rock House, a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is -at the southwest comer of US 70A and Lawrence Road. The total acreage to be subdivided is 87.27. It is not located in a protected watershed and is designated twenty year transition in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the western half of the property is cultivated as a hay field. The eastern 004 half and the southern boundary is wooded with a mixture of mature pines and hardwoods. Almost the entire site slopes at gradients less than 7.5%. Near the center of the site is a "saddle" in the topography, i.e., a flat area between two ridges where slopes are near 2% or less. The Plan involves two proposals. One proposal involves a rezoning, planned development and Class A Special Use Permit with 237 lots (2.8 units per acre) and 26.01 acres (31 %) open space including 7.07 acres of improved recreation area. This proposal involves a zoning atlas amendment from Rural Residential (Rl) to Planned Development Housing R3 ( PD-H-R3). The second proposal involves rezoning an area from RI to R2 along the new entrance road off US 70A. This involves 3.275 acres with 7 residential lots proposed. Four lots are proposed on the east side and three on the west side of the entrance road. The second proposal was considered at the November 23, 1998 Public Hearing and has already been referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. New public roads are proposed with entrances on Lawrence Road and on US 70A A traffic impact study has been submitted and turn lanes are proposed on Lawrence Road and US 70A. One more access point was recommended during concept plan approval, either from Lori Drive or on the east side of the proposed subdivision to connect with Piney Grove Church Road. The developers chose to connect with Lori Drive. Public water and sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough will be extended to serve the proposed lots. Water lines exist on Lawrence Road and US 70A. Sewer service will be extended to the site from the Meadowlands development. In a 5 to 3 vote the Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for Lawrence Park in their April 1, 1998, meeting. Minutes from this meeting are attached. November 23, 1998 Public Hearing Comments Mr. George Krichbaum, Mr. Tom Heaffner, and Mr. Scott Murray spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. James Singleton, Mr. Scott Ray, Mr. Jim Ray, Mr. Bob Bateman, Mr. James Klemic, Mr. Bill Hendrickson, and Mr. Lawrence Bohns spoke against the proposal. The Public Hearing was adjourned until February 22, 1999 to receive farther information. Please see attached November 23, 1998 Draft Public Hearing Minutes. Commissioner Brown asked for information on the storm water management issue and how it would affect adjacent and contiguous properties, the impact on EMS 005 service, the recreation needs for the proposed number of people, the impact on schools, accident and traffic reports on Lawrence Road, and any traffic information that staff could generate. She also asked the developer to supply information on similar homes they have built in North Carolina, the Homeowner's Association responsibility, and how responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure will be handled. Commissioner Gordon asked that a report be given by the developer on similar development the developer has completed in other areas of North Carolina or the County. Additional Information The Planning Staff has received a reply from the North Carolina Department of Administration regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment for Lawrence Park. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has indicated a Finding of No Significant Impact provided four concerns are addressed: 1) Stringent erosion control measures are installed wherever soil is disturbed and maintained until the project is completed; 2) a stormwater management plan is developed and approved by the Division of Water Quality before construction begins; 3) a minimum 25' riparian buffer is, maintained along any small streams or wetlands identified on the site; and 4) unavoidable impacts to any wetlands or streams must be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please seethe attached letter on page 115. A Fiscal Impact Analysis developed by staff starts on page 119 of this abstract. That analysis indicates that, given the project is built within five years starting in 1999, by 2002, the development will cost the county more in expenditures for public services than it will generate in tax revenues. The Orange County EMS estimates that the county will have to hire one full time position to serve the proposed development. Please refer to the memorandum on Page 135 of this abstract. Additionally, The Orange County Board of Education has stated in a letter dated February 2, 1999, that when the proposed subdivision is developed, children in the, subdivision would be assigned to Cameron Park Elementary and C.W. Stanford Middle Schools and those schools are both at or over capacity with little room for expansion at either site. A copy of that letter is on page 137 of the attachments to this abstract. A copy of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. -in February, 1998, and follow -up correspondence including Additional Information submitted in April, 1998, and a letter regarding an Addendum to the Traffic Impact Study in June 23, 1998, start on page 139 of the attachments to this abstract. Existing traffic conditions are provided in the traffic impact study and accident 006 reports are provided in the April, 1998, Additional Information. Staff has requested fully revised copies of that study, but none have been received as of February 17, 1999. (Also, please note, on page 175, the attached letter from the NCDOT District Engineer regarding that agencies review of the preliminary plan for Lawrence Park. That letter was not received in time to be included in the packet for the November 23, 1998, public hearing.) Staff contacted East-West Partners prior to publication of the February 22, 1999, Public Hearing Notice to inquire of any proposed revisions to the application. On February 5, 1999, staff forwarded (to the John R. McAdams Company) the portion of the draft minutes from the November 23, 1999, public hearing outlining the Board of Commissioners requests for more information. Staff asked that any new information be forwarded to the Planning Department. As of February 17, 1999, the Planning Department has not received any other information from the developer. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider any additional evidence. or comments, close the Public Hearing, and refer the application to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no. sooner than May 4, 1999..-,,; THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 14005 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709 (919) 361 -5000 FAX (919) 361 -2269 September 28, 1998 Orange County Board of Commissioners c/o Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Rezoning Statement of Justification Lawrence Park PDH -R -3 and R -2 Rezoning & SUP Request DBS -95000 Dear Orange County Commissioners: On behalf of Meadowmont Farms, LLC, Lonnie & Irene Bell, and EWP Manage- ment, Inc., we hereby submit a rezoning application for a single - family residential development referred to as Lawrence Park. The site is 86.49 Acres located on the eastern side of Lawrence Road between Business US Route 70 and Lonnie Drive. The site has extended frontage on Law- rence Road and limited frontage on Business US 70. Current Conditions . The subject site is about one -half fallow cropland (the western half) and about one -half woodland, predominately deciduous. The cropland, visible from Law- rence Road, is crossed in part by an intermittent stream bordered by trees extend- ing about 20 feet to either side of the shallow channel. Across Lawrence Road to the west are single - family homes . in the Colonial Hills Subdivision (R -2 Zoning / one -half acre lots) and the Lawrence Road Baptist Church. To the north of the site are homes on lots facing onto Business US 70. These lots are Zoned R -1, but are of varied size and shape due to their original subdivision which divided the land into strips of land 25 feet wide'by 400 feet deep. Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 2 To the south of the site are subdivision lots zoned R -4 and developed with both mobile homes and conventional construction homes. East and southeast of the site are residential lots of varied sizes primarily developed with single - family homes. These lots have access to Piney Grove Road and Joan Court. The applicant believes that the proposed rezoning is justified as the proposal satis- fies the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the PDH -R- 3 Zoning District as discussed below. This proposal for development complies with the County Comprehensive Plan that identifies the site 'as a transition area appropriate for development of smaller lot single family development upon the availability of public sanitary sewer and water. Utilities Public water is available in both Lawrence Road and Business US 70. When de- veloped, the subject site will connect to both of these water lines in order to pro- vide for a looped system to serve the entire site. Water pressure and flow tests have been conducted and analyzed to determine the size of water lines needed to serve the site to provide for both domestic and fire protection needs. Fire protection services provided by the Orange Rural Fire. District will be sup- ported by this extension of the public water. system and hydrants within the pro - posed development. Sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended to the subject site from the Meadowlands development located about one -half mile west of Lawrence Road on Business US 70. There are several possible routes and the applicant has met several times with Hillsborough officials to determine the feasibility of extending sanitary sewer service to the, site. A copy of correspondence from the Town Engi- neer is included indicating that service would be acceptable. That letter further indicates a desire to extend service to the Highwoods Mobile Home Park - imme- (U Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 3 diately to the east of the subject site - in order to assist in reducing a current health hazard brought about by failing septic systems in that existing development. As shown on the plan, sanitary sewer service would be extended to the site by a line running in the Business US 70 right -of -way.. In order to serve both the High - woods Mobile Home Park and Lawrence Park, a lift station in the Lawrence Park Subdivision will connect to the sewer line extension in Business US 70 which will in part be a force main and in part gravity flow main. The applicant believes that the rezoning. and development of the proposed Law- rence Park Planned Development Housing Subdivision will carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the flexible development regulations which seek to-have one -third of a site set aside in open space. A description of the applicant's plan is provided below: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN This plan is a request for the subject site to be rezoned from R -1 Single Family Residential into two separate zoning categories. R -2 Zoning= 7 Single Family Home Lots Two small parcels of land totaling 3.28 acres are located at the entrance to the site from Business US Route 70. This entry area is proposed to have seven single - family lots. These one -half acre lots provide a transition from the existing single - family homes fronting on Business US 70. PDH -R -3 Zoning — 237 Single Family Home Cluster Development Plan The larger parcel, 83.795 acres of gross lot area, is proposed to be PDH -R -3 Sin- gle Family Residential. In this category, the maximum permitted density is. 3 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development of 237 lots has a density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre'. 010 Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 4 Access and Roadways Two primary and one secondary access points to the site are proposed. One pri- mary entrance is located on Lawrence Road (Phase I); the 'second is located on Business US 70 (Phase II). At each of these entrances protected left turn lanes meeting NCDOT standards will be constructed along with safe bus turnout lanes for future use by public & school buses. The secondary access point is in Phase III and would connect the site with the existing right -of -way of Lori Drive on the southern side of the site. All roads within the site are proposed to be public, designed and built to NCDOT standards, and dedicated to NCDOT upon completion of the required number of lots per road length. The design for internal collector streets is 35 feet in width with curb and gutter. The remaining internal streets are-27 feet wide with curb and gutter. There will be 5 -foot ,wide sidewalks on each side of all streets within the development. The homeowners association and individual homeowners will maintain sidewalks. Roadway and Lot Arrangement A neo- traditional pattern of roadways and lots is proposed, tempered by the needs to observe and blend with the existing topography, vegetation, and utility service requirements. With one - exception there are no cul-de-sacs, in the proposal and future connections from this site to properties to the east and southeast of the site are shown. Lot & Home Sizes and Value The proposed lot sizes for Lawrence Park are between 7,450 square feet and 8,000 square feet. Fifty -three percent (53 %) of the lots (126) will have permanent open space bordering .their rear or side lot lines. The remaining 111 lots will share a common rear property line with a neighboring lot, much in the small town tradi- tion. Seven different home styles, most with garages, will be offered in Lawrence Park. The range of size will be between 1,200 square feet and 1,750 square feet. It is ,O I I Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 5 expected that the average size based upon the selected distribution of styles will be 1,540 square feet. Homes will be set back 20 feet from the front property line. The average value of homes is expected to be $ 132,000. Based upon a development schedule that would permit construction to start in the spring of 1999, the following schedule of constructed and sold homes is expected. Year Sales 1999 15 homes sold 2000 60 homes sold 2001 60 homes sold 2002 60 homes sold 2003 49 homes sold 244 homes Open Space The PDH -R -3 plan provides for 25.87 acres of open space. This amounts to 30.8% of the site. Open space will be owned and maintained by a homeowners associa- tion. The 25.87 acres includes the following components: 1) A 100 feet wide perimeter buffer is provided around the PDH -R -3 site. In lo- cations where there is no existing vegetation within the 100 feet buffer, two forms of plantings are proposed. In the 25 feet immediately adjoining the pro- posed lots, a double row of staggered Virginia Pines are proposed. This vegetation will mature rapidly and quickly provide a visual buffer to sur- rounding lots. In the remaining 75 feet of the buffer, a mixture of native forest vegetation would be planted and allowed to mature in a fashion which will permit the development of a more natural visual landscape, not an ornamental style buffer. 2) The site has 7.17 acres of private recreation area that will be maintained by the homeowners association. This ' amounts to 8.4% of the PDH -R -3 site. (The minimum required recreation is 7.7 %.) Recreation areas include a tot lot and a pocket park with benches and game tables in Phase I. 012 Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 6 In Phase II, an active recreation playfield sized for soccer and softball will be developed as well as a centrally located park. Although only 120 of the 237 lots will be developed during Phases I & II, all recreation facilities will be de- veloped during these phases. The playfield will be in an area of the site that is currently a fallow. farmed field and well suited for active recreation. The park will contain benches and seating areas, a tot lot, playground area, and open areas usable for games such as volleyball, badminton, shuffleboard, and bocce. The park is in an area that is currently forested thereby allowing for the retention of existing trees throughout the park as well as the retention of a significant tree border where the park will adjoin proposed home sites. All four of the recreation areas will be fully accessible by pedestrians and bi- cyclists. At the playfield and park, parking is provided for automobiles. 3) Although the subject site is not located in a protected watershed, stormwater. management and stormwater quality facilities are a part of the development application. Calculations for the proposed development show that about 24.5% of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. Conversely, slightly over 75% of the site will be pervious in the form of unpaved playfields, lawns, planted areas, and undisturbed buffer areas. Stormwater detention facilities owned and maintained by the homeowners as- sociation will be provided in two locations. Each of these is at the naturally occurring low spots on the site along the channels of existing intermittent streams. The larger of the two facilities, 1.4 acres in area, is along the north- ern edge of the site and is proposed to be a wet pond for the purpose of water quality control for,the majority of stormwater runoff that will leave the site. The stormwater detention system is designed to meet the County standard that stormwater from a 25 year storm event leaving the site after development will not exceed the stormwater from a 25 year storm leaving the site in its current undeveloped condition. r)IJ Orange County Board of Commissioners September 28, 1998 Page 7 Solid Waste Management Solid waste collection will be provided by private contract service until such time that there may be a county wide public collection system. Collection of recyclable materials will take place according to county recycling policies. We look forward to reviewing the PDH plans with you and discussing the differ- ing community and neighborhood benefits that the open space and recreation ele- ments of this plan present. Sincerely, THE JOHN R McADAMS CONTANX, INC. 60q_ WW Scott Radway, AICP Senior Project Manager SOR/peh cc: Dr. Dubose, Meadowmont Farms LLC Scott Murray, East West Partners 014 (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY) 8/88 10"15 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: 6 / 29 / 98 Revised 9/28/98 APPLICATION NUMBER: PD. I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article VII Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the development of a 237-10t s1nP-1-_f of the development. The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: Area generally bounded by Lawrence Road, Bus. Orange County Tax Map --C lock 70&Lannie Dr Zoning District(s): Pro posed_R=2 _83.795 . B Lots) 17 Township and R-3 Eno Lot/ParcelSize: m-Lgm Number of Existing Buildings: acres or -- Gross Floor Area: square feet Number of Proposed Buildings—: Water Supply: X 237 Gross Floor Area: 365.,014 square feet square feet ublic (Specify)Hillsborou Community L—P e - h Wastewater Disposal: X individual —Public School' District: (Specify) Hillsborough Community 'Fire individual • __OTanxe County- fland District.- Orange General Land Uses in Area: ReOidential 1 4 .Rural Critical Areas: N/A -units per acre Stream /Drain agewa N/A Flood Prone Area A-*. Other (Explain) Water§4ed,(Specify)- N /A Historic Site B. SITE PLAN *INFORMATION: Twen ' ty-six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: X Norti 'Point, scale, and date. Extent of area tG. be developed. X Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. X Location of all existing and proposed strit �'t-ffre"is",.6ii the site. X� Location of all areas on the site subject to* flood hazard 6r-.inu'n d*a"tion as's�ho­wn",";�*. X on flood maps or soils maps. X Location of all water courses on the site,'including direction of flow. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum:. N/A Existing and . proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. 1 X Access to site, including sight distances on ar- I roads used for access. :7 (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) ®�) r C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: _x __ Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax-'Map, one (1) copy with the property in question clearly marked. _ The .names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicaat(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. x__,X Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. X Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of 'the Zoning Ordinance. ___,_, Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: I. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage. disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing - and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3.'Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site. I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimony, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the ,Class ASpecial Use Permit. APPLICANT SIGNATURES) -____6 _ —/ 29 / 98 DATE NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property Is not in the name of the applicant(s), please Include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. This "statement acknowledges approval of the Zoning request. for eadowmont Farms L: .C.*(owner) FEES: Amount $ Date Pa=d: / / Receipt �h VA ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA . 017 APPLI TION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING 'ISTRICT Revised September 28,19! Date: March 30, 1998 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �Cl go so ORANGE COUNTY,.NORTH CAROLINA �Wlo The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning. Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1. The property is Located an the East side of S.R.JL r 1709 Lawrence — between S. R.# 1831._ anj MXXX US Rt. 7.0 it is known as , Lot[s) 17 Block -*-- 43 1 of F Orange County Tax Map 4 - Eno -_:rownship. It has' a f ron 'tag a. of 1600± feet and a depth of 2780 feet, and contains 3,727,545 square feet or 85.57 -acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from R-1 to R-2' (100,876 SF/2.315 AC) PDH-R-3 0,624,-869`8F/83.215 AC) The ...foLLowing information has bezn**- attached ..in_. support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas require.d* on a l l app Li cat ionsl. *a. A fuLEy dimensioned map at a scale or not Less than one (i) inch equals one-hundred (10131 feat nor more then one M inch equals. twenty * T a a t -- a ho w'in*g*- -,t h a Land --which is proposed to be rezoned. X *b. A LagaL description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. *c. A statement of justification addressing one armors of the foLLowing: (l) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, If any, which wcuLd be corrected by the proposed amendment with a dstaiLad explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. C21 The changed or- changing conditions, if any, in the area or- in the County generaLLy, which make the proposed amendment reasonably 'necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and generaL welfare. 0(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose or the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. *[4) A L L other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies] assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A List of --aLL A.ndividuaLs, owning property­-•­- adjoining or within five hundred (50131 feat of , the property sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of June, 1998 .(Data] 'I certify that aLL information furnished in. this app Lication is acc.urate . to the best a knowledge. AppLicant[sl Z J.. F 2 -14 /sIll Add r ass :,1-4ffi , I—' Phone: .ReCP+-+ le-Z67+ NA 2- -98 l� H cn H v H W 2 N z 0 N ca x d C1A o � N 0o O La .� O p >+ 3 4 41 *r4 k a cl as Cs I~ p .x a oo U � .a 0 v 0 ,ai ayi 0 13 O 0 0 r4 fn EI A ac°i o`''�, E '-► •a o° o a W � a :1 ri d, Lo a C `�'� o cd m mot+ C L -, a � p 0000 pa y � .N c r-I 41 CA o a t- a tti b a t!� E b en y a -• O .Li ca ro Li a, 'a a O O a w o o c � +� .0 a Lo N a a 0) E a 03 w a 44 v 0 L a be o A +, O al w a r-I Cd 9 •� O a 18 :~ m a 3 Cwt � 1 u .. Qj Cd•m a ca ,'t', 0 w La 41 6 b m A .� a H as ,., O a $4 H .d a to a m 4 c� k CD s a ca. m 2 w. a'� ca 44 CA G a di b O E'1 b e-1 J o ~ v ca Cd 1 O N G. C. E 4 a m 0 P4 a C O c0 O us C r-C-I E �. J 4 rC-1 N1= M c4 r o rti c0 �4�1 C a 41 1~ 41 a ca w 44 G A el+ u of csl .� u Rt O N O w OC ca I z N h+ r♦ L m a ti rl CL bD O O rl a iJ I~ .� z >+ d t: � N 44 a rC31 � �P4 ctS rl u a cc 'C7 4 v H H ^a a ¢ "q v 'a d fCi A C 011 A.' ICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AN APPROVAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION 4/98 ORANGE COUNTY • r;? � `' nr` DATE 6/29/98 ______ __ PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT QD -rot- ' f -� (INK ONLY) � � ��✓,1 SUBDIVISION NAME:- Lawrence Park LOCATION: Lawrence Road & US 70 Business OWNER/DEVELOPER: Meadowmont Farms LLC ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2804 TELEPHONE NO.: ' 919 - 383 -18 70 Durham, NC 27715 -2804 AGENT /CONTACT: Scott .Murray TELEPHONE NO.: 919 -919 -0660 _ EWP Management Partners, Inc. A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tax Map 4 Block 97 Lot(s) 17� I � Township Eno Zoning District(s): R -1_ (Existing) / Prouosed PDH –R 3 Total Number of Acres. '86.4V .Acres Total Number of Lots: 237.E Average Lot Size: 7 , 250Minimum Lot Size: 7 ,150 Number/Type of Structures: (existing) -- (proposed) 244• Linear Feet in Streets: 12 ' 388 Acres in Open Space: 25.87 Water Supply: HillsborougJRublic (specify) Acres Community Wastewater Disposal: H3.11sb . Public s eci ty (P fY) Communi Individual School District: _ Orange County Fire District: Orange Rural Fire Individual District General Land Uses in Area: Residential Critical Areas: -- stream/drainageways -- -' flood prone areas watershed (specify) -- other (explain) -- historic sites Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation "? Yes X No . If "yes," please contact: the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation." B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two- hundred feet (1" =200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1 " =20') and must contain the following information: subdivision name name & address of owners) $ name & address of subdivider (if other than owner) surveyor, of name �w engineer, landscape architect or architect, address, registration # & seal :, (title) Preliminary Plan scale, north arrow p1 date of an preparation and revisions township, tax map - block -lot references Parent Parcel Identification # deed book and page # of property to be subdivided nw* boundary described with bearings and distances .,k total acreage o g f the tract and acreage of lots, including and excluding area within rights -of -way control comer { zoning of tract and adjacent properties building g s etback lines by notation or typical lot layout — u:,._i location and width of existing and ,. proposed easements (drainage, utilities, roads, .etc.) €Y existing, proposed and adjoining rights- of -way including dimensions and street names and State Road numbers. Linear feet of road centerlines and approximate acreage of new street rights -of -way existing and proposed utilities, including type, sizes, hydrants, valves, manholes _ {existing and proposed curbs, gutters and culverts, including sizes and grades location and width of•alie _ ys,,sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops typical street cross - sections and intersection details including design and width of travelway and shoulders V lei li •' {H.4 — r , r} proposes, tot lines with dimensions _ lot & block numbers phasing lines) topography — at,te#(10) foot intervals ? 'water bodies, streams, floodways and floodplains _ :<< stream buffers ' location and size of parcels dedicated for public use, recreational use or reserved in common; with purpose noted — impervious surface data (if located in water supply watershed) vicinity map showing general location of subdivision with streets and roads identified by State Road number and name landscaping and buffer requirements towns >r p, corporate and extraterritorial planning jurisdiction lines which, cross-the property C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUREMENTS 1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the Preliminary Plat. 1 horizontal alignment centerline radius, and general curve data on all proposed streets permanent features such as buildings, cemeteries, historic landmarks adjoining lot layout names of adjoining Property owners. If subdivided, subdivision plat name, plat book & page number, and perimeter lot numbers. _r location and size of lots of restricted development potential and notation on plat regarding same stormwater detention and/or retention Y sites and undisturbed areas for infiltration purposes (if located in water supply watershed) identified natural areas and wildlife corridors 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department 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 jusitification for a private road (see Section IV- B -3 -d -1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VI of this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowners association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. 6. Fee $470`phis $5.00 per lot (one fee for Preliminary and'Final Plat). - 7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more, the following inform atio a. Number of years to buildout. n shall be submitted with • the application: - b. Number of houses to be built during each year until buildout..... c. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout. ; I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE i� • DA FEES: Amount Date Paid Receipt # FROM : DR.DuEOSE PHONE NO. : 9193838222 Mar. 23 1998 03:3epM`P2- 83 Legal Description - 84.9 Acres - Eno Township, $OOX 2 0 9 4 PAGE 416 Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina fiact 85.5+urey TRACT 1: BEGINNING at a stake in the property Iine en the East side of Lawrence Road, said stake being South 203 West 400 feet from the property line on the south side of North Carolina Highway No. 70 -A and running thence South 706 East 2,526.2 feet to a stake; thence South 2 40' West 1,090 feet to a stake; thence North 85° 10' West 1,335 feet to a stake; thence North 78" 15' West 1,445 feet to a stake in the property line on the east side of said Lawrence Road; thence along and with the property line on the east side of said Lawrence Road in a general northerly direction I,585 feet to the stake the place and point of BEGINNING, containing 82.6 acres, more or less, according to plat of a part of the Lawrence tract, Eno Township, Orange County, made by S. M. Credle, Civil Engineer, February 24, 1949. Being the same property as described in that deed of D. St. Pierre DuBose and wife, Vali,nda Hill DuBose recorded in Book 131 at Page 524 of the Orange County Registry. TRACT 2: BEGINNING at a stake in the property line on the South side of North Carolina Highway No. 10, said stake being South 70° East 1,350 feet from the property line oa the East side of Lawrence Road, and running thence along, and with the property line on the south side Of said North Carolina Highway No. 10, South 70° East 250 feet to a stake; thence South 20° West 400 feet to a stake; thence North 70° West 250 feet to a stake, thence North 20 East 400 feet to the' stake the place and point of BEGINNING and being Lot Nos. 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- 60- 61- 62 -63, and 64, BIock "B ", as shown on plat of the property belonging formerly to W. H. and T. H: Lawrence made by S. M. Credle , C.E. , A Pri , 1927, said plat bein g of record in the omice of the Register of Deeds of Orange County in Plat Book 1, Page 59: Being the same property as described in that deed of D. St. Pierre DuBose and wife, Valinda Hill DuBose recorded in Book 133 at Page 86 of the Orange County Registry. �►+�.a�rtsasa� 022 Re-Zone to PDH R-3 DBS-95000 BEGINNING at a stake in the east side of Lawrence Road, said stake being South 200 West 400 feet from the right-of-way on the south side of North Carolina Highway No. 70 -A and running thence South 700 East 1250.00 feet to a point; thence South 200 West 12.00 feet to a point; thence South 700 East 150.00 feet to a point; thence North 200 East 412.00 feet to a point on the southern right-of-way of North Carolina Highway 70-& thence along said right-of-way South 700 East 50.00 feet to a point; thence South 200 West 457.13 feet to a point; thencealong the arc of a curve to the left which has a radius, of 275.00 feet, an arc length of 83.1.9 feet and a chord. of South 11 *20' West 82.88 feet to a point; thence South 02040' West 18.52 feet to a point; thence South 85017 ; 09" East 150.10 feet to a point; thence North 02040" East 36.82 feet to a point; thence North 200 East 82.04 feet to a point; thence South 700 East 926.20 feet to a point; thence South 02 °40' West 1090.00 feet to a point; thence North 84047'30" West 1335.00 feet to a point; thence North 77052'30" West 1445.00 feet to a point in the eastern right-of-way of Lawrence Road; thence along said right-of-way North 14035'04" East 1185.00 feet to a point; thence North 17040' East 400.00 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING containing 83.22 acres more or less. _�'q G 2 APPLICATION FOR E'SV'JROM-fEvrmr. TI C Project Name Lawrence Park Applicant East West Partners Management Company, Inc. Address 190 Finley Golf Course Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Phone 919-929-0660 Owner Meadowmont Farms, LLC Address Post Offibe• Box 2084 Diirham, North Carolina 27715-2084 Phone 919-383-1870 Location of Property In area East of Lawrence Road, bounded by US Business 70. on the North and Lannie Drive on the Soifth. Acreage. (net) Township Eno Tax Map Reference 4'.B. 17- Z415- 1.1 _P'IN ('s 9883- 19a43.551QS Zoning District. R-1 Land Use Plan Category. -Transition Residential - ------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Date "receivid, Re*v*a*.e*ed b) . r .. . .... Date accepted/rejected Summary Comments: .0fwd 4 I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED A. Zoning and.use of adjacent property. North R-1 R R -4 East R -1 West R -2 B. Topography: highest elevation 660 lowest elevation 620 ' general direction of slope 70% of site to the North 30% of site to the South .Estimate % of property with 0 - 5% slope 5 - 15% slope. 4% 15 -- .25 %'slope 1% more than 25% slope (Required only for the nortion of the site associated with or impacted by the proposed activity) C. Drainage Are *the. any streams or drainage easements located on the property? unnamed drainage draws on site /no easements-- " Is any of-the site - located within a:.. Watersupply Watershed No Water Quality Critical Area No Floodnlain No Describe 025 D. Does the property . contain any Of the 'following Inven4-o i ' Natural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in - ry the "Inventory of Sites Of Cultural., Historical, Recreational Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of orange County, North Carolina ".) ves no (3) Type of resource' Inventory reference no. or pace Description of Resource a. cemeteries b. archaeological sites C. historic sites x d. areas of geological significance x e. designated natural areas x f. designated habitat 9. other x x For plan each "yes" answer above, please indicate location and complete the following,' with the on site Orange assistance'o County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment f the A. (1) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page -Description of Resource (2) -Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description-of resource (3) Type of resource' Inventory reference no. or pace Description of Resource /' 1 ( - II. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT -- A. : PROJECT DESCRIPTION l. Describe proposed use of property Single- family subdivision with recreation areas 2. Number of lots Proposed 241 residential 3. Number of structures 241 4. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) 0 5. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non- residential use (excluding roads) 0 fi. Estimated area to be graded for roads 14 acres 7. Road Type: Public x Private Class A Class B Class C Total road length 12,588 ft. 8. hours of operation for commercial or industrial use N/A 3•' Will the project involve a-land application treatment of wastewater? No*system nor If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit. been submitted to the NC Department Of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? 4- 3:s a septic . tank system Proposed which has a design capacity Of more than 3000 gallons per day? No If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been Submitted to the NC • Department . of Environmental Management or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? Z, ... .. .... J, 027 028 B . STATE' PERMITS REQUIR rD 1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? No �a If_so, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? Please. attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. 2. Does the project involve 'generation or storage of hazardous or toxic- wastes, as identified b Environmental Protection A enc f Y the hazardous materials is available from listing gP all Department) No of Describe the wastes to be generated. 4 How much material is expected to be generated per month? Will any material be treated.onsite? Volume? Will any material be stored onsite? Volume? Where will-- disposal of the material take place? How will materials be transported to the disposal site? What measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality ;n case of sp;I Jul 16 98 05:O6p PCDInc (919)981 -65 79 02ti f -2 Planned Community Development, -Inc. 6gaa Slade HMI had Raleigh, N(z7615 July 16, 1998 Emily Cameron Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Emily: In regards to the Lawrence Park subdivision application, there are two* items in your follow -up comments that I wish to address in this letter. The first is in reference to the signage for the project. It is my understanding, based on discussion with you, that the 16 square foot limit is measured in the sign face proper, and does not include any appurtenant structures such as walls or columns, pedestals or other types of features that may be used in an entrance landscaping statement. If I am correct in that understanding, then this sign requirement is satisfactory with us, and we will attempt to provide a diagram of such signage in the near future.. The second item is of considerably greater consequence. It was our original under- standing that we were being requested to connect our internal street system to existing Lori Drive in keeping with the county's desire to promote interconnectivity between various neighborhoods. It is now my understanding that not only are we being required to connect to Lori Drive, but we are being required to improve Lori Drive all the way to its intersection with Lannie Drive. We have serious concern about this requirement for a number of reasons. 1. We do not believe it is appropriate to require improvements off -site from the Lawrence Park property which have no direct benefit to the community we are developing. Traffic studies indicate that no more than 50/6 of our total traffic would use Lori Drive for access. While we do not disagree with and, in fact, support the general desire of the county to have interconnective streets among neighborhoods, we believe that our obligation ends at our property line. This is especially true where the connecting street is of such minor value from a traffic distribution standpoint. Jul 16 Se 05:06P PCDInc 030 (9191981 -6579 P.3 2. There is evidence of a °right- of -wray° around Lori Drive but no evidence that it has ever been dedicated to NCDOT. In fact, NCDOT professes no know- ledge of the road whatever from an ownership or maintenance standpoint. Further, it is not clear to' us from any documents discovered so far who the owner of the right -of way is. In the absence of such.a dedication, we befeve that we have no legal right to enter onto this property to make improvements should the county require us to do so. 3. It appears that for an extended period of time, Lori Drive has functioned as a private driveway for a limited number of lots. We have no evidence nor indication that the property owners along Lori Drive would be supportive of this type of connection .whether existing Lori Drive is improved or not We further feel that this is not a matter that we should be required to determine, more properly a matter between the county and these residents. We conclude that the matter of the connection to Lori Drive is one that is legitimately beyond the. scope of the Lawrence Park project We, therefore, request that our requirement related to Lori Drive be limited to extending a road to our property line which could be connected to existing Lori Drive, but that the connection not be made until such time as the residents, the county and the NCDOT have resolved .issues relative to ownership and maintenance of existing Lori Drive. We further request that once those determinations are made, the county request improvement of the existing section of Lori Drive be made by NCDOT in whatever fashion is satisfactory to NCDOT and the current residents of Lori Drive. If you would tike to discuss this situation further, we would be pleased to talk with you at any time. Best regards, G . ge ichbaum, Jr. Pre ident cc: Roger Perry Scott Murray Jim Wiley Town of ills S1 n" 1 7, I-McNeeley DuBose Meadowrnont Farms, LLC Box 2804 Durham, NC 27715 Dear Mr. DuBose: 031 -D Nov - 6 gh... 5 -�Sbo� -rP M C, c4 77 October 31, 1997 Pursuant to your October Th letter request to Mayor Johnson for water and sewer services from the Town of Hillsborough, the Town offers the following response regarding the extensions that will be required to serve your property: Water connection to the 12" water main in US 70-A is acceptable. Town policy dictates that gravity sewer be run where possible, either in part or wh6le to reach new development. A portion of the sewer extension required will need to be gravity 10 sewer. This portion is eligible for front footage reimbursements pursuant to the Town Code (and eventual WIS. agreement) for direct tie-ons. .. . .. '. : • All onsite and off-site utility improvements shall be installed per Town Standards and meet the approvil of the Town Engineer. The To*n has concurrently received a request for service from the Highwoods Mobile Home Park Oust east of your property) due to a failing onsite disposal system. By copy of this letter I am requesting that your engineer meet with 'myself and the engineer for the mobile home park to coordinate the design and installation of a combined pump station, force main and gravity system. This system will serve both properties and costs can be appropriately apportioned. Project costs can therefor be reduced for both properties along with eliminating redundant facilities. All appropriate utility fees shall be paid for any proposed development prior to construction. Please call With any questions. Sincerel Thomas E. Ha PE Town Engineer/Utilities Director cc: Mayor Johnson Craig Morgan John Mcadams 101 East Orange Street * P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 0 Town of IN November 18, 1998 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: Per your request, this letter is to verify that the Hillsborough Town Board approved a Water /Sewer Extension Agreement for the Lawrence Park Subdivision at their November meeting. A copy of the draft minutes of that meeting along with a draft of the Water /Sewer Extension Agreement are attached. The Board made their approval of the Agreement upon the amendment of the Agreement to add a $100 meter fee per residence. We have drafted this amendment in Agreement Appendix A. This Agreement has not been officially executed by the Town or by the developer at this time. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 4� Donna F. Armbrister, CMC Town Clerk Enclosures ME1 � V 03,113 MINUTES HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD November 9, 1998 7:30 PM, Town Barn The Hillsborough Town Board held a regular meeting on November 9, 1998 at 7:00 PM in the Town Barn. Present for the Board Meeting were Mayor Horace H. Johnson, Sr., Commissioners Richard Simpson, Catherine Martin, Frances Dancy, Kenneth -Chavious, and Evelyn Lloyd. Staff Present were Town Manager Eric Peterson, Town Clerk Donna Armbrister, Finance Director Sherry Carter, Police Chief Nathaniel Eubanks, Police Lieutenant Judy Jacobs, and Town Engineer Nick Herman. Mayor Horace H. Johnson, Sr., called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. I. PUBLIC CHARGE Mayor Horace H. Johnson read the Public Charge. Town Manager Eric Peterson requested to add an Ordinance to amend Chapter 6 of the Town Code. This was added as Item VILE. III. AUDIENCE COMMENTS A. Matters on the printed agenda There were no audience comments. B. Matters not on the printed agenda There were no audience comments. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 12TH & 13Tg,1998 TOWN BOARD MEETING Upon a motion by Commissioner Lloyd, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to approve the Minutes of the October 12d' and 13',1998 Town Board Meetings as presented by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. V. REPORTS A. Agreement with Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout Inc. for Engineering Services 1 Ik'34 Upon a motion by Commissioner Chavious, seconded by CoMli issioner Dancy, the Board moved to approve the Ordinance to amend Chapter 4 of the Town Code to include Mandated Family and Medical Leave Without Pay as presented by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. A copy of this Ordinance is hereby made a part of these Minutes as an Attachment. E. Consideration of a Water and :Sewer Extension Agreement for Lawrence Park Subdivision John McAdams of John R. McAdams Company, Inc., engineer for the Lawrence Park Subdivision, appeared before the Board requesting approval of a Water and Sewer Extension Agreement. Finance Director Sherry Carter informed the Board that the $ 100 meter fee per residence had not been included in this agreement. After some discussion, and upon a motion by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Simpson, the Board moved to approve the Wafer and Sewer Extension Agreement for Lawrence Park Subdivision with the addition of the $,100 meter fee per residence by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioners Martin, Simpson, Lloyd, and Dancy voting Aye; and Commissioner Chavious voting Nay. The motion was declared passed. Town Manager Peterson informed the Board that he would get with the Town's former Engineer, Tom Hartye, to discuss their concerns with this agreement. F. Consider Adopting a Motion to request NCDOT to perform a Drainage Project on Nash Street, next to Hillsborough Elementary School Upon a motion by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Martin, the Board moved to approve a Motion and authorize the Town Manager to request NCDOT to perform a Drainage Project on Nash Street, next to Hillsborough Elementary School by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. G. Consideration of Job Description for Public Works Director position Town Manager Peterson presented the Job Description for the Public Works Director position for the Board's consideration. Board members expressed their desire for the employee being promoted to this position to have access to any additional training that the Manager deems appropriate. * Upon a motion by Commissioner Simpson, seconded by Commissioner Dancy.- the Board moved to approve the Job Description for Public Works Director position as presented by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 4 ATTACHMENT VIII. E THE JOHN R. McADAMS CONWANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 14005 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709 (919) 361-5000 FAX (919) 361-2269 JOHN R. MCADAMS, PE, RLS PRESIDENT September 30, 1998 Mr. Eric Peterson Town Manager Town of Hillsborough 137 North Churton Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Water and Sewer Extension Agreement Lawrence Park Subdivision DBS-95000 Dear Mr. Peterson: 035 We write to request that the enclosed water/sewer extension agreement be placed ,on the Town Commissioners agenda of November 9th The enclosed draft agreement has been worked out with Tom Hartye, and it is our understanding that he is in agreement with it. Thank you. Sincerely, THE JOHN M AMS COMPANY, INC. John R. ndams/,PE, RLS h Enclosure cc: Ms. Emily Cameron, Orange County Planning Department Mr. George,Krichbaum, Planned Community Development, Inc. Mr. Roger Perry, East West Partners Dr. J. McNeely DuBose I 033 t� DRAFT NORTH CAROLINA TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ORANGE COUNTY WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT is entered into this day of , 1998, by and between , (hereinafter the "Developer ") and the Town of Hillsborough, a North Carolina municipal corporation (hereinafter the "Town "). WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to extend the Town water and sewer system to serve Lawrence Park (hereinafter the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Developer has agreed to pay certain costs associated with the proposed extension; and WHEREAS, at its meeting held , 1998, the Hillsborough Town Council authorized the proposed extension subject to execution of this Agreement and compliance with its terms; NOW, THEREFORE, the Developer and the Town, and the heirs, successors, and assigns of each of them agree: (1) Subject to. Developer's compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and subject to Developer obtaining any necessary approval from the State of North Carolina or any other agency or authority, the Town will permit the connection of improvements constructed for the above - references project to the Town water and sewer systems. The Town's authorization to connect to the Town's water and sewer system under this Agreement shall expire if (i) substantial (i.e. more than token) construction of the project has, not begun, within one year from the date upon which this contract was executed; (ii) after construction begins, construction ceases for a continuous period of at least one year; or (iii) the extension to be constructed pursuant to this contract has not been connected to the Town's system in accordance with the requirements set forth herein within three (3) years from the date upon which this contract was executed. (2) Nothing in this contract shall be construed as constituting express or implied approval of the Project by the Town under any applicable Town zoning, subdivision, or other land use ordinance. (3) The Developer agrees to comply with or satisfy the following terms and conditions as well as those set forth in Appendix A and acknowledges that the Town's authorization to connect the proposed extension to the Town's system is specifically contingent upon compliance with or satisfaction of the same. A. General Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise explicitly and specifically stated, Developer shall bear the costs and expenses of all of the obligations and duties created by this contract, including without limitation, engineering and legal fees incurred by the Town in connection with the proposed extension. 2. The Town will permit the physical connection of the extension to the Town's water or sewer system only after all of the conditions set forth in Sections B and C and any additional conditions appended hereto have been satisfied. I 3. The Town shall maintain the improvements constructed under this contract after they are dedicated. However, if within one year of the date that the offer of dedication of the extension constructed pursuant to this contract is accepted, defects in workmanship or materials are discovered in work done pursuant to this contract by or for the Developer, the Developer shall see that such defects are promptly corrected at the Developer's expense. 4. The Town may make or authorize extensions or connections to or from any of the improvements constructed pursuant to this contract without permission of the Developer. 5.- Developer's construction 'of improvements pursuant to this contract shall not relieve Developer of the obligation to pay applicable fees under the Town's water and sewer policies 6. Developer's construction of improvements pursuant to this contract does not affect the Town's policy with respect to the fees to be paid to the Town by property owners other than Developer for connection to the improvements constructed by Developer pursuant to this contract. Nor shall Developer have any right to collect fees from persons connecting onto or extending the improvements constructed under this contract. Water and Sewer services which met all minimum State standards will be provided to this Development by the Town. 7. Water and sewer service which meets all minimum State standards will be provided to the development by the Town. The Town does not warrant that any particular quality, quantity, or pressure of water shall be applicable to serve the Project. 8. All fees and charges to be paid pursuant to this contract shall be calculated in accordance with the fee schedule in effect when payment is made. 9. This contract may be assigned by fine .Developer, but such successor or assignee shall obtain no rights hereunder until after it has provided the Town with a written acknowledgement of its obligations and responsibilities under 'this Agreement. However, this contract is specific to the Project described above and any change or alteration in the approved plans of such project shall, absent the written consent of the Town, void this contract. 10. The words "line" or "lines" shall include "main" or "mains" unless the contract otherwise requires. "Sewer" means "sanitary sewer." 11. This contract shall be deemed made in and shall be construed in accordance with the law of North Carolina. All litigation arising out of this contract shall be bought in courts sitting in North Carolina. Pre- Construction Conditions: 1. The Developer shall engage a registered professional engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of water improvements and/or sanitary sewer improvements to serve the Project. 2. The Developer shall secure approval of the construction plans by the following agencies or authorities, to the extend applicable: F Ca fill 03; the Town Engineer/Utilities Director the North Carolina Department of Health and Natural Resources the North Carolina Department of Transportation 3. The Developer shall obtain any necessary encroachment agreements or easements of use of property not owned by the undersigned developer or project owner. 4. All water and sewer capital facilities fees for residential projects shall be paid before construction of the extension begins, subject to stipulations in Appendix A. 5. A Performance Bond shall be posted in favor of the Town for the total cost of the water and sewer improvements, for each phase and for the off -site improvements. Construction Conditions: 1. Unless otherwise provided in this contract, all construction shall be in accordance with Town policy, standards and specifications. a) The Town shall designate the size and type of material for all water and sewer lines. b) All work shall be subject to inspection by the Town. No line may be covered up until such inspection has taken place and if any line or facility is covered up prior to inspection, the Town may require such line or facility to be uncovered or exposed to view at the Developer's expense to facilitate such inspection. c) The Town will require any testing to determine that the work complies with Town standards and specifications. All such testing shall be at the Developer's expense. d) The Developer's engineers shall provide construction stakeout and supervision. e) An Engineer's representative shall be onsite each day that work is performed and shall prepare daily logs to be submitted weekly to the Town Engineer. f) All construction shall be performed by a contract licenses to perform this type of work in North Carolina. g) The Contractor shall have a field superintendent onsite at all times during construction. 2. The Developer shall bear the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction within the Project and the total cost of all water and/or sewer construction required to extend service to the Project. The Town will reimburse some portion of the fees 'due as participation in the cost of the extension as delineated within Appendix A. Post - Construction Conditions: Before the Town will allow water to flow to the Project or permit use of the Town sewer system to serve the Project, Developer shall: 3 010 1. Furnish the Town two copies of the record drawings, together with: a) the contractors affidavit that the drawings accurately represent the as -built improvements, and b) a certificate of compliance executed by the engineer of record indicating that. work has been performed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and specifications, and c) a Contractor's Affidavit and Release of Liens from all subcontractors and materialmen, and d) a Letter of Credit and/or Warranty Bond from a viable Surety in the name of the Town of Hillsborough for 20% of the Cost of the improvements for a period of one -year from the date of acceptance. 2. Convey to the Town and record or cause to have recorded in the Orange County Registry all deeds of easement and plats showing all water and/or sewer easements required to serve the Project. 3. Formally dedicate to the Town all physical improvements constructed to serve the Project that is the subject of this contact, which improvements shall become part of the Town water and sewer system and will thereafter be owned and maintained by the Town. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract in duplicate originals, as of the date and year first written. By: President ATTEST: Secretary Inc. El TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH By: Town Manager ATTEST: Town Clerk 04. APPENDIX A TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT Inc. Project: Lawrence Park S/D Developer agrees to satisfy the following conditions in addition to those set forth in the WATER/SEWER EXTENSION CONTRACT before the Town will permit the connection of improvements constructed for the above referenced project to the Town water and sewer system: 1. Developer shall pay all capital facilities fees for each of the four Phases (totaling 237 lots) contained in the Project prior to beginning construction for that phase. The fees shall be assessed at $3,600.00 per residence for water and sewer combined. 2. Developer shall pay a $100 meter fee per residence payable at the time each meter is installed. 3. A perpetual maintenance fee of $38,640 shall be due upon acceptance of the wastewater lift station by the Town. 4.. Developer shall design, permit, and construct all off -site utility improvements prior to constructing any onsite. utilities. Alternatively, the Developer may post with the Town of Hillsborough a letter of credit for 110% of the estimated cost of the off -site water and sewer construction, and then may proceed with the on -site construction, but in no case shall utility service be initiated until both off - site and on -site construction is complete and approved and accepted by the Town. These facilities shall include, but not be limited to: — a wastewater lift station to serve the development plus 50 additional units. force main from this pump station to Lawrence Road. 8" gravity sewer line from Lawrence Road to the Meadowlands a water booster pump may be required to ensure proper pressure to the surrounding customers; such booster pump station to be sized to serve the domestic water needs for the roughly 120 customers currently on the water system in the vicinity of the proposed Lawrence Park Subdivision. 5. All on -site and off -site utilities shall be installed per Town standards once the plans have been approved by the Town Engineer. 6. For a period of ten years from the date of this instrument, the town will collect and reimburse Developer front footage fees for any direct tie -ins to the gravity extension by new customers. 7. The Town shall reimburse the Developer 17.2% of the cost of the wastewater pump station and its perpetual maintenance fee (to compensate for the capacity being made available for 50 adjacent residences); and the Town shall reimburse the Developer 33% of the cost of the water booster pump station (if it is required to be installed), to compensate for the enhanced service received by the roughly 120 water customers in the vicinity of the Lawrence Park Subdivision. These reimbursements shall be tenured in the form of a credit for the fees due prior to Phase I. livid 043 THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS POST OFFICE BOX 14005 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709 (919) 361-5000 FAX (919) 361-2269 July 29, 1998 Emily Cameron Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Request for Exception to Tree Protection Areas Lawrence Park PDH-R-3 Development Application DBS-95000 Dear Ms. Cameron: On behalf of EWP Management Inc., the applicants for the proposed Lawrence Park development, we are requesting an exception to the tree protection areas in accordance with the exception policy stated in Section IV-B-8-c-2 of the Subdivi- sion Ordinance of Orange County. In particular we are requesting the exception for the purposes described in Section IV-B-8-c-2-[c] that discusses the necessity to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements. The full text of that section is attached for reference. The previously submitted landscape plan identifies the wooded areas to be pre- served and shows the proposed street and yard trees to be placed in those areas for which the tree protection clearing exception is requested. The. 85.6 acre site of the proposed Lawrence Park development has approximately 42 acres of open farm field and 43.6 wooded acres. The Lawrence Park application proposes to preserve 13 acres of the existing wooded area as: 1) perimeter buffer, 2)* rear yard tree protection area for lots abut- ting the perimeter buffer, and 3) interior park and recreation land. In addition the plan proposes to plant 830± trees in the 7.4 acres of currently open field areas that will be the 100 feet wide perimeter buffer along Lawrence Road. NMI Emily Cameron Page 2 Orange County Planning Department July 29, 1998 Within the wooded area of the site, the applicant proposes two exceptions for tree clearing as permitted by the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance. These are: 1) In the 13 acres of woodland to be preserved, the applicant proposes to selec- tively prune or remove diseased trees and those weakened by age, and 2) In the wooded areas of the site which will be developed with homes, recrea- tion facilities, roadways, utilities, and stormwater management facilities; the applicant proposes the clearing of existing vegetation. Approximately 130 of the 241 lots on the site will need to have some or most of the existing vegeta- tion removed in order to build homes on the 7,500 — 8,000 square feet lots that are proposed. The need for clearing on these lots is the result of the desire to provide homes in a moderate price range in an efficient and cost conscious manner. Approximately 21 wooded acres are within these lots. After construction is com- pleted, approximately 400 new trees will be planted on the lots for which the clearing exemption is requested. The quantity and placement of these new'trees after construction will be in accordance with the street tree and side -rear yard tree planting requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant believes that the exceptions being requested are fully consistent with the concept of cluster single - family home development at the proposed over- all density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant also believes that the re- tained 13 acres of existing vegetation combined with the 940± required street tree and side -rear yard tree plantings and the 830± new buffer plantings will provide an attractive and functional vegetation environment for residents of Lawrence Park and nearby residents. Sincerely, THE JOHN R. McADAMS COMPANY, INC. Scott Radway, AICP Senior Project Manager, SOR./sr cc: Scott Murray, East West Partners PROTECTION OF EXIS'i'T�tG VEfTETATION *Amended On any land for which application for subdivision approval has been 10/3188 made after the effective date of this ordinance, no person, firm or corporation shall remove or cause to be 'removed any trees or other vegetation except in accordance with approved plans. *IV'B-8-c-1 DESIGNATION OF TREE PROTErTrON AREA *Amended Existing trees, regardless of size, shall not be cut or otherwise 10/3/88 damaged or destroyed within a primary tree protection area, and 1/4/94 existing trees having a diameter of one (1) foot or greater, as measured four and one -half (4.5) feet above ground level, shall not be cut, damaged or destroyed within a secondary tree protection area defined as follows: (a) Primary Tree Protection Area. That portion of a lot which is to be used for required recreationlopen space area; front, side and rear yard setback areas; and Land Use Buffers as required by this Ordinance and the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. (b) Secondary Tree Protection Area. Any portion of a lot not included within the Primary Tree Protection Area. EXCEPTIONS . *Amended 10 -3 Upon approval of a final plat for a minor subdivision, or a preliminary -88 plat for a major subdivision, trees may be removed only from designated street rights -of -way and utility and/or storm water drainage easements. In cases* where retention of existing trees would create unusual hardship or development problems in building sites, recreation%open space; °. _..:"*,'. ': setback and/or buffer areas, the Planning Director shall determine when . , such hardships exist and may designate areas that may be exempt from 'and tree protection may approve.replacement of trees removed from such areas The Planning Director may approve the planting of new trees if one or more of the following exists: (a) Necessity to remove trees in order to survey existing and/or proposed Property lines and easements; (b) Necessity to remove diseased trees or trees weakened by age, storm, fire, or. other injury; !� (c) Necessity to remove trees in order to construct proposed improvements, as a result of the need for access of construction equipment around proposed buildings, the need for construction,: access to the lot, and the need to alter the existing grade of the site or to install utilities and/or drainage structures; and AA , 046 047 LAWRENCE ROAD PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DBS-95000 PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER 5.21-116 Douglas & Wanda Hawley 6412 Cheek Road Durham, NC 27704 5.21...115 Douglas ,& Wanda Hawley 6412 Cheek Road Durham, NC 27704 5.21.34A Douglas & Wanda Hawley 6412 Cheek Road Durham, NC 27704 5.21-93 Willie & Gloria Zbned-,% P.O. Box 61072 Durham, NC 27712 5.21-94 Douglas & Patricia Millan 2304 Old Oak Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.21-95 Paul Sharon 3609 Knollwood Drive Durham, NC 27712 5.21-96 Norman & Donna Byrd 2324 Old Oak Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.21-98 Oscar Williams Michelle St. Romain 2406 Old Oak Place Hillsborough, NC 37278 5.21-50 James & Donna Ray P.O. Box 759 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.21-52 Sadie Micol 2002 US 70AE Hillsborough., NC 27278 5.2.A.1 Annie Brown 2208 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 048 5.2.A.2 Annie Brown 2208 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.3 Pearle Herndon 2212 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.4 Coy & Claudia Riggsbee Zt De, Ran Faad �bav►e � IrIG 273oZ 5.2.A.5 Roy Brown P.O. Box 605 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.6 Thomas & Sandra Brown 2300 Lanme Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.7 Raymond & Rosa McGinty Rt. 2, Box 481 HQ Timberlake, NC 27583 5.2.A.8 Colonial Park Water Association P.O. Box 9076 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.9 Survada S. Mills P.O. Box 935 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.10 Gerald & Frieda Bullock 2312 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.11 Mamie Pearce 2316 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.A.12 Steven Ramarge P.O. Box 155 Efland, NC 27243 5.2.A.13 Ruthie Gordon Rt. 1, Box 101 C1 Hurdle Mills, NC 27541 5.2.B.1 Paul Laman Wanda Loman Evans 100 Amber Road Timberlake, NC 27583 2 049 5.2.B.2 Paul Loman Wandal Loman Evans 100 Amber Road Timberlake, NC 27583 5.2.B.3 Paul Loman Wanda Loman Evans 100 Amber Road Timberlake, NC 27583 5.2.B.4 Howard & Betty Duncan 2408 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.5 Rembert & Lillian Bennett 2406 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.6 Nathan & Annie Boggs 2410 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.-B.7 Charles & Debra Fields 1527 Riverside Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.8 Nathan Daniels Steven Ramarge P.O. Box 155 Efland, NC 27243 5.2.B.9 Jennifer & Francis Franklin 2418 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.10 Joan Hopper Jack Freeland P.O. Box 607 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.11 Albert & Betsy Brinkley Rt 7, New Mt. Moriah Road Durham, NC 27707 5.2.B.12 Mark Home 2428 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.13' Myron Salmon 2430 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27 278 3 0.50 5.2.B..15 Jackson Carter . 2436 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.B.16 Leonard Burgess 2442 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.C.1 Nathan Daniels Steven Ramarge P.O. Box 155 Efland, NC 27243 5.2.C.2 Edward Hobby 323 Shambley Road Mebane, NC 27302 5.2.C.3 Patricia Hall P.O. Box 1255 Hillsborough, NC -27278 5.2.C.4 Washington & Barbara Bayes 2437 7 Jay Circle. Hillsborougth, NC 27278 5.2.C.5 Willie Lee Wiseman 2424 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27279 5.2.C. 6 Roger & Beverly Bayes . 2420 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.C.7 David Bryant .2416 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.C.8 Georgi6 Bryant 2403 Jay. Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.2.C.9 Bobby & Betsy Huff 2407 Jay Circle Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.1 Sadie Nficol 2002 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.2 Peter Hoyt 1921 Piney Grove Church Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 4 05.1 5.6.A.28 Billy & Pamela Adcock P.O. Box 595 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.29 Nathan F. Daniels P.O. Box 155 Efland, NC 27243 5.6.A.30 Charles & Debra Fields 1527 Riverside Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.32 Aggieline Wiseman 2512 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.33 Lois Driggers 2508 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.34 Jimmy Tuck Patsy Tuck Spengler 2502 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 2.7278 5.6.A.34A Dennis & Ellen Derr 2504 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.34B William & Nancy Sward 2516 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.34C Angela Barber 2530 Lannie Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.1 James & Faye Johnson 1802 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.2 'Norwood & Nancy Conway 1801 1 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5. LA.3 Nonie & Antoinette Cutlip 1805 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5. LAA Randy Foster Barbara Foster 1809 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5 052 5.l .A.5 Allison Neems 1815 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.6 Lawrence Road Baptist Church 1915 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.8 Clifton & Anne Boyd 1909 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.9 Terry Fuqua 9013 NC 86 North Cedar Grove, NC 27231 5.1.A.10 Dorothy & Margaret Cates 11919 Lawrence Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A >11 Uda ' I & Clara East 2030 Jefferson Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.12 Howard & Virginia Hardee 2026 Jefferson Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5. LA. 1 -3 Clifton & Virginia Godwin 1918 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.14 Clifton & Frances Godwin 1914 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.15 James & Joan Hopper P.O. Box 607 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.16 Alfred & Shirley Jacobs 1906 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.17 Harold Heath Rt 1, Box 292 Carroll Road Germanton, NC 27019 5.1.A.18 Michael Ellis 1822 Adams Place Hillsborough; NC 27278 I 053 5. I.A. 19 Waylon & Tessie Stinson 1818 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.20 Karen Pazderski David Catalano 1814 Adam's Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.21 Ricky Glenn Berry Vickie L. Berry 1810 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.A.22 Andrew J. Gornto Traci B. Gornto 1806 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.B.1 John C. Britt Bonnie L. Britt 1832 Washington Drive .Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.8.2 Richard Cecil Howard Cheryl A. Howard' 1803 Adams Place Hillsboroughm NC 27278 5.13.3 Carl T. Swanson Edith H. Swanson. 1903 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.1.8.4 Mary Ann Maney 1811 Adams Place Hillsborough, NC. 27278 5.3.B.6 Robert H. Bateman Joyce Bateman 1513 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.3.B.7 George L. Clayton, Jr. Laverne M. Clayton I Sandstone Ridge Drive Durham, NC 27713 5.3.B.8 Robert B. Gerdeman Vallie Gerdeman 1521 US 70 AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 0 054 5.3.B.9 James Roland Singleton Judith S. Singleton 1529 US 70 AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.1 Manly R. Richardson Darcy H. Richardson 1603 US 70 AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.2 J. F. McPadden 1611 US 70 AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.3 Charles L. Stephens Kay A. Stephens 1617 Highway 70 -A Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.4 Charles L. Stephens Kay A. Stephens 1617 Highway 70 -A Hillsborough, NC 27278 I, 5.4.B.5 Worth Arthur Lutz III Post Office Box 2324 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 5.4.B.6 James L. Carter Bertha L. Carter Post Office Box 1077 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.7 Curtis W. Clayton Dorothy Clayton 1707 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.B.8 John M. Rhodes Faye C. D. Rhodes 1717 Highway 70 -A E Hillsborough; NC 27278 5.4.B.9 John M.. Rhodes Faye L. Rhodes 1717 US 70A East Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.8.10 Neal Andrew Robinson Carolyn Robinson 1801 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 J 0,555 5A.B. 11 Lonnie D. Bell Irene F. Bell 1805 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5A.B. 13 William B. Owens Betty H. Owens 1821 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5A.B.14 Elwood Hill Ham's Melba -B..HarTis 1907 US 70 AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5A.B. 15 Edwin Kirk Woods 840 Palmers Grove Hillsborough, NC 27278 5A.B.16 Donna L. Freeland Post Office Box 726 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AAA James P. Ray Donna A. Ray Post Office Box 759 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AA.2 J.F. McPadden 1611 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AA.3 Orval Cliffford Cox, Jr. Jacquelin H. Cox 1618 US 70A E - Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AAA Gaynell Sharpe 306 Morreene Road Durham, NC 27705 5AA.5 Howard Lee Hardee Virginia Baker Hardee 2026 Jefferson Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AA.6 James P. Ray Donna Ray Post Office Box 759 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5AA.7 Nellie Hines Tunstall 1718 US 70AE' Hillsborough, NC 27278 I ®5 5.4.A.8 Billy Blackwelder. Mildred Blackwelder 1804 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.A.9 Billy B. Blackwelder Mildred G. Blackwelder Route 5 Box 867 Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.A.9A . Ned D. Blackwelder Eulalie S. Blackwelder 1918 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.A.10 Ned D. Blackwelder Eulalie S. Blackwelder 1918 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.A.11 Ned D. Blackwelder 1918 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.4.A.12 Ned D. Blackwelder Eulalie S. Blackwelder 1918 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.5.A.2 Randy Paul Bullock - Teresa G. Bullock 2007 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.5.A.3 Lubie E. Williams Larry M. Williams 116 S. Fork Court Weatherford, TX 76087 - 5.4.A.4 Dorthy A. Rhodes 2017 Highway 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.5.A.7 Annie Crabtree Downey 2101 US 70AE Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.5.A..10 Carolantic Investments Partnership 1812 Chapel Hill Road Durham, NC 27707 10 057 5.5.A.23, Virginia F. Armstrong tOZIE) i4f5-Piney Grove Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 5.5.A.23B Ronnie Cleveland Armstrong 2101 Shane Drive Greensboro NC 27406 5.6.A.1 Sadie Pittman Micol 2002 US 70AE Hillsoborough, NC 27278 5.6.A.2 Peter R. Hoyt 1921 Piney Grove Church Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 11 058: ..onnie Cleveland .Armstrong Sadie Pi t Peter R.,,Hoyt 2101 Shane Drive 2002 U;ME 1921; A6t y Grove church p Greensboro, NC 27406 Hill Wrough, NC 27278 H,i}%sborough, NC 27278 tZt i.i z Va V td �i° 42�,e h ;aA @rt h i !(. 5 r1,0C Et- al Lk -z z57 4- srvdk-�o t le w Pd.. -M-75e3 July 17, 1998 THOMAS H. HEFFNER REALTOR • CONSULTANT • REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 103 Porter Place • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 • (919) 929 -0518 - Fax (919) 929.0758 Orange County Board of Commissioners 208 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Lawrence Road Subdivision. At the request of East West Partners Development Company and Meadowmont Farms LLC, I have examined the proposed development plan for the Lawrence Road Subdivision. The purpose of my analysis was to determine the potential impact that the development would have on the values of contiguous property. The properties adjoining the subject tract to the south are generally occupied by mobile or modular homes (Lannie Drive, Lori Drive, and Jay Circle). The properties adjoining to the east, west and north are made up of a mixture of mobile homes and single family residences. The majority of adjoining residences appear to be in a'price range equal or lower than the probable price-range of the houses that would be built in the proposed subdivision. Additionally, a,100 foot landscaped buffer is provided around the perimeter of the proposed subdivision. It is my opinion that this buffer will reduce the impacts of the subdivision on the .contiguous properties. Based on my analysis of the proposed Lawrence Road Subdivision and of the contiguous properties, it is my opinion that the Lawrence Road Subdivision will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Respectfully submitted, //2 X, X zc� /*� � � Thomas H. Heffner Real Estate Appraiser 060 001 ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION & PARKS ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: (Underlined): Patrick Mulkey, Chair; Marie Tate, Vice Chair; Thomas Gentry; Ricky 0. Hill; Andrew Joseph- Stella -M a un se ll - Angenette McAdoo; Bill Crowther, BOCC STAFF PRESENT: (Underlined'): Robert A. Jones Director; Pat Lloyd Administrative Asst.; Libby Jennings, office Assistant; Myra Austin, Special Populations Program Supervisor; Eugene Coleman, Athletic Program Super-visor; Frank Hartig, Special Events Program Supervisor; James C. Hester, General Programs Supervisor; Robin Fuqua, Senior Citizens Coordinator; Ardra Webster, Athletic Coordinator; Dwight C. Ragland,'Facilities Supervisor; Willie Lambert, Program Assistant. GUEST (S) PRESENT: I. CALL TO ORDER A. Welcome B. Approval Of Minutes C. Additions / Changes to the Agenda Chair MULKEY called the meeting to order at 6:00. CROWTHER made motion to accept minutes as written, seconded by TATE. Motion was unanimous. JONES asked to add News Articles under IV.D. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF C OUNTY COMMISSIONERS ONERS (BOCC) B. III- REPORT OF THE CHAIR A. Park Plan Revision Task Force B. MULKEY reported that the sub-committee had met in Chapel Hill and was still wrestling with where do we go and what do we recommend? What are charges for this committee since bond money is already earmarked. MULKEY stated that overall the recreation task force is spread out and has no interest as what happens in rural area, and would like to know how RPAC feels. Discussion followed. JONES stated that Master Plan needs to be revised. SCHMITT asked who sbrves.on task force? MULKEY stated: Margaret Brown, John Link, Duke Forest personnel, both school systems, Board of Education, OWASA, Ron Hyatt, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro Recreation Departments and Mulkey. Discussion followed. MULKEY advised RPAC that his sole goal'is to revise Master Park Plan. P IV. REPORT OF THE -DIRECTOR A. Efland-Cheeks Community School Park Update B. Review Facilities Fee and Charges C. Citizen Board Member Conference D., News Article - new school • JONES reported that the Task Force met in July and Jones shared maps of same along with letter showing changes and items for consideration. Discussion followed regarding new school site. JONES advised that staff would review changes to fees and charges for facilities. Discussion followed. JOSEPH had attended CBM conference and he had met some sharp people at conference with very different funding schemes. He felt conference was a benefit. to members. V. REPORT OF COMMITTEES A. B. VI. SPECIAL REPORTS / PRESENTATIONS A. B. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. RPAC BBQ - Date -& Location B. MULKEY asked RPAC if there was a desire to continue to have.BBQ. After discussion motion was made by TATE to hold BB,Q on September 25 or October 2, seconded by MAUNSELL. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Courtesy Review - Lawrence Park Subdivision B. Comments were that recreation areas were for land owners association and payment-in-lieu would be considered. IX. NEWS ARTICLES / MISCELLAN A. X. ADJOURNMENT Next monthly meeting date: Location for Sept Meeting: EOUS INFORMATION September 1, 1998 6:00 pm Richard Whitted Human Service Center 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, NC 27278 tfll -ley ; submitted 2: t.ricia B. Loyd Reviewed by1wige rt A. Janos, Jr 063 a,�swp> °►an.,,Ks• STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. E. NORRIS TOLSON GOVERNOR , .SECRETARY August 3, 1998 8-ta•98 ORANGE COUNTY _ .__... Emily Cameron Orange County Planning 306F Revere Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Subject: Lawrence Park Subdivision Dear Ms. Cameron: This letter is follow up review to the subject site in which this office last reviewed on 03- 13 -98. The developers have'not addressed several items on my last review; however, they have provided more information about the site. With this new information in mind, we have reviewed the site again and offer the following comments for the subject. A. Items from last review dated 03 -13 -98 which were not addressed: 1. NCDOT agreed with the developers TIA which recommended a left and right turn lane. The current plan does not show any turn lanes. Please see the attached drawing for a standard turn lane design which NCDOT will require for the US 70A an d Lawrence Rd. intersections. 4. The current plans do not indicate any roadway improvements at Lawrence Rd. and Old NC 10. 5. Several items on this issue are addressed later in this letter. 6. The current plan does not address any right of way sight distance triangles as required by NCDOT. (Standard 10' x 70' sight distance triangle - see attached) - 7. The owner is required to secure a permit with NCDOT before making any new access. It would appear from some of the correspondence between the developer and the county that the developer can wait until after a percentage of the homes are built. Please be advised that this is unacceptable with NCDOT. In addition, please be advised that NCDOT has some concerns about the right of way in this area. Unless the developer purchases and/or acquires right of way, they may not be able to provide the minimum turn lane design. 8. The developer shall secure a permit for any new utilities in the right of way. At this time no one has submitted any permits. Furthermore, based on the proposed plans, NCDOT would not grant any permits. The proposed utilities need to be removed from under the roadway and installed outside of the paved area. (See item B -9 for more information) 9. According to the plans, the developer is proposing a sign on the right of way at the entrance. Typically, NCDOT does not allow this type of landscaping on the right of way. At this time, no one has applied for any permits. P. O. Box 766, Graham, NC 27253 -0766 064 Page 2 Emily Cameron August 3, 1998 B. Problems with the proposed plans as submitted: Other than the items already discussed, there are several problems with the plans and NCDOT maintenance. Because.there are so many, I will just list the items here and I would recommend a meeting to discuss this in more detail. 1. NCDOT minimum roadway design for a subdivision does not address the issues of bike lanes and/or street parking. Therefore, if it is the county's intent to have either or both of these items, the standard cross section will not be acceptable. Please advise us of your intent. 2. NCDOT minimum standards on a curb and gutter cross section is 35' B to B on all collector type roadways. This minimum design would effect Lawrence Park Ave., Vandalia Way, Branning Dr., Lori Dr., and possibly Brassfield Dr. 3. Several of the other roadways do -not meet the state's minimum design guideline. Example: Vandalia Way has a minimum centerline radius of 175' when NCDOT requires 230' To avoid addressing many of these issues, the developer has stated that any roadway not meeting NCDOT requirements will be maintained by the homeowner's association. Currently, none of the roadways meet the standards. Will the homeowners maintain all of the roadways? 4. The typical section shows a 3' curb, however, if you add the number up shown on the plans the total would be a standard 2'6" curb. The developer TIA refers to a mountable curb. NCDOT has not approved any non standard curb for this site. 5. NCDOT is concerned about the proposed recreational space that does not provide parking. We would recommend the developer provide parking for the Pocket Park and the Tot Lot. According to the correspondence, the developer appears to have met the minimum county requirements for all recreational areas, however, the county ordinance was not written to accommodate an urban design subdivision. Therefore, we would recommend the developer exceed the minimum parking rather than meet the minimum. As for the parking at lot 244, the current parking lot is unacceptable. The parking lot needs to be designed so there is a single point of entrance and exit. The developer will not be allowed to have a wide opening area for the parking lot. The parking lot at the play fields needs to be redesigned so it is a single driveway off the cul -de -sac and not as an extended roadway. 6. All intersections should have a minimum 100' tangent before starting any curve. This requirement effects Bellingham Place & Lawrence Park Ave., Lori Drive & Dunston Way, Brassfield Drive & Lawrence Park Ave.. 7. The turnaround at Lawrence Park Ave. and Brassfield Dr. are outside of the proposed right of way. Additional right of way is needed in these areas. 8. Sheet C -6 shows that the storm drainage will be designed to a minimum Q10 when NCDOT requires a minimum Q25. At this time, the drainage system has not been reviewed due to a lack of information. 9. Sheet C -4 shows water and sewer under the roadway without taps to each lot. NCDOT will require all utilities out of the roadway. Some consideration may be allowed if all taps are installed at the time of construction and before any pavement is placed. 10. Sheet C -6: The developer will need to provide temporary turn around of the end of each street during the phases. This becomes important for roadway addition and maintenance during the time of construction and between phasing periods. 11. Bus stops are shown on the proposed plans where there is a turn lane. Typically, there is a problem with adding a bus stop in these areas due to right of way issues. We would recommend the developer design and provide prove that right of way will not be a problem for the proposed site. Furthermore, who will maintain the bus stop and the shelters if this site is out in the county? Page 3 Emily Cameron August 3, 1998 12. In Slade McCalip's memo dated 05 -04 -98 to Mr. Meisner, he stated that the bike lane will be marked separately from the deceleration lane on Lawrence Rd. and US 70. Is the county requiring bike lanes outside of the subdivision or is he referring to striping the thru travel lane? After reviewing this letter, please contact Michael S. Venable, Assistant District Engineer, at 336 - 570 -6833 if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely, V T. J. Dyer, P.E. DISTRICT ENGINEER atta. TJD:MSV:kww cc: Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division Engineer I 'i '1 50' 1 RW q. Wmi R/W WIDENING 10' x 70' SIGHT TRIANGLE 7�- L R: R/W 70' al FIRST 100' STATION PAST ROAD TAPER 6 (L U') 061/ 10" x 70' SIGHT TRIANGLE R/W EDGE OF PAVEMENT EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT ROAD EDGE OF PAVEMENT R/W TYPICAL ROAD CONNECTION STOP CONDITION ME O 189 91 °a 0. �2WWWd . Ul � SO Ln 00 Z J uj Ln u Wz 2: w L Ln 7 Ln 1 C\j w 0 J) Ln 0 I , % C\j CD H LL W 0 w U) Lli z < EE Ln LO 0 Ul) LLJ X 0- r-) I I I Lf) Cr V) w CL o In Ln (D W Z J uj Ln u Wz 2: w L Ln 7 Ln 1 C\j w 0 J) Ln 0 I , % C\j CD H LL W 0 w U) Lli z < EE Ln LO 0 Ul) LLJ X 0- r-) I I I C31 C3 C3j t AYMOVOM ONUSIX3 M W Z wo w cl, clf D- to W W I en 00 0: tn 0 TZ R W 0 tn 6: w a. 0 z (n Ca d II 0 I1 I w a (1) LLI � Ic R to al Zi w UA > W 7" 0 L'LJ V) -r C) 4� ry LLJ M 0 CD 7' Lli 7; LLJ n V) Ld I-- 0 z 0 Z 7" Ld Z Ld :2 LLJ N Ell < D� z CD U) < F- LLI LLJ -J CD F- 00 O < ry < p F-- LX (,() z 0 z 5: < U) - Z Z) 0 IL � :2 : c� LLJ 00 0 LLj F- 00 -1 < LL- F- Z bi 0 V) "d 0 zFc3 1:6 < LLL3�: O..� 0 -r U) L - 0 OHO = -,- C-) V) Lj Lf) p- < LIJZO Y- z 0 Z CN 0 LLJ < d LLI z LLJ Lij 0 :D 0(/) Cl) (n Q Lij ly- fy_ ::) ry 0 LiJ LLJ (n LLJ 0 CL 00- Q:� < D LL- Ld 0 Z 2 cr- :D M U) m < —1 CL (/) co U) Val (3-4- < En 0L, 0L,- LJ Ld 0 0 0 0 < W F- Ld CD EE �— < E F-- < LLI ry ry n- N LLI to Lli < 0 ry CD X< < Lij Cy ui < > -W > Q. < < 0 < < LA Lf) z -3: z 0 < F- < M 0 0 0 = H U_ =F n- M<O m < m Ld 0170 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD DATE: August 10, 1998 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA ea. REQUEST FOR AGENCY REVIEW: N. C.'DEnOF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS' 7th'DIV DISTRICT I - GRAHAM FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO: Mike Venable, NCDOT We have received the attached plat/plan for consideration: Project name: PD-3-98 Lawrence Park Owner: Meadowmont Farms, LLC Type: Planned Development Site Plan/Preliminary Subdivision Plan # Lots/Units Proposed: * 237 in PD-H-R-3 and 4 in R-2 Township: Eno Tax Map: 4 Block: Lots: 17 Location: East side of Lawrence Road (SR 1710), between Interstate 815 and US Highway 70A Project Summary: The total acreage of the tract is 85.57. Current zoning is R-1 w . ith a portion in the Major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are single-family residential zoned R-1, R-2, and R-4, and a church. The property is located in the Twenty-Year Transition Area. The rezoning request is for 2 acres of R-2 (4 half-acre lots) adjacent to US 70A, and'a planned development 83.33 acres to be -H-R-3 for 237 single - family lots (2.8 units per acre). Proposed open space acreage is rezoned to PD I e 26.37 (31.6%) including 7.17 acres of improved recreation area. The average lot size is 7725 square feet; the average house size will be approximately 1550 square feet. The Proposed development will feature a system of new public roads with entrances on US 70A and Lawrence Road, as well as a connection to Lori Drive. A traffic impact study has been submitted to examine the need for improvements to existing roads -associated with the entrances. All of the new lots will be served by public water and sewer from the Town of Hillsborough. This item is scheduled for the August 24 public hearing. Planning Department Comments: Thank you for your previous comments regarding the proposed development. Enclosed is additional information on the right-of-way for Lori Drive. The 60-foot right-of- way was created with the same plat as Lannie Drive (a.k.a. "Jay" Drive, SR 1831 .recorded in Deeds for adjacent lots call to the edge of the right-of-way, not the center. Since the right-of-way appears to be available, if built to State standards, can we assume it will be eligible for State mainte- licable density requirements, are me . - August 13, 1998 If you have any questions, please contact: Emily Cameron, ASLA, YES Planner II/Landscape Architect, at 732-8181, 967-9251, or 688-7331, extension: 2680 T. i. Dyer, p_p 071 1 0 il M & Sheriff of Orange County Hillsborough, North Carolina, 17278 Office Phone: Hillsborough 732-2431 Chapel Hill 942-6300 To: Eddie Kirk Residence Phone: 929-5535 Orange County Planning Department - From: Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass Date: July 15, 1998 Re: Lawerence Park Special Use Permit Subdivision Application DBS 95000 John R. McAdams Company Inc. PO Box 14006 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 The Orange County Sheriff's.Office has reviewed the above proposed application for 241 single family- ::homes to be built on the'east side of Lawrence Road between 1-85 aiid•US 70 Business. Calls for service in this area.:-for.-.the past twelve months totaled 2,109 responses for service. virdyid*ing service for an additional 800 plus persons will increase the service load for our current allotted personnel. Providing law enforcement'.serv3ices tar " .". ; t e h- ptoposeq,"."Upub-divis ion will require at a mi. nimum, one •deputy, one vehi'Cl .equipment. Should any further information, be.-:needed ilea"66: contact our office. Sheriff Lindy Pend;rrg;ass 072 9-11 Coi=urdcations 24 HowWan-ting Point 919 -732 - 8161.933 -2600 Fax Machine 919-967-9026 ORjuvGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGE AiL,,fT PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 To: Emily Cameron Planning Department From: Mike Tapp Kr Fire Marshal LaaatP o/ F� MR 11 7-- 1. July 1, 1998 RE: Fire and EMS Coverage for Special Use Permit Lawrence Park, Eno Township, Tax Map 4, parcel 17 Hillsborough, NC Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal Hazardous Materials Team Disaster Response 919-644-3030 e 96&2050 Administrative Fax Mach= 919-96&40" Orange County Emergency Management Division of EMS, will provide EMS coverage for the referenced site. Orange County Emergency I Management is located at 1914 New Hope Church Road, in Chapel Hill; the Director is Nick Waters. The Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department provides fire coverage to the referenced site. They are located on 203 S Churton Street, Hillsborough. Jeff Cabe is the Chief of the Hillsborough/Orange Rural Fire Department. Please contact us if additional assistance is needed. Located at 1914 Neiv Hone Church Read ® m—i uni ^?%T- u - MMM4 A 073 9 -1 -1 Communications 24 Hour Warning Point 919- 732 -8161 •933 -2600 24 -Hour Fax Machine 919 - 967 -9026 Orange County Emergency Management P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough North Carolina 27278 t °ggtC o/ 4 .f by y, •w IZ 4 �Or�3 eat*�t'' August 12, 1998 TO: EMILY CAMERON, PLANNING DEPT. FROM: MIKE TAPP, FIRE MARSHAL RE: PD -3 -98 LAWRENCE PARK Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal Disaster Response Hazardous Materials 919 -644 -3030. 968 -2050 Administrative Fax Machine 919- 968 -4066 We have reviewed plans for PD -3 -98 Lawrence Park and find them acceptable. ' Please send us a copy of the final approved plan for distribution. Please contact us if you need additional information. 1 Located at 1914 New Hope Church Road • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 0.74 NV U Lawrence Park (Z-3-98 and PD-3-98) 1.1 W. CAL (3 Applicant: East West Partners, Inc. iL I4AP ZI. Owner: Meadowmont Farms, LLC L Ac. Current Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1) Proposed Zoning: 3.28 Acres R-2 Low Intensity Residential and 83.79 Acres PD-H-R-3 Planned Development Rr3 Land Use Element: Twenty Year Transition W 11 Scale: one inch = 1000 feet AC 14404 1?4.c It 4c 4!7 ta 1 ?AC 4 Ara. P PP- 14. 1z N M; I...0; so & cam" Mi- Ma" so No NOW :7 7� 49 gabs Ago on, G It M9CA16 As am or W. -' >16 "_*w" a r3 �r s t _ - �-T_ -- : ^- Or •° .`'..�`` IS31416AM 0 a tit law j. 6, �—' * -.1-1 / J R A9 - , ;§ . - Ali 91 as IBM: U4. ell .................. 7 1 7 jsq k 44 44 C5 4 I Q 58 201M g 91V -ts;7 15 7p F Ixg ;-.0 A. riil n> n' O m Nye M n4i��`i!`c� dl 5W c 4 t —7- lip m -Z' sm at Car gl AF . . . ....... W s. so- JP ME ME" m1111111111111111c 0A �� __ 1 .. L-4 I as 201M MOW- n> n' O m Nye M n4i��`i!`c� dl 5W c 4 t —7- lip m -Z' sm at Car gl AF . . . ....... W s. so- JP ME ME" m1111111111111111c 0A �� __ 1 .. L-4 I MUM as MOW- MUM T.AMMP.T*Jr-P, PARK -QT TRnT1w7rcTn7kT Fli � �z`c' 5j 11'5. 11 i t! v mo m kkCCkRKC M 0 7 pi I-- to y r as as T.AMMP.T*Jr-P, PARK -QT TRnT1w7rcTn7kT Fli � �z`c' 5j 11'5. 11 i t! v mo m kkCCkRKC M 0 7 pi I-- to y r as UK //h4 MUM= =MAE- 111s.-IM-n P. 772V j r� �e ., r. ''i r �� t 1;;,« . . . . CA S 8-5 h pp M to p n44 STREET ------------ I Mo g PARK srmnm.qTnm 9a pp p n44 .................... .............. I Mo g P PARK srmnm.qTnm 9a pp p n44 .................... .............. I Mo g PARK srmnm.qTnm 9a 078 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 1, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Barrows (Chair), Nell Andrews, Paul Hoecke, Arnie Katz, Howard McAdams, Renee Price, Libby Searles, Bob Strayhorn, Elizabeth Walters. MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: AGENDA ITEM #2 :. AGENDA ITEM #3: MOTION: VOTE: AGENDA ITEM #4: AGENDA ITEM 95: AGENDA ITEM #6: AGENDA ITEM #7: Leo Allison, S.A.M. Brooks, James Selkirk - excused. Emily Cameron, Eddie Kirk, Slade McCalip, Joanna Bradshaw. CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA Chair presented information on the World Class Region Conference scheduled for April 24, 1998 and asked that Board members indicate by the end of the meeting if they wished to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 5, 1998 Katz moved approval. Seconded by Hoecke. Unanimous. COMNIISSIONERS' BRIEFS - Not available. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair read the public charge. CHAIR COMMENTS None. COMMITTEE /ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS a. Board of Adjustment Barrows reported that the Board of Adjustment approved a request for a Class B Special Use Permit for a riding stable. b. Agricultural Districts Advisory Board No meeting. c. Historic Preservation Commission Cameron reported that the Commission held a public hearing to recommend a National Register nomination, the Arch Jordan House. This has been reviewed by the State and forwarded to the National Parks and Recreation for their consideration. 082 4 � I. Revise the plan and the Traffic Impact Study to respond to comments from the County Transportation Planner and the NC Department of Transportation, including provision of at least one additional access point (copies of these comments are attachments to these minutes on pagew At; .); 2. The ball fields shall be at least 75 feet from the PD district boundary. Indicate if the fields are to be lighted; 3. Provide landscaping that will create taller and more dense screening between adjacent residential uses and the entrance on US 70A and the ball fields; 4.. The majority of buffer plantings between the development and Lawrence Road and the northern boundary shall be 4 to 6 feet in height at installation; 5. If grading for the recreation areas exceeds 40,000 square feet, submit an Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance; 6. Provide a plan to preserve or rescue mountain laurels prior to construction; and .7. With the planned development application, submit draft forms of homeowners association documents and restrictive covenants to address use and maintenance of open space including stormwater management structures and recreation facilities. The documents shall designate a back -up grantee in the event the homeowners association is eliminated. Cluster Option: 1. Revise the plan and the Traffic Impact Study to respond to comments from the County Transportation Planner and the NC Department of Transportation, including provision of at least one additional access point; .2. The streams and slopes over 15% shall be included in open space; 3. Provide landscaping that will create taller and more dense screening between adjacent residential uses and the entrance on US 70A and the ball fields; 4. The majority of buffer plantings between the development and Lawrence Road and the northern boundary shall be 4 to 6 feet in height at installation; 5. Provide a plan to preserve or rescue mountain laurels prior to construction; and 6. With the Preliminary Plan application, submit draft forms of homeowners association documents and restrictive covenants to address use and maintenance of open space including stormwater management facilities. The documents shall designate a back -up grantee for the open space in the event the homeowners association is eliminated. Katz asked about the process of a Concept Plan for rezoning and planned development. Cameron responded that there had previously been only one Concept Plan prior to rezoning to planned development, University Station. She continued that planned development is many reviews or applications rolled into one. It is a rezoning, a preliminary subdivision approval, site plan approval, and a Class A Special Use Permit. They must meet all of the Subdivision Regulations at the same time that they meet the 5 083 Zoning Ordinance requirements. Thus, the Concept Plan is required in order to move to the next step in the process. Searles asked about the soils limitations. Cameron responded that the information on the site analysis is from the USDA Soil Survey. They have not done specific on -site testing with a soil scientist. The soil survey provides tables that indicate engineering properties and which soils are suitable for different kinds of development. For road construction and dwellings with or without basements, some of the soils have moderate limitations and some have severe limitations for shrink swell potential and/or wetness. That usually means that it is not prohibitive for development but it may require more grading, additional drainage facilities, and possibly larger footings or foundations. Barrows asked about the comments from the Town of Hillsborough regarding public water and sewer. Cameron responded that they have acknowledged that they have the capacity to serve this area. However, that approval depends upon review of the actual construction plans and plans for installation. Barrows noted that a concern was with the water shortage that Hillsborough often experiences. Searles noted that the ordinance requires plantings of six feet, why is staff recommending plantings four - six feet. Cameron responded that the smaller plantings from the beginning have a greater chance for survival. She continued that the types of plantings that are being recommended are fairly quickly growing and have a good success rate which would provide the height required in a reasonable amount of time. At the present time, the area is an open field. Katz asked if McCalip, Transportation Planner, had discussed his concerns with the developer. McCalip responded that information provided by the developer that afternoon had addressed some of his concerns. Those not yet addressed are parking at the recreation site and turn lanes on Lawrence Road. The developer does not feel that turn lanes on Lawrence Road are necessary but McCalip continued to express the same concern according to the Subdivision Regulations. (A copy of the memorandum by McCalip is an attachment to these minutes on pages A (o - _*� 7.) Katz noted that a resident at the Neighborhood Information Meeting had _ expressed concern regarding the development of a hazardous traffic situation developing at the intersection of Old NC 10 and NC 86. McCalip responded that sight distance improvements are needed at the intersection of Lawrence Road and NC 10. Searles stated that she felt the only difference between the two plans is the appearance of the open space. Cameron noted that the cluster plan has a road which crosses the creek and agreed that there are no major differences in the two Concept Plans. Walters asked about the recommended location of the additional access and Cameron indicated possible locations on the plan. She noted that there is an existing public right of way on Laurie Drive that comes through the existing development of Colonial Park and connects with Lannie Drive and goes out to Lawrence Road. It also may be possible to acquire an easement on the W 6 east side to connect with Piney Grove Church Road. She continued that comments have indicated that sending traffic out the intersection of Piney Grove Church Road and US 70 would not be an ideal solution. There are advantages and disadvantages to both of these locations. There is also the possibility that the developer could find a better location for the additional access. Price asked about the actual impact of the trip generations noting that she felt they could not handle the current ,traffic. McCalip responded that NCDOT information indicates current traffic is being adequately handled. Price continued expressing concern with the volume of traffic that will be created by the proposed subdivision. McCalip noted that he could provide copies of the Traffic Impact Study provided by the developer. He noted that the standard engineering document for number of trips generated per household was used in preparing the study. According to information provided by NCDOT, road capacity with or without this development is still available. Scott Murray, Landscape Architect with East -West Partners, noted that Larry Meisner of Kimley -Horn and Associates had prepared the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Murray continued that Scott Radway of John R. McAdams Company would respond to questions regarding the extension of water and sewer offered by the Town of Hillsborough. Mr. Murray stated that Hillsborough is a part of the larger area, RTP and the Triangle, that is growing rapidly. This creates a challenge for planners, developers and approval boards to fmd ways to accommodate growth. Developers study the areas that have been determined by boards and commissions to be those areas suitable for development where public water and sewer services can be provided and develop a plan such as the one being proposed as Lawrence Road Subdivision. Mr. Murray continued noting that the area has been designated as a Transition Area which is targeted for residential growth as water and sewer becomes available. Immediately to the east of the proposed subdivision there is residential development where there are problems with failing septic systems which is one of the reasons that the Town of Hillsborough is interested in extending utilities. He noted also that economics determines the ability to make the extensions, improvements and the recreational facilities. The price range of the houses is to be from $115, 000 to $165,000 - $170,000. There is a shortage of housing in that range in Hillsborough and surrounding areas. Mr.,Murray continued, explaining the plans noting that there was not a lot of difference between the two plans. He explained how it is expected the recreational areas will be utilized. In regard to buffer plantings, rather than just have strict linear planting, the developer is proposing that the entire 100 -foot wide area be reforested with a variety of trees such as red cedar and pines that would more quickly become a larger buffer area. However, the linear planting would satisfy the intent of the ordinance. . Mr. Murray stated that the stubout to the east described by staff is acceptable to the developer. The developer does feel, however, that it might be more appropriate to have the stubout in the southeast corner 085 7 because there are some parcels in that area that could benefit from better access. He continued that they did not feel it would be good to stubout to the south since it is an established residential area and also a very low area where a retention pond is proposed. He felt a stubout to the east is more appropriate, particularly since utilities will be extended to the east. Mr. Murray noted that one of the requests or recommendations was for a transit stop. He indicated there were several areas that could accommodate that request. He continued that the request for a .75 -foot buffer and plantings between the ballfields and the properties could also be easily accommodated. Mr. Murray spoke to the concern regarding the mountain laurel. He stated that efforts will be made to preserve that in the recreation area and they would support a relocation program for the mountain laurel that falls into roadways and lots. While he was not sure that mountain laurel would survive relocation, he indicated he would seek assistance from the Botanical Gardens in Chapel Hill to aid in this project. Efforts will be made to use the mountain laurel plants on site. In regard to the concern with parking, he indicated the developer would like to see less parking and residents walking to the park. However, they could do it either way and address staff's concern. In regard to soil limitations, he agreed with the information provided but noted that this is an issue that can be overcome with a little more cost to the developer for construction. Katz expressed concern with the need for access for the back lots to the park. Mr. Murray responded that a sidewalk could be constructed to go around the lots to the park. Katz continued asking if the developer would consider reserving some lots for houses in a lower price range. Mr. Murray responded that he would relay this concern to the developer agreeing that it would make homes available to more people. Barrows asked if the developer would bear the cost of relocating the mountain laurel plants and the response was they would be willing to do what would be considered reasonable to help take care of the relocation. Andrews asked about the time frame to buildout. Mr. Murray responded that the development is scheduled to be completed in five phases. Probably a year of development for each phase and seven to eight years for complete development. Searles asked about the response to the concern of turn lanes on Lawrence Road. Larry Meisner of Kimley -Horn Associates responded to this concern. He stated that four different intersections were reviewed for the study: Lawrence Road and 70 Business, 70 Business and 70 Bypass to the east, Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 and Old NC 10 and NC 86. All of the intersections are operating at acceptable or good levels of service during peak hours except for Old NC 10 and NC 86. There is a lengthy delay turning from Old NC 10 onto NC 86. Mr. Meisner noted that The Institute of Transportation Engineers figures for daily and peak hours were used to determine the impact of this subdivision on the roads and the result was that all of the intersections with the W11 exception of Old NC 10 and 86 would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. By the time this development nears buildout, using the year 2003, that intersection would either meet or be near to meeting signal warrants. They also recommended turn lanes on 70 Business. Mr. Meisner stated that he could understand the reasoning for a left turn lane since Lawrence Road is designated a major thoroughfare; however, the projection showed the maximum of fifteen vehicles turning left into the subdivision during a peak hour. That is only one car per four minutes on the average, so that does not seem to justify a left turn lane. He indicated that they would be open to further discussion as they move into the process and the subdivision review stage. They did review the two intersections that had accident problems, but, neither showed that they should be classified as a high hazard intersection. The intersection of Lawrence Road and NC 10 has a sight distance problem and they are recommending that be rectified and NCDOT had indicated they may be able to assist with some of the grading to provide additional sight distance. The intersection of Old NC 10 and 86 has a congestion problem and once a traffic signal is in place it is felt that the accident problem as well as the congestion problem will be alleviated. Most of the accidents were rear - ended. Searles asked about future paving and straightening of Lawrence Road near St. Mary's Road that would create more through traffic. McCalip responded that is not in the TIP program but is in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. McCalip continued that he felt there would be an impact but a left turn lane on Lawrence would alleviate some of the impact. Mr. Meisner stated that he felt it was a difference of professional opinion as to what threshold a left turn lane is installed. Price expressed concern about the traffic impact during construction. Mr. Murray agreed that the trucks involved in the construction would have a definite impact and would be added to the calculations. He continued that the impact of construction traffic would be significantly less than the impact of the development at buildout. Price asked about the impact of construction traffic with the regular traffic as phases are completed noting that there are only two accesses. Mr. Murray responded that construction traffic will be approaching the development from US 70 and Lawrence Road. As phases are completed, the residents will have access to the interior roads and construction traffic will move to another phase. Also, the construction traffic will be opposite the daily traffic pattern of the residents. He noted that the .first phase will be the phase accessing from Lawrence Road and once that is completed, all construction activity will be directed to go directly to 70A to keep it off the residential streets. Such details are worked out as the developer completes the plan and schedules construction of the phases. James Singleton, resident on US 70A, complimented the "design of the subdivision but felt that the density is inappropriate for Hillsborough. He continued expressing concern with the traffic on Lawrence Road. He felt that, with the homes already located in the immediate area, adding 240 or '087 more would create considerably more traffic turning off of Lawrence Road than was indicated in the traffic, study. He also noted that there was a fatality at NC 86 and Old NC 10 two years ago involving a motorcycle. He also expressed concern that there was no accident report for Lawrence Road noting that, even though they were usually not very serious accidents there are a large number of them. Mr. Singleton asked about the possibility of lowering the speed limit in the area and Slade McCalip responded-that NCDOT would have to make the assessment for lowering the speed limit. Mr. Singleton noted that another important issue is that of inadequate water pressure and referring to the number of dwellings being proposed. An independent testing had been done which indicated the highest pressure was never more than 25 pounds. Mr. Singleton continued that another major concern is that the recreation area is inadequate as proposed which indicates to him that the children will wander the neighborhood and use other residents' yards as playgrounds. Property value was also an important concern of Mr. Singleton. He felt that the subdivision as proposed was too many houses on such small tracts of land. He noted that presently the area is zoned R -1 and while he did not always expect it.to remain R -1, he was hopeful that the zoning would remain something closer to R -1. Zoning is supposed to protect but he felt this would be extreme density without proper traffic control and planning. Mr. Bill Hendrickson, resident on Lawrence Road, referred to Wyngate Subdivision and the backup of traffic halfway to the Lawrence Road and NC 10 intersection that is created every afternoon when the school bus stops at the entrance to Wyngate. He was concerned with the impact on the schools and school bus traffic from the development. He asked what comments had been received by the school board and Cameron responded that the school board receives copies of Preliminary Plans for review and comment when exact density is known. Mr. Hendrickson indicated he is in favor of homes in this price range for the area, however, density is a major concern. He continued that he felt this tract of land would lend itself to a variety of housing which would help with the issue of intense density. He referred to a project in Chapel Hill by the same developers and concerns with the traffic study. He emphasized that traffic studies must be taken very seriously. Mr. Hendrickson also expressed concern with the addition of 240 homes to public sewer. He indicated he had heard comments of inadequate sewer management and noted that issue should be addressed prior to approval. He asked whether the recreational area was public or only for this development and the response was that it would be for this development and not public. He continued expressing concerns that there should be access to the recreation area for surrounding residents and this would create more traffic and parking issues. He also asked that the traffic engineer consider all of the additional traffic for construction and service vehicles. 10 Mr. Hendrickson concluded that he was most concerned about the schools, school buses, traffic and density. Mr. Jim Ray, property owner on Lawrence Road and owner of the Occoneechee Golf Course, expressed concern with possible runoff, drainage problems. He asked about the impervious surface area allowed. Cameron responded that this is not in a Protected Watershed so impervious surface ratios would not apply. The floor area limits and setbacks may control impervious surface. He continued that he had concerns about so many houses in such a small space indicating that he felt the lot sizes would only be 7,000 square feet. Cheryl Howard, resident of Colonial Hills Subdivision, stated that Colonial Hills has public water but not public sewer service. She stated that her subdivision and Colonial Park has had continual problems with septic systems and asked if they will be allowed to connect to public sewer. lines. Mr. Ray spoke again expressing concern with fire protection and the fact that his property will be downstream from the sewer pumping station. Mr. Murray stated that he understood the concern with impacts but, asked that everyone remember that the impact will not be all at once. He noted that municipalities have more strict design details and methods of control of sewer pump stations. He continued by comparing this project to one recently done in west Durham County but is inside Chapel Hill City Limits. He explained how runoff is controlled in that subdivision. Price expressed concern that this seems to be a very urbanized plan with the density indicating to her that this would be a small village. She was also concerned with the impact on the schools and the existing sewer system. She felt the proposed development is very uniform and confining. She noted that there is a need for homes in the lower end of the price range. She expressed major concern that developers seem to be addressing needs of RTP rather than the needs of Hillsborough and Orange County. Andrews expressed agreement that the plan looks good on paper but was not sure that Hillsborough is ready for such development. She expressed concern with NCDOT and felt they do not have the same concerns that Orange County has. Traffic and emergency vehicles are concerns considering private roads within the: development. Andrews. continued that water pressure and impact on the schools are also issues that should be addressed prior to approval of such a project. Hoecke expressed concern that infrastructure should be in place before such development is proposed. He felt it was very much "getting the cart before the horse." Strayhorn stated that the area is one of the open spaces that is near enough to have public water and sewer and such places are where density must be if urban sprawl is to be controlled. He continued that he had many of the same concerns already expressed by area residents such as management of the runoff. He also felt that it could be an opportunity for nearby residents to alleviate current sewer and water problems. He also added that he felt 11 089 the Town of Hillsborough would not approve something for which they could not provide adequate service. Strayhorn continued that he felt the plan has some pluses as well as negatives. The price range offers opportunities for young homebuyers. Searles expressed appreciation for Strayhorn's comments regarding density and asked about the payback or balance for allowing such density. She felt that balance must be found before giving away more. Cameron responded by indicating protected watersheds on a copy of the Land Use Plan. It is a very small part of the county that is in a transition area. Reviewing the County as a whole, she felt that some balance is being achieved. It does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Katz asked to what extent does the type of development proposed' encourage growth rather than respond to it. He referred to the comments by Price and Hoecke regarding having infrastructure in place and directing density rather than encouraging development all over the county of one- acre lots. Price stated that while she did want every property owner to get some value out of their land, she felt this development would be too dense and was concerned with all of the other things that would be needed because of such development. Strayhorn asked if this project is in the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan area and Cameron responded it was not. Walters noted that the more development that is directed away from higher density areas, the higher the cost for the infrastructure needed to service the development. She continued that she felt development is coming, whether anyone likes it or not, and should be directed to the Transition Areas. Strayhorn stated that all of the concerns presented by area residents and board members must addressed and Hillsborough would have to determine their ability to.provide water and sewer service. Price expressed concern whether this was the area where 250 homes should be placed. Barrows noted that the density issue would be presented at a public hearing for rezoning. Andrews reiterated her concern about water pressure. Walters referred to the new reservoir being currently studied and Andrews stated she would like to see something in writing from Hillsborough in.response to water issues. Searles asked how the Planning Board could be assured of, or what kind of guarantee there is, that all of the issues mentioned will be addressed. Cameron responded that the project is being proposed as a Planned Development Class A Special Use Permit and any reasonable conditions could be attached to assure that the use meets all of the ordinance requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. She continued that there are three specific findings, regarding property values, health, safety and welfare and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as all of the ordinance findings. All these must be met for approval of the rezoning. It is up to the proponents 090 12 and opponents to present information at the public hearing that proves or disproves those findings. When a rezoning application is submitted, the applicant must submit letters from agencies stating that adequate services are available or can be provided. Strayhorn asked what determines the need for a third access. Cameron responded in the past, three access points had been required for 40 and 60 lots; therefore 250 units should have at least three accesses to facilitate em. er- -and service access while distributing the traffic generated by the development. Katz indicated he would be abstaining from, the motion and voting due to a financial arrangement with the developer which might be construed as a personal financial conflict of interest. MOTION: Walters moved that the developer be allowed to move to the next step in the process and provide more information from the Town of Hillsborough regarding water and sewer concerns /issues. Seconded by Strayhorn. VOTE: 4 in favor (Andrews, McAdams, Strayhom, Walters). 4 opposed (Barrows, Hoecke, Price, Searles). 1 abstained (Katz). Cameron indicated that the concerns being expressed could and would be presented and addressed at the public hearing. Further discussion indicated another vote on the motion. VOTE: 5 in favor (Andrews, Barrows, McAdams, Strayhom,.Walters,). 3 opposed ( Hoecke, Price, Searles)., AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC BEARING 2/23/98 a. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (1) .PD -2 -98 State Employees Credit Union Presentation by Eddie Kirk. This item is to consider a Planned Development and Class A Special Use Permit for the State Employees Credit Union. The property is located on the southwest comer of Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Road and Oakdale Drive in Hillsborough Township. It contains the two corner lots which total 2.07 acres in size. The property is in the Economic Development Zoning District as well as the property immediately south and the lot immediately west. The applicants are requesting a Planned Development- Economic Development (PD -ED) zoning designation and a Class A Special Use Permit to construct a 4,837 square foot building. The Orange County Economic Development Districts Design Manual requires site plan approval by the Orange County Planning Staff when a use 091 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A public hearing will be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom of the New Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, November 23, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: ROAD -NAME CHANGE Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) The proposal is to change the name of SIR 1009 from Hillsborough to New Hope Church Road from Old Chapel Hill - Hillsborough Road to Old NC 86.' ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS 1. Z-5-98 L. J. Rogers Trucking Co. The property is located on the northwest side of N.C. Highway 49 approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of N.C. 49 and Corbett Ridge/Carr Store Road (SR 1004). The proposal is to rezone a 3.44 acre parcel, identified as lot 1C on Tax Map 17, Cedar Grove Township, and a 0.94-acre portion of property identified as lot 1 on Tax Map 17, Cedar Grove Township, be rezoned, respectively, from AR Agricultural-Residential and NC- 2 Neighborhood Commercial to EC-5 Existing Commercial to correct an error . in the initial zoning of Cedar Grove Township. 2. Z-3-98 Lawrence Park Subdivision This request for rezoning is being made in conjunction with PD-3-98, a proposal for rezoning 83.32 acres as a planned residential development. The property is located in Eno Township on the south side of US Highway 70A, 1400 feet east of the intersection with Lawrence Road (SR 1709). The applicant is proposing to rezone two parcels totaling 3.23-acres ( 140,876 square feet) from Rural Residential (R-1) to Low Intensity Residential (R- 2).-The subject property is referenced as part of lot 17 on Tax Map 4, Eno Township. I 3. PD-3-98. Lawrence Park Planned Development The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence (SR 1709) approximately 400 feet south of US Highway 70A and 200 feet north of Interstate-85. Lannie Drive (SR 1831) intersects Lawrence Road just south of the property. , The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from Rural_ Residential (R-1) to Planned Development Housing (PD-H-R-3) for an 83.32-acre parcel. The parcel is referenced as part of lot 17 on Tax Map 4, Eno Township. 4. Z-4-98 James and Patricia LaTorre The property is located south of Interstate-85 on the north side of West Ten Road (SR 1144), approximately 0.5 mile west of Bushy Cook Road (SR 1137) and approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhom Road (SR 1114) and is referenced as lot 2A on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township. The applicants propose to rezone a 19.96-adre lot from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic Development. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Cane Creek Watershed Overlay Districts Changes are proposed to the Zoning Ordinance to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed in southwestern Orange County. These changes result from a three-year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and subsequent recommendations by the OWASA Board of Directors. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance Would change the minimum lot size for new development in the watershed from two acres to five acres, unless a special development option for Flexible JIVIN Development in Cane Creek Waterghed is chosen. in this special Flexible Development option, new major subdivision development could occur at the current two-acre lot density, but special standards in the County's Subdivision Regulations (see below). would change the amount of open space in new major subdivision developments from 33% to 50%. Amendments to implement these development options would amend a definition in the ordinance and change the existing protected watershed (CANE-PW) and critical area (CANE-CA) overlay districts for Cane Creek. These sections would include: Section 2.2 (Definitions) and Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts). The changes to the definitions section would reflect special standards for Flexible Development in the watershed, which would require 50% of tracts for new major subdivision 'developments remain in permanent open space, if this option is chosen. The changes to the overlay districts would apply 'a minimum lot size of five acres in the watershed, and allow for up to five lots as small as two acres in size for lots of record as of a -certain date. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS Flexible Development in Cane Creek Watershed Changes are proposed to the Flexible Development section of the Subdivision Regulations to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes result from a three-year study' of Cane Creek Watershed conducted' by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and subsequent recommendations 'from the OWASA Board of Directors. One of the development options in the proposed new measures would change the amount of open space in new major subdivision developments from 33% to 50% of the tract, if this development option' is chosen. Specifically, these amendments to Section IV.B.10 of the Subdivision Regulations would amend the definition of Flexible Development to recognize these special standards in Cane Creek watershed. These amendments are proposed in conjunction with proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance to reflect new watershed protection recommendations. I All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and, be heard. Public comment will befeceived during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing Will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made,in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, object I ions and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough) 688-7331 (Durham), 967-9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro) or 227-2031 (Mebane/Graham). Please' ask for extension 1575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH- News of Orange Chapel Hill Herald November 11, 1998 November 12, 1998 November 18, 1998 November 19, 1998 093 Lawrence Park (Z-3-98 and. PD-3-98) Applicant: East West Partners, Inc. 141 M P Z1,50 Owner: Meadowmont Farms, LLC Current Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1) Proposed Zoning: 3.28 Acres R-2 Low Intensity Resider and 83.79 Acres PD-H-R-3 Planned Development R-3 Land Use Element: Twenty Year Transition 'Scale: one inch = 1000 feet of 1 ..( r/, "•,,,••� +! f �`�..,,,� ` , `�^'�L let CAy. Ic A� (D , 41 CA. WO Ao— pp -P 4. 'AA419 EL AVI + • 0 00 --z 4(o J3U�JDlV t 5(OI� •� '� � ��� ,;� � • • • t • • � a of �• E) 3 A am 04" we M we Mft, u1b 9. G alp -RAL POD M A9CA6 in�i T Wrr .40 094 H�� u�w 11-23-98 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chair Brown ask Mr. Kirk to explain the rationale for why these lots were created in this way. Mr. Kirk indicated that the zoning onUG7OAisR,i. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: A motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis.to refer the application bothe Planning Board for o recommendation bnba returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than February 2, 1999. VOTE UNANIMOUS c) PD-3-98 Lawrence Park Planned Development Chair Brown asked all citizens and staff who wish to speak on this item to come forward toba sworn inby Deputy Clerk Kathy BekerThefnUowingciUzenaondotaffwenaownminbyMathyBakerDeputyC|erkiotheBoand ofCnmmiooionem:JimSing|edun.JinhRay.GcottRey.8obBeteman.8i||Hendhukson.JomeoK|amk,Lovvmenco Bohs, Larry Meisner, George Krichbaum, Scaco Murray, Tom Heffner, Paul Thames, Slade McCalip and Eddie Kirk. This item was presented by Planner Eddie'Kirk for the purpose of receiving citizen comment onoPlanned Development, Class A Special Use Permit and nezoning application for the Lawrence Pork8ubdivision.Theproperty is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR 1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 704. The current zoning is Rural Residential (R-1) with a portion in the major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are residential, including Colonial Park (zoned R-4) and Colonial Hills (zoned R-2) subdivisions. The Adjacent zoning to the north and east is R-1, Lawrence Road Baptist Church is located across Lawrence Road. The total acreage of this proposed Planned Development ia83.25acres, There are 237 lots proposed. There are three areas recommended to be reserved for recreation areas in the parcel with a total of 31 % open space including 7.07 acres of improved recreation area. The Rock House, a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is at the southwest corner ofUS7OA and Lawrence Road. The total acreage hobe subdivided ieO727 acres. |tio not located in a protected watershed and is designated twenty-year transition in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the western half of the property io cultivated eua hay field. The eastern half and the southern boundary in wooded with a mixture of mature pines and hardwoods. During Concept Plan app mva|, the staff recommended an additional access. The Developer has proposed en additional access from the south to Lori Drive. He mentioned that the Planning Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners close the Public Hearing and refer the application to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners no earlier than February 2, 1999 or that this Board adjourn the Public Hearing to a date and time certain if there is need to hear additional evidence. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: — Commissioner Gordon asked why the procedure Mr. Kirk outlined was being used. Mr. Kirk indicated that it is requirement ofthe Planned Development regulations. ' Planning Board Chair Barrows asked about o letter from the developer to Ms. Cameron regarding the connection to Lor Drive Mr. Kirk stated that one of the conditions would be that Lori Drive be improved all the way toLonnieDrive. There is a statement in the packet from NC DOT indicating that they would accept that provided it/Es constructed toLannieDrive. Chair Brown asked for clarification on the drainage issue for the entire site. County'Engineer Thames addressed this issue. He indicated that the site is categorized primarily bytwm ridge areas on the east and west side. Drainage areas run from the west to the east, bo about the center of the site; from that point to the north there is another drainage area from the center of the site and then to the south. He pointed out the existing drainage areas on the map, including those that flowed north and south. Ho pointed out the peaks on the site. He also referred to the two planned detention ponds. Theinfunnetion submitted by the developer indicates that one of the ponds is a 6wet6 pond, meaning that it is expected to-hold water all of the time; the other pond could be a 6dry� pond. A portion of the drainage area is characterized as a flood plain area consisting of flat, poorly drained soil. In response to a question, he stated that it is possible to build on that type of soil without a great deal ofproblem. There would not be structural problems but where there are flat slopes the water does not drain well. The water stays on lawns and |u not good for them. When it rains, the water tends ho drain slowly. 1 6 QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board member Katz stated that the builder has proposed oclear cuttingo for ease of construction. There is the possibility that there would be significant earth movement in this event. He asked how that might affect the drainage, or if in fact, at the time they were doing construction they could make some remedies to address potential drainage issues. Mr. Thames stated that it was possible that they could make some remedies. He mentioned that the information he has seen does not show the proposed grading plan. Essentially the elevation of the outlet creeks set the limits. He said that you cannot steepen the grades to such an extent to get good drainage in the upper areas because by the time you get to the lower areas there would not be enough grade to work with. Mr. Katz stated that when you have an area with trees, at least during the warmer months, you have some moisture loss due to the trees. When there are heavy vehicles in an area that has clay soil, the texture of that soil is affected as well as the drainage potential of that soil. Mr. Thames agreed with that statement. Mr. Katz asked Mr. Thames if the plan to oclear cuto to make the construction easier would have any impact, harmful or helpful, on the drainage of that area. Mr. Thames stated that it is certainly possible that it will impact the imperviousness of the soil. Clay soils typically, in their natural state, allow surface water to percolate down through them: Once the soil is disturbed it becomes plastic and less permeable to water. Chair Brown had questions about the sewer connections. Part of the developer/Es statement is that the Town of Hillsborough was willing to extend water and sewer because the nearby mobile home park has had problems with septic systems. She asked about the issue of how that mobile home park would be able to connect to the water and sewer system of this development and what needs to be done to assure that happens. Mr. Thames indicated that the sewer line does not show on the map. He pointed out the pump station which would receive all of the drainage from the entire Lawrence Road project. From there, a force main would pump the drainage to the top of the hill, where, apparently it would flow back down toward Meadowlands by gravity feed. The mobile home park in question is in this area. The plans for the sewer shows a sewer line and a manhole essentially at the property line. He assumed that it was located there primarily to accept sewer flow from the mobile home park. What is not clear from the plans is how the mobile home park would be sewered. He assumed sewer could be provided in a manner similar to the way the Lawrence Park project itself is sewered, where you have gravity collection internally and then it is pumped away. The other possibility is to run the sewer line sufficiently deep so that it could accept gravity flow from the mobile home park. He repeated that he did not know what was planned. It would be more expensive to make the line deep enough to accept gravity flow, but it could be accomplished because of the pump station. In other words, it does not really matter from a mechanical standpoint how deep the pump station is. It matters from an expense standpoint. The Town of Hillsborough, from his understanding, has proposed in its water and sewer agreement with the developer, to allow them a credit against their capital facilities fees for the additional expense of sizing this pump station to accept flow from fifty (50) dwellings which he assumed would be the.mobile home park; and possibly from the extension of the gravity sewer from the Meadowlands which was not absolutely'necessary for the Lawrence Road project. Chair Brown asked if the information pertaining to the mobile homes hooking onto the sewer lines was in the agenda material. Mr. Thames indicated that he did not know if it was or not. He did know that he didn/Et personally have the information. The Water and Sewer Agreement between the developer and the Town of Hillsborough has not yet been executed, however, the provision to allow the mobile home park to have access to the sewer would be included. Planning Board member Nell Andrews asked if written assurance had been received from the Town of Hillsborough that this subdivision would have sufficient water supply to take care of fires. Mr. Thames indicated that there was a provision in the water and sewer agreement to install a booster pump, to boost water pressure. The water and sewer agreement says oif it is neededo. Ms. Andrews stated that_ she wanted to make sure that the residents out there, if there are going to be three 097 or four an acre, have sufficient water pressure to extinguish fires. Mr. Thames repeated that there is a provision for a booster pump. Its very nonspecific and it is unclear to him if the booster pump is meant to provide normal operating water pressure and flow or whether it is meant to provide fire flow. Fire flow pumps are different than the general water service booster pumps. The water and sewer agreement is not clear on that. He mentioned that it was also not specified where the booster pump would be located. He stated that he assumed that the Town of Hillsborough, their engineer, and the developerks engineer would locate the pump where it is needed. The Town of Hillsborough would be responsible for the maintenance of the pump. Chair Brown asked several questions of Slade McCalip regarding the traffic conditions. She mentioned that as she reviewed this material she saw where it apparently says that all streets will be inspected by NC DOT for maintenance. She asked about capacity because she did not see addressed in the material what the current capacity of the roads are now. Planner McCalip indicated that they were carrying 2400 trips a day and 2500 trips a day respectively on US 70 Business and US 70A and Lawrence Road. Chair Brown asked if there was a particular designation. Mr. Slade indicated that the level of service is documented in the traffic impact study. They meet the current level of service that is required by our subdivision regulations. Chair Brown stated that she wanted to understand what the level of service was now on the roads and if this project would increase it to another level of service. Mr. McCalip indicated that in Orange County service level 6D6 is the minimum level of service in urbanized areas and level 6C6 is the minimum level of service for rural areas. The existing condition of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road in the morning is level service 6A6 and in the evening it is level service 6A6. At 2003, with the buildout condition of this development, the evening service would be level service 6A6 for both roads. He also stated that the existing conditions for NC 86 and Old 10 in the morning were level service 6A6 and also 6A6 in the afternoon. At buildout, NC 86 and Old 10 would be 6F6 in the morning. Actually, they revised their assessment to 6D6 because in their original traffic impact study they did not include the percentage of trucks. When they did include the percent of trucks, the default value was higher than the actual truck traffic. That intersection will definitely warrant a traffic study at buildout, if not before. There would be level service 6A6 in the evening. Then, US 70 By Pass and US 70 Business, at buildout, will be 6136 in the morning and 6A6 in the evening. Lawrence Road and Old 10 are currently at 6A6 in the evening; it will be 6A6 in the morning and evening at buildout in 2003. He stated that this report was completed by Kimley -Horne and Larry Meismer, the traffic consultants for the developers. REPORT FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. George Krichbaum stated that he was the President of Planned Community Development, Inc., and a consultant with the applicant for purposes of planning and development of the Lawrence Park Project. He stated that over the years he has been involved in literally dozens of public hearings both as a participant and as an observer. He would be less than candid if he didn/Et say that he did not enjoy them very much. They are not fun for the proponents or opponents and he was certain that they were not fun for the people who have to make the decisions on the, oft times, competing interests that are expressed at the meetings. The process sometimes becomes personal, emotional and stressful and as a result his company tries to be judicious in its involvement in these processes. They try to come before these public bodies with as much open and factual information as they can, in hopes that it will bring some clarity to the subject. They come to this meeting basically guided by three assumptions: 1) That Orange County has an R -3 zoning category and development ordinances which govern it because R -3 is an acceptable land use in the county. If that was not the case, it would save a good deal of time and trouble to know that. He assumed that it was a correct assumption on their part; 2) they assumed that a change in zoning from R -1 to R -3 is allowable in Orange County by virtue of the existence of a process to accomplish it. Again, if that is not the case, it would save a good deal of time and energy to know that. He assumed that it was a safe assumption on their part; and 3) they assume the Orange County Comprehensive Plan has been and remains the County/Es primary tool for evaluating where and under what circumstances such changes should and will be made. Whenever they consider the potential development of a parcel of land the fundamental question that they must ask is what is the highest and best use of the property, both in its market context and how it fits in with the expressed desire of the jurisdiction in w hich it is located. For example, they are not asking to place a high rise office building on this piece of property because the.marketplace would not support or sustain that use even if the Board of County Commissioners was inclined to approve it. By like token, they are not seeking to put a paper processing plant on this property because, although the market place might be willing to support that use, the jurisdiction would not. They are asking for a change in residential zoning from R -1 to R -3. This is a change that they believe the market will accept as the highest and best use for the property. The market will buy houses in this location and in the proposed price range on lots of this proposed size at a pace that will justify the cost of the improvements and the development risks required to produced the project. They also believe that their request is absolutely,in keeping with objectives of Orange County. He then read,as follows from the Comprehensive Plan. oAmong the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is the desire to minimize the existing energy inefficient and land consuming pattern of rural sprawl. The Land Use Element is premised on two basic strategies. - activity nodes and infill development. Unlike the rural areas, these urban areas are presently served, or are scheduled to be served, by municipal water and sewer systems and contain other urban support services which allow for higher density, higher intensity development patterns. The infill development strategy is premised on the desirability of encouraging . development to occur first within the corporate limits of the towns and then, when appropriate, within those areas surrounding the towns which are in transition from rural to urban development patterns. The achievement of a higher rate of infill development than experienced in the past requires a combination of incentives and disincentives to development activity which include, but are not limited to Allowing higher densities and intensity of land uses within urban areas and urbanizing areas Allowing only low intensity uses outside of these areas Streamlining development review processes for high intensity uses Requiring development standards in transition areas similar to those in urban areas, and Phased extension of urban services. The successful achievement of the infill policy would result in more compact and efficient urban form, lead to reduced transportation and energy cost, reduce public services cost, and minimize the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses as a result of development pressures.o He stated that this related to Lawrence Park and the proposal before the Board of County Commissioners in the following ways: This is clearly an,infill location. They are surrounded on all sides by existing residential development. Further, the area of Lawrence Park itself was placed in a 20 -year transition area in the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the Lawrence Park area on the map. There are existing residential areas both to the west and to the south in the 10 -year transition zone. He then read again from the Comprehensive Plan for a definition of the 20 -year transition zone. oThe 20 year transition area is land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are suitable for urban type densities and should be. provided with public utilities and services within the second 10 year phase of the plan.o He noted that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981, which would suggest that Lawrence Park is right on schedule. The Comprehensive Plan further defines the characteristics of these transition zones', relative to eleven criteria, all of which he felt were as strongly, or more strongly met, in 1998 than they were in 1981. These criteria include, °_ Land slope - There are no significant slope or topographical problems that would unreasonably increase the cost of extending water and sewer lines. There is no such problem at Lawrence Park that the development itself is not willing to deal with. ° Hydrology - It is located outside of the 100- yearflood prone areas as identified by the Core of Engineers. There is no problem in the development of Lawrence Park in terms of avoiding and having no development contact with these areas, if they in fact exist on the property. °_ Flora and Fauna - Located away from sites, which would, if developed, create a threat to unique and endangered species as identified by the State and Federal government. There are no such species identified at the Lawrence Park area: ° Soil Conditions - Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of soil drainage characteristics and low bearing capacity for site, development. The Lawrence Park soils are shown as generally slight to moderate for limitation of construction and more severely constrained for septic, which he stated made R -1 zoning without utilities somewhat impractical in this location.. °_ Public services and utilities - Located'in areas which are, or could be, reasonably and efficiently served by centralized public services and utilities. Lawrence Park is close to existing public services. It is less than three miles from where the courthouse is located. Hillsborough water and sewer service will be extended to it. Additionally, the sewer facilities are being designed to accommodate connection by an additional fifty adjacent dwellings that are currently experiencing septic tank failures. °_ Transportation systems - Should be located in areas that have very good road access as well as service by rail lines. These areas should have the most complete transportation network in the County s planning jurisdiction. 09J Lawrence Park is located at the Intersection of US -70 Business and Lawrence Road. Both are shown as minor arterial, which equates to major thoroughfare roads in the Comprehensive Plan. It is roughly + mile from the merge with US -70 By Pass. It is within + mile of Old NC 10 and one mile from NC 86 South. It is also only a few hundred feet from 1 -85 although access to that road is currently a problem. He stated that his point was that the area could hardly be situated better in terms of its transportation facilities. ° Energy use - located less than five minutes commuting time from small -scale commercial uses and five to ten minute commuting time from major commercial uses or an urban area. + Lawrence Park is + mile from the town limits of Hillsborough and clearly qualifies under this particular stipulation. This maximizes benefit to the County from a tax standpoint while concentrating the need for services in a confined space. ° County Public Safety Services - Lawrence Park is located close to these services. School Transportation - It is compact from the perspective of school transportation. Municipal Services - These are being extended at its own expense and will cost $890,000 in tap fees, which arguably should contribute to better facilities and less cost to existing users. It is providing the means to replace the failing septic. systems for a number of residences in the area. Traffic - Most of the traffic would be directed away from existing developed areas. It has direct access to major thoroughfares and will make road improvements along its frontage to lessen impact on existing traffic. He stated that in 1981, the people who pioneered this Comprehensive Plan knew that the area proposed to be Lawrence Park was a logical and appropriate place for moderate density development. In the succeeding years this view has been suspended in the face of numerous amendments to the plan. All of the conditions and circumstances on which this assessment was originally made are still valid. It seemed to him, based on all of the foregoing evaluations, that if growth is to occur in Orange County in a sensible, none - sprawl fashion, and if the County/Es Comprehensive Plan is to be considered relevant and credible, then it is not logical, reasonable, or judicious for the Lawrence Park application not to be approved. He stated that this is a good plan for the surrounding areas for the following reasons: It provides a high - quality neighborhood in the infill of the existing residential neighborhoods. It is of particular advantage to those neighborhoods adjacent to it which are currently experiencing septic failure. It provides upgrades to the existing water system and provides the Town of Hillsborough with $890,000 to apply to other improvements if the Town so determines that they' are needed. It will either enhance or maintain the value of all of the adjacent properties in the area. He then introduced Tom Heaffner, real estate appraiser, to speak to this issue. Mr. Heaffner indicated that the developer asked him to look at the contiguous properties in terms of the potential impact that this,development might have on them. Most of the adjoining properties to the south generally are occupied by mobile or modular homes. Those are the properties that are on Lanning Drive, Lloyd Drive and Jay Circle. Properties adjoining to the east, west and north are made up of a mixture of mobile homes and single family residential properties. As a general rule the majority of the properties that adjoin this proposed subdivision are in a price range that are equal to or less than the probable price range of the houses in this subdivision. The proposed development also provides a 100 -foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of the subdivision. He felt that this additionally served to mitigate any adverse impact that the development might have on adjoining property values. Mr. Krichbaum expressed concern that it is not clear to the public in general what the nature of this development is, what kind of housing will exist in the development, if approved, and the overall concept behind the development. He stated that they would like to explain the development from the inside -out in the hopes of providing better understanding as to what is being proposed. He introduced Scott Murray who is associated with the Lawrence Park planning and development team so that he could provide some information about the basic planning concept and the elements within the community. Mr. Scott Murray, a landscape architect, referred to a color rendering of the plan. He indicated that the first step in planning a community is to look at the adjacent property and the impact it will have on those properties. In looking at Lawrence Park and the surrounding areas. There is clearly a residential area to the north with some higher density residential development to the west and south. The plan that they developed proposes a 100 -foot buffer. Part of the buffer is in existing vegetation. Where there is open field now, it is proposed to plant buffer vegetation that will be allowed to grow back into a natural wooded area. The community that they envision is one that would be pedestrian orientated. The streets are interconnected; there are five -foot sidewalks proposed for both sides of all streets; this provides a very walkable community. This community would provide amenities for neighboring communities as well. The primary land component of this proposed community is that of active recreation. There are several different types of recreation areas proposed for this community and the surrounding neighborhoods. These include small pocket parks of + to + acre, larger playing fields and one large 3 -acre central 100 park. The large park would have volley ball, badminton, and horse shoes. People could walk to this park, bring their children and dogs, and enjoy active recreation. There are storm water management ponds which are a primary . feature of the plan. The ponds would be buffered by hedge and vegetation, which would help to screen them from the adjacent residents. Commissioner Gordon asked for further clarification regarding the "pedestrian- friendly nature of this development. Mr. Murray stated that in his opinion there are three components that make a neighborhood pedestrian friendly. Those are that the streets are interconnected so that you can walk down a street and not have to turn around and go back the same way. You can cross through and go over another block. Sidewalks on both sides of every street is another component. The minimum requirement is something less than the five -foot minimum, which is being proposed. The final component is that you have to have destinations, such as parks or ball fields. Commissioner Gordon asked about the proposed clearcutting and asked would it all be clear -cut or would there be variations on the type of land clearing. Mr. Murray explained that over + of the property is already open property. There is an old tree line that runs through the property and that is proposed to be protected and maintained. He pointed to other areas where the tree growth would be left. He pointed out an area where trees are to be planted in locations that are currently open fields now. Red buds, Virginia pines, and other native plants would be planted to allow a woods type environment to revegetate in those areas. He pointed to another portion of the tract where the largest clearing would occur. The County has a landscape ordinance that requires revegetation or replanting of trees- both large and small, based on street frontage. That is what is proposed. There are approximately 3 or 4 trees per lot that would be replanted. Any time you see a medium to high density residential area, there is a significant amount of clearing that takes place. Once the homes are in, if you go and look at older neighborhood, most of the trees you see were planted when the homes were originally built. Planning Board member Katz asked if there was a policy about what would be done along the sidewalks and street frontage in terms of planting. He asked about types and size of trees. Mr. Murray indicated that sugar maples, willow and other varieties that would have large canopies would be planted. The smaller trees are flowering trees such as dogwood, red bud, crab apple, and crape myrtle. The size of planting would be 1 + to 2 -inch caliber at a minimum. After the initial planting each lot will have two shade and two flowering trees at the very minimum. In addition to that, there will be other landscaping features that will be provided for each home which are more foundation plantings and things of that nature. Planning Board member Katz asked about the possibility that the soil may not drain well and that the trees would be planted in soils that tend to remain moist and would therefore lose their oxygen. He asked if the developer actually knew for a fact that the types of trees that they wanted to plant would survive in those types of soil. Mr. Murray stated that the red maple, sugar maple and other trees would do well in this soil. Chair Brown asked for more detail regarding the size of the parks and what would be available in each. Mr. Murray stated that there are four parks in the plan. At the entrance to the community, off of Lawrence. Road, there is a small pocket park which would have benches and a hedge surrounding it. It is designed for sitting and enjoying the garden type area or visiting with neighbors. Another park is a children/Es otot loth with small sliding boards and other equipment designed for children from three to seven years old. After that age they lose interest and want to play elsewhere. The larger park is shown on the plan with a wooded buffer. He indicated that some clearing would occur and additional shade trees would be planted. An environment would be provided for picnic tables, badminton, volleyball, horseshoes. A - Sunday afternoon picnic for the community could be hosted in this area. This would be approximately 2.7 acres and is connected by sidewalks to several portions of the community. The last park would be a ball field or a soccer field with parking provided. These parks are not lighted. Planning Board Chair, Barrows mentioned that at the last Planning Board meeting the question came up about the surrounding neighbors using these park areas. She remembered that at that time the developers said that would be discouraged because these recreational areas would be primarily for the subdivision residents. She asked for clarification about that. 101 Mr. Murray indicated that the intent was not to discourage use by the surrounding properties. He indicated, however, they would not expect people to drive in from across town and have organized soccer games. This is designed more for pick -up -type soccer, or baseball, for the people in the surrounding neighborhoods close at hand, outside of Lawrence Park, but not across town. They have a community in Durham where they were able to have four or five soccer fields. They were able to host leagues, but that can become a large happening and tends to crowd out the immediate residents and neighbors if your not careful. Mr. Murray then distributed copies of a document showing the types of houses that are proposed for Lawrence Park. A copy of this handout is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Krichbaum stated that he asked himself owhat were the concerns about Lawrence Park.o To date he has heard four primary concerns. The first is added traffic. He reminded those in attendance of the existing conditions with US 70 Business experiencing an average of 2400 daily trips and Lawrence Road at approximate 2500 trips in the vicinity of Lawrence Park. These roads are categorized as major thoroughfares and would be expected to carry 8,000 to 10,000 trips daily in their two -lane configuration. The trip distribution for Lawrence Park is such that the maximum additional trips due to Lawrence Park on any stretch of the external roadway is 1200 trips moving between the entrance on US 70 Business toward the east to the merge with 70 Bypass. That would bring the total number of trips, including Lawrence Park traffic, to 3600. That is far, far below the intended capacity of roads with this designation. Both right and left turn lanes would be added to the two primary entrances to Lawrence Park allowing for a smooth flow of through traffic in this area. The primary and secondary intersections serving Lawrence Park all perform, after buildout, at level of service A or B. The only intersection that Lawrence Park influences, that will have level of service less than A or B is at the intersection of NC 10 and Highway 86. That intersection would be dealt with by signalization if the warrant exists. The "second concern was water pressure and volume. He indicated that from his conversations with Hillsborough, it is not clear the nature of this problem and to what degree the problem exists. He suggested assuming that it is a problem and it/Es a problem today. He asked who would pay to correct the problerh. In the absence of any change, the answer is obvious, the current customers are going to pay for the problem. He asked how Lawrence Park figured into this equation. He reminded everyone that the cost of extending services to and through Lawrence Park is being borne by Lawrence Park. Do not think that after having spent several hundred thousand dollars to extend these services, and after having provided 247 new rate paying customers, that Hillsborough might be willing to allow them to tap on for free. As he indicated earlier, that is not the case. In fact, they will be paying double and they will be generating $889,200 in tap fees to the town which Hillsborough may use to improve their facilities as they need. That is money that would otherwise not be available in the absence of a project of the density and with the utility connections that Lawrence Park proposes. The third concern is increased runoff. Virtually all of the runoff from Lawrence Park exists at one of two locations. One of the locations is in the northeast corner and the other location is on the south side of the property. At each location, detention facilities have been designed to catch and release storm water at a rate not to exceed the pre - development, 25 -year storm event, in conformity with County policy. In addition, the northern pond, has been designed so that it will serve as both detention and retention from the stand point of being a oweto pond that will serve for water quality purposes, since this is the only area of the property that is in a designated watershed, although not a critical watershed. The final concern that he has heard is that it is too dense. He does not know how to answer that because it is what the County/Es Comprehensive Plan says should be there and it is at a density that would, by any normal standard, be considered moderate, certainly not high in terms of its use. It is a well - planned community, well conceived, with a use and housing type that enhances the adjacent property without competing with it. They believe it is the project that the Comprehensive Plan contemplated when it designated this to be a 20 -year transition zone. They think that it is a density that is certainly compatible with the adjacent R -1 and R -2 uses. It is a plan that will provide significant good for the county with a minimal amount of disruption and harm. They trust that the County will agree'with them and they thanked the County for their time and attention. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Mr. James Singleton asked everyone who is a citizen of Orange County to stand. Those in attendance who were citizens of Orange County stood. He asked them to stand because he recently received a pamphlet in the mail which stated that the Board of County Commissioners is the one body representing all Orange County citizens. The people who just stood are the people who elected the Board of Commissioners. They are the people that the Commissioners represent. None of the developers stood at that particular, moment. The reason they are here is that someone wishes to develop an open piece of property. That is the American way. 'The developers are here for one 102 purpose, and one purpose only, greed. That is the same reason he himself is here. They are here to make money and he is here to try to protect the value in his property. They say to the Commissioners, through a licensed appraiser; that it is not going to affect the adjacent properties.. He spoke to a licensed appraiser, who is also a professional realtor and a member of the County Commissioners in another County. His comment was that there is absolutely no way that a sane person would believe that it is not going to affect his property. It will significantly affect his property. Quite frankly, he is in favor of that piece of property being developed. He has said in open meetings that this development is beautiful. They have done a marvelous job u for Asbury Park, N.J. or Teaneck, but not Hillsborough. We do not need as compact a situation as we /Eve got here. He has been in a number of places where beautiful neighborhoods existed in communities. He has never seen a community be,designed to go into a neighborhood, however, until this one. Also, in previous sessions, the gentleman did say that none of these amenities would be available to the neighbors. That was stated back in July. What we have here is a designed community in which the residents will be of white, socio- economic stature,, living in like ticki -tacki houses all in a row, what we have h ere. is Orange County/Es first planned ghetto. If you read Webster/Es Dictionary, a ghetto is defined as an area in which a similar socio- economic group of people live. That/Es a ghetto and that/Es what.we have here u a planned ghetto. A very nicely planned one, but a ghetto non - the -less. How will this affect his property. Quite frankly, very, very much. You are talking about $110,000 to $25,000 houses of approximately 1.,100 square feet. He pointed out - that the visitor area of the courtroom was approximately 1,100 square feet. We are talking about 240 houses of that size being-dropped down to one very small area. That will affect the whole area. When you get that many people trying to leave two exits at the same time in order to get to work, there will be major problems on those two streets. No sane person can look at that and say that you can get that many people out of there between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. without a major calamity. We used to call it the oaccident de jouro down on Lawrence Road and US 70 where he lives, because on Saturday in the summer he would hear them coming over the hill, slamming on the brakes, and going straight through the intersection without being able to stop. It happens roughly about twice a month. He is not against developing the property, but asks that the developer and the county be reasonable about what gets put into that property. That is all he is asking. About three months ago a piece of property in this neighborhood was designated to be one of only two ooccupiedo historic landmarks in the county. One is right across the street from this proposed development. That will affect the value of this house. The eloquent presentation by the developer was so good he started wishing he lived there and then he realized what was being discussed. They are very professional in their presentation and they are good developers. He is against this development as it is designed now. Mr. Scott Ray stated that he lives less than one mile away from this proposed development. He is not opposed to the development. It could be less dense with more area around the houses. He understands that they are trying to maximize their profits off of this piece of land. There are a couple of concerns that no one has raised yet. One of those concerns is character. It does not fit into the character of the surrounding area. That many houses in that small area is out of the character of the community. His second concern is not the amount of water to fight fires, but rather the amount of personnel available to fight fires. There needs to be some comment from the Emergency Services Director or the fire chiefs as to whether or not they can adequately supply the personnel to fight fires in that area, especially with the OSHA regulations for otwo -in and two -outo. There would have to be at least five people on the scene before the fire can even be fought, with two people each on the pipe line and on the line outside the residence. Hillsborough currently runs three or four First Responder calls a day and Eno also runs First Responder calls. Those will be the standard Mutual Aid departments. He is not sure that they will have the personnel to fight the fires. On a 7,000 square foot lot you better get firefighters there in a hurry or you will burn several houses down. The development is lacking in common sense. The Comprehensive Plan may say that it could contain that many homes, but it does not necessarily say that it should contain that many homes. Mr. Jim Ray stated that putting 237 houses in this small area is going to cause an excess of drainage toward the north. He operates a golf course to the north of this property and he estimates that they will get 2/3 of the drainage from the development. They use that water for irrigation. They now have a problem from the years that this has been a farm. Every time it rained during plowing season, the drainage came to their property. They have ponds deep in muck now from the runoff. When they start building this development they will have much more runoff making this problem much worse during the entire time they are building until buildout is complete. They say that they will put in a pump station; if the pump station ever malfunctions, the runoff will go to his irrigation pond. Vandalism is another concern to him. Each of these homes will have approximately 2 children. They will need a place to play. There are not. many places for them to play in this area: Soccer fields are next to the neighbors, not in the middle of the community, so the noise will affect the people who already live there, not the new residents. They already have a. problem with vandalism and this will make it worse. This is also going to impact the schools. The roads cannot handle this additional traffic. He mentioned that he thought that oinfillo was intended to start in town and move out from there. He does not think that starting in the county and moving back into town is what is meant 103 by oinfillo Commissioner Brown asked where his golf course was located. Mr. Ray pointed out his course on the map. He felt that this could have ruined his golf course if it had been built last year when El Nino was active. Planning Board Chair Barrows asked Mr. Ray to elaborate on his concerns regarding the potential run -off problem. Mr. Ray mentioned that the pond would be a owet pond6 which would mean that it would be practically full all of the time. When it rains it is going to run over that. When its dry it will catch the rain and prevent it from going to his property and when the land is already holding moisture it will overflow the pond -and go to his property. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification of the location of his property. She read from the proposal that gall run -off from the site is collected by three intermittent streams; two of the streams on the northern half of the property join off site and go north approximately 2.5 miles to the Eno River. She asked if that was where his property was located. Mr. Ray indicated that was the location of his property. He stated that he would have thought more of this development if the man who owned the land would attend any of these hearings. He hasn/Et attended any of them to date. He mentioned that he tried to buy water from Hillsborough and they told him that it would be a bad political move at this point. They were within days of losing every green that they had at that time. Mr. Bob Bateman stated that he had a bad dream the other night, he dreamed that he had a housing development near him. Here tonight that dream has become a reality. He heard a little about the pocket parks. He remembered that the University Station project was killed because of a lack of open spaces and they had a golf course. He does not see open space in this project. Some of the speakers who have already commented that if this was developed in R -1 it could be a pleasant development to have in the community. At R -2 it could probably be abided, however, at R -3 it is totally despicable to the neighborhood. He mentioned the school impact of a development of this size; if there are 244 houses with 1.5 children, which is the figure the County uses, you would have 366 children. If you use 2 children per house, which is another figure that is frequently used, you would have 488. If you use 2.5 which is more realistic and more probable, you end up with 610 children. As you know, our schools are overcrowded. The three that would probably be impacted by this development would be New Hope Elementary which is currently overcrowded; Cameron Park which is at capacity; and Grady Brown which is at capacity. He did not hear the developers say anything about giving the School Board twenty five acres to build an Elementary School which is a very popular idea in the development field these days. If they reduced the density to R -2 or R -1 they could probably accommodate a neighborhood school in that area. We could live with it out there but we would want it to be less dense, have more open space, and for the developers to give the School Board twenty -five acres for a school. Mr. James Klemk, of 70 -A East near Lawrence Road, stated that when he first heard of the proposed development on Lawrence Road he was not bothered or surprised. After he heard that it was for 240 homes he was very disturbed. We are here to discuss not a builder building homes but a builder with a plan run amok with greed and an unacceptable attitude of callousness toward our neighborhood. That the property at this location will have something built on it is obvious. It is important that it be done in the context of peaceful and sane growth. The extreme density of this project is an outrage and would be tantamount to a cancer in our midst. The project would probably necessitate a new school and an increase in traffic in an already busy area. The builder has provided a statement from a Chapel Hill Realtor saying that the property would increase our property values. He felt that he was in error. They would suffer diminished values to their real estate which for many of them is the backbone of their savings. The builder also provided a traffic report at prior meetings showing minimal traffic at Lawrence Road and Highway 70. When he came home today at 2:50 p.m. he stopped and in 5 minutes counted 31 cars going through the intersection and that is not a particularly busy time of day. The builder is not here for the good of the community; he is here to make money. The members of this community have clearly let their objections to this project be known. He presented a petition with 129 signatures which he and a few others had taken to some of the nearby neighbors. Not one person who was asked to sign failed to do so. Each of those people who was asked to sign expressed their objections. Every signer of the Petition asked that you, the County Commissioners we elected to represent us, do so by denying the request for approval. He read the petition, as follows: 6We the undersigned are aware of the proposed housing development that is Lawrence Park Subdivision. With our signatures, we are voicing our opposit ion to it being given approval to proceed. While we understand the need for sustained growth we strongly feel that the high density of this development would radically change the character of our community for the worse.6 He presented the petitions to the Deputy Clerk.to the Board. The original of this petition is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Bill Hendrickson stated that his wife wrote a letter to one of the principals in this group who happens to 104 live on Lawrence Road, expressing her concern. He wrote a nice letter back and one thing he said was that Scott Murray would be in touch with us directly to speak with us. This did not happen. He also said that this would increase the value of our land. This has been indicated by the appraiser from Chapel Hill, as well. He asked the Board of Commissioners if it would be appropriate for them to seek a study of land values of a similar project in a similar surrounding area before you vote on this development. He recommended that they seek some written documentation to this effect before they accept the word of someone who is involved with the organization. He does not doubt the person, but he thinks that it would be appropriate that the Commissioners would have written documentation in the record that a similar development in a similar surrounding area in North Carolina did allow for either increased or decreased value of the land. His second suggestion was that some documentation be solicited from the School Board as to the impact of these potential numbers of children being added to the school roles and what the cost would be in include them on the rosters. The Commissioners and the citizens should know what the financial impact would be to our school system by the addition of these children. It is important that the Planning Board and Commissioners have this information and make it public before this project is finally voted on. Mr. Lawrence Bohs indicated that he lives about two miles from the proposed subdivision. He expressed opposition to this development and read from a prepared statement, as follows: oSuch a large and dense development would have a significant impact on local traffic. That has not been completely studied. For example, he drives along 70 Alternate on his way to work in Durham and the traffic at Pleasant Green Road toward Hillsborough can be backed up for a mile or more on weekday mornings. This is going to make that significantly worse causing people to take NC 10 and Business 70 Alternate. He wondered how long it would be before all of the intersections need traffic lights if we start putting in these kinds of dense developments. Secondly, such a large and dense development would severely impact the character of this area. The instant town of 250 homes would bring in 500 to1000 new residents, probably closer to 1000 residents. All of these people would need places to shop, eat and work. These numbers would overwhelm the current facilities and would drive further commercial development. Those residents who moved to this area because of its relatively quiet character would have to look elsewhere. He is not arguing against development but only against this type of development. Finally, he asked if this development would improve the quality of life for area residents. He cannot understand how traffic congestion, dramatic increase in pollution from automobiles and surface runoff which will occur because of the large percentage of impervious surface in this development and the change in the quiet character in this area, would be an improvement. He asked the Commissioners to reject this plan. Planning Board Member Katz asked what the typical number of bedrooms per dwelling would be. Mr. Krichbaum indicated that he was not in the building end of the business but he believed that they would be two and three bedroom, mostly three bedroom dwellings. Planning Board Member Katz asked if there was a way for him to predict how many individuals would be in each dwelling and how many of those would be children. Mr. Krichbaum stated that he could only rely on the County averages that suggest that it is 2.5 persons per dwelling. Mr. Katz asked if that meant less than one child per household. Mr. Krichbaum stated that was his understanding of what the typical relationship would be. Some of them would have 3 or 4 children, some oempty nesterso, with the norm being one /two children. Mr. Katz asked if there could be some determination of how many children are really involved and what the consequences would be with regard to schools and the adequacy of the recreation facilities for the number of children one would expect to be in that area. He has concerns about whether or not there is enough open space to provide activities for the number of children that might be there. That is one issue. We need some answers to these questions. The question has also come up about property values of adjacent.neighborhoods. There is concern from neighbors as to whether or not their property values would diminish or remain the same. We heard Mr. Heaffner state that the property values would not be harmed. He wondered if there is a semantic issue here in that the houses around this large development would become less desirable for people because they would.be associated with an area that has a high density development. Therefore, the individuals who own these houses are concerned about the fact that they would lose potential buyers because people who want to buy their houses don/Et want to live next to a high density area. On the other hand, as Mr. Heaffner might state there would be no loss of value because the value of the land adjacent to this high density area would increase fora developWEs purposes, but not necessarily for someone who would be interested in living in the houses that exist there. It might be seen as an opportunity to create another high density develop ment in that area because it is a good commute and because it would be zoned correctly and because there is sewer, etc.; so that the tax value of the adjacent neighborhoods might increase because of the value of the land but in fact the individuals who might want to sell a particular house might have even greater difficulty in selling because it . is located near a high density area. Does this address the conflict that might be between the people who live in the . neighborhood versus the people who want to develop this land at a higher density? 05 Mr. Krichbaum stated that only those properties that are immediately to the north of Lawrence Park are zoned R -1; the ones opposite the property to the west are zoned R -2; the ones south of Lawrence Park are R-4 and to the east are R -3. He indicated that the notion that they are out -of -sync with the prevailing zoning of the area is questionable. The facts would contradict that. From a standpoint of values, in the course of developing various properties, they have developed lots not dissimilar to these which were adjacent to train tracks and people bought them. They have developed adjacent to sewage treatment plants and people bought those as well. If housing is properly priced, there is a market for almost all housing, including the housing that will be adjacent to this. The values in this neighborhood, if he is any judge and he thinks he is, with the average price of $132,000 (with a low end of $120,000 and a high end of $160,000) there are not many houses in the surrounding area that would sell today at that price even without any development. It is difficult for,him to understand the inflationary nature of this. Would this allow certain people, particularly the R -1 properties to subdivide their lots? Would that be more possible or would it be possible to change their zoning from Farm /Residential to some other use along Highway 70A over time. Probably and there is certainly value in that. He is struggling to see how this devalues their property by the presence of homes, no matter how dense, that are higher priced than the ones that exist there today. Mr. Katz indicated that his point was that while the area adjacent to Lawrence Park may be zoned R -3 or R -4, presently the density is less than that, and that land may become more valuable for further development. In that sense, you can sustain the value but the desirability for people who want to live on property where there is less density diminishes by the presence of this type of development. Mr. Krichbaum disagreed. Mr. Katz indicated that he see the value of this property because of its proximity for commuting. The location for people to find relatively affordable housing and be able to commute to work makes this property desirable. One would expect that there would be further development in that area. Commissioner Halkiotis referred to page 116 of the agenda document where Sheriff Pendergrass documented that he has received 2,100 response calls in that area in the last 12 months. He states that providing service for an additional 800 plus persons will increase the service load for the current allotted personnel. He clearly states that providing service to the Lawrence Park Subdivision will require a minimum of one deputy and one vehicle plus equipment. He is hard for him-to balance that against the statement by the Orange County Emergency Management. They do not seem to answer the question regarding the possibility of needing additional staff and or equipment. He asked if there would be an impact for EMS and fire services. He has noticed this same response coming from EMS for many past proposal. The Board of County Commissioners is lookingmfor more than geographical information. Planning Board Member Strayhorn asked a question regarding impervious surface. He is still not satisfied. It looks like there is a tremendous amount of question regarding this. He cannot understand how a wet pond is going to slow down much of the run off. Mr.Krichbaum stated that the impervious surface on the site as a whole is 25 %. That area would exceed the limit, as 24% is the cut -off point for requiring a detention facility in a critical watershed. In spite of what it may look like, when they have 30% open space outside of the area of the lots, then 25% impervious surface is not very great. As it relates to the wet detention pond, that pond is built with a storage area and then above that an area that holds back run off above the limits of the normal ponds. So that basically, it has a pool area and an impoundment outside the pool that is there to catch the run off, hold it and then release it at a constant rate. It is the standard type of pond that is used throughout the state. It is prescribed by the state Division of Environmental Management for use in these situations. The only reason there is a wet pond, is to allow the water to stand for a period of time prior to discharge so that suspended particulates and impurities in the water will be given chance to settle before they discharge down stream. As he indicated, in the case of a higher rated storm event (a fifty -year or one hundred -year storm event) all of the ground essentially becomes impervious, it becomes saturated and the water stands on top of the ground everywhere. In that case, the difference between pre - development and post - development in these larger storm events is very negligible. There is almost no representative statistical difference in the amount of run -off for a storm of that magnitude. It all runs -off. He also pointed out that there is an existing,culvert under US 70A; he thought it was a moderately sized culvert. He did not know if it had ever run full but he does know that in spite of how much it might rain, and in spite of how much imperious surface there is on this project, no more water is going to get through that pipe than can get through it today. The idea that there is some type of down stream event that will wash the golf course away is restricted by the fact tha t no more water can get down stream than can get through the pipe at US 70 right now. M Mr. Katz asked if the wet -pond would be functioning during construction time. Mr. Krichbaum said it would and that they would have other sedimentation and control actions in place. They will be complying with all of the County/Es ordinances. Orange County is reputed to be, and he agrees, the most restrictive County in North Carolina as far as sedimentation erosion control enforcement is concerned. The suggestion that we are going to funnel tons of mud downstream is not based in fact. It cannot and will not happen. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Kirchbaum to point out the poorer soils which he did point out on the map. He mentioned that he did not have any information which would point to these areas being unsatisfactory for general construction. Commission Brown asked for, further clarification of the soil being allocated for the soccer fields. She pointed out that many times in the past the athletic fields have been located in the poorer soils which do not drain well. She wondered if this is an area that is not suitable for playing fields so that they would be wet most of the year. Why was this area picked, especially since they are nearer to the outside neighbors, rather than within the subdivision itself. Mr. Kirchbaum stated that it is within the subdivision but on the outer perimeter. He stated that the field would be completely regraded Once that happens and a grass medium is introduced to it, it will have fine drainage. There is no reason to think that it will not. From a locational standpoint, it was a matter of balancing buffers, facilities and access to those facilities. This was an area that is flatter and higher than some of the other areas and it lent itself to that kind of use. Chair Brown stated that there were several options at this time. One option is to close the public hearing and refer to the Planning Board. The second option is to keep the public hearing open for. more information. Commissioner Gordon asked if it were possible to adjourn this public hearing for three months and still make the timeline. Attorney Gledhill stated that there was no timeline on this rezoning request. Commissioner Gordon suggested adjourning this to the next Joint Public Hearing on February 22, 1999 so that the questions that have been raised could be answered. Planner Kirk stated that the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, that the Public Hearing be adjourned to the Board of County Commissioners Quarterly Public hearing on February 22, 1999 to receive further information from the Planning Board and staff. Chair Brown asked for more information on the storm water management issue and how it would effect adjacent and contiguous properties. She also asked for information on the EMS impact of service, as well as additional information on the recreation needs for the proposed number of people and the impact on the schools. Additional information on accident and traffic, reports on Lawrence Road would be useful as well. Also, any traffic information that staff could generate would be helpful. She also asked the developer to bring information about other similar homes they have built in North Carolina. Commissioner Gordon asked that a report be given on similar property development in other areas of North Carolina or the County. She did not feel that the County should do this but it would be helpful for the developer to bring to the next meeting. She asked the attorney to explain to the citizens what they need to do in order to introduce evidence. County Attorney Gledhill stated that assuming that the County Commissioners are inclined to change the zoning of this property, they will also be considering issuing a Special Use Permit for this Planned Development. In that context, there are a host of findings they will have to make. He felt it was impractical to go through all of them at this time. He recommended anyone who is interested in knowing what they are to contact the Planning Staff who will provide a list of those findings. Among those findings are that the applicant would have the burden of showing that the project maintains or enhances adjacent property values and that the project is in harmony with the area where it is going to be developed. The bottom line is that before the permit can be issued there must be substantial material and competent evidence of all of the facts required by the Ordinance. There are other requirements 10`7 besides the two he mentioned above. Anyone interested in knowing what all of them are could get a printout from the Planning Staff which would include the staff/Es recommendation regarding each one. If the Board of Commissioners reach the determination that the property should be rezoned to R -3 or to any other zoning district other than what it is now, then they will.have to get to the point of making the findings that the Special Use Permit process requires. Chair Brown also asked for a complete understanding of the Homeowner Association responsibilities. What those responsibilities would be and how they would be responsible for maintaining all of the infrastructure. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b) Z-4 -98 James and Patricia LaTorre This item was .presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving evidence and public comment on the proposed rezoning from Primary Economic Development to Secondary Economic Development of a 19.96 acre lot located in the 1 -85 /Buckhorn Road Economic Development Activity Node, and identified on Tax Map 44, Cheeks Township, as parcel 2A. Th subject property is owned by James and Patricia LaTorre and is locate on the north side of West Ten Road approximately 1.25 miles east of Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The owners are requesting Secondary Development area designation for the property. This designation is intended to provide a 6step -down6 or land use buffer between Primary Development Areas and residentially zoned or developed properties. A limited number of residential and office uses are allowed within Secondary Development Areas. Where residential development is contemplated, moderate densities ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre are permitted. Adjacent properties to the west, north and east are within the 185 /Buckhorn Road EDD; properties south of West Ten Road are in the R -1 Rural Residential Zoning District. The entire area is within the U- ENO -PW Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay District. A Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District extends southward 1,250 feet from 1 -40 & 1 -85 right -of -way and covers the northern third of the subject property. Use of land within the MTC Overlay District for single family and two- family dwellings is not subject to the provisions, requirements and restrictions of that overlay district. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Ms. Mabel Allison, a resident of West Ten Road in Efland, owns property on the East and North side of this property. She feels that changing the zoning of this property will effect their land. They are concerned and opposed to the rezoning of this property. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than February 2, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Zoning .Ordinance Text Amendment a) Cane Creek Watershed Overlay Districts 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment a) Flexible Development in Cane Creek Watershed These items were presented together by Planner David Stancil for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on proposed text amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to implement new development standards for Cane Creek Watershed. Changes are proposed to Section 2.2 (Definitions) and Section 6.23 (Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts) of the Zoning'Ordinance to implement new watershed protection measures for Cane Creek watershed. These changes, along with the companion amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, result from a three -year study of Cane Creek Watershed conducted by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) and subsequent recommendations by the OWASA Board of Directors in October, 1997. The amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would offer two sets of development standards for protecting water quality. The first option would change the minimum lot size for new development in the watershed from two acres to five acres, with a provision allowing up to five lots as small as two acres in size for all lots of record. A second option is available for Flexible Development in Cane Creek watershed. In this special option, new major subdivision development could occur at the current 108 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 November 17, 1998 Ms. Chris Baggett, Coordinator State Clearinghouse . NC Department of Administration 116 W. Jones Street, Suite 5062 Raleigh, NC 27603-8003 SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Assessment for Lawrence Park Subdivision Dear Chris: This is a request to place the enclosed Application for Environmental Assessment, submitted to the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, into the State Clearinghouse system for review and comment in accordance with provisions of the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. The applicant is East West Partners Management Company, Inc. The owner is Meadowmont Farms, LLC. The assessment is for the proposed construction of a 244-lot subdivision on an 84.9-acre tract (Tax Map 5.4.13.17) owned by Meadowmont and a 1.59-acre lot owned by Lonnie D. and Irene F. Bell (Tax Map No. 5.4.13.11). The subdivision is located just east of the Town of Hillsborough. It will be accessed from US 70A, Lawrence Road, and Lannie Drive and be supplied by Town water and sewer service. The entire site is currently zoned R-1 Rural. Residential. The planned zoning is PD-H-R3 Planned Development-Housing-Rural Residential for 237 lots and R-2 Rural Residential for seven lots. Three recreation areas and a tot lot are planned for the development. Site plans are available for review here in our office at 306F Revere Road in Hillsborough 27278. Contact consultant for the project is: Scott Radway, AICP Senior Project Manager The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. PO Box 14005 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Telephone: 919 361-5000 FAX: 919 361-2269 109 Ms. Chris Baggett, Coordinator State Clearinghouse November 17, 1998 Page Two Please return comments by January 4, 1999. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, James R. Hinkley, AICP Environmental Planner Enclosure: Application for Environmental Assessment North Carolina Department of Administration James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor December 21, 1998 Mr. James Hinkley Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Hinkley: Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary '?p 7 1 �IV71 . Re: SCH File # 99-E-0000-0313; Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment for Lawrence Park Subdivision.; Construction of 244 lots on a 84.9-acre Tract. (Review submitted under Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance) The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of G.S. 113A -8. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review. Attachments cc: Region J Sincerely, Ms. Chrys Baggett Environmental Policy Act Coordinator 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone 919-733-7232 An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 112 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley Clearinghouse Coordinator Dept. of Cultural Resources Archives-History Bldg. Raleigh NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION Dept. of Crime Cont./ Public Safety Dept. of Cultural Resources Dept. of Environment & Natural Res Dept. of Transportation Triangle J Council of Governments PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County Planning Department TYPE: State Environmental.Policy Act ERD: Environmental Assessment STATE NUMBER: 99-E-0000-0313. A01 DATE RECEIVED: 11/20/1998- ?/-/ till AGENCY RESPONSE: 12/16/1998 I REVIEW CLOSED: 12/21/1998 .6v 111 1 V :S" _-- -C�-�- � x-13 l� DESC: Environmental I * mpact Assessment for Lawrence Park Subdivisllk6) Construction of 244 lots on a 84.9-acre tract. (Review submitted under �Q! ,(ang ounty Environmental Impact.Ordi . /1C The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)733-7232. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: V_'NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: DATE: 'W" k A�N D DEC 16 1998j N. C. STATE C L 1-, 0 B. HUNT 0 'g NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 91pMC6]zhVJ91i)M TO: Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse FROM: Melba McGee Y'" Environmental Review Coordinator• RE: 98-0313 Lawrence Park Subdivision, Orange County DATE: December 18, 1998 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the subject proposal. This department ask that careful consideration be given to the attached recommendations provided by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The applicant is encouraged to work directly with the Commission in addressing their issues prior to finalizing project plans and circulated the FONSI. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. attachments DEC I ILI) 19R P.O. E30X 27687, RALEIGH NC 27611-7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604 PHONE 919-733-4984 FAX 919- 71S -3060 WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.Us/EHNR/ 114 ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 -1188, 919 - 733 -3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Dept. of- Environment and Natural Resources FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Regional Coordinat9F n Habitat Conservation Program 'DATE: December 14, 1998 SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 99E0313( ?): Lawrence.Park Subdivision, Orange County This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661- 667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A -1 through 113A -10; 1 NCAC 25). East West Partners Management Company, Inc. is developing a 244 lot subdivision on an 84.9 acre tract known as Lawrence Park, located just east of Hillsborough, NC. Based on review of the information provided, we are concerned with potential impacts that this project might have on the Eno River and endangered mussel species. From the map it appears that some of the headwater draws located on the project are located on an unnamed tributary to the Eno River. Based on review of the submitted information, we can concur with the EA and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project provided the following concerns are addressed: 1. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project completion. 2. A stormwater management plan must be developed and approved.by the Division of Water Quality before construction activities begin. 3. A minimum 25 foot riparian buffer zone should be maintained along any small streams or wetlands identified on the site. J. -U,1 116 4. Unavoidable impacts to any wetlands or streams on the sight must be coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality. Mitigation might be required for impacts to ,these areas. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact meat 336/366 -2982. Please note that future correspondence for this project should be sent to Mr. Owen Anderson with our staff. cc: Owen Anderson, WRC State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: 11"7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW — PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date: After review of this project it has been determined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office. Normal Process Time (statutory time limit) PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS D Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts. On -site inspection Post - application technical conference usual. not discharging into state surface waters. (90 days) D NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection. Pre- application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater 90 -120 days discharging into state surface waters. treatment facility- granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N /A) plans or issue of NPDES permit — whichever is later. D Water Use Permit Pre - application technical conference usually nom' 30 days (N /A) D Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and pemvt issued prior to the 7 days installation of a well. (15 days) D Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days On -site inspection. Pre- application conference usual. Filling may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days) and Fill Permit. D Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement N/A facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC 60 days (2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 211.0600) Any open burning associated with subject proposal be in must compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900 60 days D Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A Croup 919- 733 -0820. (90 days) D Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC 2D.0800 D The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days Sect.) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or part must (30 days) accompany the plan. The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. �G�, (30 days) D Mining Perrnit On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR Bond amount varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater 30 days than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days) before the permit can be issued. D North Carolina Burning permit On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day (N /A) D Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On -site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than 1 day counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be (N /A) requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned." D Oil Refining Facilities N/A 90 -120 days (N /A) D Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify construction is according to ENR approved plans. May also require 30 days permit under mosquito control program. And a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A (60 days) minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion. Continued on reverse Normal Process Time (statutory time limit) Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREENTS M O Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days (704)251.6208 (919)486 -1541 any well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged (N /A) 919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 according to ENR rules and regulations. Raleigh, NC 27609 O Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days 943 Washington Square Mall 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Application by letter. No standard application form. (N /A) O State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions & 15 -20 days 585 Waughtown St drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property, (N /A) O 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 60 days (130 days) O CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days (150 days) O CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days (25 days) O Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify: N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 21687, Raleigh, NC 27611 O Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100. O Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation. O Compliance with I SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days (N /A) ' Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority) REGIONAL OFFICES Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. O Asheville Regional Office O Fayetteville Regional Office 59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301 (704)251.6208 (919)486 -1541 L- O Mooresville Regional Office O Raleigh Regional Office 919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 Mooresville, NC 28.115 Raleigh, NC 27609 (704) 663 -1699 (919) 571 -4700 O Washington Regional Office O Wilmington Regional Office 943 Washington Square Mall 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405 919) 946 -6481 (919) 395 -3900 O Winston -Salem Regional Office 585 Waughtown St Winston-Salem; NC 27107 (910)7714600 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR LAWRENCE PARK RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department November, 1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lawrence Park contains 244 buildable lots and is located in Eno Township. The lots are accessed by new public roads which will intersect with US 70A, Lawrence * Road, and Lori Drive. The current zoning is R-1 Rural Residential. There are 237 lots proposed in PD-H-R- 3 and 7 lots proposed in R-2. Lots will be served by public water and sewer from the Town of Hillsborough. Project build-out is estimated at five years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1999., with completion of the project scheduled for 2003. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be $132,000, including the lot. 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. 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH, PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Section 1 - Project Data Project Name, Township, School District Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation - Characteristics of Households Construction Schedule /Cost Data Section 2 - Local Government and School District Data Budget Year Per Capita, Revenues Per Capita Expenditures Per Student Expenditures School District Per Employee Expenditures Employees Per 1000 Population County Per Employee Expenditure Other Data Other Model Constants School District Data Section 3 - Demographic Projections Based On Project Data Total Housing Total Population School Children Additional County Employees Total School District Additional Employees Section 4 - Projected Net Fiscal Impact on County Tax Base Revenues Expenditures Net Fiscal Impact Section 5 — Projected Net Fiscal Impact on School District Revenues Expenditures Net Fiscal Impact Section 6 - Summary of Projected Impacts Additional Housing Additional Population Additional School Children Tax Base. County Government Balance School District Balance Total Net Fiscal Impact Section 7 - Summary of Projected Public School Capacity Impacts 121 EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much, if not all, of the information is supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include: Project Name: Name of the project. Township: Township in which the project is located. School District: School district in which the project is located. Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The template is set to calculate fiscal impacts for a ten-year period. Inflation Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts based on constant dollars. Since the inflation rate changes frequently, the Finance Department must be contacted for the most recent figure. Persons/Household: The 'estimated, average number of persons/household (dwelling unit) based on 1990 Census data and studies of the number of students per household for the school district in which the project is located. The most recent studies include A Study of Housing Characteristics and Student Generation Rates for Orange County, N.C. (1995) and Technical Report: Calculation of Proportionate Share Impact Fees for Financing Public School Capital Needs, Orange County, N.C. (1996). Children/Household: The estimated average number of school age children/household (dwelling unit) based o ' n studies of the number of students per household for the school district in which the project is located. The most recent study is A Study of Housing Characteristics and Student Generation Rates for Orange County, N.C. (1995). % Non-Elderly:. N.C. General Statutes permit an $11,000. exemption to the elderly and disabled who meet certain income criteria. In the event that elderly units are part of the project, the percentage of eligible non-elderly units is entered. The tax base will automatically be adjusted to reflect the exemption. Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units, to be constructed in the project in each year. Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the number and sales price of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year. 122 SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to provide County services and revenues received based on the approved Orange County budget for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All information derived from the approved budget remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of a new budget. Local government revenue and expenditure information is compiled on a per capita (per person) basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total expenditures for a particular service function or revenue source by the estimated population of,Orange County for the year in which the project is considered for approval.. Populations estimates are prepared by the Planning Department. Data inputs include the following: Budget Year: The current fiscal year; i.e., 1996-97. Per Capita Revenues: The sources of revenue by major category are as follows: Taxes - Other Than han Property: Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include those from sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, and animal taxes. Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or shared-tax revenues, are provided, through State and federal assistance programs. Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are charged to those who voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental facilities. Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments, proceeds from license and permit fees, and all other revenues. Per Capita Expenditures: Expenditures by major category are as follows: General Government: Services related to the legislative, administrative, financial, and legal functions of government. Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services. Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County-owned property and the provision of sanitation (solid waste disposal) services. Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of health, social, and recreation-related services. Education: Orange County supports two school r units, the Orange County school system and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system. This category includes appropriations made to the designated school system for Recurring Capital items. Recurring Capital funds are used for general maintenance, purchase of new equipment/furnishings and vehicle maintenance. Non-Departmental: Contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services outside the formal structure of county government. Other expenditures include equipment replacement and contingency funds. Although there are no employees generated by this category, it has been included as an operating expenditure. It will be included in Section 4, "Total Annual County Expenditure." These expenditures will be calculated on a per . capita basis as opposed to a per employee basis. Per Student Expenditures: Information regarding expenditures required to provide educational services and revenues received are based on the approved school system budgets for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All information derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of new budgets. Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for County Government Current Expense, School District and State appropriations. County Government Current Expense funds are used for general operation purposes including Instruction and Support Services. Federal revenues and expenditures and other local revenues such as Fund Balance have not been included since they are not directly growth related. Per student figures are derived by dividing the total appropriation for educational purposes from a particular source by the estimated number of students to be enrolled in the applicable school system for the year in which the project is considered for approval. Student enrollments are obtained from the approved school system budgets. County Government: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations to the school systems by Orange County for Current Expense. The *minimum level of per student appropriation is determined by the State Board of Education. School District: Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system and are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment of a supplementary school tax. State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board of Education. School District Per Employee Expenditure: Expenditures per employee based on County, School District and State appropriations, and the total number of school district employees. Employees Per 1000 Population: The number of employees in a particular service category per 1000 population. County Per Employee Expenditure: The average operating and capital expenses per employee in a particular service category. Total expenses in each category includes personnel, operating and capital costs. 124 Other Data: County Government Tax Rate: The County tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation. Since the per capita, method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is reduced by an amount equal to the debt service payments from property taxes for capital projects. School District Tax Rate: The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel Hill-Car*rboro school system. Assessment Ratio: The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on information supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base. Other Model Constants Elderly Exemption: For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly (65 and older) or disabled individuals whose annual income does not exceed $12,000, an $11,000 tax exemption is used in projecting the tax base. School District Employees Per Student: The number of employees per student in a specific school district. SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and school children anticipated in Orange County resulting from project development. Projections also provide the number of additional employees required per service function and school district as a result of the new development. Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by project development. Total Population: The total population added each year by a project derived by multiplying the number of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per household (see Section 1). School Population: The total number of school children added each year by a project derived by multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children per household (see Section 1). Additional County Employees: The number of additional employees required per service category based on project development. Total: Total of all additional county employees required based on project development. School District Additional Employees: The number of additional employees required per school district based on the project development. SECTION 4 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each year resulting from project development. The values shown are in $1,000's and are derived from a formula which includes the number and sales price of homes, and the assessment ratio. Where applicable, the percentage of non - elderly units and elderly exemption are also used. Revenues: All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita revenues (Section 2) times the projected population (Section 3). The exception to this is the property tax which multiplies the tax base times the county government tax rate. Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the *per employee expenditure (Section 2) times the number of additional employees (Section 3). Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County more to provide services to a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another. SECTION 5 - PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures by County government (Section 4). Revenues derived from the school district tax are derived by multiplying the school district tax times the tax base. State revenues are derived by multiplying the per student expenditure figure times the total projected number of school children (Section 3). Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per student expenditure e (Section 2) times the total projected number of school children (Section 3) and adding the results. Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs the school system more to provide educational services for children in a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another. SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPACTS SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 126 m RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD Bweau of Economic & Business Research - University of Florida Modified 4116197 - Orange County, NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: C TOWNSHIP: Eno CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: A Y10 g z N i q �.7VT Ending Year 2003 'uq'n R gy--, RM�" R .. L' - ' -- ' . ,, I ,y lnfla%Ign Rate I V 07 7 '.'t7 �o'Z, -Z 7 'a T;-'P CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: iaf 'g r.Y,.ny il L k, 11`i, ` '"0� ffbi b t" T Children/House: ENTER 111" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33 p. � Tg mg� �gq- ".f' g Far R n HOME SALES DATA. Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes by Year WN R S z '11 N00 " N, 2000 60 132,000 24.59% 5tl R a 2002 60 132,000 24.59% -j -41TZ7T- -,1 7' .7 77� "U"t"2034 2132 �;'boo 8" 0� ii PR 2004 0 0 0.00% 2006 0 0 0.00% -5k, 2V A 1 2008 0 0 0.00% SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "T' IN BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE. School District: School Attendance: Middle School 17% MIN U1 P'li, D'71 "F 128 SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA BUDGET -WEA RM F 50`�-` 11i'll UM '881IL-1 COUNTY POPULATION: 105898 RIP- I E0 "F1 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA Public Safety 142 95 0.0013 Human Services 4.07 0.0025 SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS. PER STUDENT -g COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES REVENUES PER CAPITA , 4; Intergovernmental 85.06 Miscellaneous 1738939 16.421 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA ......... . -gg alrl I. g� 4"Biii g Awl", Z� MR'D2 X�511r 112 .--ja e, !gq Public Safety 7274334 68.69 P "!p, "�g iza' Human Service" s"' -1-�.1-1-1.1--- --"T 17112641 161.60 0-K 7 Z LINO L2� 1 .", j Ed- 1-1g, -� , M Non-Departmental WM22M!9�2_, 3163481 29.871 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE j, Public Safety 7274334 5088 .26 Human Services 2641 64803.43 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT Schoo ct 0.00 S EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYE School District TAX DATA : ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION: 0 811 16 li'ta N B-f 4 V4 School District Tax Rate 0.0000 Per $1 00 A ssessed Valuation AT- ----- --- Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 2002 2000., I t T, HOUSING UNITS 4 75 196 24, f . POPULATION 185 482 603 i 0 R"R -Q- p-jr SCHOOL CHILDREN p 'w- � - q . ' , .. . . ...... .. . Elementary 16 41 -52p Middle 4 High School 5 12 TOTAL 26 64 LAI E 0 'igi 1,gi g M 2", 0 ui COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 04. 0.19 0.49 4,0NMEN 54 tiv Public Safety 0.25 5 0.65 i' G[ -2, Public Works 0.09 0.23,hZO� 2 "KZ 1.20 0,9", 0.46 Human Services . ..... 1b, 2.57 k,P TOTAL 20, 0.991} B SCHOOL DISTRICT 201 1.43 3.72 MR, I g .2 M ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 2007 YEAR 004, 2005, . ..... .. HOUSING UNITS 4h;. 244 244 T'4"'1 244. I POPULATION 603 603 SCHOOLCHILDREN '152 Elementary 52 52 , . .... . 7rtt .... lit 1" Middle 14 14 ,1Z 15 15 I Y! k�fhl'iY J"P, High School 81 TOTAL �1 x81 R 81 pT 'NO.A COUNTY GOVERNMENT gR "P T ipitl ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES "127 General Government 0.62 4'*u 011, i;, Public Safety 0.81 0. 81 p 8 F.11,14,41. jxr!�,�; .fa 0.28, 0.28 Public Works Human Services 1.50 1.50 r q, I'M 22 "MU 221 3.22 3.2 z to a TOTAL 2 N IIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . In, SCHOOL DISTRICT 4.66 4.66 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES 130 SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT YEAR r X19' , ;6, 2002 q -0. IIU, TAX BASE ($1000) . . ... IN, 995. 26491 M.- t.7." 5,555, Npi R! u, 65 81�1 3,11 1 . . . . . . . . . . REVENUES ($) _w . . ........ q '60 Property Tax 1_111!;ili I W 214870 6 80700 Other Taxes 834 4 V 22791 yP Interg 1 overnmental 3� 161 1, 51 44118 §65�8:51 Service Charges "h`u I 5 6075 P 0; ".0 16595 - "I � ` 1 -4 �.-[YOT , -.2- -L - N Miscellaneous 3118 ­,g 8517 24 II RITF"R26vimi "'Q. 5�1;� ! , '4 A ­!R - i Ru W R I; "y"', _',n R .-� -1— "R. . _ '! , TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 `jiuN;390727_,Rr-, 1114388 M 3 306892 "n, 10 EXPENDITURES ($) N _ General Government M 12200 33327 AAR 5� Q 13043 35629 Public Safety R j I qq ip �-Igp Public Works 5149 yr, rya, Yru 1x005. 14065 - l it 14 , 8040r MITM i 1n nth tC Human Services X Nil, 30684 7 8381 !q X VIM- Education `iO `6' i"IN 3 46552 58E 127162 'tj Non-Departmental 0,11 IFiiig� II 'P! R 046. 5672 "R 15495 7r TOTAL ($) _,,gi Q�qp, 113301 p 309496 TN", 4" N;�­Sgiq roy NET FISCAL IMPACT 087 P -2604 . �11221-"1111, � � 7 YEAR 5', V 2005 OR NO, N. 2007 M N� IPA- TAX BASE ($1000) 35324 gz 37112 rziq'i!�'m', REVENUES,($) Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . 286509 301014 108539" uw Other Taxes 30711 9�1 3226 M07-39 l 4 u 4 _w- 6 ;,Tt Intergovernmental W 59449 62459 7 w Service Charges 22361 3 2349 ;n gl; 7 P, lit 0 4 1 0 01 Miscellaneous I P"8 �4 R71 PT'i -,T, 11477 itlilvl��011,,I.j! 12058 0'1jRi1;W_ I a co� E111 TOTAL ($) R'lF4004 410508 431290 ffl-NM�, pMap, EXPENDITURES ($) 1-21' r,"M A 'General Government �'Z-�1o6,r-­N,`7,F- 4,5 44908 47181 _53.1 OWN Public Safe "' '' tY 08 1." li; 48010 50441 Public Works 1 M F,751f! 19913 RARY,: 18953 w ;11 gji 4H,26 i, j, 7 1p,W5' N1 p'! rl Human Services 'R1,'-`-­ 2110188 , 112943 ­1` '11 �04 118661 MW mm gg �r' r "184526 AM I 6 -4` Mr - frn,n,� mo 171350 Education ,�p NE.- ii,00-134-75.634-I 2 Non-Departmental 1800 5 �'4 Z, 20879 21936 ,t G 22484 TOTAL211 417044 438166 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($ _6536 75, k -6867 W*rT_ 131 SECTION 5 - PROJECTED. FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT YEAR d6f�,, A 9, 2000 1,200 A lilyl L, y gr R gi, ter IQ G5, i , fff-DI', REVENUES g 26 - 09C E. County 46552 127162 School District 0 0 iv el `>7Fh}F RM ............................ 961 262590 State 3 ' x3367891; Vi, 5, TOTAL .142682 389752 9988,2,`r I 1L - I r EXPENDITURES County 46552 127162 N " lig, 9 +63094 .c-- i M "i, S 0 R'g :iiiT 0 School District 0 Rim' A C L 7N e! 1 1 t t L f t �1 fi f� 1 Vb2590 96130 19T State Pr -2 Z,640 M" 142682 TOTAL 389752 8ri jr, I-', A 0�11! NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 YEAR 2005 2007 4 REVENUES lip P, 180025 County 171350 School District 0 ;019 0 1752 State 353838 37 P-Ii'1111 !M11v RG'. L .......... 625189 65177 7 .......... TOTAL d t 'Y ll' lh L, ji{ tiq, 'n . EXPENDITURES Jg 4, 180025 County 171350 N 7 " �',.�iNl 0 0 00 0 l School District b 'l l.'r",zv 35 371752 State 3838 111",§ 4 -i --� -J. - . ,011 4 p TOTAL 526189 661777 v , �a Eg,,'y',M "P It tj NET FISCAL IMPACT 0 0 1. 32 SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS YEAR -0, 0'6-4 200 7 2005 . . . . . . ....... Qq, — eg-- 244 244 HOUSING UNITS V POPULATION 603 603 -.1 m �r tf�264r 404r 31" SCHOOL CHILDREN 50, q Cs I A., Elementary 52 j' - . 52 14" fog, "'W "!'T Middle 14 14 15 15 High School "Na - TOTAL 81 81 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 3 . 22 srt X322; 3 22 ;iib$! M. ,g H , 4 66, SCHOOL EMPLOYEES M kj 4.66 TAX BASE ($1000) 24 �t 04r 4 353 Ni 37112 COUNTY BUDGET ($) X- aE! , - X Revenues 410508 431290 -,07, % �g Expenditures 4 10 41704 438156 Y if BALANCE `7 63, 6 -6536 -6867 .101' mggtig SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($) 525189, Revenues 31T 551777 M& ARAg", Expenditures -g-p-2 525189 51. 6517 57 Vi .WZ12'18, 7 f d 7 65 i,,l �rx fiF�� `, 1i ; itrtt [ f; a,� ki : � u r1fu1k . a ru�ri, , �ty? t Y,r 4 , r � r[ '�5 t ° ��i _I . t � 7E y � eVf,Ii t sr' w a I,tn �If �L h � i ` t � �n �yS'} w, t a �Q � .r G L ;:? � � vq e f 4 K r� t n� �y {, S a31ki, R BALANCE k. 10m 0 0 rsFi trkn a 5,1,1�11,§ N, 22e0 tg��-,Wp" h r S COMBINED BUDGETS ($) 01. RN �Iff, y fE 210 43" k 7 Revenues 51 , 93569 983066 �111`g Mal. t r Expenditures 942233 g, 101 T"4- . 989933 , QWV [BALANCE -6536 -6867 za"i SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District: School Attendance: Y 2003 SCHOOL CHILDREN Middle 1522 Middle 1240 Middle School 17% A &b A H� 'h School -'N E, �7 al.,---, C a 42 Wi YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SCHOOL CHILDREN Middle 1522 Middle 1240 %, A &b A f0 ta ", —g ,, Vy TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 551 -Q, % 1-*,T,,I "MK, Elementary Elementary 16 28 :',,, 41 t.nJ 54 -128,7 4 AL Middle Middle N', 1254 e"IR High School High School 5 1472 12 1472 ti TOTAL 25 560 0 64 6600 J. YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 52 52 14 Middle 14 High School 5 15 V i�, TOTAL 81 81 SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS 2005 2006 2007 2008 Middle 1522 Middle 1240 %, A &b A f0 ta ", —g ,, Vy TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 551 YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT ijg Elementary 3 286 Middle 1244 1251 P7 High School 1462 1469 tip, s 644 ITOTAL 5 583 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT nt "p A" Elementary 2874 2874 54 -128,7 Middle 1254 1254 e"IR High School J, 72 1472 1472 ti 560 0 01 N1 6600 ITOTAL 134 9-1-1 Communications 24 Hour Warning Point 919-732- 8161.933 -2600 Fax Machine 919-967-9026 ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 eo�nt7 of cat February 12,1999 TO: EDDIE KIRK, PLANNING DEPT. FROM: MIKE TAPP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/FIRE MARSHAL RE: STAFFING REQUIREMENTS Emergency Medical Services Fire Marshal Hazardous Materials Team Disaster Response 919 -644 - 3030.968 -2050 Administrative Fax Machine 919-968-4066 Staff has completed a chart detailing personnel impact of development projects. The chart is attached to this memorandum. Values on this table were calculated based on population, call volume and personnel requirements for response. The Lawrence Park Project would require the following full time equivalents: one third of a paramedic position, one fourth of a telecommunicator position, one fourth of a firefighter position. We have completed plans review on the listed projects and determined that one full time position would be needed for the County 9-1-1 Center, Emergency Medical Services and the Fire Department. If you have additional questions or require additional information, please contact us. Located at 1914 New Hope Church Road • Chapel Hill 9 North Carolina • 27514 13 *15 13`6" w w o o co o w W co CV CO O 00 O r w w co N C O O O O O w RC„ V M �t o N � 0 O O 0 �-- r. o O o", W o a co N' ci o ono Gj w M O co O O O O ® � O w tS a. bc LO N N LO O co �O nti d W C 4a d � � � •gyp O � t,3 o' m w a� M ya U) _t° ¢ +' �- QC'i N N N N (Orange Countp 38oarb of (Eburation RANDY BRIDGES, SUPERINTENDENT Jbill0orougb, PC 27275 BOARD MEMBERS DELORES SIMPSON, CHAIR SUSAN DOVENBARGER, VICE CHAIR ROBERT H. BATEMAN KEITH COOK RICHARD KENNEDY DAVID KOLBINSKY BRENDA STEPHENS February 2, 1999 Mr. Eddie Kirk Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere, Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. Kirk: 137 200 EAST KING STREET HILLSBOROUGH, NC 27278 TELEPHONE: 919-732-8126 FAX: 919-732-8120 Thank you for the information you provided on the proposed Lawrence Road Subdivision. As we move forward with planning/building new schools, this type of information is extremely valuable. When this subdivision comes on line, the students will be attending Cameron Park Elementary and C. W. Stanford Middle Schools. Currently, both of these schools are at or over capacity. The location of each school, also provides little room for expansion, and the cost of mobile units continues to escalate each year. I am not sure how the developers can assist us with this matter, other than providing funding for new school construction. The developers donating a site for a school within the subdivision would be of some assistance. However, a new elementary school costs the county/school system between 10-14 million dollars.. I would be very interested in a discussion about shared costs between the developers and the -school system to build new schools. - - Again, thank you for the information, and I look forward to working with your department. Sincerely, Ce Randy Bridges Superintendent /ha cc: Orange County.Board of Education 138 139 Traffic Impact Study Lawrence Road Subdivision Orange County, NC Prepared for: Meadowmont Farms, LLC 0 Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1998 140 141 Traffic Impact Study for Lawrence Road Subdivision Hillsborough, North Carolina Prepared for: Meadowmont Farms, LLC Chapel Hill, North Carolina Prepared by: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 33068 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3068 (919) 677 -2000 011157.06 February 1998 � � �� � ��� List Table No. Title Page No. I ITE Traffic Generation ................................................................................ 1U 2 LeveComparison ' DS7O Business and Lawrence Road .......... l8 3 NC8M and Old NCl0 ................................. l4 4 US 70 Bypass _uudlJS7OBuoineoo...---..2O 5 Lawrence Road and Old NClO .................. 2l 6 lJ87O Business Site Driveway ........................................ 22 List, of Figures Title Page No. lSite Location .......................................... -^--.-..----.--..-.—.......--_.-5 . % Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 6 ` . _ 3 ........................... * ................................................. 7 4 Existing AM and PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..................................... l4 5 Projected 2O03AM Peak-Hour 7ra(fiuVolumes ........................................ l5 143 Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Executive Summary .............................. ............................ ..............................1 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................ ..............................3 3.0 Inventory ................................................................................ ..............................4 3.1 Study Area ................................................................... ..............................4 3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ......................................... ..............................4 3.3 Bicycle Plan ................................................................ ..............................8 3.4 Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ ..............................9 3.5 Transit ......................................................................... ..............................9 3.6 Parking ........................................................................ ..............................9 4.0 Traffic Generation ................................................................ .............................10 5.0 Traffic Distribution .............................................................. .............................11 6.0 Site Access and Traffic Assignment .................................... .............................12 7.0 Projected Traffic Volumes .......... ......................................... .............................13 7.1 Existing Traffic .......................................................... .............................13 7.2 Historical Growth Traffic ........................................... .............................13 7.3 Total Traffic ....................:.......................................... .............................13 8.0 Capacity Analysis ......................................... ............................... .................17 8.1 US 70 Business and Lawrence Road ....................... .............................18 8.2 NC 86 and Old NC 10 ................................................ .............................19 8.3 US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business ............................ .............................20 8.4 Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 ................................. .............................21 -i- 8.5 D870 Business Site Driveway ----.----.---.--...—..--..—..22 8.6 Lawrence Road Site —..-----.—.--.--.-.—.--.—..—...23 9.0 Roadway Nmmdu----.-------.—..---.---.—.-----.-----... 24 -ii - 1.0 Executive Summary 14 .5 L The proposed Lawrence Road subdivision development, is to be located on a 87.3-acre site in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business east of Hillsborough, North Carolina. The area is currently zoned R-1. The proposed C) development consists of 249 lots for single family homes, plus recreation and open space to serve the development. As currently envisioned, the proposed development will be completed (Vuilt-out) in 2003. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been accomplished to determine the future impact of the development on the adjacent roadway network. The following is a summary of the TIA findings. ® Access into the development will consist of one street along US 70 Business and one street along Lawrence Road. Both streets are proposed to have full movement access. The unsignalized intersection of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road is currently operating acceptably and will continue to operate at an acceptable Level-of-Service (LOS) during 2003 with no roadway improvements. The unsignalized intersection of NC 86 and Old NC 10 is currently operating acceptably. This intersection will operate with long delays for the left turn movement from Old NC 10 onto NC 86 in the AM peak-hour in 2003. Long delays for left turns onto major thoroughfares and collectors are typical. This intersection is projected to meet signal warrants in 2003. ■ The unsignalized intersection of US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass is currently operating acceptably and will continue to operate at an acceptable Level-of-Service (LOS) during 2003 with no roadway improvements. - I - 146 • The unsignalized intersection of Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 is currently operating acceptably and will continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during 2003 with no roadway improvements. • Both proposed subdivision access points are projected to operate at acceptable levels -of- service under stop sign control. A left -turn lane and a right -turn/ deceleration lane into the site on US 70 Business are recommended. -2- 2.0 Introduction The proposed Lawrence Road subdivision development is to be located on a 87.3-acre site in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business east of Hillsborough, North Carolina, as shown in Figure 1. The proposed development consists of 249 lots for single family 3-bedroom homes, plus recreation and open space to serve the development. As currently envisioned, the proposed development will be completed (built-out) in 2003. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was retained to determine the potential external traffic impacts of this development and to identify roadway improvements that may be required to accommodate these impacts. This report presents trip generation, distribution, traffic analyses, and recommendations,. BIB 147 148 3.0 Inventory 3.1 Study Area The study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) includes the following intersections: • US 70 Business and Lawrence Road (unsignalized) • NC 86 and Old NC 10 (unsignalized) • US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business (unsignalized)' • Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 (unsignalized) • US 70 Business Site Driveway (unsignalized) • Lawrence Road Site Driveway (unsignalized) The study area has been determined based on discussions with the Orange County Transportation staff and review of existing traffic data and analyses. Figure 1 depicts the study area and site location and Figure 2 depicts the proposed subdivision plan. 3.2 Existing Conditions The proposed project property is currently used as pasture and is zoned presently as R -1. The surrounding and nearby land uses are primarily low- density residential. Development along US 70 Business in the vicinity of the site is single- family residential. The Colonial Hills subdivision and Lawrence Road Baptist Church are located west of Lawrence Road opposite the proposed subdivision. The area immediately to the south of the proposed subdivision, off Jay Drive, consists of mobile homes on wooded lots. Roads in the immediate vicinity of the site include US 70 Business, Lawrence Road, Old NC 10, and NC 86. The existing roadway laneage is shown on Figure 3. US 70 Business is a two -lane major thoroughfare in the project vicinity with an estimated 1998 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 2,400 east of Lawrence Road. US 70 Business serves as an east -west major thoroughfare in Orange County. In the project vicinity, US 70 Business has a posted speed limit of 45 MPH, which is reduced to 35 MPH just east of the project. The intersection of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road is unsignalized. No separate turn lanes are provided. Hillsborough's -4- I ........... 0 creek 1561 > JACK PAIMERS APPROXIMATE SCALE if Dy 1' 2000' 11JU PalmeAN"Al VIE Grove 0 70 IMFIELD Be q% ` I 'pv�V 1562 5 ?LAB POPLAR Grove T RIDGE Meth i LU Oy-P 70 Occuueacbee OEE Bu u o J( 70 cTr LL U BY-P 8C 70 .RSTONE 0 S COLONIAL MEADOWLANDS HILLS SITE way;. HAMPTON HA -Liawrence Hal 1562 Exit • 16 W Road Rapt TRAILER POINTS oN PARK OF, 0 AN E oe -j Af )BI E PINEY GROVE Z�FEAT ERWOOD )LI T JAY A 04 q fEWAOT P CIR T4,yNi Q Pine 170 1709 Mn Grove Bapt PGTNGS A, w TER o v ox VILDWO F PIP AK WYNGATE Jos so v, s JASPERS BYRD JOHN EIRECKIN Hillsborough o BYRD kGECOACH,tk Church of God 1710 w q STAOP-, 17AYHORN USTIC HILLS CRIES ES 51, B OA 0 O R WOODS A, MIN "R EDGE MHP 171 PHOEBE 0!4 North Carolina Now Hope Forest Service Nazarene District 11 Hdq Copyright ADC The Map People Use No. 208974 Permitted Elm LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION FIGURE M" 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SITE LOCATION THIS DOCUMENT. TOGMER Wral THE CONCEPTS AM DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN. AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVWM IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CUM FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRTFTEN AUDWMTIGN AND ADAPTATION ITY 10MILEY—HORN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. SH11U BE WITHOUT LIRE R M ?aWEY—HORN AND ASSOCATEF, INC. . Iff MA I t. IL 21 �/ ' 1 ■ Ire LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION FIGURE Iftley-Horn and Amiates, Inc. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SITE PLAN 2 THIS OOCUMM. TOMMIER TAM IK CM#aM MO DEWNS PWZNIM HCKK AS M 1NSMUM94T OF %Wa IS AtMn *lLy FCR W SKOM ft%-Mr. MO M*a FOR *00i rf US PREPARED. REUSE OF MO IWKPM Ftnimm ON n9S D=AMIT *MOO W%TTEW AunHOPo mm MQ ADAPTATION SY KMV-HM NO ASsocMTES. WC. %w" BE Wrl'aff UMAM TO MA -HM MM AMOCATES, WC. 151 LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION EXISTING ROADWAY T FIGURE c:mn Kimisy-Hom and A=WAIrr. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LANEAGE 3 THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT CF SERVICE, LS INTENDED ONU FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CUENi FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RE]JANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRRTEN AUTHOR2ATION AND ADAPTATION DY IOMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. SHALL DE WITHOUT UADIUTY TO MMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PALMERS GROVE CHURCH ROAD 2LU US 70 BYPASS NOT TO SCALE 2LU US 70 BUSINESS � '� , LAWRENCE ROAD 2LU NC 86 2LU 2LU N �.. —J- OLD NC 10 LEGEND 0 �-- EXISTING ROADWAY LANEAGE 2L NUMBER OF THRU LANES D/U DIVIDED /UNDIVIDED s LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION EXISTING ROADWAY T FIGURE c:mn Kimisy-Hom and A=WAIrr. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LANEAGE 3 THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT CF SERVICE, LS INTENDED ONU FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CUENi FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RE]JANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRRTEN AUTHOR2ATION AND ADAPTATION DY IOMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES. INC. SHALL DE WITHOUT UADIUTY TO MMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 52 Transportation Plan indicates that US 70 Business is to be eventually widened to a four - lane divided section, although the town has not adopted this recommendation. Lawrence Road (SR 1561) is a two -lane roadway that extends north -south from Old NC 10 to St. Marys Road. It is designated a major thoroughfare with a posted speed limit of 45 MPH. Lawrence Road has a 1998 ADT volume of 2,500 south of US 70 Business. Lawrence Road is shown in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan to be extended north to beyond a proposed northern connector. The intersection of Lawrence Road and NC 10 is proposed in the plan as a safety improvement to improve sight distance. Old NC 10 (SR 1710) is a two -lane east -west roadway that is designated as a major thoroughfare from NC 86 to Lawrence Road, and as a minor throughfare from Lawrence Road east to New Hope Church Road. The intersection of Old NC 10 and NC 86 is proposed in the plan as a safety improvement to improve sight distance. NC 86 is a two -lane major thoroughfare connecting Chapel Hill with Hillsborough. It has an estimated 1998 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 8,000 south of Old NC 10. The speed limit at the Old NC 10 intersection is 45 mph. The transportation plan calls for it to be widened to a four -lane divided roadway. 3.3 Bicycle Plan US 70 Business, Lawrence Road, and Old NC 10 are all included on the Bike Plan element of Hillsborough's Transportation Plan, indicating that they are segments of Hillsborough's future bicycle route network. This designation has two purposes: to ensure that recommendations for road improvements do not conflict with bicycle travel, and so that these segments may be eligible for funding of bicycle facilities. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with this bicycle designation. The subdivision will include recreation facilities that can be accessed by bicycle. Because of the neo- traditional . style of subdivision layout, with a . semi -grid street system, the north -south streets will carry very low traffic volumes and will be easily used by cyclists. The major east -west streets will be 27 feet wide (back of curb to back of curb), which will accommodate bicycle traffic on these low volume streets. The community is likely to - . -8- include people who would take advantage of existing bicycle routes. As this area continues to develop, the Town may consider extending the bicycle network to the east on US 70 Business. 3.4 Pedestrian Plan The Town's Pedestrian Plan does not include designation of any streets within the study area for this subdivision. Recreation facilities within the subdivision, planned for use by residents of the subdivision, will be within walking distance of residents. All streets within the subdivision are proposed to have sidewalks. 3.5 Transit The Orange County Transit System (OCTS) currently provides transit service along'US 70 as far east as the Sports Plex, approximately one mile west of the subdivision. Two trips per day are currently provided, with plans to expand service to four trips per day. The system provides service to Chapel Hill, including NC Memorial Hospital and the University of North Carolina. If the system were extended to serve the subdivision, a bus stop and appropriate facilities sould be provided at a bus stop. The potential for extension, bus stop location, and facilities to be provided should be determined through discussions with OCTS. 3.6 Parking All of the lots will provide off - street parking for the occupants' vehicles. In addition, 14 spaces will be provided near the central recreation area for visitors parking. An additional nine spaces will be provided near the playing field and picnic area in the northern portion of the subdivision. 1,54 4.0 Traffic Generation The traffic generation potential of the proposed site was determined using the traffic generation rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition, December 1997). These trip generation rates assume suburban development, little use of transit or bicycles, and limited ride - sharing and are therefore conservative estimates of future traffic volumes. Table I summarizes the estimated traffic generation for the proposed subdivision. Table. I ITE Traffic Generation (Vehicles) Land Land Use Average Daily AM Peak PM Peak Hour Use Code. Trips Hour IN I PUT IN OUT 210 249 Single 2400 46 138 156 88 (pgs. 263-:265) , Family Units I Counts were conducted on February 17, 18, and 19 at the intersections of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road, US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass, and NC 86 and Old NC 10 from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM.* The highest actual hour within those time periods for each intersection was used for analysis. -10- 5.0 Traffic Distribution 155 The proposed generated trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network. The directional distribution and assignment was based on land uses and population densities in the region and the surrounding roadway network. This distribution also takes into consideration the type and size of units proposed in the subdivision, and anticipates a strong orientation toward Research Triangle Park and other major employers of professionals in the region. The directional distribution used for the analysis for primary (new) trips was as follows: ® 50% to /from the east on US 70 Business (toward Durham and RTP) ■ 30% to /from the south on NC 86 (toward Chapel Hill and RTP) ® 20% to /from the west on US 70 Business (towards Hillsborough) -11- 156 6.0 Site Access and Traffic Assignment Access into the development will consist of one street onto US 70 Business and one street onto Lawrence Road. Both streets are proposed to have full movement access. The street on US 70 is proposed to be located approximately 1,450 feet from the intersection (center line to center line), while the driveway on Lawrence Road would be approximately 1,150 feet from the intersection. No other streets are located in the vicinity of the US 70 access, while two residential streets are on Lawrence Road opposite the proposed access: Washington Drive 500 feet to the north and Jefferson Drive 600 feet to the south. Because of the spacing and the low traffic volumes on those residential streets, no problems with left -turn conflicts are anticipated. While two access points are adequate for a subdivision of this size, additional access points were considered on both US 70 Business and on Lawrence Road, as well as at other locations. Because of the nature of US 70 Business as a major thoroughfare and a gateway to Hillsborough, as well as the fact that it is a proposed future divided facility, only one access is recommended on this road. The only two potential locations for access points on Lawrence Road would be to line up with existing roads. Jefferson Drive has poor intersection alignment, and Washington Drive is located close to the crest of a hill. Therefore, the proposed location between the two roads is preferred. Extending access to Lori Drive on the south was considered. Access to this road does not help overall access to the subdivision, since Jay Drive provides access only to Lawrence Road. Further, such an extension would create traffic through an existing community, which is different in density and character from the planned subdivision. Additional access to the east using stub -outs was also considered. Because the property to the east has access to Piney Grove Church Road, such access is not needed and is not included in the site plan. Based on the traffic distribution in Section 5.0, trips were assigned to the driveways and to the adjacent roadway network intersections. -12- 7.0 Projected Traffic Volumes 7.1 Existing Traffic Both AM and PM peak- turning movement counts were performed for the following studied intersection: ■. US 70 Business and Lawrence Road -- (count performed on February 17, 1998) ■ NC 86 and Old NC 10 -- (count performed on February 17, 1998) • US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business -- (count performed February 18 -19, 1998) • Existing traffic volumes were estimated at the intersection of Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 based on the above counts. Figure 4 shows the existing AM and PM peak -hour traffic volumes at the four intersections. 7.2 Historical Growth Traffic Historical growth traffic is the increase in traffic volumes due to usage increases and non - specific growth throughout the area. Using volumes published in the North Carolina Department of Transportation County Traffic Maps, it was determined that the traffic on US 70 Business, Old NC 10, and NC 86 grows at an annual rate of approximately 3.0 percent, while an annual growth rate of 5.0 percent was used for Lawrence Road. This growth factor is reflected in the capacity analyses herein. 7.3 Total Traffic The distributed proposed. project traffic was assigned to the subdivision access points and adjacent roadway network and added to the existing plus background traffic. The AM and PM peak -hour turning movements for affected drives and intersections were then calculated and analyzed for the year 2003. Figure 5 shows AM peak -hour existing plus background, proposed project, and total traffic volumes. Figure 6 shows PM peak -hour existing plus background, proposed project, and total traffic volumes. -13- 15 17 158 PALMERS GROVE LAWRENCE ROAD cu „ �Y, o � " CHURCH ROAD ON n cu cy) r n . 00N cu i 4 (41) 80 (70) cu -,-- 252 (559) oo �— 103 N ,., (60) � 1-60 (98) US 70 BYPASS NOT TO SCALE (23) J J <11) 2 (216) 665 --► (112) 74 OLD NC 10 �r c m (56) 36 --► ,-' �o C3 cu r. o CO cu 0 LEGEND v n n in o r, rn cu 'P (� XX AM PEAK -HOUR VOLUMES J(14) "D co 8 (XX) in 60 i15 US 70 BUSINESS J '° (57) 17 1 (" (83) 32 —► (20) 15 N h o CD o+ v vv LAWRENCE ROAD cu ON n cu cy) r n . 00N 80 (70) cu oo �— 103 N ,., (60) � 25 (37) (23) J (112) 74 OLD NC 10 (56) 36 --► C3 cu LEGEND r, rn XX AM PEAK -HOUR VOLUMES cr)" (XX) PM PEAK -HOUR VOLUMES LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION EXISTING AM AND PM FIGURE Mmley- Hom and Assada%Im TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PEAK —HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .4 THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH ff WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WTTHOIR' WRTTEN'AUTHORIIARON AND ADAPTATION BY MMLEY- -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALT. DE WTHOUT LIABILITY TO MMLEY —HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. r- FIGURE umpimy" LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION PROJECTED 2003 AM ft"M and Awh* IM TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PEAK—HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 THIS DOCUMENT. TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN. As AN INSTRUMENT OF SEWCE. IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CUENr FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMUEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, HNC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO IOMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.. PALMERS GROVE CHURCH ROAD (0) 151 5 292 (0) 12921 70 (23) 1931 U S 70 BYPASS NOT TO SCALE [21 (0) 2 J 17713 (0) 771 ] ") ' �7 (n CD Ell (0) 1 kD ncr c>'a /% r_1 �10 c:) cy) J1771797 r" Ln — ko C) lo (0) 1101 99 (0) 1991 a) 70 (14) 1841 0 (23).1231 US 70 BUSINESS. 19 (0) 1191 1653 (0) 65 1221 (0) 22 J r [53 (5) 0 6 [421 (5) 37 v cu � kD 1231 (4) 19 cy) cu CD C) CD v lD ri (D cu o ri nu NJ uuu C, 0 (14) [141 SITE 0 (41) 1411 N (D LAWRENCE ROAD. ON r" r% cu ri cu in M %D 93 (0) 1931 'u) 'u 119.(41) 11601 � Lo 32 (0) 1321 71 (0) 1713 [1081 (14) 94 OLD NC 10 [423 (0) 42 in C3 r, 110 LEGEND XX EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC NC 86 CD r" rn (X X) SITE TRAFFIC [XXI TOTAL TRAFFIC FIGURE umpimy" LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION PROJECTED 2003 AM ft"M and Awh* IM TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PEAK—HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 THIS DOCUMENT. TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN. As AN INSTRUMENT OF SEWCE. IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CUENr FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMUEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, HNC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO IOMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.. 16 ION co U? u �p CD u O � '-A O Ci In M CO I IN .. [731 (0) 73 J 11121 (16) 96 1411 (15) 26 N N ^ u . ^. . n O n v � c� V cu O I L LAWRENCE ROAD PALMERS GROVE ^ 02 CHURCH ROAD u Crj ^ No v v 1D u u u (0) 1817 �t7 �-- 70 � O O u p V' cu .-1 u L-4 cu Ao 48 (0) 1481 0 [9) SITE <P6) -r-- 648 (0) [6481 `– 114 (78) 11921 US 70 BYPASS NOT TO SCALE [131 (0) 13 J 12501 CO) 250 —► N ,� c w 1107 (0) 10 –� m cy) o ti r- u n n n O n n Ova 0 0 0 v v I ^ cu 18 0) (0) 1181 ' '161 v ^ M � �I ''— C0) [1611 1 �+- -•-- 110 11191 ' 0 (78) C78J u US 70 BUSINESS 33 CO) C331 _ ION co U? u �p CD u O � '-A O Ci In M CO I IN .. [731 (0) 73 J 11121 (16) 96 1411 (15) 26 N N ^ u . ^. . n O n v � c� V cu O I L [1371 (0) 137 LAWRENCE ROAD —� ^ °N u Crj �u No v v 8 1 (0) 1817 �t7 �-- 70 (26) 1961 [1371 (0) 137 ---► t[161 (16) 0 —� o Q °N On� v O CD ^v O� r, (ri ^ u u p V' cu .-1 u L-4 0 [9) SITE <P6) 11901 (47) 143 J r• o [651 (0) 65 Ao M n CD In �In u u I. O Cq �i ti n o� G ^ ^ � u 47 (0) [471 27 (0) [271 t OLD NC 10 LEGEND XX EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (XX) SITE TRAFFIC (XX) TOTAL TRAFFIC LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION PROJECTER 2003 PM FIGURE Wm*4iom and AwddfAIm:, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6 THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, IC AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE. IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH R WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT' T T' WREN AUTHORIZKTICN AND ADAPTATION ETV MLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHML BE WITHOUT LNRILRY TO HIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 8.0 Capacity Analysis Capacity analyses (see Appendix) were performed for AM and PM peak traffic hour using methodologies contained in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (TRB Special Report 209, 1994) to determine the operating characteristics of the adjacent road network and the impacts of the proposed project. Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a set time duration. Capacity is combined with Level -of- Service (LOS) to describe the operating characteristics of a road segment or intersection. LOS is defined as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions and motorist perceptions within a traffic stream. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service, LOS A through LOS F, with A being the best and F the worst. LOS D is most frequently used as the design standard for urbanized areas. Orange County uses LOS D for urbanized areas and LOS C for rural areas. Capacity analyses were performed for the following intersections: • US 70 Business and Lawrence Road ( unsignalized) • NC 86 and Old NC 10 ( unsignalized) • US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business (unsignalized) • Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 (unsignalized • US 70 Business Site Driveway ( unsignalized) • Lawrence Road Site Driveway (unsignalized) These intersections were analyzed because the capacity of a road segment is generally controlled by the capacity of the intersections along that segment. Stated another way, the basic road segment will carry more traffic than can pass through its intersections. The AM and PM peak -hours were examined for the unsignalized intersections. The capacity analyses are included in the Appendix and are briefly summarized in the following sub - sections. -17- 1Uf 162 8.1 US 70 Business and Lawrence Road Analyses indicate that this unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. For future. 2003 build conditions, this intersection will continue to operate acceptably at LOS A in the AM and PM peak - hours. Table 2 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of US 70 Business and Lawrence Road for two conditions: 1) Existing Conditions and 2) Future 2003 Build Condition. Table 2 Level -of- Service Comparison US 70 Business and Lawrence Road Condition AM Peak PM Peak LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) A Existing Condition A (3.2) A (2.7) a 2003 Build -Out Condition A (3.7) A (3.3) -18- 163 8.2 NC 86 and Old NC 10 Analyses indicate that this unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. For future 2003 build conditions, this intersection will operate at LOS F in the AM peak -hour and LOS A in the PM peak -hour. The low level of service is due mainly to the left turns from Old NC 10 onto NC 86. Long delays are typical for left turns onto major thoroughfares and collectors This intersection is projected to meet peak hour signal warrants in 2003 (see Appendix). Table 3 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of NC 86 and Old NC 10 for two conditions: 1) Existing Conditions and 2) Future 2003 Build Condition. Table 3 Level -of- Service Comparison NC 86 and Old NC 10 Condition AM Peak PM Peak LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) ® 1998 Existing Condition A (4.0) A (1.9) N 2003 Build -Out Condition F (45.5) A (4.2) -19- 164 8.3 US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business Analyses indicate that this unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. For future 2003 build conditions, this intersection will continue to operate acceptably at LOS B in the AM peak -hour and LOS A in the PM peak -hour. Table 4 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business for two conditions: 1) Existing Conditions and 2) Future 2003 Build Condition. Table 4 Level -of- Service Comparison US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business Condition AM Peak PM Peak LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) 111 1998 Existing Condition A (2.3) A (1.3) ® 2003 Build -Out Condition B (6.4) A (2.2) -20- 0 8.4 Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 65- Analyses indicate that this unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOSA during the AM and PM peak hours. For future 2003 build conditions, this intersection will continue to operate acceptably at LOSA in the AM and PM peak hours. Table 5 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 for two conditions and (2) future 2003 build conditions. Table 5 Level of Services Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 Condition AM Peak PM Peak. LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) 1998 existing conditions A(3.0) A(3.4) 2003 build- out - condition A(3.5) A(4.4) IWAE 166 8.5 US 70 Business Site Driveway Analyses indicate that this un.signalized intersection is,projected to operate acceptably at LOS A in the future 2003 AM and PM *peak hours. Table 6 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of US 70 Business Site Driveway for Future 2003 Build Condition. Table 6 Level-of-Service US 70 Business Site Driveway Condition AM Peak PM Peak LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) ® 2003 Build-Out Condition A (1.2) A (0.9) -22- 8.6 Lawrence Road Site Driveway 167 Analyses indicate that this unsignalized intersection is projected to operate acceptably at LOS A in the future 2003 AM and PM peak hours. Table 7 summarizes the LOS and average delay per vehicle at the intersection of Lawrence Road Site Driveway for Future 2003 Build Condition. Table 7 Level-of-Service Lawrence Road Site Driveway. Condition AM Peak PM Peak LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay) a 2003 Build-Out Condition A (6.8) A (0.6) - 23 - 168 9,0 Roadway Needs Analyses indicate that the intersections of US 70 Business/Lawrence Road, US 70 Bypass/US 70 Business, Lawrence Road /Old NC 10, US 70 Business /Site Driveway, and Lawrence Road /Site Driveway will operate at acceptable levels -of- service during the AM and PM peak -hours with existing, background, and future, traffic from the proposed project. However, in order to increase safety and improve operations on US 70 Business, we recommend that a westbound left -turn lane and an eastbound right - turn/deceleration lane be installed at the access point on that road. With the installation of those lanes; the passing/no- passing zones should be adjusted by NCDOT. The subdivision street should have separate left -turn and right -turn lanes exiting the site. Because of the low volumes and low speeds on Lawrence Road, turn lanes are not recommended at that location. The intersection of NC 86 /Old NC 10 is projected to operate with long delays for the left turns from Old NC 10 onto NC 86 in the AM peak -hour for 2003 conditions. Long delays for left turns onto major thoroughfares and collectors are typical. This intersection is projected to meet peak hour signal warrants in 2003. We recommend that a full signal warrant analysis be performed prior to completion of this subdivision, and that the intersection be monitored annually until a signal is warranted. Two of the intersections in this study were included in recommended in Hillsborough's Transportation Plan to be realigned for safety reasons: Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 and Old NC 10 at NC 86. The intersection of Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 has adequate sight distance, although the view to the east has a slight grade and is slightly obscured by a bank on that side. It is recommended that the bank be graded within the right -of -way to provided a better sight triangle. The intersection of Old NC 10 at NC 86, while. located at a slightly skew angle, has very good visibility in both direction. As stated above, the intersection should be monitored for traffic ,signal warrants, and should be considered for improvement when the NC 86 corridor is improved to a multi -lane section. IKIE Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. April 01, 1998 Mr. Slade McCalip, AICP Transportation Planner Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Re: Lawrence Road Subdivision Dear Mr. McCalip: In response to comments in your memorandum to Mr. Gene Bell dated March 12, we are providing additional information and addressing your comments regarding the following: • Vehicle classification counts at the intersections of Lawrence Road at US 70 Business and at Old NC 10, Old NC 10 at NC 86, and US 70 Business at US 70 • Accident experience in the project vicinity • Accommodation'of bicycle and pedestrian traffic within the subdivision ® Parking at the recreation sites 6 Turn lanes on. Lawrence Road ® Additional street connections to adjacent properties The information is summarized in the following addendum. Please contact "i'vlichelle Beauchemin or me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TEL 919 677 2000 FAX 919 677 2050 169 ■ P.O. Box 33068 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3068 rA 0 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. LAWRENCE ROAD SUBDIVISION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION April 1, 1998 Vehicle Classification Vehicle classification counts were performed during the afternoon peak period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM for the intersections analyzed. The results for the two -hour period are summarized below. SU stands for single unit trucks (not including pickup trucks, while TTST stands for tractor trailer /semi - trailer vehicle. Lawrence Road at US 70 Business Northbound: 12% SU, 3 % TTST Southbound: 14% SU, 2% TTST Eastbound: 6% SU, 0 % TTST Westbound: 80/o SU, 0% TTST Total intersection: 10% SU. I% TTST Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 Southbound: 12% SU, 1% TTST Eastbound: 10% SU, 0% TTST Westbound: 9% SU, 0 %a. TTST Total intersection:. 10% SU, 0% TTST Old NC 10 at NC 86 Northbound: 4% SU, 0% TTST Southbound: 4% SU, I %TTST Westbound: 6% SU, O %TTST Total intersection: 4% SU, 0% TTST US 70 Business at US 70 Northbound: 2% SU, 0% TTST Southbound: 3% SU, 0% TTST Eastbound: 4% SU, '0% TTST Westbound: 3 % SU, 0% TTST Total intersection: 3% SU, 0 %TTST' Capacity analyses were reviewed to include the specific vehicle classifications counts. The original data reflected the following default assumptions: 85% auto, 10% SU and 5% TTST. The only intersection where conditions change as a result of the revised analyses is the intersection of NC 86 and Old NC 10 - during the A' vl peak hour under existing conditions. The westbound approach delay is reduced from 21.6 seconds per vehicle to 19.7 seconds per vehicle, thereby improving the LOS from D to C. The approach delay is marginally reduced at several other intersections: however, the reduction is insufficient to alter the LOS rating_, of these inter: ections. 17! Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Accident Experience Accident data and statistics were obtained from NCDOT for the same four intersections, for the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1997. These are summarized below. Lawrence Road at US 70 Business Number of accidents: 3 Fatal Accidents: 0 Accident rate /100MEV: 51.72 Comments: Two of the accidents involved left turns, and the other was a right - angle accident of two through vehicles. Lawrence Road at Old NC 10 Number of accidents: 5 Fatal Accidents: I Accident rate /100MEV: 99.21 Comments: The fatal accident involved a driver running off the road while going straight ahead on old NC 10, and did not appear to involve the intersection. Old NC 10 at NC 86 Number of accidents: 5 Fatal Accidents: 0 Accident rate /100MEV: 50.20 Comments: All three accidents were rear -end accidents, including three southbound vehicles on NC 86 and two westbound vehicles on Old NC 10. US 70 Business at US 70 Number of accidents: 1 Fatal Accidents: 0 Accident rate/ 100N1EV: 7.02 Comments: The accident involved an eastbound vehicle striking a parked vehicle. Accommodation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic Sidewalks will be provided along all streets within the subdivision to accommodate pedestrians and small children on bicycles. Other cyclists would use the subdivision streets, on which traffic volumes and speeds will be sufficiently low to accommodate them. Parking at Recreation Sites The recreation areas are planned for use by subdivision residents, who all are within a quarter -mile of the central recreation area and most of whom are within a quarter -mile of the northern site. This distance would allow easy access by foot or by bicycle for almost all residents. 172 I Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Turn lanes on Lawrence Road We concur that traffic volumes and posted speeds on Lawrence Road and on US 70 business are similar, and that they do not indicate a different treatment for turn lanes. Further, both are indicated as major thoroughfares on Hillsborough's thoroughfare plan. However, because of the low projected left - turn volumes anticipated to turn into the site'from Lawrence Road (15 during the PM peak hour, versus 78 left turns from US 70 Business, we do not believe turn lanes are necessary. Additional Street Connections to Adjacent Properties The developers propose to provide a street stub -out to the property to the east of the subdivision. 1 E341 4-r- AAK Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Memorandum . To: Slade McCalip From: Larry Meisner Date: June 23, 1998 Response Date: n/a READ Subject: Lawrence Road Subdivision Addendum to Traffic Impact Study Based on discussions between the developer and county staff, we have made the following revisions and additions to the traffic impact study. Because of the minor nature of the changes, we are including the changes in this memorandum rather than revising the previous document. 1. Additional connection to Lori Drive. As recommended by staff, an additional access point at Lori Drive has been added to the site plan. The connection would use existing minor roads that would provide a desirable path for only a few of the trips generated by the subdivision. This access point is anticipated to serve five percent of development traffic, all of which would tuin left onto Lawrence Road from Lannie Drive. The total traffic served by the new access point is estimated to be 120 trips per day, including nine trips during the AM peak hour (two in, seven out), and 12 trips during the PM peak hour (eight in, four out). All of these trips would be subtracted from the right turns into the subdivision on Lawrence Road, and the corresponding left turn out. There would be no change is the projected level of service (A) of that intersection, which would operate with minimal delays. Because of the low volumes at the new access point, no road improvements are recommended beyond the connection. 2. Left -turn lane on Lawrence Road. Based on discussion at the Planning Board meeting and with staff, the developer has agreed to install a left -turn lane into the site on Lawrence Road. The turn lane will be under contract at the time grading begins on -site, and completed prior to issuance of ten percent of the building permits for the subdivision. ■ TEL 919 '677 2000 CAV —A n.-, .— 173 ■ P.O. Box 33068 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3068 174 Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 3. Bus pull -offs. Provision will be made for future bus pull -offs adjacent to the access points on Lawrence Road and US 70 Business. 4. Subdivision streets. Subdivision streets will include sidewalks on'both sides of the street, bicycle -safe drainage grates, mountable curbs, bicycle pavement markings adjacent to the deceleration lanes on Lawrence Road and US 70 Business. It is anticipated that all streets will be accepted by NCDOT for maintenance. Any subdivision streets not accepted by NCDOT and all sidewalks will be maintained through a homeowners organization. 5. Parking. The parking spaces for the two recreational sites will conform with requirements of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the recreation area in the northern. portion of the subdivision will have 16 parking spaces, and the recreation area in the central portion of the subdivision will have 16 parking spaces. This subdivision are anticipated to consist primarily of two -car households. All of the driveways will be long enough to park at least two cars, and many would be two cars wide. Many of the home sites would include garages. Guests and some homeowners may occasionally park on subdivision streets, but no parking will occur outside the subdivision. The parking serving the recreation areas will serve as overflow parking for large parties. The mountable curbs will allow parked vehicles to pull partly off the road to provide sufficient room for moving vehicles. A survey of parking in Downing Creek, a subdivision with similar density and street width, indicated that few vehicles park on streets and that these do not create operational or safety problems. For the 206 -lot subdivision, 15 vehicles were parked on the street at 3:00 PM, including six vehicles at a birthday party. A survey at 7:00 PM showed 22 vehicles'parked on the street. In no case were two vehicles parked directly across the street from each other. The parked vehicles did not adversely affect traffic operations or. safety. Copy to: George Krichbaum Scott Murray SrA.TE OF N©Rm CAROLINA DF.PARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION JAmEs B. HUNT ) R.. COVFR1g0R ORANGE COUNTY Eddie Kink Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 18 November 1998 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review: Lawereace Park Subdivision. Located off SR 1709 Dear Mr. Kirk: E. Morris Tolson SECRETARY This office has completed its follow up review of the subject's proposed preliminary plans for compliancc with current Department of '1 n:nusportation minimum subdivistun construction standards. On 3 August 1998, I sent you a letter about the subject Site and the developer sent us a response dated 24 August 1998. In order to save time I will address the previous correspondence in the same order as they appear in both letters. A Lil 1 The revised plans with the proposed tutnlanes are accepectable. 4. As per the developer's letter 8/24/98, we agree and this item is resolved: 6. The 10' x 70' site triangles are still required. NCDOT did agree to reduce the flare (see attachment). 7. Permits are still required and needed before constructions. We are.still concerned over the right of way. Orange County needs to set a time for the canstniction of the required the turns lancs in the approval sv everyonc agrees and complies with the requirement. S. Also address in 89. NCDOT did agree to the conditions ofthe developers letter of 24 August 1998 9. Plans have been changed and sign was removed. I- . NC;UU'l' understands and agrees. 2. As per the developer's letter, NCDOT agrees and the current plans reflect this agreement. 3. The terrain for the site will be Level; however, NCDOT w10 give consideration to rolling classification when warranted. At this time the developer has not submitted all roadway inrurznation and we cannot review this item completely. 4. The developer has not addressed their position on standaid curb and gutter or valley ew•b. NCDOT has requested standard 2' -6" cork,, however, the plans do not address-which type they are proposing. In additioni Sheet C -8 needs the typical revised to show stone under the curb. 5. We agree with the plans except for the driveway at the two proposed parking lots. The plans show the parking lot drives as a street type entrance and they should be curb cuts. 6. NCDOT agreed with the developers proposed striping as shows. on Sheet C -8 ofthe revised plans. 7. The developer has agreed and the revised plants reflect this agreement. Cont'd Preliminary Plan. Review: Lawrence Park Subdivision Located oWSR 1709 B. S. NCDOT is still concerned with the proposed drainage plans because the developer has not submitted the required information. 9. We agree with the developer's proposal in his letter 8/24/98. 19. We agree with the developer's proposal in his letter 8124/98. 11. We agree with the developer's, proposal however the County has not advised us if the developer has provided accurate and correct information about the County's intent. 12. This issue has been resolver!. In closing, the developer should address any of the above items that are still outstanding prior to Orange County granting construction approval. Furthermore, the owner /developer still needs to submit their final plans for review and secure all required permits: The final plans should include the horizontal and vertical alignment information, a typical section, drainage facilities, vicinity map, and the number of lots with the proposed driveway location. If you have any questions, feet free to call me or Mr. Michael Venable at (336) 570 -6833. ' Sincerely, T. J. Dyer, P.E. DISTRICT ENGINEER TJD /MSV /msv Attachment SCA81118.DOC Planned fommunity Development. Inc. 6qoo. Slade Hill Road 7 Ralelo, HC 11615 August 24, 1998 Mr. Mike Venable Assistant District Engineer N. C. Dept. of Transportation P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253-0766 Dear Mike: Thank you very much for the time you took on Tuesday, August 11, to review the contents of Tommy Dyer's letter of August 3d to Emily Cameron of the Orange County Planning Department regarding our Lawrence Park community. This letter is being written in an effort to recap my understanding of the discussion and various conclusions that were reached relative to these points. I will address them_ -as they appeared in the August 3rd letter. A 1 — We are in receipt of the standard turn lane design which you are requiring for the U. S. 70A and Lawrence Road intersections with streets coming from the Lawrence Park community. While we may well have the need for future discussion about the specific design requirements, we do understand our obligation to provide for a left and right turn lane at these intersections. A 4 — The current plans did not include any roadway improvements at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Old N. C. 10 because those improvements are not being required as a part of our submittal. A 6 — Site distance triangles as required by. NCDOT per the standards you provided will be incorporated into our drawings at all intersections associated with the project. It is our understanding that streets with curb/gutter sections do not require the "flared" right-of-way at intersections. A 7 — We clearly understand that access permits are required to make road connections to any roadways in the NCDOT road system. Likewise, I would confirm our understanding that improvements to eAsting roadways will be constructed -. simultaneously to internal roadway development in conjunction with the specific* phases in which the connections to the existing state road system will be made. We likewise of (919) qSI.6SR W (919) q8l.6pq pdinc@mindspdng.com 1a �7 IT 8 note your concern regarding right-of-way available on the existing state roads, and are investigating to confirm the status of that right-of-way. A_8 — We understand that encroachment permits will. be required for any new utilities in the rights -of- -way.. Further discussion of this point will be made in item B 9 below. A 9 — We understand the position of NCDOT regarding entrance -signage and Ian * dscaping in the right-cf-way. The location of this sign was incorrectly located on the plan submission, and we do not intend to request its location within the right-4-way. However, if our plan should change, we understand that that will require I d permit from NCDOT to do so. B 1 — Neither bike lanes nor on-street parking are being requested on the streets in this community. B 2 — Based on our discussion, we have concluded that Lawrence Park Avenue and Branning Drive will be built to 35' back-to-back collector standards. Vandalia'Way, Lori Drive and Brassfield Drive do not exceed NCDOT requirements that would Upgrade their status to collector streets since none of these roads are, nor will they be, greater than 2500' in length. Howe . ver, as a concession for purposes of clarity, we will rename the northern leg of Vandalia Way as you requested. B 3 — Based on our. evaluation of the topography, we believe that thd western -portion of the site is eligible to be considered under the "rolling terrain" category of NCDOT street standards and request that, as it relates to c'enterline radii and maximum street grades in this area, we be allowed to use the rolling terrain standards. In all other areas of the project, standards All be those as. prescribed for "level" terrain per the NCDOT standards. I would also reiterate that, contrary to the statement in Mr. Dyer's letter, we are not trying to "avoid addressing many of these issues ". B 4 — The reference on the construction plans to a 3' curb were in error. A 2'6," curb is, in fact, what is being proposed. We understand that there is objection to the use of valley curb within your district and division even thou I gh it appears to us in reading the N.CD.OT standards that this curb is acceptable for use on NCDOT streets without approval. We are presently studying the drainage calculations to determine what difference this type of curb would have on drainage calculations, numbers of basins, etc., specifically in our community. At the*pre,.sent time, we are unwilling to concede this point, and do not understand why we may be denied use of a standard that clearly is acceptable to NCDOT according to published information. B 5 — We appreciate the concern of NCDOT regarding our recreational fa cilities; and acknowledge that NCDOT does exercise control of access in the areas shown on 179 our subdivision plan. However, we reject the theory espoused in Mr. Dyer's letter that additional parking for recreational facilities is necessitated by an urban design sub- division. In fact, the plan of our community to have sidewalks on both sides of all streets and the location of recreational facilities in various key centralized points within the community is designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic to these facilities rather than promote automobile traffic. B 6 — We understand that, due to the minor degree of variance at the inter- sections noted, we will be able to construct these intersections as presently designed so long as stopbars and 100' of centerline striping are provided at each side street inter- section in order to delineate the intersection limits of those side streets. We also understand that these stopbars and striping will be thermoplastic per NCDOT standards. B 7 — We acknowledge this comment and will provide the additional right- of-way for these turnarounds. B 8 — Storm drainage will be designed to NCDOT standards. B 9 — All water and sewer taps within Lawrence Park will be made during initial development and prior to paving. It is our understanding that, this being the case, sewer may be installed under pavement in one lane of each of the roadways and water must be placed behind the curb. We will comply with this restriction. B 10 — We understand the need for temporary turnarounds during the phasing of the project, and will coordinate those with NCDOT inspectors as the circumstances arise. B 11 — Both bus stops are located within property that is a part of the Lawrence Park subdivision and, therefore, the granting of right-of-way and /or easements is not a problem. Since this is a requirement placed on us by the county, we are not in a position to respond 'to the question as to who will maintain the bus stops and the shelters other than to say it will not be Lawrence Park. B 12 — It is my understanding that you have had conversation with Slade McCalip regarding the question of striping along Lawrence Road and U. S. 70, and that no comment from us is required. 1 believe that this letter accurately reflects our conversation, however, if you are in disagreement with any of the points or feel that additional clarification or elaboration is required, I trust you will let me know at your earliest convenience. 180 Sincerely, George W. Krichbaum, Jr. President cc: Emily Cameron Slade McCalip Scott Murray Roger Perry Scott Radway ���' ���1 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: PD-3-98 LAWRENCE PARK SUBDIVISION Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards oa set forth in Article 8 for Special Uoau as well on those set forth |n Article 7for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1b) requires written findings certifying compliance with the following: <1> Specific regulations governing individual Special Uoao as set forth inArticle 8.8. These regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include: (a) Application components; and (W Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7 standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4). (2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 6 (Application of Dimensional Roquiromento>. Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Department regarding the application in question. The findings have been presented by Article and requirement to assist the Planning Board in its deliberations. ARTICLE 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) OrdimmneReauremumo 8.6'Appicoton submitted vn forms providing full and accurate description of proposed use, including location, appearance and operational characteristics. O.Da}-twonty'six(20) copies uf the site plan prepared bye mgimnred|V.C. land surveyor or engineer containing: 1. North point, scale and date 2. Extent of area tobadeveloped 3. Location and width of all easements and hQhta-of-wuy within or adjacent to the site 4. Location of all existing or proposed structures on the site 5. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation ue shown on flood maps or soil maps PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS PLANNING uuAnu FINDINGS Yes No Yes Submittal includes application __x_`/eo____No forms, site plan, project Yes summary, and supporting Yes documentation on the sewage Yes disposal system. Yes 26 copies of the site plan were _x_,/oo___1Vo provided by the John R. McAdams Co. Inc. _x_l'oo ____No Shown on the site plan. Site plan indicates extent __x_`/eo____No uf area tubedeveloped. Yes Vn The dQhto-of-wayof _x__ Lawrence Road, US 70A and all proposed roads, as well oe required easements are shown un the site plan. Existing structures are shown. __x—yeo____No Proposed locations are not required for single-family detached residential units. There are no flood hazard _x_`/oo____No areas indicated on the flood maps. Stormwatordotenbon facilities are indicated the site plan to control otomnwator PLANNING uuAnu FINDINGS Yes No Yes No yoa___1No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 6. Location of all water courses on the site, including the direction of flow 7. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas 9. Access to site including sight distances on all roads used for access 10. Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development 11. Names and addresses of owners and applicants 12. A fee, as set by the Board of County Commissioners _x—Yes No Two intermittent streams Yes No are indicated. _x—Yes No Topography is provided at Yes No five -foot contour intervals. _x—Yes No Proposed parking at the Yes No recreation areas is indicated on the plan. _x—Yes No Sight distances at Lawrence Yes No Road are shown on the plan. _N /A_Yes No Not required for single - family Yes No detached structures. _x Yes No Provided with application. Yes No _x Yes No $1,125.00 application fee paid Yes No on 7/28/98. 1813 ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS/ALL SPECIAL USES ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non -compliance) PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8.2.4 rmlunm the applicant to address the following: a) Method and adequacy of _x—Yes provision for sewage disposal facilities, solid waste and water service. W Method and adequacy ofpolice, /eo fire and rescue squad protection c) Method and adequacy ofvehicle _x—Yes access to the site and traffic conditions around the site EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS No Water lines exist in Lawrence Road and US 70A. Both lines will bo used to form oloop system through the development. Sanitary sewer will be extended from the Meadowlands develop- ment which in located approxi- mately one-ha|f mile west ofthe intersection of Lawrence Road and UG7D/\. /\ lift station io proposed in Lawrence Park Subdivision which will connect to the sewer line inUS7OA. This line will serve Highvvoodo Mobile Home Park and Lawrence Park Subdivision. Solid waste will be collected by private contract service. No Letters from the Orange County _ Shuriff, Emergency Services, and Orange Rural Fire Department were provided with the application. All agencies will be able tnprovide services, however, the Sheriff's Office indicates anadditional deputy, vehicle and equipment will bnneeded. No The development has access to _ Lawrence Road and US 70A. Turn lanes will bnconstructed at both intersections. Sight distances ot both intersections are excellent. StubnutswiU be provided to the south and east of the property. Athird access point will connect the site to the existing riQht-of-vvay for Lori Drive tuthe south. The Planning Staff im recommending the developers construct Lori Drive to NCDOT standards down to LonnieDriva. NCDOT has indicated they will accept Lori Drive for maintenance ifitie constructed to their standards. Yes No Yes No Yes No 184 ARTICLE 8.8.23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 ' Planned Developments ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (-Yes- indicates compliance; "No" indicates non-compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS 0rdinaonRemuimmento Article 7.4 indicates the application must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 2O-Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2a) Map shoving affected _x—Yes No Site plan provided atoscale Yes No property at scale of not less than of 1"=100'. 1^=1U0' nor more than 1^=2D' 20.3.3 b> Legal description of __x_yooNo The legal description was No property provided with the application. —Yes 20.3.2 u) Explanation of uUa8mj. 1N/A_Yaa___1Vo N/A-0o error alleged. Yes No error, if any, tobo corrected by proposed amendment 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if 1N/A_Yoo0o N/4' No change is suggested. No any, which make amendment —Yes reasonably necessary topromote public health, safety and general welfare 20.3.2 a) Manner in which _x�_YeaVo The site is located in an area yeu No proposed amendment will carry designated oa2O year transition --�— out purpose and intent of in the adopted Comprehensive adopted Comprehensive Plan Plan which m||ovva for higher density residential with the extension nf water and sewer. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application ofa zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development-Housing-R3 designation. The criteria for the Reo|denda|-3 district are set forth in Article 4.2.4and are oufollows: o> Designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan aoa Transition Area, which can reasonably ba expected tobo annexed by municipality in the ensuing 10-20 years. W Water and sewer lines should exist at the site orboassured of installation on port of the deve|o t pmen process. u) Vehicular access must consist of direct access toa street classified ao either arterial or collector oo designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. _x_`/en ___�/o The propeuy�doo�notedan ' 2O year transition onthe Orange County Comprehensive __No Water lines exist at the site. Sewer lines are proposed tobe extended to the site from the Meadowlands development. _x—Yes No UG7OA and Lawrence Road are designated as collectors in the Comprehensive �Q~ �m� PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No 18 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) Ordinance Requirements Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Developments. These include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to major streets and mass transit facilities and designed so as not to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts 7.4.2 So located with respect to water, sewer and storm drainage facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost and So located with respect to police, fire and rescue services, and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as permitted under the existing zoning 7.4.3 Site suitable for development without hazard from flooding, erosion, and soil subsidence or slipping PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS _x—Yes No EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS The proposed lots will have access to US 70A and Lawrence Road, which are designated as collectors in the Comprehensive Plan. The connection to Lori Drive will create minimal traffic on Lannie Drive. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No x_Yes No The proposed development will Yes No have access to public water. Sewer must be extended to the site and storm drainage facilities installed by the developer; therefore, no higher net public cost will result. Yes _x—No Letters regarding adequate Yes No service provision have been received from the Sheriff's Department, fire, rescue and the schools. The Sheriff's Office indicates an additional deputy, vehicle and equipment will be needed. The schools are at or over capacity. _x—Yes No There are two designated Yes No intermittent streams on the property. Both will flow through an area designated as protected open space. There are also two detention ponds proposed to control stormwater runoff. If approved, a condition may be placed on the Special Use Permit that the applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan to be approved by N.C. Division of Water Quality before construction begins. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) W–AHWiRl- � �~� ��� PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No a) 3. Visibility provided at intersections STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED _x—Yes_No (pedestrian and vehicular) in FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS accordance with Article O.8. ' Interior sight triangles tobo Article 7,14.3 sets forth "site dedicated will meet NCDOT planning" standards with which standards. an applicant must comply. 1OV foot open space ioprovided _1Vo Standards regarding "external —Yes along perimeter. Parking and ra|ohnnuh|pa^ are as follows: active recreational uses are set o> 1. Aooeoo points provided to _x—Yes Access will be provided via encourage smooth traffic ____No new public roads to Lov,enne flow with controlled turning Road and US7OA. Turn lanes movements and minimum will be constructed onthese hazard to vehicular or roads. No minor streets will pedestrian traffic. Use of be subjected tosubstantial minor streets by substantial traffic. traffic is discouraged. a> 2. Safe and convenient routes Five foot sidewalks are proposed provided for pedestrians _x_'Yeo____Nn on both sides uf all streets, and motorcyclists. Crossings aUow|hg for safe pedestrian safely marked, located and circulation along proposed righto- nvntnoUed. of-way. CnmeninQo are marked and located on the site plan. � �~� ��� PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No a) 3. Visibility provided at intersections Sight distances are excellent No _x—Yes_No (pedestrian and vehicular) in —Yes at Lawrence Road and US7OA. accordance with Article O.8. ' Interior sight triangles tobo dedicated will meet NCDOT standards. a}4.1OOfoot open space provided 1OV foot open space ioprovided _1Vo _x__yooNo along perimeter nfPD~H —Yes along perimeter. Parking and district. Recreational use and active recreational uses are set off-street parking set back at back ot least 75 feet from least 7G feet of district boundary. boundaries. o} 5. Yovdo' fences, walks or __x_,Yeo____No Parking around the recreation No vegetation provided toscreen —Yes areas will be screened by off undesirable views, existing and proposed Ught|nq, noise, etc. Parking/ vegetation. loading areas and refuse collection/storage areas screened. o> 6. Maximum building height __x__YeoNo N/4' Maximum building height —Yes __Nn complies with standards oat in R3 district is 25 feet. forth |n Article O.12.3and Compliance will bedetermined Article 5.1.1. prior to issuance of building and zoning permits. a> 7. Signs to be erected in _x—Yes No An entrance sign at Lawrence —Yes No accordance with Article 3. Road is indicated. All signs will ba required to meet NCDOT and Zoning Ordinance requirements. � ��� �u�^ ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Standards regarding "internal relationships" are oofollows: b)1. Streets, drives and parking o areas provide safe and _x—Yes convenient access for dwellings and emergency vehicles, and du not create small block sizes. ' b) 2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50m less dwellings provide _x_YesNo direct access to parking/service areas. W Streets serving greater No than 5O dwellings provide _x_,/au access to parking amoe eo located, designed and controlled aatochannel traffic without interruption. b) 3. Walkways form safe, convenient system of access todwellings, __x__Yao___Nu facilities and off-site designations. Maximum walking distance between dwellings and parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet. Walkways used oo play areas or school routes bychildren __x_Yea___1No located and designated to minimize contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. W 4. Protection of visibility ' _x_YesNo b> 5. Open space and spacing _x—Yes '«o between buildingu - Thmpmpusedma system is sufficient to provide access for residents, visitors, and emergency vehicles. Public roads will provide access to the parking/recreation areas. Public roads will provide access that channels traffic without interruption to the parking/ recreation area. � Five foot sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the streets. Refuse collection will beby private contractor. Sidewalks on both sides of the street allow for safe pedestrian circulation. Crossings will be marked aa indicated onthe site plan. Sight triangles are tobe dedicated ut all road inter- sections tomae NCDOT requirements. Open space requirements are mat with total of 26.01 acres tobapreserved including 7.07 auea of improved recreation area. Payment will bo made |nlieu of public dedication ($100'014). PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yuo No —Yes —No Yes No Yes No Yes —No Yes No ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - On8nonueReouirements Article O lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article O.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LU|)oyetom. o) Minimum gross land area - W Maximum gross land area - I None specified uq.ft. c) Maximumfloorntio - . 100. Maximum floor area permitted - 365,024 sq.ft. d> Required minimum open space ratio -�0. Required minimum open space -2^920,09i1 sq. ft. e> Required minimum |kmobi|hY space ratio -`65. Required minimum |ivoobi|ity space - 2,31�l,593sq. ft. Required minimum recreation epocoratio - .I72' Required minimum recreation space -28l,06Isq. ft. Note: See Appendix A for "DefnhUono". PLANNING PLANNING ' STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS _x_yeo___No Applicant's site contains 83'795 No acres in Orange County. The —Yes gross land area io3,O50'144 oq.ft. - _x__Yeo___Nn Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning No Ordinance. —Yes __x_Yeo___1No Maximum permitted by ordinance No ia385'O14.sq.ft. Applicant's —Yes plan indicates (in table) the ' proposed floor area is 365'014 sq. ft. booed on 1540 sq. ft. homes. ____No ApFUicent's plan indicates No 3.380'315 sq. ft. of open space. —Yes _x—Yes No Applicant's submission indicates —Yes No 2'7O4'O87 sq. ft. ' _x_`/oo___1No Applicant's submission indicates —Yes No 3O8,22S sq. ft. 190 ARTICLE 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Will" indicates compliance; "Will Not" indicates non - compliance) Ordinance Requirements In accordance with Article 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment shall also consider the following general conditions before the application for Special Use shall be approved: Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 The use will maintain or promote the public health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed, and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted. Article 8.2.1 2. The use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (unless the use is a public necessity, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property). PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS The use is proposed in a 20 year transition area with public water and sewer.Roads will meet NCDOT requirements with additional improvements to Lawrence road and US 70A. The submitted application for Environmental Assessement has been received from the State Clearinghouse. A'letter has been submitted by Thomas H. Heffner, a real estate appraiser indicating in his opinion the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Article 8.2.1 3. The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical develop- ment of the County as embodied in these regulations or in the Comprehensive Plan, or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. The use is proposed in an area designated as 20 year transition in the Comprehensive Plan. The 20 year transition allows up to an R13� zoning designation. The location and character will be in harmony with the surrounding area with R4 Zoning to the south and R2 Zoning to the west. PLANNING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. A letter has been submitted from Thomas H. Heffner, a real estate appraiser. To be determined by Board after receiving evidence to be submitted or heard at public hearing. Will Will Not _Will _Will Not _Is _Is Not SATISFYING THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This proposal for development complies with County Comprehensive Plan that identifies the site as a transition area appropriate for development of smaller lot single family development upon the availability of public sanitary sewer and water. Twenty-Year Transition Land — Land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, and are suitable for urban-type densities including the provision of public utilities and services within the second ten year phase of the Plan. *Note — Comprehensive Plan adopted 9/8/81 ct- _ __ _ _ i i L,avvrenc� Park Facts � i Site Area 85.57 Acres Total Dwelling Units 244 Overail Density 2.85 Homes per Acre ' Average Lot Size 7,500 Sq. Feet. � Avg. Home Size 1,540 Sq. Ft. plus garage �' Avg. Home Price $132,000 Total Common Open Space (Including 26.01 Acres (30.4% of the Site) ' Recreation Areas) Total Recreation Area 7.17 Acres � i i . , �._. �,. ,, _, - , _ , . _ _. .. _.. ,... . _ � _ _ .. � .:, .. -. . . ,, _ . _ , . .. � .. . ... . . . . .. . . .<_. �r� . .:r : � . I • i LAWRENCE PARK IMPLEIVIEtd11'� TFIE COIVIPREHENSIVE PLANS G0�4L� � � i • LOCATES DEVELOPMENT IN A DESIGNATED TRANSITION AREA • ESTABLISHES COMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN PERPETUATING SPRAWL VIA �ARGE L.OT E DEVELOPMENT ' • PROVIDES NEEDED MODERATE PRICED HOUSING e PROVIDES A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD AND AMENITIES • PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT BUFFERS ADJACENT TO EXISTING HOMES • PROVIDES OPEN SPACE, PARK, AND RECREATION AREAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT • EXTENDS PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IN A MAfVNER THAT PERMITS AN ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT WITH SEPTIC FIE�D PROBLEMS TO CONNECT TO THIS FACILITY • PUB�IC WATER AND SEWER TAP FEES PAID TO HILLSBOROUGH WILL ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEEDED RESERVOIR. ($3,600 x 244 UNITS = $878,400 IN TOTAL FEES) • WATER SYSTEM BOOSTER PUMPS, IF DETERMINED BY HILLSBOROUGH TO BE NECESSARY, WILL BE INSTALLED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE PRESSURE FOR NEARBY RESIDENTS • THE TRAFFIC GENERATED AT BUILDOUT IS WELL WITHIN THE CAPACITY OF THE ROADWAY LAWRENCE P�RK WILL MITIGATE DEOfELOPMENT IMPACTS • DEVELOPER WILL MAKE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY NCDOT. • STORMWATER RUNOFF WILL BE RETAINED AND RE�EASED BY WATER QUALITY MEASURES GREATER THAN REQUIRED BY ORANGE COUNTY, PROVIDING ADDED WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RUNOFF � CONTRO�. • EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING AND BERMING WILL BE PROVIDED TO ESTAB�ISH A PLANTED 100 FEET WIDE PERIMETER BUFFER WHERE CLEARED FIE�D NOW EXISTS AND EXTENSIVE STREET TREE PLANTINGS WILL BE A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION. • CONTRIBUTES TO PRESERVATION OF RURA� BUFFER BY HOUSING MORE PEOPLE ON LESS LAND. • PROMOTES DIVERSITY IN ORANGE COUNTY BY SUPPLYING HOUSING THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN SUBSTANTIA� SUPPLY. THIS ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO WORK IN ORANGE COUNTY TO LIVE IN ORANGE ; COUNTY.