HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-22-1998 - 8y1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 22, 1998
Action Agenda
Item #_&y
SUBJECT: MTK Development - Preliminary Plan
ACTION BY: August 6, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Resolution of Approval
Application
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plan
Sketch of Potential Road Connections
NCDOT Letter
Private Road Justification
Staff Evaluation of
Private Road Justification
Fiscal Impact Analysis
6/3/98 Planning Board Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron
Extension 2580
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough -732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for MTK Development.
BACKGROUND: The property is located in Eno Township on both sides of Yates Road (SR
1563) east of Palmers Grove Church Road (SR 1562) as shown on the attached
vicinity map. The current zoning is Agricultural Residential (AR) and Lower
Eno Protected Watershed. Adjacent land uses are residential. A 100 -foot AT &T
right -of -way crosses the property running east -west near the southern end of the
tract. AT &T anticipates reducing the right -of -way to 33 feet later this summer.
The total acreage of the tract is 38.34 acres. The site centers around a stream
valley created by an unnamed intermittent stream that flows north
approximately one mile to the Eno River. Primary conservation areas include
the stream and scattered slopes estimated to be over 25 percent.
2
The remainder of the site is considered secondary conservation area as
woodland and/or slopes greater than 15 percent. The wooded portion of the site
was damaged by Hurricane Fran and shows the effects of clean-up efforts.
The plan for MTK Development follows the conservation option of flexible
development as described in the Subdivision Regulations. The Preliminary Plan
features 25 new residential lots that average 1.36 acres in size excluding right -
of -way and 18.72 acres or 50% open space. The open space will be privately
owned as part of the lots and will be reserved through restrictive covenants. The
open space protects wooded land on moderate to steep slopes, the creek and the
adjacent stream buffer, as well as buffers along the roads and the subdivision
boundaries.
The lots will have individual wells and septic systems and will access Yates
Road from three proposed roads, except for lots 20 and 25 which will have
direct access to Yates Road. Crown Court is proposed as a public road to be
built and paved to NC Department of Transportation standards. A 50 -foot
public right -of -way stub out is reserved between lots 12 and 13 at the end of
Crown Court for a potential road connection in the event property to the south
is subdivided in a manner that warrants additional access. Refer to the attached
map for a schematic illustration of a possible future road network.
During the Planning Board's review of the Concept Plan, several members
expressed concerns regarding the safety of Yates Road due to the width of the
travelway, its vertical and horizontal alignment, the absence of pavement
markings, combined with the proposed additional traffic. There also was
discussion of dangerous intersections on Highway 70 and how additional traffic
might affect them.
The minutes of the Planning Board's discussion of the Concept Plan were sent
with the Preliminary Plan to the Department of Transportation with a request
for comments. DOT responded with the attached letter stating that certain
improvements have been requested such as additional pavement inside curves,
striping, and posting the speed limit.
Regarding intersections on US Highway 70, the DOT District Engineer advised
that the sight distances are currently adequate; however, they will monitor the
locations for potential problems. The intersection at Lawrence will be scheduled
for signalization when funds are available.
Chili Court and Ritz Way are proposed as private gravel roads, Class C and
Class B respectively. The applicant's private road justification is included in the
attachments followed by the Staff evaluation of the justification. The private
roads are justified through open space protection, lower density than the
maximum allowed, and the subdivision's location in a protected watershed.
On June 3, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the Preliminary Plan for MTK Development according to the conditions
contained in the attached Resolution of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for MTK
Development with public and private roads according to the conservation
option of flexible development and the conditions contained in the attached
Resolution of Approval.
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date June 22, 1998
Name of Subdivision MTK Development
Owner /Applicant MTK Development/Woods Brothers
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves MTK Development Preliminary Plat,
dated March 31, 1998, and containing 25 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified
herein.
Crown Court shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general public and be constructed to standards
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The approval of this resolution authorizes
and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for Orange County and on behalf of the public
generally, the offer of dedication of Crown Court. This acceptance by Orange County of the
dedication to the general public of Crown Court shall be without maintenance responsibility.
The road shall be maintained by the owner /applicant until such time as they are accepted for
maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental
body. Before the Final Plat of MTK Development can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for sewage disposal and repair
area, approved by the Orange County Division of Environmental Health.
2. Disclosure that the septic system location may restrict the size and location of
improvements shall be included in a document describing development
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall
also disclose that information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is
available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental
Health.
B. Roads and Access
1. Crown Court shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, within a 50 -foot right -of -way, and the construction shall be
inspected and approved by NCDOT.
M
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of Crown Court to the standards of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be
prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to
the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect
110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed
to do business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. Chili Court shall be constructed to Class C private road standards within a 50 -foot
right -of -way. Ritz Way shall be constructed to Class B private road standards
within a 50 -foot right -of -way.
Chili Court and Ritz Way shall be inspected, and the construction certified in
writing to the Orange County Planning Department by a North Carolina
Professional Engineer, or a North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor. The
location of the travelway within the platted private road right -of -way shall also be
certified.
••
A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure
construction and inspection of Chili Court to Class C private road standards and
Ritz Way to Class B standards. An estimate of the construction and certification
costs must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and
submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee
must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial
institution licensed to do business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been certified by a North Carolina Professional Engineer or a
North Carolina Registered Land Surveyor.
3. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the
applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control
Division.
4. A Private Road Maintenance Agreement for Chili Court and Ritz Way shall be
approved by the County Attorney.
5. A statement that further subdivision of any of the lots served by the private roads
may require upgrade of the roads to a higher standard shall be included in a
document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by
Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
6. The _intent for future extension of Crown Court shall be indicated on the Final Plat
by the words "Subject to Future Extension."
7. Lots 21, 22, and 23 shall access only onto Chili Court. Lots 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29
shall access only onto Ritz Way. Lots 5 -19 shall access only onto Crown Court.
These restrictions shall be stated in a document describing development
restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section IV- B- 3 -c -12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place or a copy of
the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
9. The deed to Orange County for the 50 -foot public right -of -way stub out and the
accompanying Release Deed shall be approved by the County Attorney.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
D. Drainage
Impervious surface data, pursuant to Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to
be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Stream buffers shall be provided as shown on the Preliminary Plan. The width of
the buffer shall be stated on the face of the plat. Development restrictions within
the buffer shall be specified in a document describing development restrictions
and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
3. Indicate a 15 -foot drainage easement on lot 17. Locate additional drainage
easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
E. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of $10,920 ($455 x 24 lots) shall be paid to Orange County as
payment in lieu of parkland dedication.
0
F. Misceligneous
The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V -D -2 and V -D -3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat:
(Include streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, marshes, sites in "Inventory",
houses, barns, sheds, railroads, overhead utility lines, cemeteries)
a. Creek on lots 14 -20, 22, 23 -25; and
b. Pond on adjacent property.
3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. AT &T right -of -way; and
b. 15 -foot drainage easement on lot 17.
4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of
right -of -way of all roads Side yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet, and rear yards
a minimum of 20 feet. These setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and
in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be
prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
G. Certifications
A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall
be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V -D -6 -b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. The Division of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a
suitable area for septic disposal.
4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Crown Court
has been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been
approved.
5. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
Signature of Applicant
Clerk to the Board
I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant
Date
APPLICATICI FOR PRELIMINARY PL . V APPROVAi L 11
MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8/93
ORANGE COUNTY
U 1411 --�_L� DATE• - lQj
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ON(LLY,)
SUBDIVISION NAMg:
LOCATION: 7 -1 1 ° I I� ' J / �
OWNER /DEVELOPER: 7o, pyt — �(\ I,c — I,C t R_�{ C,3 C_->
ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.:
AGENT/CONTACT: P r-L TELEPHONE NO.'7 3Z -32r-t,
n ^C,
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION.
Orange County Tax Map T 7� Block —' Lot(s) _E_ Township 6VIl o
Zoning District(s): - 9�j
Total Number of Acres: vr.3 Phases:
Total Number of Lots: ��_ Average Lot Size: 1.5 Minimum Lot Size:
Number/Typa of Structures: (existing) (proposed) S
Lineal Feet in Streets: 2400 Acres in Open Space: 191-17-
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community j/ Individual
School District: ,)e AIJGE COVATY Fire'District:
General Land Uses in Area:
Critical Areas: ✓ stream /drainagaways flood prone areas
L -EA 0 - M watershed (specify) historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation*? Yes_, No_ if "yes ",
please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of
deferred taxes under "farm use value taxation ".
B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two- hundred feet 0" 2001 and
no larger than one inch equals twenty feat 0" 20') and must contain the following' information:
/ subdivision name?' zoning of tract and adjacent
name & address of owners) properties
name & address of subdivider _� building setback lines by notation
(if other than owner) or typical lot layout
name of surveyor, engineer, location and width of existing and
Cry landscape architect or architect, proposed easements (drainage,
address, registration X and seal utilities, roads, etc.)
(title) Pre"Insry Plan existing, proposed and adjoining
scat*, north arrow rights -of -way including dimensions
date (including revision dotes) and street names and stets road
wtownship, tax map -block -lot numbers. Unaal feet of road
4J W references centerlines and approximate
"1 O . Parent Parcel Identification 0 acreage of now street rights -of-
dead book and page # of property / way •
+�41 w to be subdrvided V �, existing and proposed utilities.
E _ ' boundary described yvith bearings including typo, sizes, hydrants,
and distances ] _ valves, manholes
U
1O :� total ocreagi of the tract and yllj�- existing and proposed curbs,
acreage of lots, including and gutters and culverts, including
L,t v '"uding area within rights -of- sizes and grades
_ z way location and width of alloys.
C to control corner sidewalks, bike lanes, transit
systems, and bus stops -
r ' " (pleass� complete reverse side) . -
I
-�L, �s:•
proposed lot lines v,(r__ 12
dimensions _? typicr 'oet
-
cross - sections ano
✓�/? j
-
lot & block numbers intersection details including
phasing lines design end width of travelway and
topogtaphy at tan foot (10) shoulders
C
intervals_ _ horizontal alignment and general
water bodies, streams, floodway curve data (public roads)
at
and floodplaine �`.' <> centerline radius on all ro osed
p p
stream buffers streets
U ✓ >'�
location and size of parcels �?»` permanent features such as
y
E ,,�
dedicated for public use, buildings, cemeteries, historic
CD `►-+
Ocommon,
recreational use or reserved in landmarks
with purpose noted adjoining lot layout names of
N
impervious surface data (if located adjoining property owners. If
� W
in water supply watershed) subdivided, subdivision plat name,
.:
�
vicinity map showing general plat book & page number, and
CL CD
location of subdivision with streets perimeter lot numbers.
E �'
o
and roads identified by State road u MEE location and size of Iota of
U'a
number and name restricted development potential
_U a) 'Na"
t,10
landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding
a o
cu cc
• / -
requirements same
U W
township, corporate and extra- N,;< stormwater detention tird /or
territorial planning jurisdiction lines retention sites and undioturbed
which cross the property areas for infiltration purposes (if
located in water supply
watershed)
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1.
Twenty -five (25) copies of the preliminary plat.
2.
One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in
pencil).
3.
Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating
Health Department soils analysis approval /denial for each lot shown thereon.
4.
Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized
representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV- 8-4 -d -1 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations).
6.
Auxiliary documents, In draft form, prepared in accordance with Seotion •' /L of. this Ordinance
which assure completion and /or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance.
Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and
articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's sest.-niation.
These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements
are being met. '
r
4 70 •
15.
Fee - $*".00 plus 45.00 per lot 0 fee for preliminary and final plat). '
7.
If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the following information shall be submitted with the .
application:
e: Number of years to buildout.
b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout.
C. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout.
_ I, the applicant,,hereby certify that the foredoing application is complete and accurate. „..
AP CANT'S SIGNATURE. OWNER'S SIGNATURE
- DATE ► DATE '
..
-FEES: Am. o, u t t Oate Paid • � '� '' 9e. -
� ', •Receipt / �Z� � �
_ .
OMIT TED- 18, 38 ,60,17,5aA,72,79,58C,4A,25( -,G, 248, �3
5), 27A,82, 488
MTK DEVELOPMENT W}
Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR)
Lower Eno Protected Watershed 233 23
.2265
Applicant: Mike Woods for Woods Brothers 14 AC
14.56 AG
Not to Scale 2068
J87 1157
4.1 / 2.08
— � 21 _ — / P /027E J � •
03 .156 AC � � �i6 e' 23
23
av, 21 �.� 231
9365 i 23E 340
i� .8268 2711 12.54 AC. r
w•214AC• �� 11,59 AC. IAC. 12.16 AC,
• ' -�
68 SA9/ Al
6C 33
�. FRANK IN /'� f • 18 1 90 8718
74 VIC - PA. 773 391 AC 2 r 0 3757 5 AC.
2n 0767 3.02 AC• ,+
I 97 27Y 4 ' , 8671 ' -
1. L 0682 2�
�• L34A 3EE W" r 7405 4A 24 I 7513 .
M 1.9492 7N 200 / .3379 2SM 2.93AC. ,
1. 1
7317 — 3.69 DC
�+ ` y3Q1NT • AC1, 2 .84 AC• gt tz 7382 , ,_ --e'— c
J a
93k• 2 Ex
.5. C 10.0425AC•-
r 9032 t E7 •':/ ® 1n�2496 W19 25E
1.12A s
.1 1 0 . • � 3 AG SAC.
t, s ", ' t 25 9430
s 1
+ 9864 '3754 t •D743 J . 5 AC +
1,27AC: . �1 1 3 5.0137 A C
293 S.OISOAC•
LO "°' 19
30 1 i /
u �j1 — 8372 % / ,
2011 1
O `1 7
(: 1,� • 3381 ml 1 SD6 AG. � .� r
31 6.632 ` ; I 8240 + 503e 5.01 AC.
04 1343 6810
O+ + • 2814 S C.
19.2 AC.
7714 �•'g\� 47a7'2,OSAC• 1 �� \J 8329
I J 33
5AC.
II.SAC• _
MaYtA •ss•t 61 .9473 � 9
LJ Ar— PALMEtt 36
23" MvE RO SAC. ,
.4049 ® .
(OAK RID ") 72 6.16 AC. 16.2040.
SWIG
E io1 I let..
a ;
409 10.1
fa /•
®3433 40
1Q8 AG MIS AC ++ .03m
•1327
10.02AC.
��,•
.•�t�) 1.66 _ —�
►Arts ttlwa 41E `�� AC-
CyyC i
`• 7M 4783
kT1 ' `b• 54 2AC.
�;V-44
• �` `� Z06AC• L22AC.
A 421
! • Mtl O- `` { C. _- 9592
1 • .'� `\ • —.19 t AG 44 24.89 AC.
A '1. IZ32 AC. 52 1 t AG 45 Abe, AC
SCOrHA-rIC OF Fb!SSlBJ-Z FL)7L)ZE
T
x 6
�sso
14
a tI
ITT 06
`-�� . / . ' ` 1Y
'600
50
d"
p
15611 .6
IL 'ool ,ll l ! �� �\ i` i%� �' /' 633'
rove
6A
7761
70-
'ol
.01
C:)
735;
-Golf Co se
.........
to
'fir r,
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
May 22, 1998
ORANGE COUNTY
Emily Cameron
Orange County Planning Dept.
306 F Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: SR 1563 (Yates Rd.) - Comments and Response
Dear Ms. Cameron:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
15
I have investigated SR 1563 (Yates Rd.) at your request and from Planning Board comments. This road
was paved 18 feet wide several years ago under our Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Right -of -way
was acquired 50 and 60 feet wide. Curves were improved as much as possible where the property owners
would dedicate the right -of -way.
At this time, I have asked the Orange County maintenance forces to pave 2 - 3 feet on the inside of the
curves and repair other failures in the pavement. Once the widening is completed, our Division Traffic
Services will stripe the centerline and post the appropriate speed limit. There are no other improvements
scheduled for Yates Road at this time.
The sight distances at the intersection of US 70 and Lawrence Road and US 70 and Palmer's Grove
Church Road are adequate for the present. NCDOT will monitor these locations to keep growth under
control.
The US 70 and Lawrence Road intersection is a candidate for signalization. This project will be
programmed when the spot safety funds are made available. There are no plans for improvement to the
intersection of Palmer's Grove Church Road and US 70 at this time.
Thank you for your interest and help in addressing safety concerns in Orange County. Please feel free to
call me at 336 -570 -6833 if you or your board have additional questions.
TJD:kww
cc J. W. Watkins, P.E.
V. E. Barham
C. N. Edwards, Jr.
Sincerely,.
V
T. J. Dyer
DISTRICT ENGIIVEER
P. O. BOX 766, GRAHAM, NC 27253 -0766
PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATIONt` 16
for -
�'u;l2 -9.91
MTK Development
Tax Map #5.20..26
PIN #9884 -56 -8240
This Private Road Justification is for two 50 foot proposed private drives located in the
proposed subdivision for MTK Development located on Yates Road (SR 1563),
addresses the criteria on pages 30a and 30b of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations (revised October 16, 1990).
2a. The private drive (Ritz Way) will be built to Class B standards according to Orange
County Subdivision Regulations. This private road will be serving the proposed 5 lots.
A perpetual Road Maintenance Agreement will be submitted with the final map and
recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds office upon final approval by the
County Attorney. Also upon final approval, a road sign will be installed.
2b. The private drive (Chili Court) will be built to Class C standards according to Orange
County Subdivision Regulations. This private road will be serving the proposed 3 lots.
A perpetual Road Maintenance Agreement will be submitted with the final map and
recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds office upon final approval by the
County Attorney. Also upon final approval, a road sign will be installed.
3. This property is wooded with mature hardwoods, pines and small hardwoods. There will
be restrictive covenants prohibiting clear cutting of any lot.
4. Due to the length of the proposed private drives (Ritz Way and Chili Court) and the low
density of this subdivision, Ritz Way and Chili Court would not be accepted by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for maintenance.
5. This subdivision is designed by the Flexible Development standards (conservation
option). The current design has preserved 17.58 acres (47 %) of the total area of this
tract in a conservation easement to protect wildlife corridors and mature hardwoods.
6. This property is located in the Upper Eno watershed; therefore, the private roads and
larger lots will decrease the amount of impervious surface and minimize the amount of
storm water runoff.
7. Restrictive covenants will be put on record prohibiting any further subdividing of this
property. These covenants will also address the maintenance and protection of the
conservation easements.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 17
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
STAFF EVALUATION OF
PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION
SUBDIVISION: MTK Development -Preliminary Plan
DATE: May 26, 1998
The standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to public and private roads are listed
below as amended 8/8/94. The Planning Staff comment regarding each is provided in italics.
IV- B- 3 -d -1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it
is found that:
1. The subdivision roads would be accepted by the State for maintenance if.
a. They are built in a manner which satisfies the minimum State design and
construction criteria for subdivision roads; and
(If the roads were built according to State construction standards, it would create more
disturbance than the proposed private roads and would impact a protected watershed.)
b. They would satisfy other requirements for addition to the State maintenance
system, including, but not limited to, the general density standard of at least two
occupied residences for each one -tenth of a mile of subdivision road; or
(The State's density requirement is 4 occupied residences for short cut de sacs. If the roads
were built to State standards within a dedicated right -of -way, Chili Court would not be
eligible for State maintenance. Ritz Way would be eligible for State maintenance when
four [4] residences are constructed and occupied)
2. The subdivision roads extend existing roads which are public; or
(Not applicable.)
3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area
designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or
W-1
(Not applicable)
4. A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved
Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan;
or
(The roads are not designated as arterials or collectors)
5. The subdivision roads are part of a non - residential development consisting of office,
retail, industrial, and similar businesses, each located on a separate lot. This
provision shall only apply to that portion of a subdivision being developed for non-
residential purposes.
(Not applicable)
However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the
Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found
that the nature and location of the subdivision with respect to other development and the
Comprehensive Plan are such that a private road is justified.
In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design
features will be considered:
1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural
character of the County through:
a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than
required by ordinance provisions. Compliance with this standard is assured in
University Lake Watershed where a subdivision is required to provide a
minimum lot size of five acres. Where the minimum required lot size is less than
five acres, compliance is assured when each lot in the subdivision contains at
least twice the minimum required lot size; and/or
(The proposed subdivision is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed where the
maximum density is one unit per 0.92 acre. The density proposed on the Preliminary Plan
is one unit per 1.36 acres.)
b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and. use of clustering of dwelling
units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads and/or maintain a
wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife,
botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites.
(Most of the subdivision will not be visible from the public road The creek and wooded
areas will be protected using restrictive covenants and dedicated open space.)
19
The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique
cultural, historical, archaeological, or biological characteristics of the immediate
area.
(No known unique features exist on the property. However, special and sensitive features
such as the stream and steep slopes will be protected with permanent open space reserved
with restrictive covenants)
2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that,
even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State
for maintenance due to density or other State requirements;
(If constructed to State standards, Chili Court would not be accepted for maintenance by
the State. Ritz Way would be eligible for State maintenance when four [4] residences are
constructed and occupied.)
3. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical,
wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved
through restrictive covenants in amounts significantly greater than required by
standards for recreation/open space dedication.
(Recreation/open space dedication is voluntary at this location. The applicant has chosen
to reserve a total of 18.72 acres or 50% of the subdivision as open space.)
4. Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design
features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed
as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of
impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the
pollution of water supply reservoirs.
(This subdivision is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed The average lot size is
1.36 acres, 32% larger than the minimum. The proposed private roads will protect at least
28,300 square feet or 0.65 acre of wooded area in the right -of -wary that would be cleared
and seeded if the roads were built to State standards.)
5. Topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or
watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State
standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill)
that would contribute to increased runoff of stormwater and siltation.
(Building the roads to State standards would require clearing and grading more area than
with the proposed private roads A proposed public right -of -way must be cleared entirely
of all trees and underbrush Trees and natural understory may remain in a private right-
PAC
of -way, provided there is adequate clearance for larger vehicles. Vegetation within a
private road right -of way sometimes provides an area for immediate infiltration of runoff
from the travelway, shoulders and ditches. Constructing the proposed roads to State
standards would directly affect moderate slopes, a drainage way, and the Lower Eno
Protected Watershed.)
6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after
approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non - conforming aspects of existing
development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed
subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming.
(Not applicable)
7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350 feet. It
serves no more than five lots. Its grade does not exceed nine percent. The land being
subdivided is not connected to or is part of another subdivision required to be served
by public roads. In addition, the average lot size within the subdivision is at least
40,000 square feet.
(Not applicable)
EVALUATION SUMMARY: The proposed private roads are justified through lower density and
protection of natural features through open space dedication. In addition, the subdivision is located in a
protected watershed where disturbance should be minimized. Planning Staff recommends that Chili
Court be approved as a Class C private road and Ritz Way be approved as a Class B private road.
5
21
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MTK DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
April, 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MTK Development contains 25 buildable lots and is located in Eno Township. The
lots are accessed by new public and private roads which will intersect with Yates Road. The
current zoning is AR - Agricultural Residential. The average lot size is approximately 1.53
acres. Lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems.
Project build -out is estimated at five years. Housing units will be constructed,
beginning in 1998, with completion of the project scheduled for 2002. Units will consist of
detached single - family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be
$179,583, including the lot.
METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues
associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is
taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the
primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It
calculates the financial effect of a planned development or new subdivision by considering
the current costs and revenues such a development would generate if it were completed and
occupied today. Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It
is concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues.
The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard
Approach. While only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Per
Capita Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of additional
employees by service function that will be required as a result of growth. This method
employs average county government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, an
employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each
service category and school district. The number of new employees are projected and
multiplied times the average operating expenses (includes personnel, operating and capital
costs) per employee. These average costs are then weighed against per capita and per
pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of the development.
M
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 EACH PROJECT.
23
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year _ - 4 19'
Ending Year _ 20(
Inflago-n-6 te. 2.50
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.-
% Non - Elderly ` '' 0�
.. _ _ ,.. ..: _
HOME SALES DATA:
School District:
School Attendance:
.. >.'-64%
Average
Distribution
Number of
Sales Price
of Units
Year
Homes
(S)
by Year
6
162,500
h ` r 20.00°/
..
�_ ..w
1999
5
170,625
20.000/
2000
5 179,15
o
2001
5
188,114
20.000/
'2002 ''' '" �Y . # 5 t
197,520 : "'
2003
0.00%
.,.. �.....�- ., ZOO4
_. „-
a O a
" ' -; mr w.. ..:. —•.. t 0.000/(
.,,.,a� t
...
2005
0
0
0.000%
- '•.2.. .... ...
: O..ras.'a... 0 ..+a: k...':« _._' wp....ti..,....% . .s+} . ..w+i . ..+......_.. t Et.f . _ f. 1 ► . . r.- ��r' -.. .... 0.000/0 i+
_,yam
2007
0
0
0.00%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District:
School Attendance:
.. >.'-64%
Middle School 17%
- ^19%
pe ro
r Cha I Hill- Carrbo
SECTION 2 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
COUNTY POPULATION:
JLATION:
24
1996-
1058
;,-568
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT:
POSITIONS
PER CAPITA
-General Govemment-
-108.60
0.001
Public Safety
142.95
0.001
Public
-77- 77 7— 6—
0
�7 .0.000!
Human Services
264.07
0.002!
-Education (School District) "-
33
055'
...70.007,
I SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
". Total w,0.144C
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES
REVENUES
PER CAPITA
s- p_ert�
Taxes ther Than �m
4653250
U.25
43.94
7274334
1-1-
Public Wo Fks'.
-7-7 -1 =7 - 7-
Intergovernmental
9007481
85.06
Service Charges
33
055'
Education 750000
(Recurring Capital) 7.
Non-Departmental
3163481
29.87
Miscellaneous
1738939
16.42
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE
PER CAPITA
General Government
-e
U.25
Public Safety
7274334
68.69
Public Wo Fks'.
-7-7 -1 =7 - 7-
Human Services
17112641
161.60
Education 750000
(Recurring Capital) 7.
Non-Departmental
3163481
29.87
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
62654.06
6804231
General, Govemrnent
Public Safety 7274334 50887.26
7�7�'57433
77-
-Public , -
- .2PIC50 .80.
Human Services 17112641 64803.43
- r� I -, " --'-! [DUUUU
taucaDon (Kecumng uapitai) f7 U I V3.131
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
y, Gqvemmen!���,;.' L7-
*ss ,TU,00,
School District 0 000
12�
- : '
3789.29 � 4
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
Con -KC-
�O:Crri!j�en 92����g
School District 0 0.00
Stat ,. RV :K7
-263114"99
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
School District Tax Rate 0.0000 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
rr
Elderly Exemption 1 $11,000 Where Applicable
SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR
HOUSING UNITS
POPULATION
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
'OUNTY GOVERNMENT
1DDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
OTAL
CHOOL DISTRICT
DDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
25
r t 1998}
1999 """ =2000`
2001 s _ 2C
+" f 25
,j 62)
62 �, y',62:
62
tip. 4 Y 62
12 t
25
49 E
�'. �- ^'i' ,... •a.: t
_ fir* .' �,�.,f.t _. �
-
a
1
2 3'
4
tf
.
2
2 j2,
2�,����
` 4 2
:r 2
3 u i[[ f
� .I
7
�� 4SI L. 7 .+
w t�we��t Vii' ~�aa`
i+t..•sr.:
+w..s.rtv • �
ter' Y
4i
r
...,.,ice '
�+✓ � ♦ Y
s „�. �..'' s ,y a _
0.01,
0.03 � `` � $- 0 041
0.05,* 0.0
0.02,
;
'
.05 ,<
)
'�
ro
0.03 0.05
0.07 d 0.01
F r ; 0.01
0.01 .;: x,� 0.0Z
0.02 ; #:° .0.0;
003j
0.06,x" ` "009
r
1
0.12 ..
0 074
0.13 "0 20
��,
0.26 )� 03'
}:
0.33 , .0`
0.33
x'0:33
0.19'" 0 29
0.38 0.41
YEAR s. r
HOUSING UNITS
POPULATION
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
rOTAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT
%DDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
2004
2006
i25-4
25 .25
25
+" f 25
,j 62)
62 �, y',62:
62
tip. 4 Y 62
j
.
2
2 j2,
2�,����
` 4 2
).O6
0.06 0.06'
0.063
"}1 <�I , 0.06
ro
0.08 a oa
0.08
0 os
1.0
0.03 .0
0.03-'
0.03
1
0.15. _0:,15
0.15'.. ti. , . ,0.11 5
0.33 , .0`
0.33
x'0:33
0.48 ` T .. AW 0.48
2:.
SECTION 4 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
YEAR
'= - 1998
1999 - �i ;4.200%
2001 _ 20
TAX BASE ($1000)
813
1686
,. -Ab § 2624
3630
" 47C
REVENUES ($)
IV
Property Tax
��C° 6590 '
13675
` 21282:
29443
3819
Other Taxes
.543-
1112
- j ; 17101
2338
299,
Intergovernmental
Y
::may .1050 ,
2153
3311 !
4525
579('
Service Charges
9
4w�, ,1° •395 '
810
' ' 1:1245
1702
- 2181
Miscellaneous
_
z_
a - •}•203
416
��
T f�` 639 !
874
111
TOTAL ($)
8781
18166
28188 i
38881
50282
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government
794 ;
1627
"'2501 1
3418
i 4379
Public Safety
=848
1739
2674.
3654
4682
Public Works
>_ 335 a
687
p - 10 561
1443
Human Services
F """1996
4091
6290
8597
,1848
P tf 1 .y r 11014
Education
+
t b.:N �
3028.
6207
,.�,.y +,.,,x,N±f�g`rt' .�
9543A
13042`
y
SlM7.i�•a"".c+1rr +ir !MCV t [An.•1
16710
4�s,
,.
Non - Departmental
�'`� 369.,
756
1163
1589
Y .2036
TOTAL ($)w-
7369
15107
= 23227 b
31743
"' ' (y *'� "p" 40671
,
NET FISCAL IMPACT
1412 !
3060
�S11
*4961 ;
7138
* 4
k , 4'961'1
($)='
,' �+,. ,, ..
YEAR ':2003: 2004 ; s 2005; 2006 2007
�.
TAX BASE ($1000) 4947 .�`"`; 5070 5197 5327
REVENUES
vw►'L F9� y V n v���i i At - �y,,,. .f r.
Property Tax f 39144:' 40123 41126 42154 8
Other Taxes 3147 3225 3306 ;�� 3389
5"9.' 43 Intergovernmental 6091 r.hy +"yin � � a 7 l' ,6c 2:- .4,. 3...A 6399 ,A, .'. r , . ; ".'.r + , r r a ,Y. `
65.5.,
9
o �w225 2291 2348 2467Service Charges
to 16
Miscellaneous 1176"x"1205 1235 = ��+c*x•T, 1266
+
rT. �J6890
TOTAL ($)� =51539 ; 52828 x54'149` 55502 i «��«
EXPENDITURES
General Government 448 4601 4716' 4834 4955:
Public Safety .479 • 4919 '5042 5168
Public Works 1895 1942 E-1 - 199 2040 2091
Human Services 1 290 115721861 12158: ;.12462
..•
Education 17128 175567995:: 18445:. 18906
Non - Departmental 2Ci8T ' 2248
r r 2304!
2139 2193
.'Y
TOTAL (i) 41688 42730 i 43798 44893 '46015.
VET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 985 10098 10350, 10609 , ;;, 10874•
27
SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR
1998
1999
r -, -2000
2001
20
REVENUES (S)
.�
_.Y :.•jai:
-
County
3028
6207
9543.
13042
1671.
School District
0
0
p
0
State
6252
12817
19707
26932
3450'
TOTAL ($)
9280:
19024
29250
39975
' ' 51217
EXPENDITURES
County
3028:
6207
9543
13042
- 16710
School District
0,
p
p
p
p
State
6252
12817
19707,;
26932
34507
TOTAL ($)
9280
19024 :-
29250
39975
51217
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR
2003:
2004
...... 2005
2006
�- 2007
REVENUES
County
17128
17556
` -17995
18445
School District
0 ;�
0
�,. n4
0
0
State
35370:
36254
X37160:
38089
39042
TOTAL ($)
52498 '
53810
:,55156 '
56534
57948
EXPENDITURES ($)
County
17128':
17556
17995 t
18445
18906
School District
O i
0
=.:. :_ p
p _
0
State
35370
36254
37160:;
38089
- 39042
TOTAL ($)
O...il' � �,�
'52498'-'
"•'W..+��wY'�i✓S' -..�
53810 55156,+
56534 -
a 4 z. .e.rK..
57948
E
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($)
0!
0
0;
0
0
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC /FISCAL IMPACTS
2005'
28
YEAR
1998
1999 Y ; X2000'
2001
20 `
HOUSING UNITS
17.
10 15
20
2
POPULATION
F 12
25
49
2
6
SCHOOL CHILDREN
-,�
-
4947
^' _ 5070
44893
- 46015
Elementary
1
2
3
4
10098 �
Middle
- 0
56534
': ' ' 57948
0
k '� _ _ 0
High School
0
1014281
103963
1 0609 :, 10874
TOTAL
2
3
5
7
I
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
0.07
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.3
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
0.10
0.19
0.29
0.38
0.4
TAX BASE ($1000)
813 '
1686
2624 ;
3630
- 470>
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
i
Revenues
8781
18166
28188;
38881
50282
Expenditures
7369
15107
232271
31743
40671
BALANCE
1412'
3060
49611,
7138
9611
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues
9280
19024
29250°
39975
51217
Expenditures
9280:
19024
r 29250 ;
39975
51217
BALANCE
0
0
0
0
0
COMBINED BUDGETS
Revenues
18061
37191
- -57438
78856
101500
Expenditures
16649
::
34131
> 52476
71718
91888
BALANCE
1412
306 .0
4961
7138
` 9611
YEAR
HOUSING UNITS
POPULATION
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
'TAX BASE ($1000)
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues
Expenditures
BALANCE
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues
Expenditures
BALANCE
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues
Expenditures
3ALANCE
2003
25
62
. 1
2
0.33
' 0.48.
4826 i
51539
41688
M
R R -.: it �N4.• � •...J
52498
0
�t
1 '104037
- 94186
9852.1
2004
2005'
25
25'
62
62
5
5
5
17.
1
1i
2
2;
8
8
0.33
0.33;
0.48
0.48;
4947
^' _ 5070
44893
- 46015
10609
874
52828
'' „54149
42730 .: d„ . ,43798
10098 �
� ,��:, 10350
53810
. .
'��' *` 55156.
53810
_, *'� 55156 'j
62
62
5
5
1
1
106638
1�09304�
96540
8
10098
<<_10350
2006
2007
25
25
62
62
5
5
1
1
2
2
8
8
0.33
0.33
0.48
..: 0.48
5197
5327
55502
:.. _;:: 56890
44893
- 46015
10609
874
9: ,
56534
y ' ' ' _' ' `57948
56534
': ' ' 57948
0
k '� _ _ 0
112037'
114838
1014281
103963
1 0609 :, 10874
` SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 29
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange CountyY,! ., - -wiE=i z-a : -YES :4 :: ; ElementarySchool - ,1.. �. �. -
-- -- _._....,r.._ - 3' - - - .,,�--- - -�. -. may. :<<64
Middle School 17
Chapel Hill- Carrboro = (
"NO . ') >: r--High School 19
YEAR
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001
2
3y
CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary..: _
YEAR
2003
3
5 ,
.y
SCHOOL CHILDREN
1522
1520
Middle 1240
High School 1457
:--
21
2
3y
CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary..: _
YEAR
2003
3
5 ,
.y
20C
4 _ f
T
SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS
CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary..: _
YEAR
2003
2004 2005
2006 200'
SCHOOL CHILDREN
1522
1520
Middle 1240
High School 1457
Elementary
5 .
5= 5
5 5
5 .:.r' �f
Middle
��. 1.
1 �1I
;1
High School
f 2
2 t .2;
,��
2 � .y 2
K
��
TOTAL
f .+ �.. 8 .!
8
8 ,, 8
SCHOOL CAPACITIES - ALL SCHOOLS
CURRENT ENROLLMENT - ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary..: _
-3328
Elementary ,+' "2 822
Middle
High School .
" '..:.., .. ,.
1522
1520
Middle 1240
High School 1457
TOTAL
6370
TOTAL 5519
YEAR
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
YEAR
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary
i Middle
High School
TOTAL
1998
2003
1999 2000 2001 2002
2824 2826 4 2827'
1241 " 1241 1241 s `„ 1241
.1458 1451458 8 459
5524; 5526 �+�
5522 ,,: 5527
2004 2005 2006 2007
<w"� °•
2827 2827 2827 . "� "-. 2827
1241 1241 1241 .u: 1241'
1459 1459 1459 1459`
5527 : 5527' 5527
M M I ff U
The current zoning is Rural Buffer and University Lake Protected
Watershed. Formerly the property was located entirely in Chatham County
until 1990 or 1991 when Orange and Chatham Counties agreed on the
location of the county line. At this location, the boundary moved south
approximately 240 feet.
The 5 -acre portion of the proposed subdivision in Orange County involves
part of two lots and the subdivision entrance on Booth Road. A major
subdivision application is required because a new public road is being
dedicated. At least nineteen other new lots in Price Creek Estates have
received approval from Chatham County.
Much of the acreage slopes to the west draining into the East Branch of
Price Creek which flows north approximately one mile and empties into
University Lake. The lots will be served by individual wells and septic
systems. Letters from NCDOT explain how construction of the proposed
road and future maintenance will be reviewed and implemented, given that
Chatham and Orange Counties are in different DOT districts. The letters
are attachments to these minutes on pages
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Price
Creek Estates with a public road built to State standards and one condition
of approval:
1. Choose a road name that does not duplicate other road names in
Orange County.
Searles asked about the differences in Chatham County's regulations that
this Board needed to be aware of Applicant, Warren Mitchell, responded
that the Chatham County has a one -acre minimum lot size. These lots
average over two acres because of the availability of perc sites.
Price asked about emergency services. Cameron responded that
correspondence with EMS indicated that the 911 system is such that when a
call comes in the location is indicated and the call is routed to the proper
agency.
MOTION: Price moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by
Hoecke.
VOTE: Unanimous.
b. Preliminary Plans
(1) MTK Development
(Eno Township - 25 Lots)
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
The property is located in Eno Township on both sides of Yates Road (SR
1563) east of Palmers Grove Church Road (SR 1562). The current zoning
is Agricultural Residential (AR) and Lower Eno Protected Watershed.
Adjacent land uses are residential. A 100 -foot AT&T right -of -way crosses
0
MInA TU 31
the property running east -west near the southern end of the tract. AT &T
anticipates reducing the right -of -way to 33 feet later this summer.
The total acreage of the tract is 38.34 acres. The site centers around a
stream valley created by an unnamed intermittent stream that flows north
approximately one mile to the Eno River. Primary conservation areas
include the stream and scattered slopes estimated to be over 25 percent.
The remainder of the site is considered secondary conservation area as
woodland and/or major slopes greater than 15 percent. The wooded portion
of the site was damaged by Hurricane Fran and shows the effects of clean-
up efforts.
The Preliminary Plan is almost identical to the Concept Plan approved by
the Planning Board in January. Following Health Department review, two
(2) lots were added with direct access to Yates Road. The current plan
includes 25 new residential lots that average 1.36 acres in size excluding
right -of -way.
The plan for MTK Development follows the conservation option of flexible
development as described in the Subdivision Regulations. The Preliminary
Plan features 18.72 acres or 50% open space. The open space will be
privately owned as part of the lots and will be reserved through restrictive
covenants. The open space protects wooded land on moderate to steep
slopes, the creek and the adjacent stream buffer, as well as buffers along the
roads and the subdivision boundaries.
The lots will have individual wells and septic systems and will access Yates
Road from three proposed roads, except for lots 20 and 25. The two lots
that were added after the Concept Plan review are proposed to have direct
access to Yates Road. Crown Court is proposed as a public road to be built
and paved to NC Department of Transportation standards. A 50 -foot public
right -of -way stubout is reserved between lots 12 and 13 at the end of Crown
Court for a potential road connection in the event property to the south is
subdivided in a manner that warrants additional access. A map is attached
(on page of these minutes) for a schematic illustration of a possible
future road network.
During the Planning Board's review of the Concept Plan, several members
expressed concerns regarding the safety of Yates Road due to the width of
the travelway, its vertical and horizontal alignment, the absence of
pavement markings, combined with the proposed additional traffic. There
also was discussion of dangerous intersections on Highway 70 and how
additional traffic might affect them.
The minutes of the Planning Board's discussion of the Concept Plan were
sent with the Preliminary Plan to the Department of Transportation with a
request for comments. DOT responded with a letter (an attachment to these
minutes on page ), stating that certain improvements have been
requested such as additional pavement inside curves, striping, and posting
the speed limit.
Regarding intersections on US Highway 70, the DOT District Engineer
advised that the sight distances are currently adequate; however, they will
q n 32
monitor the locations for potential problems. The intersection at Lawrence
Road will be scheduled for signalization when funds are available.
Chili Court and Ritz Way are proposed as private gravel roads, Class C and
Class B respectively. The applicant's private road justification and the Staff
evaluation are attachments to these minutes on pages . The
private roads are justified through open space protection, lower density than
the maximum allowed, and the subdivision's location in a protected
watershed.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for MTK
Development with public and private roads according to the conservation
option of flexible development and the conditions contained in the
Resolution of Approval (an attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Barrows asked about access for the new lots 24 and 25. Cameron
responded that lot 24 will access Ritz Way and lot 25 will access Yates
Road. Cameron continued that only lots 20 and 25 will access Yates Road.
Barrows continued, asking about item #5 in the Resolution of Approval
which states that further subdivision may require upgrade of roads. She
noted that part of the justification for private roads was larger lots and the
applicant had indicated that there would be no further subdivision.
Cameron stated that with this on record, anyone looking at the recorded
plat would know that further subdivision would require road upgrades.
Price stated that she felt including the statement would help to ensure it
remains as a private road. She felt without this statement in the Resolution,
the opportunity may be there for further subdivision.
Brooks asked if the statement of no further subdivision would be
included in the covenants and Cameron agreed that it would.
Allison asked if there are any issues related to siting a building because of
the AT &T 100 -foot right -of -way which may be reduced by AT &T later this
year to 33 feet. Cameron responded that AT &T had indicated that later this
summer the right -of -way will be reduced to 33 -feet. She continued that
building and septic setbacks can be met with the 100 -foot right -of -way;
building on this lot is not contingent upon the reduction of the right -of -way.
Brooks asked the open space. Cameron responded that it is being called
conservation area and includes stream buffers and setbacks.
Selkirk asked if there was a flowing stream or a wet weather stream. The
response was that it is flowing.
MOTION: Searles moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded
by Selkirk.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Charles Woods Subdivision, Phases 3 and 4
(Eno Township - 20 Lots)