Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 04-06-2010 - 7c
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. ~ - C SUBJECT: The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision -Preliminary Plat Approval DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) ATTACHMENTS: 1A). Unabridged Abstract Format 1B). Application 2) Vicinity Map 3) Fiscal Impact Analysis 4) June 3, 2009 Planning Board Minutes 5) Preliminary Plat 6) Resolution of Approval 7) Neighborhood Information Meeting Minutes 8) Memo from Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) 9) February 3, 2010 Approved Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245 2577 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245 2592 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, 245 2597 PURPOSE: To receive Planning staff, Planning Board, and Administration recommendations and to take action on The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision (formerly reviewed as Alpenglow Trace) Preliminary Plat application. BACKGROUND: (Please note, Planning Staff is providing herein a trial subdivision abstract format that is abridged. The full version is within the Attachment 1A.) Request- Preliminary Plat Approval Applicant: ENT Land Surveys, Inc. agent and surveyor for the owners. (Aftachment 7) Owners: Kenton and Natasha Wiles Proposal: The subdivision follows the Conventional Design Option with Open Space (per Article IV-B-10-C.3 of the Subdivision Regulations) and has a total acreage of 43.83 acres: • Twelve (12) single family residential lots, • One public road (Lodge Trail) 3,940 feet long by 20 feet wide, extending south from Damascus Church Road, • Lot sizes range from 2.00 acres to 2.07 acres, with a 2.01-acre average, • Open space of 33.3 per cent (14.61 acres) in common open space, 85 percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Primary Conservation Area (stream buffers and floodplain); and 15 percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Secondary Conservation Area (forest land), • The Home Owners Association will own the 14.61 acres of common open space, and • Gross density of 3.65 acres per lot. 2 Location: Southwest of the Town of Carrboro within the JPA Rural Buffer/University Lake, south of Damascus Church Road. Existing Conditions Watershed - Within both the University Lake Protected and University Lake Critical Watershed Overlay Districts. COUNTY AGENCY REVIEWS: Recreation: Public Recreation Space: • Recommend the County accept a payment in-lieu option in the amount of $5,460 (12 lots times $455 per lot). Certification of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools pre-awarded CAPS for twelve (12) housing units on February 11, 2010. Fire Suppression • The properties are split by the Damascus and South Orange Fire Districts, however access is from Damascus Church Road. Fire suppression for the subdivision will use a 15,000 gallon buried tank. Water -Sewer • The site will be served with private wells and on-site ground absorption septic systems. Public Roads • .Lodge Trail meets the criteria for a Residential Collector Road to be designed to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards for eventual acceptance. Development Process, Schedule, and Action Planning Board • First Action: Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 13, 2009. See Attachment 7 (page 32). • Second Action: The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan on June 3, 2009 with the conditions in Attachment 5 (page 26). • Third Action: The Planning Board reviewed and made a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat on February 3, 2010 with a vote of 9-1. See Attachment 9 (page 35). • Fourth Action: The BOCC makes final decision. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 3 (page 12). Staff Findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the uses and densities suggested in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision complies with the Subdivision Regulations standards relating to open space percentage and acres, the type of open space, roadway design, and buffers. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards regarding minimum lot size, impervious cover, and density. 4. The proposed Preliminary Plat addressed all the issues raised at the time of Concept Plan approval including removing a direct public road extension of Booth Road. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends the Board of County Commissioners; 1. Receive the Preliminary Plat application for The Lodges at Chapel Hill, 2. Accept a $5,460 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee, and 3. Approve The Lodges at Chapel Hill Preliminary Plat: in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval, Attachment 6 page 27, and • consistent with Staff Findings listed above. Attachment 1A ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 6, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision -Preliminary Plat Approval DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS: 1 B) Application 2) Vicinity Map 3) Fiscal Impact Analysis 4) June 3, 2009 Planning Board Minutes 5) Preliminary Plat 6) Resolution of Approval 7) Neighborhood Information Meeting Minutes 8) Memo from Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) 9) February 3, 2010 Approved Planning Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) ~N INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Bowles, Planner II, 245 2577 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245 2592 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, 245 2597 PURPOSE: To receive Planning staff, Planning Board, and Administration recommendations and to take action on The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision (formerly reviewed as Alpenglow Trace) Preliminary Plat application. BACKGROUND: Request - Preliminary Plat Approval Applicant: ENT Land Surveys, Inc, agent and surveyor for the owners. (Attachment 1) Owners: Kenton and Natasha Wiles Proposal: The subdivision follows the Conventional Design Option with Open Space (per Article IV-B-10-C.3 of the Subdivision Regulations) and has a total acreage of 43.83 acres: • Twelve (12) single family residential lots, • One public road (Lodge Trail) 3,940 feet long by 20 feet wide, extending south from Damacus Church Road. • Lot sizes range from 2.00 acres to 2.07 acres, with a 2.01-acre average, • Open space of 33.3 per cent (14.61 acres) in common open space, 85 percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Primary Conservation Area (stream buffers and floodplain); and 15, percent of which is in areas that would be classified as Secondary Conservation Area (forest land), • The Home Owners Association will own the 14.61 acres of common open space, and • Gross density of 3.65 acres per lot. 4 Location: Southwest of the Town of Carrboro within the JPA Rural Buffer/University Lake, south of Damascus Church Road. Staff Note: The Planning Board reviewed and approved the Concept Plan for this 5 subdivision on June 3, 2009. At that time it was named Alpenglow Trace. Existing Conditions Existing: • Zoning: RB (Rural Buffer) -Two (2) acre minimum lot size (per Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). • The property is located within both the University Lake Protected and University Lake Critical Watershed Overlay Districts. • Maximum impervious surface in both the University Lake Protected and University Lake Critical Watershed Overlay Districts for new residential development is six (6) percent or 4,400 square feet per typical lot (per Section 6.23.3 c. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance). • Located in a Rural Designated Area per Growth Management System Map and the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Physical Features: Rolling topography with some weathered bedrock at or near the surface. • Three designated streams -the West Fork of Price Creek and two small tributary streams drain the property. (Note the stream buffers in the Open Space parcels.) • The land slopes generally to the north with a drainage divide along the southern property boundary. • The property is completely forested with upland hardwoods with some scattered conifers. Adjacent Land Use: (Attachment 2) • Property to the east is zoned RB (Rural Buffer) and is forested open space owned by the University of North Carolina. Properties to the south are zoned RB and are part of the Oak Crest platted single-family subdivision with lots averaging 2.28 acres directly abutting the Lodges at Chapel Hill. • Properties to the north are large lot residential parcels averaging over ten (10) acres in area and are zoned RB. • Properties to the west are also large, rural lots with RB zoning. ll...I:.. .. fem.. V~M~~~R~~VV vv~~• a~..vv Item ..v• Pro osed Re uirement Ordinance Citation Minimum Lot Size 87,120 s .feet 87,120 s .feet Section 5.1.2 -- ZO Gross Densit 3.65 acres er lot* 3.13 acres er lot* Section 6.23.2 -- ZO Minimum Lot Width 130 feet 130 feet Section 5.1.2 -- ZO O en S ace Percenta a 33.3 ercent* No o.s. re uirement Section IV-B-10-C.3 -- SR O en S ace Area 14.61 acres 0.6 acres Section IV-B-7-b-2-- SR Maximum Im ervious 6 ercent 6 ercent Section 6.23.3 c. 1. -- ZO Landsca e Buffer Class A 30 feet Class A 30 feet Section IV-B-8-e-3-- SR Use Sin le-famil Res. Sin le-famil Res. Section 4.3 H2 -- ZO ZO refers to the Orange county ~omng t~ramance SR refers to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations * Please refer to the comments below. Density: Within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Overlay Districts, density is determined by (Section 6.23.2), which states: "One dwelling unit per five acres and lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may 6 contain up to, but no more than, five lots with a density of one du/two acres. Contiguous lots of record existing on October 2, 1989 may be combined [As they were for The Lodges at Chapel Hill.]. The number of two-acre lots and the total number of lots in the combined parcel cannot exceed the sum of the number of lots which could be created from each lot of record." The proposed development presently contains two (2) lots. The northern parcel has eleven (11) acres and could yield up to five (5) lots. The thirty-two (32) acre southern parcel could yield up to nine (9) lots. Combining the two lots of record could yield up to fourteen (14) lots. The applicant is proposing only twelve (12) single family lots. General Comments: Section III-D-1-c of the Subdivision Regulations enables the Planning Board to select which category of Concept Plan will apply to the subdivision in review, Flexible Development or Conventional Subdivision. Options. The applicant provided three (3) options for consideration: a flexible design, a conventional subdivision, and a conventional design with open space. The Planning Board selected the conventional design with open space with the condition that there be no direct extension of Booth Road to the north. Conventional subdivision design does not require an open space dedication; however, the applicant voluntarily elected to provide open space at the same ratio as would have been required for a flexible design option. Road Connectivity. As documented in the attached June 2009 Planning Board minutes and the Neighborhood Information meeting, the extension of Booth Road to the north was the main topic of discussion. The physical road extension is not a part of this preliminary plat design. However, a pedestrian link is retained and emergency access is still a possibility. Planning Board approval for the Concept Plan involved eight (8) conditions (listed under the second action). All conditions of approval have been addressed in the preliminary plat. The subdivision access road must cross the floodplain of a tributary stream of East Price Creek. Such a crossing is a permitted activity in both the special flood hazard area and the required stream buffer so long as the crossing is minimal and the base flood elevation is not raised more than one (1) foot in vertical elevation. The applicant will have to submit a "No-rise" analysis to the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program for review and approval and a Floodplain Development Permit from the Orange County Planning Department before any work on the subdivision access road can begin. COUNTY AGENCY REVIEWS: Recreation: Public Recreation Space: • The property is located within the R8 -Chapel Hill District Park (as detailed on the Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map last updated in October 2004). • No physical dedication of recreation space is warranted in this case as neither the County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council nor the Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD) have identified recreation or conservation sites within the subdivision. • The County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council met on February 3, 2010 and voted to concur with the proposed open space and to recommend the County accept a payment in-lieu option in the amount of $5,460 (12 lots times $455 per lot). Private Recreation Space: 7 Open Space parcels in the development will be deeded to the homeowners association at the time of final plat recordation. Certification of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) A CAPS application dated January 13, 2010 was provided to the applicant to forward on to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School pre- awarded CAPS for twelve (12) housing units on February 11, 2010. Fire Suppression • The Damascus and South Orange Fire Districts split the property, however access is from Damascus Church Road. Because no surface water bodies of sufficient size and with all-weather access are available, a 15,000 gallon buried tank will be used for residential subdivision fire suppression. Water -Sewer • The site will be served with private wells and on-site ground absorption septic systems. The Department of Environmental Health has provided a soil analysis approval for each lot. Historic Preservation • No finding of historic impact. Public Roads • Lodge Trail meets the criteria for a Residential Collector Road to be designed to NCDOT standards for eventual acceptance. Staff recommends that Lodge Trail be designated accordingly to meet the standards of a Collector Road. • To meet requirements for petitioning road additions to the state maintenance system, the segment of Lodge Trail through the UNC property should be interpreted as a Subdivision Access Road in accordance with the NCDOT "Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards January 2010" page 11 definition lettered E, and page 12 paragraph numbered 7. Development Process Schedule, and Action Planning Board • First Action: Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 13, 2009. A synopsis of the meeting is provided in Attachment 7. • Second Action: The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for a conventional subdivision with open space on June 3, 2009 with the following conditions: 1) All intersection and road alignments on the Preliminary Plan shall meet NCDOT standards. 2) Homeowners Association documents that provide for maintenance of Open Space areas shall be submitted with the preliminary plan. This includes lands that will be in common ownership or will have easements retained on publicly dedicated lands. Provisions shall be included in the Homeowners Association documents that prohibit tree cutting in all Open Space areas, except for safety or maintenance purposes. 3) Show five-foot utility easements along both sides of the fifty-foot right-of-way for the proposed cul-de-sac street. 4) Show an easement location for a subdivision sign on the Preliminary Plan if a sign is planned. 5) All street lighting and sign lights, if proposed, shall be approved by Orange County Planning to ensure compliance with the Orange County Outside Lighting Standards. 6) Language shall be inserted into the HOA documents requiring each lot owner to have the septic system serving their lot inspected by a licensee of the NC On-Site Wastewater Contractors and Inspectors Certification Board (the "Board"), who is properly registered to perform such inspections within Orange County, no less than one time in every five, (5) year period {unless inspections are required more often by and rule or regulation of the Orange County Health Department) and to have the system pumped if recommended by the inspector. Payment for the inspections required under this condition shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owner or the homeowner's association as established by the governing Homeowner's Association declaration. 7) HOA documents shall not restrict the use of energy efficient measures, including but not limited to clotheslines, by the lot owners, nor shall said documents require any lot owner to engage in water intensive lawn maintenance. 8) A sixty (60)-foot right-of-way stub out located between lots 1 and 2 shall be provided to the southern boundary. Note: there will be no public road at this location. The "stub out" is a pedestrian connection. (Attachment 5) Staff note: The applicant has met these conditions by either revising the preliminary plat or making revisions to the homeowner's association documents. The Resolution of Approval has been revised to reflect the same items. (Attachment 6) • Third Action: The Planning Board reviewed and made a recommendation of approval regarding the Preliminary Plat application at their regular February 3, 2010 meeting on a nine votes for and one against decision. (Attachment 9) • Fourth Action: The BOCC to receive Planning staff, Planning Board, and Administration recommendations and then makes final decision on the Preliminary Plat application. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included as Attachment 3. Staff Findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the uses and densities suggested in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision complies with the Subdivision Regulations standards relating to open space percentage and acres, the type of open space, roadway design, and buffers. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards regarding minimum lot size, impervious cover, and density. 4. The proposed Preliminary Plat addressed all the issues raised at the time of Concept Plan approval including removing a direct public road extension of Booth Road. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Administration recommends the Board of County Commissioners; 1. Receive the Preliminary Plat application for The Lodges at Chapel Hill, 2. Accept a $5,460 in-lieu-of parkland dedication fee, and 3. Approve The Lodges at Chapel Hill Preliminary Plat: • in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval, Attachment 6 page 27, and • consistent with Staff Findings listed above. Attachment 1B RPPLICATr.iN FOR r r~ELFMINARY PLAN ArPROVAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION ORANGE COUNTY ( b105 PLEASE TYPE ORPRINT{INKONLY) PATE: i2 ~10 C~~ 5UBpMS10N ADDRESS: TELEPNONENO.: qlq. ,3O~n ~g~t ADDRESS: 2Z4 ~S. C~rv~TM S'h• TELEPHONE NO.:fIIN ~3L VL~L }~ ;~~owuuyl~ .~C~ Z~) A SUh7MARV INFORMATfON 11~ OmngaCoutnyYexMaP t1.0 abck ~' Lot(s) 9c.,3O Tovmsbip~+L„(! a+~`ci ~+~` TotalNUmberofAares:'~{;5.93 Total Numbor of Lots: iL Averago Lo[3iza: Z,04 Minimum Lot Si :~ 2.a0~ NumbsNType of Sfmcturos: (exisgng) .. _....,... (proposed) JfN4~s,~w Linear Foet In Stmefa: c1'JQO Acrosin Opon 3paao: Tt'f ,~3 `~ Water 5uppfy: Publlc (specify) Community IntlWtdual Wastewater Disposal: Publlc (specify) Communiry~IndWklual 3chaol DtsldcF. flro O(sUlct Gemral Land Uses in Ama:.4a?51f~p~y ' CddcalAmas: streamldrainageways / tioodprone areas V IJI -f'tr.) watershed (specify) hiefodc sites other(expiafn) Isthaproperty to hasubdtvided currangyundar efarm usevalua taxatton"Z Yas. No_~.if"yes,"~pieasa contact tho Orango Caunly Tax ONice. Subdivision of the propartymay raqulro payment of deferred taxes under 'Yarm use value taxation " E Ait plats must ba submhted on sheet no smaller than one Inch equals Iwo-hundred feet (t"-200') and no larger than one Inch equate twanryfoet (1"=20') and must contain the toilowing informadon: ~ _,"" subdivision name ~ ~ znn(ng oftractand adJacent ,~ ,_, __ name & address of owner(s) name&addressofsubdividar (if othorthan ovma¢ / , ~ _ name of surveyor, engineer, landscape arehkact ar architect, address, roglstregon#&seal (tkla)PrallminaryPian _ scab, nosh arrow _ date of plan prepamgon and mvistora ~! _ , township, faxmep•blocklotrefamncas ~/ Parent Parcelidenaficafion# dood hook and pegs # of propattyto be _ subdivided ,,, boundarydescrlbedwifhiwadngsend dtsfances propeAtes „ ~,,, bu(Iding setback Tines by notagon or fypscat tat layout _,~, „ ~ location and width of exlsgng and proposed oasomanle (drainage, utilfUea, roads, etcj :_ ..__ Exlsgng, proposed and adJointng r7ghtsaf-Wey lnclu.ding dtmens'rone and street names and Salta Roatl nUmbera. L(nearfeet of road centerlines and appfoxtmaW acreage of new street rights-af-way ,, ,_, exlsling and proposes u0lgtes, Including type; sizes, hydrants, valves, tnenhates existing and proposed curbs, gutters and cuWerts, Including sizes and grades 9 total acreage of the fret[ and acreage or vrA ,,,• ,_, locatlon and w}dth of atlsys, lots, incinding and excluding area rihhtn aidewaiks, blka lanes, trartsit / V d0hF6-ofavaY / systems, and bus stops __._ rAniroltomer ~ typical sfraatcrosaaetllonsand ' intersecgon detags Including design ~ andwldUroftraveiwayand shoulders ,_,.,,,,,, pmposad lotunes wiUr dimanslans ~ horizontal aUgnment, c¢ntedina ~ 'lot&blordt numbers radius, and general curve data an ab ,.~, ,_ phasing Une(s} proposatl streets / . ~ topography at ten (f D} foot intervals permanent features such as _.~ ,,, water bnoYes, streams, floodways and ~ buildings, semetedos, historic ~ ibodplains landmerka ,_ stream bufiere : ,/ _, -_ adJoiningiot layart names of __ looetlon and size of parrsia dedicated for adjoining propartyowners. If putUc use, retreMinnal use or resero¢d subdivided, aubd(vlatan plat hams, in common, with purposenoiad plat book&paganumber,and / „` impervioussurfecedata(Utogtedirt ~ pedmeter IM numbers. ~ IocaUonandsizeofbisofrastdctad welaraupplywatarehad} ~ ~ davelopmempownUalandnotadon _/L, ~ vidnhymapshowinggarrerellocaflonof / tm plafregarding adhts stormwatetdetentlonandlor subdivtaton with sbeefs and roads relandon sites and untlisturbod IdentHiad by State Road number antl areas torinhtuadon purposes Qf Hama ,~_ landscaptngandiwtferrequlremants h ~ located in water supply watarehed) towns ip, corporate and exuatarritoriat - _,_ ,,,, IdonUBadnaturalaroasandwiWlBa planning (urlsdichon Iinea whtdr cross eorcidara me property C OTNER 3UBMITTAI. REgUIREMEMS: t. Twenty-flvo(23}coplosOf thePreifmSnaryPlat 2. Ono fuU sizo copy of en Orange GountyTax Map (with fax paresis involved tleady markedj. 3, Where munidpel ar OWASA sewer Is notavallabW, a copyoFtha Preliminary Plaf indltaUng N6ahh 0apartment approvagdenial for each lot show dteroon. 4. ~19hereapdvate road is proposed,awdlten statement by the applicant ar histh¢rauthodzed representaUVO wbiUt sets far UrajusfUiraUOn ire a pdvate road (sea SocUon N•B•3tti of the Orange County Subdivision Regulatlons}. 3. Auxilferydocumenfa,tndreRform,preparedlnaccardancewith3ecflonNofthisOrdlnanrawhlehaasuro compietian anNormaintenante of Improvements required by this Ordinance. Such dowmanta may include, but not ba Ilmlted fo, a pdvafe reed maiM¢nanta agreement and ardUes of fncorporadon and resldogve cov¢nahts pertalningtaahomaovmarsassoUadon. ThesedoeumeMsmaybarequlredasnecessaryasevtdencothatihe ordinance requiremanis are bamgmot B. Fea-550D plus 55.00 perlot{ono foe tarPrellminaryand F7nal Plat}, 7. Hthe subdivision contains fD Iota or more, the following lnformanon shalt besubmltted wiUt the appUcatlan: a. Numborafyaarstabuiidoul. b. NumberofhoueosfobehuiltdudngeathyearuhtllbulMout c. Averegs pdce of houses inchiding lots foreach )earfo bultdout 1 certify Thal m the best of my knoyAOdge the informat~n conlain¢d above, and in iha sup{wdirg documents, is a faGual repres¢ntadon at the proposed devebpmeni. 1 aclmoNfP/dgg that by s~nfng This applkafan, Ure Omnga County Plamdrrg ant lnspee5ons Oepamnent is autlwdzed, pursuant to N.Q.Oen. Slat. SaGion f53a•3BD, to make as marry krspesUons of the sub}ed property as may be necessary to verify that Ne poposed work autlkred hereto is conslsteM Wdh the provisions at aR appUCaMa Sate and kcal laws, o~nanws and regulations. B'J signing tMs appfiw5on, I acknowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning officers, emsbn caniroi officers, and other staff of the Orange Comrly Piarxtfng& lispee3ans D¢Rartnx:nt have a dghfrupon preseMalion of proper erodanUats, to enter the propady at arry'reasoreble to tenths purposes of lnspecUon or ocher forcoment action. su ~j ~~//~ ~ ~-~p / ~/` l/Z.a~t`~'17,/~-~9 //,/il~~ff,~. ~l /~iT~n,.,,~fna~/~ 10 Attachment 2 You Count In Orange Couuty Orange County N.C. GIS Map 9787 3t93V. 9,:A- _T- ~ _ 87R 1056V.719.. t ~ 97 7- 193V7.1f 206 777.7 6511 1 9.206 9~ 8777 3-0952U. 9.2 9t87 3- 81 19.23E 7rT-0 703DV. 20..8A ` Q 9 .120. 28 120_3 @717. 352b§l. 0..911 9F7 73-5182V7.1 .9pt 97 3Sb32F7.i2 ,.9G 767A t .1 ..BJ -0 8731.4 .,9E - z-'ra~sv.tzb.. 19 120..21 9777-02ddAD77.120..9C TB7d2d2T9V.i2b..t 9717-21-2D45t7.126..7/ 9t dOitN.126.. 8787 1589397.9 .N 977Tdi- 2W.124,. 8777-tt-058317.t20..iD 370 f5 .124.. d,~ 9777 03803V.f' .24Q 8777.10-0 7,120..37 977 -493257.1 ..7@ 9777 d7T117.1' 6.20ft tris map Ionia"ms parcels prepared for the inventory ofreal property~•AWn Orarge Couniy, and is comp7ed from recorded deeds, plats, aM iher public records arld data. Users of Ihfs map am hereby irofifietl chat the aforementioned pl&r~c pnmarykrfonnatlm sowces should be suHed torvedfica8on ot9ie Inrorma0on contained on this map. The ownty and Its mapping companies assume no legal msponsib~ly for the' f~rma5on mnlaNed on On's map. _ - __~ This Page Printed Monday, December 14, 200912:29 pm Parcels Current Thru 12!912009. Owner Information Current Thru 1214!2009 Parcel Identification Number: PIN= OOSummary pBuilding []Land ^Documents OPriorOwners Create Print Daly Page 11 http:J(gis.co.orange.nc.us/sentetlcoin.esri.esrimap.Fsrimap?ServiceName=YouCountGIS... 1?J1412009 Attachment 3 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD Bureau of Economic & Business Research • University of Florida Modified 4115197.Orange County, NC Planning Department SECTION 1 • PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR FJ~CH PROJECT: TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill CONSTRUCTION PERIOD _ --~-~a Ending Year 2016 flaw to CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: ~;eso£` 6use~,~~~ ~E~~7~"~ES~DEZt_?"1~~ABtE~e}.TOOIISTRIDEL4i'=,° `~~ ,_e. ChiklrenMouse: ENTER °7" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.36 ~ ~.•~~-' HOME SALES DATA: - Average Distribution Number of Sales Price ~ of Units Year Homes ($) by Year ~-~s ~_~a ,: -.°1a ~ ^"` k ~' ~ ~"-~ ~ ' r'~E ``~~69fl00~~~~ ~~ 1110~~~ s _ . , - 2011 2 ,f~--~ 16.67% 2012 2 ~~:~5 16.67% 2013 2 ~£r,=9b~~Q _ 18.67°10 ~"9°r`041g 16 67% 2014 ~ ~'- ~ ~~T~ .~~ ~:7---A ~~<.~--~°~~ ~ ,- 4 SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1° IN ()BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE. School District School Attendance ~~~~ un~~~ ~~ -~~~-a:~;.~ ~6~~ ~" ~="E[?~gen~s-Se~7_"_,~ ~-=~~'~`' ~~,~s~~° - Middle School 23% ~~Pl=JHIiC Cgrrb o~~ c~':,,;~ rtgs~~~~x~. ~_.K3t~chooJ ~ ~ ~:;`~_:`?°r' SECTION 2 • LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA .~ r ,~ Bll~~31'E,'~AR.'-~~~~-~~` ~~ "`~~f.a~~~"'~~:,~;-<20~9S~b3D COUNTY POPULATION: (NC Demo) for July2D10 120965 sG Doi,_>TsT~L.'sr~p~+7`roPULrnTiD~ ._ r~~=E ~-~~~~ =~~ ~~z COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA ~~ .~~eL~-n?,~miagai~aD~a9~'ont~~-"=`='~~~--.-'~ ~95T1~~~?.~~s~~_?_16 Public Safety 14100 _ 00012 Human Services 31800 00026 ©g56©n'159o1.~Ltr1. w x ~£-" '` ~~~ ~~~ ;~ 7~„ #.~F~~~-.~fl SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT K POSITIONS PER STUDENTR a _~ ~~"-.e c'~'~ c~~~~FN.: ~°^~-'.>a~ "'~i~'7$Dfl~l~~~~~'a~~ v hi64 ` COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA ~.T Sx~~-_`_',thet 8l~tO~a~` .~'~,"=~ ~. fc., ~`~~ f ~,';~231~42t~uHr~~ ~ °~ ~6. Intergovernmental 16673405 13949 ~sr--~~ 3 ~~r ~EhaY ~ _ 1.~ ~~~~ ~~ n'- ~ A ~~ ~`~~9661~7-~~'~~_~~°0: 8 Miscellaneous 1720616 14.22 12 13 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA ehe `TSer~rses~ri~T?+14~9~ar)d{~gemenL= E ~- ~ .. ~_ Publ'~c Safety 16956475 14016 Bn-6[ir(y&~r~,iVUOmn~i~fa~vl(Ofe&'33es~e~d~~__,~.„__`,_.. ~ ~~.. _83363~~.;~~~_„ .~=68__~.., Human Services _ 33414461 27623 .. ~4e~6~_113 Re`~dr l~rri ~'C2~pital ~ ~._rs-"'~ ~ ~=~'"~,~_ ~ ~;'~ .~2_T2@D258'. ~.,__?~~~-+~e~~~9'3= Non-Departmental 27617021 228.31 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE S): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE G~e,$~1`Se ces-& ern)n n'8A1 a emelat~ , __ .. „ems"~. 3 ¢ -~.~23,805ti25 ~ ~ ~ ~> ~~233i~¢: ~n ,.~~ ~9 Public Safety _ 16956475 12025869 ~° nl:_IIyY~roh9reA3-+~~Il~re~l~eatwn~~,~~ -- ~- ---~82383d~ :. ~__'6BB Human Services ~ 33414461 105076.98 brT(~LO`~ R + ~09~Ca1nFalj ~~;;3j~'~. ~za`~ ,. ~ ~~ ~ti: 3~290258~~~~ ~ ,~:a~ 12866 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT '~~~,o~aN!tle`lt~°,~, ~~ ~ ~:~.~~,.:`~i~, ~ =.:499812 ',~-~~" `~~~_~~4333`~ School DisUrct 30372967 2633 57~ ~a1a[e;-~~t'W ~~.s ~~~r:-.~.:~~ ~~:~~s ~ ,z~ +~~'.'-26~$~QDO,*=='_::. ~~ F~ ~3226~( SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE ~ unty'~`~'vernm~ ~h-~z~ 'Y~~a ,:,,~?'~ rx; ~ ~ns~4~961290 ._~~. ins 28O79~B School District 303729"07 ~ 17063.46 ~' -`~a~r''`-.~~ ~ ~~: - < .-.. ,-s. ter- r, c `s~f~.:~.-~'_~s~s..,~ ~ ~`~ ' _....-.~` _ Gi~.~_ ,_~ ~ ~-;2§~$7A0D.i ~ >~ '`ix_ .~v,:, ~t149'1;0; TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTRATIOANDELDERLYF~(EMPTION: -GPUti rva~ii~~e~~. ~Xelud~c4r3D28,1¢schoo7s~j < <<D`~4~30~'-REr~4DOASSESSed3lalgaq`o_n,~. {, ~-r~ ~: School DistrictTax Rale ($) includes 0.3028 from 0 C. 01834 Per $100 Assessed Valuation _. - ~±.~^s'y ~ ~~~:. E,z,~.u~ 9., :DOD DOa'~ ~._ ~ a .~~~ ~ ,.~: { ~.,.! EldertyExemption 0 $11,000VJhereAppticable SECTION 3 • DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA 2011„'x_;==x;2013` 2013 UNITS ~~ ; 4~• 2~ 2 i ~ ~. ~ 2., 2 2 ION , 5,3 5 ;`~.~ ~. yz.:. ~.~? .- -_~„ 5 CHOOL CHILDREN Elementary ~~sz~33tf u. Middle F-`~"-.rt~'~.01~; 0. r'}•r-~yias High School ~~ ~~~ 023 0. 1 ~OUNTYGOVERNMENT ~ _ £..~~; ,DDITIONAL EMPLOYEES Y~~? GeneralGovernmenl ^v _ =! i f•~.~u O~f~ ~ ~ 0.01 Public Safety ~; ~,~ ~~-.~ ~D3r ` 0.01 PublicVdorks 14 Spa ~'~"^=%9ii0~ G`5.-~.a.. es Y O,OG Human Services ~.~rDO.'~ 0.01 14 SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~~`~e11'U~ ovnr'~'_ v~o 3.-~~- ~~'_:;~, ,~~~ ~. ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES ~~ -~ L ~ ~ - ~-`~- SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT REVENUES ($) f.~ County School District ~~ ~~ ~'~ 1872" State ~~4~=~.~ ~~ TOTAL (S} ~ 37•d EXPENDITURES (S) , ~~ County ~~ ~1i_: School District ~9v~ State ~~' T~-~~ ~~' TOTAL (5) ~~~~5 ~;~v;~ NET FISCAL IMPACT (S} R ~*~;i _& SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEN YEAR ~~~~0~1 ~` ~~~~ HOUSING UNITS F ~,.-~~~^- 2' ~ ~~ .e oncin eTinw =:~ 5 ~ <~ 3336 3336 7088 10645 1734 1734 12169 15916 3336 3336 1968 1966 1734 1734 7037 7037 b132 8879 OGRAPHICIFISCALlMPACTS 2011 ~, ~ + ~2Q12; 2 2 6 5 € -, ~`= 3336 3336 3336 14731 18761 22940 t734 ~ 1734 1734 19602 23831 28010 3336 3336 3336 1966 1966 1966 1734 1734 1734 7037 7037 7037 12765 16795 20973 2013 2014 '~ '~ 207! 2 2 2 5 5 5 SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT YEAR ~',~ - 0~0~ 2011 ~ tt~201~1 2013 2014 ~' ~; ~ Y2015 15 SCHOOLCHILDREN ~' ~ E~'4 Elementary ~~~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 Middle a~ 0 0 0 0 0 High School ~ -~~ ~.~. c_'~ ~;~ 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL ~ _a.~ ~- ~r4~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 COUNTY EMPLOYEES `0.-fl ?~ ~ 0.03 0.03 ~ 0.03 0.03 0.03 . SCHOOL EMPLOYEES . G~_- `~'-a~i08d ' 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 TAX BASE (51000) -`9DQ~ ~. 3670 5914 8032 10229 12508 COUNTY BUDGET (S) i~F Revenues Expenditures ~<~~ ~' 94~ 34231 8082 51514 8381 69376 8361 87896 8361 107106 8381 BALANCE -~'77A' 26148 43133 60994 79517 98724 - ~ ~- SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($~ Revenues _ ~_ ~: '~ X74; 12169 15916 19802 23831 28010 Expenditures ~~~~= 86 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037 BALANCE LYE ~58`~ 5132 8679 12765 16795 20973 COMBINED BUDGETS (5) ~ _~ s ~ Revenues . ~.<~5938~ ~` Paz ~ - 46399 67430 15418 89177 15416 111729 15418 935116 15418 Expenditures 74~SD,0 ~ 15119 BALANCE 5$# 31280 52012 73759 96311 119698 SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OP PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District: School Attendance: ~Oran9Gunfy~`~=~ ~ `NP _ ~ s enfary~~s~~ol',~~ ~'~ ~~ r~3j"--}-~ <'~'~.~(~ls'. - ._. ~xs,.~ ~t._ __ - - Middle School 23°J° ~chaP?I~i~..Ca~'TO~-~~§~i _~~~ .~r9hS~ool~^.-~~.~~.~~_ ~~..~,--3.?v.: YEAR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCHOOL CHILDREN i,"; -_;~~' `°.~a.^`~ ~ _'~-=`~__.e~~ ~'k' ~~ Elementary °~= ~ ~rD= 0 0 0 0 0 ='~' _' D ` 0 0 0 0 y ~fl~ Middle -€ , , High School ~~`€~V~ 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL~~-~ =3~1~: 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOLCAPACITIES•ALLSCHOOLS CURRENTENROLLMENT•ALLSCHOOLS {eJ~ne~~~~ ~ ~' _.'~~ ~t92~' I menta~~ ~` ~~~ t~ ~~ ~4& 9: Middle 2840 Middle 2572 ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~~~ h5ehn I ~~ Scf~gol...,.~....~.~sa 'Y~ffiL ..... x . R_ ¢ ~ n TOTAL 10796 TOTAL 10965 YEAR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT r ~ ~~~ ~~ "~'~ Elementary 4 219a 5533 ~ 9?~5~ 5703 5755 ~ ~84a ~ X .~ 1;13'; 7~8~ 2828 ~~ 83,1 2960 3057 Middle ~ ~~ ~ ~-~ 3930 4004 ~~ ~} High School ~~`" ~'"~*`~ 3752 ` 28gE,~~ 30.5 TOTAL (`~~5$3_{ 12111 ~472~~~.~72593.~'?~~w='`~ Minutes ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JUNE 3, 2009 REGULAR MEETING Attachment 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bflan Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large; Mark Marcoplos, Bingham Township At-Large; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; Vacant, At-Large STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Lewis; Margaret Lewis; Alvon Lewis; Lucy Fearrington; Joseph Fearrington; Noah Harris; Ola Harris; Kirstin Frescoln; Louis Kingsland; Ucky Hendel; Walter Whitlock; David Holdaway; Kent Wiles; Tom Holt; Andrew Nobel; Lee Lambert; Steve Prakken; Sheyko & Nichole Sergey; Ann Waller; Greg Forest; Jay Harris; Derek Harris; Jon, Cheryl, Katlyn & Kegan Edwards; Clementine Self; Johanne Gisledth AGENDA ITEM 7: SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN-ALPENGLOW TRACE To consider staff's recommendation on the submitted conventional and flexible subdivision plans forAlpenglow Trace located in Chapel Hill Township in the vicinity of Booth Road and Damascus Church Road. This item was tabled at the May 6 2009 Planning Board Meeting; Presenter: Robert Davis, Planner III Robert Davis: My name is Robert Davis. 1 am the subdivision administrator for the County. I handed each of you a single sheet of paper from the county attorney that came in this afternoon, which does change our recommendation on this subdivision. Just a brief history, this is a subdivision that is located in the southern part of the County at the end of Booth Road. It also has access along Damascus Church Road. This is a submittal for a twelve (12)-lot subdivision. There were two (2) separate plans submitted, a conventional plan, which showed no open space, and a flexible development plan, which showed 34% open space. The flexible development plan had access through Booth Road and the conventional plan showed dual access off Damascus Church Road and Booth Road. Reviewed PowerPoint slides for the subdivision. Robert Davis: This is in a rural growth management area, it's in a rural designated area so therefore it follows the normal process, that is less than twenty (20) lots, it follows the concept plan submittal, the preliminary plan comes next, and then the final plat which would be staff reviewed based on the conditions that the Commissioners place on it at the preliminary stage. The Planning Board at its May meeting requested a third option to be submitted which you have which shows no connection to Booth Road and a long cut-de-sac coming down into this tract from Damascus Church Road. This is a conventional plan and has roughly 33% open space close to what the flexible development plan would require. Reviewed PowerPoint slides representing fire department routes to the site. Mark Marcoplos: This is a little misleading because by 15-501 it is four lanes through there so it is a lot faster to come up the four lane road and then turn into Booth Road just to be clear on that. Robert Davis: This one is 3.3 miles and going this way was one tenth of a mite difference. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It is not the miles but the time, the response time. Mark Marcoplos: The condition of the roads, the directness of the route and the number of lanes, they would clearly go down 15-501 down a four lane road, you could get up to start point real quick and get in there. Larry Wright: Have the fire departments been contacted? Robert Davis: The Fire Marshall gave his recommendation, which vas to require both connections. I have information here that eliminates one of those options based on the county attorney's opinion and what has happened recently. After your meeting last month, there is a state statute that allows right-of-way that is dedicated for a public purpose, to be withdrawn after 15 years if the road has not been built and maintained for public use. That cut-de-sac was never constructed or bonded. Two days after the last Planning Board meeting, Orange Partners filed a withdrawal of the dedication of the Booth Road stub, which effectively removed that from consideration for the extension of Booth Road. That was something that was done in the 80s. As long as I have been here, the County does not accept dedications of a right-a- 16 way but requires fee simple title. Our recommendation was to build option 2 but the attorney says that cannot be required and cannot be forced as being the access point for the subdivision based on that withdrawal of the dedication of Booth Road. We have no recommendation 1 ~ tonight. The only option you have on the table tonight is this one that was just fled. It was the one Samantha asked to be filed this month. That dedication is gone; there is only one access here. Il is a conventional plan. Tommy McNeill: Did you consult with the fire chief as well, what was their opinion on option 3? Robert Davis: The fire chief, as usually, recommends both connections but I have never had one be turned down based on the fact that it is a cut-de-sac. The Board of County Commissioners has had an informal 15 or 16 lots before you start needing that second entrance. This is twelve. This is the only access they have now. Tommy McNeill: Do we have a time that the fire station could be there? Robert Davis: We have miles. Larry Wright: Where do you get the 15 lots? I am looking at the Orange County Subdivision regulations in Item 4b-3b on page 27 where it talks about lot access to streets, connectivity and it says the requirement of two or more and it is designated in the comprehensive plan and I don't see how this conforms to that. Robert Davis: We had said last time that connectivity was a requirement of the comprehensive plan when we thought we had that connection, we don't have the connection so you would have to make a determination that this plan meets the requirements with what you've just read. Larry Wright: I am asking you how this satisfies the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. That's what I'm asking you. Robert Davis: There is no lot limitation. Larry Wright: That's right and you're talking about 12 and I don't see that here on page 27. Brian Crawford: Does it have any lot limitation? Larry Wright: No, not that I can see. Brian Crawford: If it doesn't have a limitation, what does that imply? Larry Wright: That implies that there should be two or more roads designated within this community. Earl McKee: I am not following your logic. Can you explain it? Larry Wright: No I can't because that is what 1 am asking him to do. . Judith Wegner: I think you are saying there are no exceptions in the rule that says there has to be connectivity, namely two roads. Even if there is some rule of thumb that someone has been using that says they only get strict about that if it is a larger number of lots on the face of it. As you're reading it Larry, you're saying there isn't any exception for less than two accesses? Larry Wright: That is the way I read this. Mark Marcoplos: Connectivity is not a legal requirement but a suggestion. Robert Davis: No. Tommy McNeill: Basically, this is a conventional plan that has been approved by.... Robert Davis: It has gone through the development review committee. We didn't recommend for this plan but the other plan, which has been pulled. This one is shown in your packet on page 26 with conditions we would recommend. Brian Crawford: Robert, how do you propose that we react to this? We have a recommendation on the record that says we should consider Option 2, which staff recommended. You either have to withdraw that recommendation and make another recommendation. Robert Davis: We are withdrawing that recommendation, Option 2 and for simplicity the only Option left is Option 3 which is a recommendation that is all you have left. In accordance with the conditions on page 26, omitting both 8 and 9. Brian Crawford: We need to do this for the record. If staff is not prepared to make a recommendation on number 3 then we should table this until you are prepared to make a recommendation or formally make a recommendation for number 3 so the Planning Board can consider it. Craig Benedict: Option number 2 that staff had recommended is being withdrawn. Option 3 would be the one that is left available to us. There ~ $ is one unique nuance that is left, we could take Option 3 and provide a stub out to Booth Road to the south. Not that it will ever be used, except 20, 30 or 40 years from now if the next generation may like a connection through there. At least it would be there for uUlily use, emergency access, or something like that. We could not use the portion of the road in Oak Crest but at least there would be a stub out and some ideas of good planning from this end. Judith Wegner: Craig, I would like a yes or no answer. Do you and the development review staff committee affirmatively recommend Option 3 as it currently exists on paper in front of us? Craig Benedict: Yes. Judith Wegner: That was not in your previous presentation, was that because you preferred number 2 but you thought 3 was still in the running which is not the way this reads. It reads as though you thought it had to be 2. I thought the process was there would be a full blown recommendation up or down on each of the things in front of us so we could see something. It makes me uneasy since many of these kind folks came back for a second time tonight and if there is more staff work that needed to be done because you thought number 2 was the thing and you didn't do a full review of 3 and I heard Robert say that 3 is the only thing left. I don't care if it is all that is left; 1 want to know affirmatively what the staff had to say about it as to whether it met the requirements of the ordinance. Craig Benedict: Three was analyzed also and three as it's listed in the agenda packet is an acceptable option and does meet all requirements of the County, so that is a reasonable option. Options 2 and 3 both meet the standards. Judith Wegner: It seems that number 3 has issues about crossing a creek and environmental issues: I would surely have thought if we were to have your advice, it would be written up. The last meeting all the pressure was to connect io Booth Hill. Another questions I would like to ask the developer as to what rights he would claim as io the long thin road up there because we have correspondence from the Lewis family raising questions about actual access rights that are legitimate and I thought that when we approved subdivisions under state law there has to be actual access. Is that something the staff considered? Craig Benedict: Yes. We did look at the right of way that is under ownership and it is acceptable to staff as legitimate access. Judith Wegner: Can you provide details about the environmental considerations and what the actual legal status is and why you thought chat was satisfactory? Craig Benedict: We did look at it at the concept stage. Roads are allowed to cross floodplains and utilities at perpendicular angles upon the final preliminary plan coming forward, there will be additional analysis on how they will put that road across the floodplain and we will assure it limits the amount of environmental cut and fill actions and things of that nature. There are roads that do cross floodplains and streams within Orange County and the design of Option 3 still does meet that standard. Mark Marcoplos: I want to make some general observations about this. I think it is great that we got rid of the connectivity that 99 times out of 100 might be a good idea but is clearly not in this case. I think the best solution, if these houses are going to be built there at all, would be to have the traffic come up Booth Road. That is a wetland, environmentally sensitive area over there in the University Lake watershed. I think we should always err on the side of protecting the watershed because there is enough stress and strain on our water supplies as it is. However sensitively the construction process goes, there will still be ill effects, just the traffic itself will affect chat wetland. It's a bad idea. Not only that but the services that people who live there are going to want to drive to are back up Booth Road, Southern Orange, Northern Chatham. There will be a lot of wasted fuel, car emissions, and extra traffic on Damascus Church Road. I am happy the connectivity issue has been addressed. I wish, in a perfect world, there would be some way to negotiate no connectivity for getting access to Booth Road and maybe work done on the road to accept this added bit of traffic in return for environmental protection for the greater good of the community. I don't Tike this plan. Brian Crawford: Any response staff? Robert Davis: The Flood Plain Manager is also a member of the Development Advisory Committee and he looked at this and there are numerous cases in the County where the only option to get to a property is to cross perpendicularly floodplain areas. Permits would have to be pulled, they are done all the time, but it is not something that is turned down frequently because you can do it in a fairly sensitive way. Earl McKee: I agree evith Mark about coming in from Booth Road. I did talk to another member who did drive down Booth Road. My understanding from the comments made at the previous meeting, it is steep, narrow and dangerous as far as a connector road. There is no doubt in my mind that a conventional plan is submitted before connecting Damascus with Booth would have been used to cut through. I think the most logical would be to extend these 12 lots off Booth Road but that is no longer on the table because of the rescinding of the dedication. My understanding is that if the Planning Board does not make a decision in two meetings, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners with our discussions and our minutes, is that wrrect? Robert Davis: That's correct. Earl McKee: My comment about tabling this issue is that I really don't see the advantage of tabling this issue. This is the option we are 1 9 presented with. Staff comments that it does meet the requirements. In order to get if officially on the table, I am going to make a motion to accept.... Brian Crawford: Can we hold off until we get comments from all of the Planning Board members, if you wouldn't mind. Earl McKee: I have no problem with that. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: My questions goes back to what staff was saying about putting a dedicated stub in there because in 20 years or 40 years, development and people may said there's a good reason fo have something there but it would be too late to come back to tonight. Help me understand what that would like so that if do recommend this and ask for that stub out I would like the developer to respond to that. The corner lot, number 1, in the first plan..... Robert Davis: Option 3 is basically Option 1 without the Booth Road connection and a different orientation on the road. We considered it when we looked at Option 1. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Lot number 1 would Zook like that? I wanted to know when you said stub out, what did it look like? Robert Davis: You actually do have stub out all through here. You can do something in a few different places. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Where do you recommend that it be? Robert Davis: Line up where it actually hits the other one. Brian Crawford: Any other comments. Larry Wright: I would like to follow up on the stub out. If this community is approved and it is built, I think a stub out to Booth Road not necessarily for vehicle traffic but for bicycle and walkway, etc. would be something the two communities may want to engage upon. I think that between lots 1 and 2 would be a logical place for the stub out. Not necessarily for vehicle traffic. I have another Issue that in this subdivision regulation, they talk about sidewalks. One of the things we heard were comments that the roads were dangerous and there is no place to walk but in the road. What are we recommending for sidewalks in this community? Robert Davis: There are no sidewalk recommendations. There are private recreation requirements of potential trails. Larry Wright: In here it talks about accommodations for bicycle sidewalks, etc. Robert Davis: Do you remember Efland Commons where the recommendation came back that residential streets served as a bike type of situation because of the low level of traffic. What we don't have is a trail. We generally look at that at the preliminary and we don't get into the layout of the recreation at concept but there is on this plan a connection to allow you to walk on the road and down through here and this area. Larry Wright: I agree with Mark's comment. I am hesitant to see anything Tike this go across to a critical area to Universality Lake that is so critical to Chapel Hill as a water supply and even if you do have some sort of bridge, we had another economic plan that had a 100 year floodplain and all this winter it was flooded and it was Flooded last year. I feel this access point up here is not environmentally sound; people are going to race up there. There is nothing that controls the speed of these cars and then they up into, is Damascus Church Road a collector road? Robert Davis: That or a major local. Larry Wright: I don't really know where people's residences are there right next to this road. The Lewis family is in opposition and I feel they have justifiable concerns. Robert Davis: This is looking back to the northeast on Damascus Church Road, this is looking southwest on Damascus Church Road. There are four driveways within 200 feet. Larry Wright: If we have three motorcycles in this community at the end of that and they go there all hours of the night, how close will that be to somebody's bedroom. Robert Davis: It is no closer than they are right now to the highway. Larry Wright: I am talking about the adjacent lots where this road comes out right next to private property. It is a long thin road with a lot to the left. Is there a dwelling on that? Robert Davis: No, no dwelling and chat other tract are undeveloped. You do have numerous roads that are crossing 100-year floods. You 21) have Damascus Church that crosses the same creek at a wider point. Pete Hallenbeck: Three comments that I'd like to make, first of all if we could look at plan number 3 which the only option on the desk, speaking both to staff and residents around Booth Road. Another hat I wear is I am the assistant chief to the Efland Fire Department. I didn't see anything compelling here for connecting in terms of improving response times. That is my personal observation, I don't want to representation that as being the position of the fire department. If I were living in that subdivision with this plan, 1 would want a connection that could be used in an emergency. When this came up, people said'we've never had a problem"it's ok'. What you have never seen is the storm that comes through, a tree falls on the road, your house is struck by lightning and is burning down and no one can get to it, or the responding apparatus gets in trouble, or there is an accident and you can't get emergency equipment in so I would strongly suggest, if this plan is done, to find some way to arrange those lots and have that area clear and designated for emergency access. There's a lot to be said for being able to get in somewhere when a road is blocked. Right now, when you didn't want the road, everything made sense but now you are in the situation where you don't have that road but I would strongly suggest a plan that leaves that access there. I would strongly suggest keeping that area clean and I'd even put down some gravel so in bad weather something could get through. Someday when something bad happens on that road the emergency vehicle can get to you. My second comment and question is to staff, on page 26 of the packet under Option 3 conditions, item 9 suggests the connection road be turned over the North Carolina Department of Transportation. I took at that and the letter on page 55 that was submitted where the developers keep saying this will be a private paved road. It seems that the suggestion 9 is very much against the intentions as put forth by the developers and I could not vote for Option 3 if the developers came in and acquired land saying it would be a private paved road and the plan endorses making that as something the NCDOT can take over. Robert Davis: They have to petition NCDOT to take it over. They did once and DOT did not because they required improvements. They did improvements and DOT agreed to take it over with a petition but the residents have not filed that petition. The staff encouraged public maintenance. We did not recommend Option 3 originally, we recommended Option 2, and however, if you wanted to vote for this one, we recommended making the connection and when the road met the condition for public maintenance, this portion be placed on public maintenance. Pete Hallenbeck: What about the section that's going up? Robert Davis: All of this. You have a gap on Booth Road betvreen Chatham County and here that would be a public road privately maintained. We would recommend that it all goon. We're recommending anytime that a road meet public maintenance requirements for it to be petitioned to be taken over. Pete Hallenbeck: It is clear from this letter that this whole development is being proposed as a private drive and I would like to see a plan to honor that. 1'll make my third comment anch it takes that theme a step further and I'll admit to being a little bit vague as to the power of the Planning Board in this regard, it seems that this letter dated September 19, 2006 promises this road will be a paved private road tends to omit the fact there will be a subdivision there and probably with the exception of the second paragraphs, it reads tikes someone is trying to buy access to a piece of property they have to put in a house. The statement provided on page 49 by the Lewis' seems to indicate continued wmmunications, there were lots of opportunities for the developer to indicate there was a plan to turn this into a 12 lot development and that did not happen. The contract of purchase still states that the road can be public or private so you don't know if that is an omission by the lawyer or something that was not caught by the seller but that letter and that contract are in conflict and 1 would like to see that resolved. I understand the Lewis' position that the promise was broken and I would really like to see that resolved between the parties. My last comment is that I am also worried about the environment and this whole plan has a number of things about it that are not quite right. Brian Crawford: As a practical matter, this contract and the correspondence from the Lewis' is really a matter between the Lewis' and the developers and I don't chink we can consider it in this deliberation. There were misunderstandings in that wntract and I can see loads of potential problems between the Lewis' and the developer. The developer has come with a proposal and we have to react to that proposal. I understand what the Lewis' are saying but they have to go back to the developer. The other issue is, and I want to ask staff to consider this, it is my understanding that when you have a properly such as this that seems to be landlocked with the exception of this one long easement of road, that we have to consider for the developer, notwithstanding the problems of how he obtained that easement, we have to consider for the developer a way to get back to that main road. Although it is over this easement, I don't know if we can just say that because it is going to damage this easement, particular when there is evidence in the County that we have gone over easements like this before, I don't know if we can use the conservation easement as an issue to stop this plan because he has to get to a main road. Larry Wright: Why not? I disagree with you. We are members of the community and we represent the Lewis' as much as we represent the developer, I would hope. This is why we are the Planning Board. I feel that yes, we can. We can act on behalf of the Lewis' here. Brian Crawford: That is probably an issue we will have to refer to the county attorney. Larry Wright: We are stewards of the environment. I do not think that just because it is a developmental issue and a developer has come here that we need to rubber stamp that there are other things in the County. Brian Crawford: It is not a matter of rubber stamping it, we have an ordinance and if this plan fits the ordinance, we have come up with more than jus[ our personal feelings about the plan. We have to come up with something from the law that will allow us to deny access to Damascus 21 Church Road. Larry Wright: I disagree with you. Judith Wegner: Could we ask for the developer to come up and answer some questions for us please? Do you own fee title to that strip going up? Kent Wles: Yes. 1 own this strip and this parcel here. There is roughly a TO-acre tract and a 2-acre that is basically flagging this lot. Judith Wegner: Have you considered going out onto Lovinggood lane so you would not go through the floodplain? Kent Wiles: Yes. Judith Wegner: Did you pursue that? Kent Wiles: There is an incline going from Price Creek up the hill and it is an extreme hill as far as probably 25-30%. Meaning it is too high. The elevation change is too dramatic. Judith Wegner: You don't own that green segment. Kent Wiles: This is owned by Mr. Lovinggood. His house sits on the north side of the creek. Judith Wegner: Are there any other possibilities? Kent Wiles: There is a road called Price Creek Road. Discussion about the map. Judith Wegner: You own fee title here. Kent Wles: I own only the title of this lot. Judith Wegner: You bought fee title to 60-foot wide strip? Kent Wiles: Two acres to get access io this lot only. There was an easement through the Lewis' lot. Judith Wegner: You bought this parcel from the Lewis'? Kent Wiles: I believe it was their heirs: This lot came up for sale and I noticed there was easement I had no interest in the larger lot. Judith Wegner: Is that owned by the same family? Kent Wiles: My understanding is that it was under contract by someone else. The staff may have it on file. This stub was contingent on purchasing this lot and this lot was contingent on purchasing that stub out. That was fhe timeline. Everything that was submitted to you was what I wrote. I wanted a private road to feed that lot. The realtor of the person who had fhe larger parcel under contract contacted the realtor that helped me close the sale of the 2-acre lot and asked if I was interested in getting the larger piece under contract. I guess he was having problems with Boofh Road. I looked at and an investor stepped forward and said yes so we got that under contract as well. He sold me the contract. Brian Crawford: What is the timeframe? Kent Wiles: Months. I don't know exactly but quite a while. Judith Wegner: This is Yorktown Drive through here is that correct? Kent Wiles: I believe that is called Heritage ~Ilage. Judith Wegner: What is at that point? Kent Wiles: I think this lot is their clubhouse. Judith Wegner: You haven't tried to figure out a way to wnnect to that to avoid going through the environmental area? 2 2 Kent Wiles: This is all UNC land. Earl McKee: I am hearing you say that own stub out and the smaller tract, do you own the larger tract or have it under contract? Kent Wiles: Under contract. Earl McKee: I understand all the comments and the problems that some of the other members have as far as the access through the 100 year plains on that stub out. I am not insensitive to that but Brian's comments were true because we have to consider whether the proposed development meets regulations as they exist and I am hearing from staff that they do meet those regulations. My understanding is that this approval doesn't mean this project goes through but progresses to the next step. MoTioN made by Earl McKee to approve Option 3 and recommend that a stub out be included back to Booth Road between lots one and two for possible future use. Seconded by Tommy McNeill. Brian Crawford: Are there any discussions on the motion? Robert Davis: We are removing condition number 9 and doing the basic approval or will you do the conditions? Earl McKee: The conditions except for number 9. Robert Davis: And reword number 8 to a 50-foot right of way stub out between lots one and two shall be provided. Earl McKee: Is 50 or 60 required? Robert Davis: 60 would work but we generally get 50 with two 10-foot easements on either side. Earl McKee: I would suggest 60 just with comments made that 40 years down the road, it may be desirable to interconnect. Mark Marcoplos: If regulations were all we needed to guide us and those regulations pointed to a solution, we would not need a Planning Board, we wouldn't need County Commissioners, all you would have to do is just open the book and read the regulations and the problem would be solved. There is an art to this public process and we are part of an evolution of policies and our personal interpretation of all aspects of the issue is fair input into the process so we need not be concerned that we meet the letter of the regulations. We have our own perspective to bring to it and we can be thinking about of the spirit of the regulations as well. I would urge everybody not to be too bound by what they perceive as the regulations. Mary Bobbin-Cooke: If we send something the Board of County Commissioners for the next step, something is contrary to state law, like you cannot deny the people access to their property, then we just face the consequences that they will override our recommendation. Mark Marcoplos: Sure, that is the beauty of being on the Planning Board. We don't have to make the final decision Brian Crawford: This is just a recommendation. Hypothetically, let's say the conservation easement was, in our opinion, damaging to the health, safety and welfare of the watershed serving the community. I don't know if that is compelling but it is certainly a reason for us to recommend to the Planning Board that we do have concerns about this and if we make that recommendation in the negative, we send to the law with those comments and they are free do and follow the actual of the plan and approve it but that is how the Planning Board felt, that is our recommendation. I agree with your assessment. My only point was to point out what the letter of the law is and have us also wnsider that. Don't feel like your hands are tied by the decision here but consider that in our deliberations. Robert Davis: If the Planning Board recommends denial, you have to state the reasons why. If you don't make a decision tonight, it will go to the next step, which is the Board of County Commissioners. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Without our recommendation? Robert Davis: With the minutes. Then they will probably give it back to you and ask for recommendations Mary Bobbin-Cooke: The spirit of what you are saying is let's change the law? Mark Marcoplos: No. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If there are any environmental issues, that we have the freedom to deny landlocked parcels? Brian Crawford: Hypothetically, there is an ordinance and this plan meets the ordinance so we decide that because of our concerns to turn it down, could the developer say that we are not following the ordinance, and he would be right to say that and could come back in some sort of 2 3 action that we are not following the ordinance as it is written. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: To the Board of County Commissioners or us? Robert Davis: Most likely, the Planning Board. Judith Wegner: First of all, even if there are some of us who are lawyers here, we should not be acting as the County's voice. We are here as citizens. I would have to say if he owns fee title to that other parcel, it is not a landlocked parcel. He has fee title. The questions for us are does the set of proposals meet the requirements, in our judgment? I, for myself, want to flag this 100 year floodplain issue because it may be going the other way is expensive but I want to ask our planning staff to get this on record now if we feel we have considerable concern about the potential implications for University Lake, water in the range of things when we come back to the next stage because this is concept plan and we get two more rounds of this over time if we were to say there had to be considerable, expensive steps taken to ensure against a disaster. We won't be locked about raising those issues in the next stage. There are opportunities to be thinking about the next stage, what that conservation requirement would have to be. I think about wncept plan is do you get a chance to go up io the Commissioner and then come back with a more detailed project. That is something we are going to be talking about again. Your points about he access for emergency vehicles was very good advice in the same way I am trying to give advice now. You should think about the things that have been presented for your observations. Now in terms of if the developer wanted to challenge this, I would think they would have to make a claim to the Commissioners that whatever action the Commissioners would take is inwnsistent with the ordinances and would somehow deny all possible use of this property but we know there could be at least one house built there which could go across. I just think that for environmental consideration the more lots that are there, the more trips per day, the more you run the risk that you are going to do something that would be drained into the University Lakes so that should be something that they hear. Those are things I want to put forth so there won't be any surprises the next time around. Brian Crawford: I am starting to hear a friendly amendment, Earl, regarding this Floodplain and whether we should say loud and clear in our recommendations to the developer to consider the impact on the environment in the next stage so he minimizes as much as possible the impact on our land and that is what the Planning Board wants to see. Earl McKee: I am not insensitive to the environmental sensitive area. On Damascus Road, maybe a few hundred yards, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of cars every day, you have 12 houses that are not to minimize the fact that if a gas tanker goes off delivering fuel to the homes, you have a disaster. I am not minimizing anything but stating that the percentage of probably that a problem will occur on this drive, is minuscule compared to Damascus Road or any other area in Orange County with a major road. I see no way to get out of this proposed project without crossing a creek. Tommy McNeill: Staff has clearly indicated chat this is common practice for the County and 1 don't see why we should ask this particular developer to do anything differently than any other developer in the County. Unidentified Citizen: Point of order Mr. Chairman Brian Crawford: There is no opportunity for Unidentified citizen: I want to ask if public comment would be allowed given public connectivity was taken off the considerations by the Planning Board last time and now a little bit of connectivity is being put back in which makes it almost a little bit pregnant. If we were going to reopen connectivity, which is a major amendment to Option 3 that has not been considered for public comment, I would respectively ask that you consider public comment on your little bit of connectivity because this Board has never considered that for public comment. Robert Davis: We are not recommending connectivity, we are recommending the easement for this subdivision line up with the withdrawn right of way dedication for what is at the stub street. It allows for potential connectivity but nothing that forces the issue tonight. Unidentified citizen: Again, a stub out is something.... Brian Crawford: Order. If we go back to the map we are saying that it will stop there with no easement. There is nothing we can do to cennect to that land. This is just what the developer already owns and we are lining it up. Thank you for the comment. Are we ready to vote? Margaret Lewis: As a point of order, I ask to be given an oppprtuniy to speak. Tina Love: No one signed up to speak. Robert Davis: The plan that is being proposed tonight is basically this with the exception of Booth Road being opened Brian Crawford: On this form we have to sign up, it doesn't say for anyone who wants to speak. As a practical matter, if the Board wants to hear one minute of comment on a new issue that v/e have not already addressed, what is the Board's pleasure? Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I would like to hear one minute. Brian Crawford: Six in favor. One minute. Can one person speak for you? Tommy McNeill: Can we have a timer? Brian Crawford: We have one here. Tom Holt: I represent the association of homes from Oakcrest. Regarding this recommended stub out, first, this map is not necessarily accurate now, in that what you will be stubbing out to is not a right of way. Where you are proposing to lots one and two, you are stubbing out to no right of way whatsoever. The other point I would like to make is that the land that the developer owns now is not landlocked. Tommy McNeill: What is your opposition? Judith Wegner: I think he wants to be clear on the record if this comes back again that the Board is apprised to those two points. Tom Holt: I would prefer if you adopt this plan that it not include a stub out to nowhere. Kirsten Freskin: I live to the left there. 1 want to look at the watershed map. My question is that we have had discussion about watershed and crossing water. We cross water all the time but what you are doing here is crossing water and then walking along water and you are crossing water again. This is a stream and this is a stream and these are all feeding into University lake. It is not just crossing one stream but this I all water. It is not fioodplain its active water feeding into University Lake. The other concern is that we don't get any law enforcement on this road. I live on this hill and people do 70 MPH. 1 have lost four animals there. I would ask that be considered. Also, consider when putting 12 houses here that we have a high school that is overcapacity and not funding for the arts wing, which is a mandatory arts wing, and finally the reason it was sold at nine acres was so it would only be one house and that was the intention. Tommy McNeill: Staff has clearly stated the water has passed with various developers and so why is Damascus Road any different than any other plan. Kirsten Freskin: It is the access road being all water and that is the watershed. Margaret Lewis: 1 noticed the board recommended Option 2 at first. What is the rationale for supporting Option 2 and I would like the document that supports that, I don't have that document. Brian Crawford: Ma'am, Option 2 is off the table. Margaret Lewis: But we didn't get any notification of that. Brian Crawford: This is public information, I will be glad to give it to you. Margaret Lewis: I would also like a copy of the application for the subdivision. Brian Crawford: Staff? Craig Benedict: That is fine. Margaret Lewis: I would like to know what the developer means by saying the hill is too high to have a road through Lovinggopd. I disagree with the developer's statement about the Tots, which is now 12 but at one point it was two or three. Brian Crawford: Final comments. Andrew Noble: I live on Booth Road. I wanted to reiterate our concerns, which I think we expressed last time about the safety of our children. The stub out sounds like connectivity by another name in the future. I am very concerned about that. If it is for purposes of emergency vehicles then there should be exclusive wording to that fact. I don't anyone has a problem with safety but they are concerned about the stub out being put in and then five years it becomes a through road. Pete Hallenbeck: We are voting on a motion where we vole yes or no and I thought you said if we take no action there is another step and I want to clarify what that step and what should we do to take that as opposed to voting yes or no. 24 Brian Crawford: Let' have the vote first before we determine we are taking no action. If it is voted down, then we could ask that question. Judith Wegner: If you would prefer to offer a motion to take no action I think that would lay on the table for another day which would mean all 2 5 that would go ahead if that passed that would trump over Earl's motion in which case the record would go forward. MOTION made by Earl McKee to approve Option 3 to include a stub out between lots one and hvo with that stub out consisting of a 60 foot right of way shall be provided to the southern boundary including all the conditions listed with the exception of Condition number 9 and with an amendment to number 8. Seconded by Tommy McNeill. Vore: Passed; 5 yes; 4 no (Wright, Marcoplos, Wegner, Hallenbeck) Brian Crawford: I would like to thank the public for coming. Brian Crawford: We do a disservice to folks by not allowing them to speak. That is my own opinion. We will try not to let that happen again. Judith Wegner: In the future, we can ask them before Robert gets up. Tina Love: Let's give them instructions next time. I need to know who was present for the meeting in addition to those who spoke. It is a little different than the process for the public hearings. Judith Wegner: What about at the end of the public charge? Maybe you could remind us. I really think it did everyone a disservice when the recommendation said planning staff does not recommend approval of Option 3 and then to try to have it in the record that they did but it was the only one left. I felt let down by what we were given from staff. I would also say I don't feel we got an adequate workup on Option 3 that was evidence to be in front of us. You may not have known until you got the letter from the attorney but you were doing well to talk to the attorney. I find it confusing if there is not that type of workup. Tommy McNeill: Robert, I think you did an excellent job in answering the questions and keeping the Planning Board aware of the process as welt as what the recommendations from staff were. That kepi me focused. What we should focus on instead of all of our personal intuitions regarding the project so I thank you for that. Attachment 5 26 ~~.s - auto- ©ag RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date of Meeting: Name of Subdivision: Owners: Applicant: April 6, 2010 The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision Kenton and Natasha Wiles ENT Land Surveys, Inc, Agent Attachment 6 The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves The Lodges at Chapel Hill Preliminary Plat, dated December 11, 2009, last revised on January 2, 2010, containing twelve (12) lots and one (1) public street, Lodge Trail, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Before any final plat for The Lodges at Chapel Hill subdivision of any of the tracts shown on the preliminary plat may be recorded the owner/applicant shall comply with the following terms and conditions: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for a conventionally sized septic disposal system, and its associated repair area, approved by the County Division of Environmental Health. 2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This disclosure shall be included in a document describing developmenf restriction to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the County Health Department, Division of Environmental Health. Each lot that does not contain a suitable building site shall be designated both on the Final Plat and by instrument recorded in the Orange County registry as restricted for development potential as set forth in Section IV-B-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 3. The owner/applicant shall not destroy trees that have previously been inventoried and located within the primary tree conservation areas as depicted and described in the Landscape Plan for any reason including to install on-site waste disposal system drain or repair fields. 4. No septic system shall be located within a regulated stream buffer. 5. The Owners shall include in the restrictive covenants provisions requiring each lot owner to have their septic system serving their lot inspected by a licensee of the North Carolina On-Site Wastewater Contractors and Inspectors Certification Board, who is properly registered to perform such inspections within Orange County, no less than one (1) time in every five (5) year period (unless inspections are required more often by rule or regulation of the Orange County Health Department) and to have the system pumped if recommended by the inspector. Payment for the inspections required under this condition shall be the responsibility of the individual lot owner or the homeowner's association as established by the governing Homeowner's Association declaration. These provisions shall be in a form approved by the County Attorney. 27 B. Roads and Access 28 1. The owner/applicant shall, prior to the approval and recording of the Final Plat, construct the public road, including any intersections and alignments) to NCDOT standards for a Residential Collector Road within the area of the platted lots and as a Subdivision Access Road between Damascus Church Road and Open Space Lot B, within afifty- (50) foot right-of-way, with five-(5) foot utility easements on each side, and with NCDOT construction inspection and approval. OR The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure construction of the above public road improvements to NCDOT standards. The estimate shall be submitted by a certified/licensed engineer, grading contractor or other individual qualified to calculate the cost to complete the improvements according to approved plans and specifications, who has no direct or indirect ownership interest in the subdivision as specified in Section III-E-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. The financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred ten (110) percent of that construction cost estimate and an accredited financial institution licensed to conduct business in North Carolina shall issue such financial guarantee. The financial guarantee shall be effective for 372 days after the County Manager signed the Certificate of Improvements. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the County shall not release the financial guarantee until NCDOT inspects and approves the road construction and provides written certification of such approval 2. The ownedapplicant shall submit to the County Erosion Control Division for review and approval, before any land disturbing activity on the site, an erosion control plan for construction of public roads, private recreation activities, and drainage improvements. 3. The owner/applicant shall erect an approved street name sign at the intersection with Damascus Church Road according to the provisions of Section IV-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. All street name signs shall be double bladed. 4. Before any construction or alteration of any existing access within the Damascus Church Road right-of-way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT District Offices. Owner/applicant shall submit a copy of such NCDOT approval permit and letter to the Planning Department at the same time as the request for Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall perform no work in any public road right-of-ways before issuance of approved NCDOT driveway permits and encroachment agreements. 5. Sight triangles, ten (10) feet by seventy (70) feet, shall be shown on the Final Plat at all intersections. The sight distance triangle shall be exclusive of the proposed sign easement. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. The owner/applicant shall install or preserve landscaping as indicated on the approved Landscape Plan (open space and pathways plan}, and the Planning Department shall inspect and approve such landscaping before signing the Final Plat. No part of the landscaping shall encroach into the ten- (10) foot by seventy- (70) foot sight triangles at 28 the public road intersection. OR The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash bond to secure required landscape installation and preservation. The owner/applicant shall provide, as specified in Section IV-B-8-b-9 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, an estimate of the cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation. The financial guarantee shall reflect one hundred (110) percent of the estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 2. Provision for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements that Planning Department staff prepared and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. Clear cutting or other removal of any trees or other vegetation on individual lots is prohibited as specified in Section IV-B-8-c of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 3. The owner/applicant shall provide a Type A Land Use Buffer along the internal public road, as shown on the Preliminary Plan. The buffer shall be thirty (30) feet wide and shall be composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, forming semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least thirty (30) feet. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and detailed in a document describing development restrictions and requirements prepared by Planning Department staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall convey the thirty- (30) foot buffer easement along the public roads to the Homeowner's Association (HOA) for enforcement and maintenance. 4. The stream buffer areas in Open Space Lots A and B, as shown on the preliminary plan, shall be shown on the final plat as areas to be left undisturbed and in their natural state. Grading, clearing, or installation of any structure, impervious surface, fence or play apparatus shall not be placed within the buffer. Additionally, when marketing these lots to prospective buyers, the developer, contractor or real estate sales person shall provide information, available at the Orange County Erosion Control offices, to prospective buyers regarding the nutrient reduction requirements within the University Lake Protected Watershed. D. Drainage 1. Locate all drainage easements on the Final Plat, as required following Erosion Control Plan review and approval. 2. The owner/applicant shall size and locate all drainage culverts as required by NCDOT and a North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer. E. Parkland and Recreation 1. The developer shall place a total of 14.61 acres in common open space, which the HOA will own and maintain. This open space shall be shown and labeled accordingly on the final plat. Cutting or removing of trees and other natural vegetation, except for safety or maintenance purposes, is prohibited. 2. At the time of recordation of the Final Plat the Developer shall pay to Orange County a $5,460 payment-in-lieu-of-dedication fee. 3. The owner/applicant shall designate recreational space as specified in Section IV-B-7- 30 b of the County Subdivision Regulations and in Article 6.12.2.6 in the Zoning Ordinance. The total recreation space required for this development is 0.6 (six tenths) of an acre. The 14.61 acres of open space may serve a dual role of private recreation space provided active recreation improvements are made. 4. The HOA shall obtain an approved NCDOT encroachment agreement for the footpath that falls within the public road rights-of-way before construction. 5. No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities. 6. Except for construction of footpaths and stormwater improvement facilities [e.g. bio- retention], all areas in reserved open space shall remain in their natural condition. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map according to standards found in Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The Final Plat shall reflect the drainage easements as required in D.1 above. 3. The open space shall be conveyed by deed to the Homeowner's Association. The County Attorney, prior to their recording, shall approve all instruments of conveyance and restriction. 4. Before installation of lighting within the subdivision and to ensure compliance with the Orange County Outdoor Lighting Standards, the owner/applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. 5. The Planning and Solid Waste Departments shall review and approve a plan for the collection and proper disposal of all tree stumps and fallen logs before approval of the erosion control plan. 6. The ownerlapplicant shall note impervious cover square footage limits for each lot on the Final Plat. 7. Clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard, shall be recycled. 8. All haulers of construction waste shall have proper licensing through the Orange County Solid Waste Department. 9. Before any on-site construction activity, the ownerlapplicant shall hold a pre- construction conference with the County Solid Waste staff. This may be the same meeting held with other development officials. 10. Before installation of a subdivision sign, County Planning shall review and approve a site plan and construction drawings. 11.The owner/applicant shall install a water withdrawal system for emergency fire suppression with signage acceptable to the Orange County Fire Marshal prior to recordation of the final plat. 12.The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat, a 31 declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where required, and/or by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern the maintenance and control of the improvements as set forth in Article III-E of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. Said documents shall provide for ownership of open space and the dedication of easements to access open space, common area Pedestrian Open Space Areas, drainage easements and buffers, for maintenance. The Owner has agreed that said documents shall not restrict the use of energy efficient measures, including but not limited to clotheslines, solar collectors, or photovoltaic systems by the lot owners, nor shall said documents require any lot owner to engage in water intensive lawn maintenance. 13.The maximum impervious surface coverage for each lot shall be six (6) percent of the platted lot area. This figure is exclusive of public road right-of-way. 14. After Final Plat recordation, the owner shall voluntarily convert any required soil erosion control facilities into low-maintenance, bio-retention sites (rain gardens). G. Certifications 1. The owner/applicant shall have notarized on the face of the Final Plat a Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor. 2. The owner/applicant shall sign a Certification of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the County Subdivision Regulations on the face of the plat and shall record concurrently with the Final Plat a document describing development restrictions. 3. The NCDOT shall certify that all public roads, intersections, and road alignments have been entirely constructed to NCDOT standards or that construction plans have been approved before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat. 4. The Planning Department shall sign a Certificate of Approval. NOW THEREFORE BE I.T RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners that the Preliminary Plat for The Lodges at Chapel Hill Subdivision is approved in accordance with the above-mentioned conditions and attached Preliminary Plat dated December 11, 2009, last revised on January 2, 2010. Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,the foregoing resolution was adopted this the _ day of April 2010. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on April _, 2010 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of April 2010. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Attachment 7 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING A/penglow Trace -Subdivision Concept Plan April 13, 2009 Planning & Agricultural Center (Food Lab) In Attendance: Planning Department Staff: Robert Davis, Eddie Kirk, Glenn Bowles Developer: Kenton Wiles Surveyor: Richard Bullock, Steve Yuhasz Citizens: 13 (attendance list attached) Staff explained subdivision process and zoning requirements. Issues raised at the meeting: • Questions about streets and right-of-way in Oak Crest Subdivision being public or private. NCDOT to respond. • Traffic access and traffic creation if road is connected. Cut through for quarry trucks. • Booth Road will be a raceway if roads are connected. Two neighborhoods will be destroyed. • Prefer new subdivision to be left as a cul-de-sac entering off Damascus Church Road. • Do not want streets connected. • Who is going to maintain road? Oak Crest residents do not want NCDOT to maintain road. • Residents in Oak Crest cannot get NCDOT to take over road. • No problem with the proposed subdivision, however, streets should not be connected at this time. • Suggest staff should make recommendation not to connect streets. • Gravel trucks coming through Booth Road and tearing it up. • Speed limit and weight limit on Booth Road if it is connected. • NCDOT not keeping the road up very well in Chatham County portion. s Setbacks from property lines and wells. • How much clearing of lots for building is proposed. • Why is connection necessary when street has been cul-de-sac for 20 years. 32 33 Attachment 8 ORANGE COUNTX ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMEN'T' MEMORANDUM To: Glenn Bowles, CurrentP/anner From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager Date: January 27, 2010 Subject: The Lodges Subdivision Proposal Thank you for the opportunity to review a Preliminary Plan for "The Lodges" subdivision proposal (formerly "Alpenglow Trace'. The plan (dated December 11, 2009) is to create 12 lots on 43.83 acres located south of Damascus Church Road in Chapel Hill Township. The subject property Is located Immediately west of conservation land owned by the University of North Carolina to protect University-Lake Reservoir. The northeastern portions of the property are within the University Lake PW critical area. The property drains to Price Creek, which flows into the reservoir. A small segment of West Branch Price Creek flows through a narrow strip of the property that links with Damascus Church Road. Two smaller streams originate in the northeastern portion of the site. Both were identified by the Orange County Erosion Control Branch and would be protected by stream buffers. The subject properly is not located within any highly special area of ecological significance, or Natural Heritage Areas, so designated by the State of NC's Natural Heritage Program. The subject properly is, however, within the University Lake Macrositel-a relatively undeveloped area that helps to support the Natural Heritage sites around University Lake (AttachmenC 1). Although the subject property is undeveloped, the forest is largely comprised of Immature volunteer hardwoods, which indicates that the trees were harvested within the last 15-20 years. ERCD submitted previous comments (dated April 8, 2009) on twc alternative Concept Plans for the Alpenglow Trace proposal dated February 2009. Tn those comments, ERCD stated a preference for the alternative that avoided development of a new road crossing over West Branch Price Creek and the associated 100-year floodplain. Evidently that alternative was not feasible and the developer intends to provide access to the residential subdivision from Damascus Church Road. A nevi public road (Lodge Trail) and stream crossing will be constructed consistent with permits that have already been Issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality. The Plan would set aside 14.3 acres of Open Space (32.6%} to accommodate the 100-year floodplaln and required stream buffers, which will also help to protect the Natural Heritage Areas located downstream (University Lake Slopes, Wetlands and Marsh). ~ inventory of Natural Areas and Witdi{re Habitatsjor Orange County, North Carolina (Sather et al., 2004) Environment and Resource Conserva6 PO Box 818f / 306-A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2510 34 Attachment 8 Memo to Glenn Bowles January 27, 2010 Page 2 Finally, the Joint Planning Area (]PA} Land Use Plan identifies a potential greenway trail along West Branch Price Creek to the UNC property south of University Lake. Normally potential greenway trails identified in the JPA are considered for possible dedication to Orange County or another local government, but in this case the subject property Includes only a 60-foot-long segment of the creek with a wide 100-year floodway and floodpiain. ERCD does not recommend dedicating land for a public trail corridor unless the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) or the Planning Board feels that such a trail corridor could be located through the property. Conclusion The Preliminary plan appears consistent with the County's desire to minimize adverse environmental Impacts with respect to the protection of floodplains, wetlands, natural areas and wildlife habitat. ERCD recommends that the proposed Open Space remain in private ownership and managed as common land (wildlife habitat and low-impact recreation) by the future homeowners association. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2591. Attachment cc: David Stanch Lori TaR Env/ronment and Resource Conservation PO Box 8181 / 306•A Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 245-2510 Attachment 9 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 3, 2010 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bflan Crawford (Chaff), At-Large, Eno Township; Judith Wegner (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative; Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large, Cheeks Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; May Becker, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; MEMBERS ABSENT: Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township $TAFE PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtr, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Michael Harvey, Zoning Administration; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II; OTHERS PRESENT: Kent Wiles, ownerldeveloper; J.D. Cecil; Vicky Hendel; AGENDA ITEM 7: PRELIMINARY PLAT -THE LODGES AT CHAPEL HILL (FORMERLY ALPENGLOW TRACE) To review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Preliminary Plat application for The Lodges at Chapel Hill (Formerly Alpenglow Trace) Presenter: Glenn Bow/es, Plannerlt Glenn Bowles: We are here tonight to review and make recommendation to the BOCC regarding the Lodges at Chapel Hill which you have seen previously as Alpenglow Trace. On page 46 is the application, on page 48 there is a vicinity map, on page is a fiscal impact analysis. Page 53 is the minutes from the June 3, 2009 Planning Board meeting where you approved the concept plan for Alpenglow. Page 63 is the preliminary plat, page 64 is the resolution of approval to go to the BOCC if approved. Page 69 is from the information meeting that took place in April of last year and on page 70 is a memo from ERCD. The subdivision itself is a conventional design with open space and a total of just under 44 acres. There are 12 residential lots on it. It is zoned RB, Rural Buffer, it is in both University Lake Protected and University Lake Critical Watersheds. Roughly 33% of the property will be open space and will be owned by the home owners association. (Reviewed PowerPoint presentation) Glenn Bowles: The twelve parcels range in size from 2.01 acres to 2. 7 acres with an average of 2.1 acres. The overall density is 3.65 units acres per lot with just under 15 acres of open space with represents 33% of the site. At the concept plan there were three options presented one was the flexible plan, one was a conventional plan with dual access both were discarded. The property itself is wooded right now some relatively steep. The steeper areas are all in buffers which are also in the proposed common open space, 85% of that open space is termed conventional. It's protected open space, the steeper slopes and floodplain but there is also a flootlplain involved in the crossing. The applicant, if BOCC approved, will have to apply for a no-rise certificate. They will have to prove to FEMA and the planning department that they will not back waters up due to the construction of the crossing. The recommendations are that you receive the application, that you make recommendations to the BOCC to accept the in lieu of parkland dedication, and also make recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat to the BOCC in accordance with the resolution of approval which is attached and the staff findings. Mark Marcoplos: I am fairly familiar with this land. Where the proposed road is, you see the width of Price Creek and you see the width of the flood plain and it flows under Damascus Church Road and it not that far from University Lake. It is probably one of the most unique eco systems in Orange County. The Cypress Wetlands are amazing. Glenn Bowles: There is also beaver activity here. Mark Marcoplos: It seems like we talked about working with other committees, it seems the Commission of the Environment could have been involved in this. I will reiterate what was in our packet, my comments from the meeting last summer. I am fine houses being built I just think putting a road across the wetland is a bad idea. If is ashamed we could not find a way to have that development connect to the Booth Roatl neighborhood and make the changes that need to be made. I think it is a bad trade off. I would like to encourage people to check the wetland out. 35 Earl McKee: Regarding that Booth Road access, unless my memory fails me, I believe our options were taken off the 3 6 table by the developer of the last development on those roads when they drew the easements back. Glenn Bowles: Our attorney weighed in on that as well and his opinion was no extension. It was off the table. Earl McKee: That was my understanding. I would prefer to see it go out Booth Road. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Given what we have to work with I agree with Mark. We do need to be sensitive to the wetlands. Have we developed the technology to put a road in that is sensitive to the wetland? Samantha Cabe: Orange County has the most extensive protection ordinances to protect our water and wetlands and if a developer is willing to jump through the hoops we have laid out in order to protect it the best we can, I don't see how we can deny them to do that. Any time we disturb a natural land, it will change it. Our planning staff has put together an extensive group of ordinances that protect our water. Our staff will do everything we can to protect the land. Jeffrey Schmitt: When we looked at this off Booth Road, there were comments about the steepness. Had the access been through Booth Road and the Twelve houses would have been there, those people would have not gotten out of there. I ride a bike and could not peddle up that hill. Judith Wegner: Do we have any discretion to require performance bond to ensure that not only construction but afterwards that if there's need to do any kind of remediation that the developer would be obligated? Craig Benedict: Our erosion control permits will require all the standards and conditions and fines. Judith Wegner: How do you set the amount? It seems to be a sensitive area, I would like to see that it would be kept for enough time that we know there isn't some kind of adverse effect afterwards that hasn't been taken into account when it's first built. Craig Benedict: We can consider with this project, in some cases we do temporary control measures and maybe we can suggest if you run into apermanent bio-retention facility to keep water qualify that is dumped from this subdivision towards the Price Creek, to convert it to something that has to be maintained for the future by the HOA. That is the tendency we are looking toward. Erosion control measures of the past were more a construction activity:and then you remove them, now we're moving towards permanent water quality basins that can be worked into the project, into the open space. Judith Wegner: Why not it have it be a bond that is publicly enforceable to the homeowners. Craig Benedict: I am not sure exactly how we can do that. For improvements that will be eventually handed over to the public, we can take bonds. We do not have procedures for bonds for private activity. I can see what can be done in this case to ensure the work is done. Glenn Bowles: There will be at least two erosion controls instead of one to handle the flow coming into the creek. We are thinking of coming with Bio-retention, they are low cost and extremely low maintenance. There are some funds Floating around to help with that conversion from a required erosion control pond to transition into a rain garden. Judith Wegner: I would like to make a motion to put a condition on it that something to be done. I think it is a problematic site and I think the developer has been aware of that. I don't think it is a matter affecting the immediate community but it is close to University Lake. Jeffrey Schmitt: It is your contention that the rules in place are not adequate? Judith Wegner: That is not what 1 said. I would like the rules that we have we put the most stringent requirements to 3 ~ have adequate backups. Jeffrey Schmitt: Do we do it on this one? Or the next one? How do we discern how we do it? Judith Wegner: 1 think the fact that this is going over that kind of a water body and how close it is to University Lake Watershed that is quite different from other situations. Jeffrey Schmitt: It seems that staff and comments about how eco-sensitive that the County is, I guess I am hearing that notwithstanding that there is a tinge of distrust on your part that those would be inadequate. Judith Wegner: That is not what I would say for the record, what I would say for the record is that in my opinion, to the extent we have the authority, we should go with that authority and make sure there is an adequate backup for the public here. Jeffrey Schmitt: What is the distance we are actually talking about? Glenn Bowles: The creek is about 20-25 feet. Jeffrey Schmitt: That is a huge creek. Samantha Cabe: The only thing we are making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners about is a preliminary plat application? Glenn Bowles: Correct. Samantha Cabe: If the developer came back in and made plans for retention pools, that would be in a later planning process? Glenn Bowles: We could work something out with the developer and his agent about how that would work in to a resolution for approval. Samantha Cabe: This is not the last time this will be looked at? Glenn Bowles: By the Planning Board but there will be one more public review. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Has this already been through the DAC? Glenn Bowles: Development Advisory Committee. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Erosion Control representative on the DAC has to look at this? Glenn Bowles: Correct. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It won't go back to them again? Glenn Bowles: No. Craig Benedict: For construction plans, this will go to the Board of County Commissioners and they approve it, they do some final work prior to the recommendations, then when they get into the construction phase, that is where they have four more permit approvals for the Erosion Control and planning. Glenn Bowles: One of those permits is a floodplain development permit. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: There is a lot of flood plain activity going on outside this property, are we asking landowners are there any roads that go across those and if so, do we ask the landowners to develop them at the same level we are talking about here? Glenn Bowles: When they come in for a permit, yes we do. Mary Bobbin-Cooke: Are there any roads across that creek? Glenn Bowles: There is Price Creek Road. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: There is nothing up creek? Glenn Bowles: Damascus Church Road. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: It all flows to the lake. MOTION: Samantha Cabe: made a motion to adopt the staffs recommendation and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mary Bobbin-Cooke. VOTE: Unanimou$ May Becker: I don't think it should be considered a matter of trust but rather a question of even if each of the points were followed That if we see something that will cause a problem that we should address that before it moves on so I would like to state my concern. Brian Crawford: That would have to be in the form of a friendly amendment to Samantha's motion and she will have to decide to whether to accept it or not. Judith Wegner: But if it not accepted it can still be put on the table as an amendment to the motion. Brian Crawford: We have to vote on the motion and if the Planning Board is really considering your proposed friendly amendment, we have to vote down her motion. Judith Wegner: I thought that it is order that the main motion is on the table and then after that, friendly or unfriendly, an amendment could be put forth, that gets voted up or down then you go to the main motion. Brian Crawford: Ok, I'll defer to you. Judith Wegner: I would like to offer an amendment. Kent Wiles: I am the developer, talking about wetlands crossing and creek crossings. I have been a scientist for over a decade and I've worked with water quality. I did extensive research in the Outer Banks working with their stormwater system which is a mess right now. They take all their stormwater and put it right on the beach, literally or they put it in the sound. Having said that I am also an environmentalist, I do my post op out in Nags Head. All my research was done there, so it's close to me. I don't take it as trying to save a buck. Wetlands are extremely unique, every one of them. Crossing this one is, well I'd prefer not to but now Booth Roatl is a private road. I will take all measures that I deem necessary to cross this in an environmentally friendly way with rain gardens, with correct crossing of not just the creek but of the wetland too. That might not be enough to put your (rust in me but it is my word and I will do my best. 38 Samantha Cabe: My response to Judith's amendment is that I don't believe it is necessary because I believe our 38 planning department, particularly Mr. Bowles, will enforce our ordinances to the utmost of their limits and we can't add to what those limits are. I trust staff. I don't think we can go above and beyond what our ordinances say. Judith Wegner: My point is that I think it should be explicit. I appreciate the developers comments. I know you said what you though was appropriate. Our job is to do the job so to try to be forthright as to what this is. Once a permit is given, you could sell to someone else who would develop it and it would be subject to the permits. I appreciate your comments but I feel given the sensitivity I would like to offer an amendment. Here is what I would propose. At the top of page 65, I would suggest that Mr. Bowles would specify one of those is the statement with the or there meaning you choose which of those or that we specify which of those. Is that up to the applicant to decide because of the 'or'? Glenn Bowles: I can clarify, they have the option to build the road to DOT standards with DOT's review and approval or they could post bond of a certain amount and have it built at a later date and if they don't built it the bond will kick in. Judith Wegner: I am trying to see where this proposed language would go. I think it would be an added item to say the following: To the extent permissible under Orange County Ordinances, the owner of such applicant shall provide a bond or other sufficient insurance that not only road construction but for two years after road construction, there will not be adverse environmental effect as a result of the road's establishment. Brian Crawford: Does everyone understand the amendment? Judith Wegner: Paragraph 6-To the extent permissible under Orange County ordinances, the owner(applicant shall provide a bond or other sufficient assurance to ensure that there is adequate protection of the water quality in the area following construction and for a period of at least two years thereafter. Samantha Cabe: Is there something in the ordinance That will allow for that? Michael Harvey: I am going to be general. Within the erosion control ordinance there are provisions when you are pulling an erosion control permit to post bonds fo ensure that you have completed land disturbing and mitigation tests in accordance with approved permit. Any time you disturb stream, under state law, and even under County regulation, you got to mitigate that disturbance. That mitigation is left up to erosion control to determine what is appropriate per stale standard. We do defer to state standard when it comes to mitigation. There are bonding provisions that would allow the developer to post fhe bond to do an incremental approach as necessary and erosion control determining if it is acceptable or not. Glenn Bowles: This will clarify what we would be seeking. Samantha Cabe: Is there a provision in the ordinance that requires that bond to ensure the two years after completion? Michael Harvey: I'm not going to say it focuses primarily on the timeframe of two years. It would be fair to say that fhe bond focuses on the completion of the project to the extent where erosion control certifies it meets the standards of the local erosion control ordinance, the local stormwater ordinance, and also any state requirements of mitigation. That can take longer than two years. Samantha Cabe: They have to complete the mitigation process as well. Will all that be done by Erosion Control whether or not that wording is in our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? Glenn Bowles: Not to that extent. The other option would be to make it a condition of the Flood Plain development, which staff does have control. Jeffrey Schmitt: We had a motion, it was seconded. The person who made the motion has the opportunity to accept 40 or not accept the suggestion. Judith Wegner: Right. But first of all there has to be a second. Clarification- Mary seconded Samantha's motion; May seconded Judith's friendly amendment. Earl McKee: This appears to have the affect of the Planning Board writing ordinance and regulation which I don't think is in our scope of work because we are, with this amendment, setting further conditions above and beyond what the County has set. Once you set it for this situation to apply for this devolvement, it becomes precedent for another down the road. My main concern is it seems we are exceeding our scope of work by writing ordinance and regulations. Judith Wegner: Just so you know that what I was trying to say the outset consistent with the ordinances. I was trying to ensure that we were giving direction to staff to the extent there is authority that they need to check further and that in my mind I would like to have a nailing down indication I don't know for this know that mitigation is complete until there has been enough time go by to really see it in the really sensitive area how that would be so I wanted to be sure we weighed in. I do think by framing in terms of what is permissible under the ordinance, I am trying not to write the ordinance afresh. It seems this is really quite a sensitive area and the degree that would be an indication that what ever normal should be handled with care. I try to consider that where there are permits someone can sell and someone else can pick it up. Samantha Cabe: I would like the Planning Board to vote on the amendment and not because I am not rejecting it but it is something everyone should have a voice on. Mark Marcoplos: I will support it because it appears to meet on the regulations. I am disappointed in the process because I don't think it is more than five or six people in this room that even know what we are discussing. This is such an incredible eco-system there we should have more information, pictures, environmental analysis from someone in the County, to make a conscious decision with a full set of facts. I hope in the future, when land is under our consideration, we could be more informed about it. FRieNO~v AMeNOMeNr MorioN: Made by Judith Wegner to add item 6 on page 65 "to the extent under Orange County ordinances, the applicant/ownershatl provide bonds sufficient to ensure the adequate protection of water qualify within the law for a period of time that ensures that adverse effects have been mitigated. Seconded by May Becker. Vore: 4-6; (Judith Wegner, May Becker, Mark Marcoplos, Samantha Cabe) No (Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Jeffrey Schmitt, Earl McKee, Pete Hallenbeck, Brian Crawford, Rachel Hawkins) Amendment Failed MOTION: Made by Samantha Cabe to accept staffs recommendation to send this to the Board of County Commissioners and recommend approval. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke. Vore: Passed 9-1 (May Becker) Motion Passed