Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 05-05-1997 - 8l
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Max 5, 1997 Action Agenda Item #-I--;- SUBJECT: Cedar Pointe - Preliminary Plan ACTION BY: June 19, 1997 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_x_No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_x—No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk Ext. 2582 Resolution of Approval Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Vicinity Map Hillsborough- 732-8181 Fiscal Impact Analysis Durham - 688-7331 Preliminary Plan Mebane - 227-2031 Draft 4/2/97 Planning Board Minutes Chapel Hill - 967-9251 PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Cedar Pointe. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the north side of W. Lebanon Road (SR 1306) in Cheeks Township approximately 1,800 feet west of Frazier Road (SR 1342). It is zoned R-1 and BACK-PW and designated Rural Residential and Back Creek Watershed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The area proposed for development is 23.927 acres in size with 17 lots proposed. Each lot will be served by individual wells and septic tanks and have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Access to the property is from W. Lebanon Road(SR 1306)with two public roads proposed in the subdivision. A 1995 traffic count on W. Lebanon Road indicated 1,400 trips per day just east of this property. • r 2 This subdivision received Concept Plan approval prior to adoption of the new flexible development standards. On April 2, 1997 the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan for Cedar Pointe Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Cedar Pointe per the Planning Board recommendation. 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date May 5, 1997 Name of Subdivision Cedar Pointe Owner/Applicant James L. Hill The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Cedar Pointe subdivision preliminary plat, dated February 14, 1997 and containing 17 lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein. Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive 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 Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as it is accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the Final Plat of Cedar Pointe Subdivision can be recorded: A. Sewage Disposal 1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for septic 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. Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation,within a 50' right-of-way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. OR 4 A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to secure construction of Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive 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. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the applicant to the Orange County Erosion Control Division for review and approval. 3. 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. 4. The intersections of Lebanon Road and Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive and Cedar Pointe Drive shall be constructed to NCDOT specifications. 5. Lots 1 through 15 shall access onto the new subdivision roads. Lots 16 and 17 shall have a joint drive and access onto Lebanon Road. 6. A 50 foot public right-of-way between lots 11 and 12 shall be dedicated to Orange County. C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and Inspections Department. 2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Lebanon Road. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-8-e of the Subdivision Regulations. 5 D. Drainage 1. 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. Locate drainage easements as required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. 3. A stream buffer shall be provided through lots 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. The width of the buffer shall be stated on the face of the plat. 4. Drainage culverts shall be sized and located as required by NCDOT and the Orange County Erosion Control Officer. E. Parkland 1. Cash in the amount of$7,280.00 shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. drainage easements as required by D.2. above. 3. Minimum building setbacks shall be as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. The setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. G. Certifications 1. A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall be notarized on the face of the Final Plat. 2. A Certificate of Declaration and Maintenance in the form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Division of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for septic disposal. 6 4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Cedar Pointe Drive and Sam Miller Drive 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 1, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant Date r•+rrL-I-.tA I JUN rUR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL 7 F MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8193 ORANGE COUNTY �+ DATE: � ( 7 PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) 1 SUBDIVISION NAME: LOCATION: ALL ; / SPz. 1m) OWf ERIDEVELOPER: ADDRESS: z02S,/tD.4 3d .i►!_ TELEPHONE NOR —523 9�1.3_? �/No�w'��C�C�►��e�T� AGENT/CONTACT: TELEPHONE NO.: A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Ter. Mep Mack Lotis) _7 Township f Zoning District(s): Total Number of Acres: ti3. 9L 7 - ,Phases: 14 Me ,FSes Total Number of Lots:• Average Lot Size: _.114 Minimum Lot Vize: .44 ew- Number/Type of Structures: (existing) 416✓L (proposed) Lineal Feet in Streets: / Z-e D Acres in Open Space: O Water Supply: We Public (specify) Community ✓ Individual Wastewater Disposal: Public {specify) Community ✓ Individual School District: Fire District: General Land Uses in Area: •� Critical Areas: stream/drainageways O-✓ fr^9 —/ Z— flood prone areas watershed (specify) BACK-PW 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 W-2001 and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet 0 20') and must contain the following'information: y subdivision name zoning of tract and adjacent Je% name &address of ownerls) properties �C name & address of subdivider building setback lines by notation (if other than owner) or typical lot layout T ✓ ""`` name of surveyor, engineer, k..' „ location and width of existing and .-4 Co landscape architect or architect, proposed easements (drainage, address, registration t and seal utilities, roads, etc.) (title) Preliminary Plan existing, proposed and adjoining scale, north arrow rights-cf-way including dimensions U) date Gncluding revision dates) and street names and state road w township, tax map-block4ot numbers. Lineal feet of road 4J 4-4 references centerlines and approximate Parent Parcel Identification / acreage of new street rights-of- dead book and page /of property way to be subdivided existing and proposed utilities, .fir co "✓"< boundary described with bearings including type, sizes, hydrants. E and distances valves, manholes o �o C :?_ tots{ acreage of the Vaal and existing and proposed curbs. Y m acreage of lots, including and gutters and culverts, including excluding area within rights-of- sizes and grades Uway location and width of alleys, control comer sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) proposed lot lines with dimensions typical street cross-sections and ✓ lot & block numbers intersection details including phasing lines design and width of travelway and topography at tan foot (10) shoulders intervals horizontal alignment and general 0 water bodies, streams, floodwsy ✓ curve data (Public roads) at and floodplains centerline radius on all proposed stream buffers streets a) location and size of parcels permanent features such as U) U dedicated for public use, buildings, cemeteries, historic E- 4 W L44 recreational use or reserved in landmarks r+ LW . a common, with purpose noted adjoining lot layout names of impervious surface data (if located adjoining property owners. If W ,0 in water supply watershed) subdivided, subdivision plat name, 4..) 44 Q) 4 co % vicinity map showing general plat book & page number, and CL a) location of subdivision with streets perimeter lot numbers. E W 0 M and roads identified by State road location and size of lots of U number and name restricted development potential .' a) V, M landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding Q) cc requirements same 0 to township, corporate and extra- stormwater detention and/or territorial planning jurisdiction lin' es retention sites and undisturbed which cross the property areas f or 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 sower 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 lose Section IV-8-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VIL 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 •t,-nizenent, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary an evidence that the ordinance requirements are being met. a. Fee - $350.00 plus $5.00 per lot 0 fee for preliminary and final plat). 7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots at more the following information shall be submitted with the application: ' I a. Number of years to buildout. 7 b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout. C. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout. t o 1090. 1, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is comp) and accurate. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE 0 NEWS SIGNATURE DATE L DATE FEES: Amount 410 Date Paid 7 Receipt 0 1-2 070 —go Z J ----'' f' � .��� j a 0.n �O •� s• r 0• N 2$ ti t. W r Q Z � +•, C v �''' «fin V y1V O P E Z � g r � 1 • .yam lid ♦lam a .. .�Q 7w {--- O g3 'gd<Y 4 9V cr LLJ J O W N v=is'�• ` z tM�wB�i � :yggY y $ II � yY��sh U W O •, �Y °o3Fg um ji•S�s�:S i g S _1INH R a` a'"'t a S t q a � i $ 8 5 .3 •Y Y 3 I b - �a o � AE � I °# ��: R � AR 7R '+ eRR8S1`• 9� 45 n ; ouag � ` - fI . 2 ',a 4°m° oral• �aei �a,� _ � � v! \� >Y ' ` 9R6 + ; R Az $a� o+�ta� 'N°° °; ' i$u � s°"• \\ g! � '�i 8 8.$ 8 $ 9 $ $ 8 8 8 8 : 8 $ 8 g 8 � 8 z a`o3 z'a' Joao ag¢ .• , °w' • oZ `1 R z S R R R A R - R >: :A 8 R R a 9 = a~ $;g`y aa�> uQ vaa3a b'? �� ° ��� ! a S S SEE 6 8 L L II L 8 E L L $ a^ au>f aQOtrd ua Ha "� �}� 1_y om � _• ..=Nry .g y ng .q �. a`os••- `o>�c o- ay O�e 1, '�� a Tilly La g leek �. -��` •��� �„� a ����ga > ;n1 ` cc in Rim IS �'€��a �� 'tj, `off• y C'� o °:: / r � . • , 8x ���; i d ay 1 '8 • era r. �,:a� �tr 'i .. 8 °! R\� 1 � icw oSSOP•+�-'_�__C3n rr,pt - ~Y // SI 3 f • 7y"Ot• yr03: 3SOepy`d/--�...�,,,,,J �../ Tz of uj ir W � � 3i i NZ O �;t . 1 � O , • J • • s • • ~ 'ISi � _! xa OOi OJ.• rl°l':iz�a• rro 1 Q ,� { ; •to, � /r • ,.,r.t � _ �fij }JG, � 4 was*. YXOlCL W NGSIn10BrtS NfW iY1E l +,.cutitt rvAtli i c APPLICANT: JAMES L. HILL ZONE: AR & BACK-PW r r LUP: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL _ BACK CREEK WATERSHED 1 POWER ac. •1 I � _ �/ a 9x56 3580 21 47X a 94 r - . 4366 �\\ 92 2C) j r� 2228 u1051, 169 19 3199 9 + � 1 .1.01 AC 40 ss 1 31 a 18 aCt 60l 474C. l 38 i' 1 3710 Py z i / 7MCK R' e I 40 AC i •8972' 80 t 831 c o9s0t.1B 9 c -�C l 3a f1 I a-,73 Ac 3 •%554 s 55;3 18�t 1' 6632 e s r. t 5842 AC --— -- �i 8W1 ty74_ 8U y}6a' / 16295 �8.. 1.3 83 �a } of pql GE 9 2g66 m ogt6 8W 1 P/ll Z2 06 : 289 6841 I O 187>i 8Y 1 95 AC. 9µH 11727AC e1 14 1,3&36 8F 7510 Sal t 02214 ;0 3 4 1 11 $70 ( 5 2 3 63 AC 62 3C1063 i� ``` a9v6 ! $1 "—.21 �� \9 s7 3G _3 ;a23 AC 886 C. 48 6023 eE� _ 58 X175 AC �P 13.b Alc 2 6 _•ec— �� 15080 L6?2v� 9 :C ,1557 c _ C coy 7A t �0 l r ' ] 2 + FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR CEDAR POINTE SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department March, 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Cedar Pointe is a proposed 17-lot subdivision located in Cheeks Township. The lots are accessed by two new public roads. One of the roads will intersect with the north side of Lebanon Road between Frazier Road and Daniels Farm Road. The current zoning is R1 - Rural Residential. The average lot size is approximately 1.3 acres. Lots will be served by individual septic systems and wells. Project build-out is estimated at seven years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1997, with completion of the project scheduled for 2004. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be $103,000, including the lot. METHODOLOGY Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It calculates the financial effect of a planned development or new subdivision by considering the current costs and revenues such a development would generate if it were completed and occupied today. Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues. The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis is the Service Standard Approach. While only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Per Capita Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of additional employees by service function that will be required as a result of growth. This method employs average county government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, an employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per employee for each service category and school district. The number of new employees are projected and multiplied times the average operating expenses (includes personnel, operating and capital costs) per employee. These average costs are then weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact of the development. RESIULN I IAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 13 ?' Bureau of Economic & Business Research - University of Florida Modified 5/13/96-Orange County, NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: PfifIECT. ,,...;;;>:<::;::;<:;:>:>;: :.'.::.,::.;;. C �iar P4xnf ... TOWNSHIP: Cheeks CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: 8eginng Year 1987 ..:.:.:..::::::..........................::.................. Ending Year: 2004 . . Intatart date `>:'::;::::`:' CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: perse+s�s/Hnus >«NTI+1 1 I t:C ' PLI: a E�CHC�L t]tS ICF 1��40U1! 2 47. n � ..........:::........:.::..:.::..:..::..:....:.:::.::...:::::.......................: Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33 'a Nolclely _ 10t)00°fa HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes ($) by Year ....... 1998 2 103,000 11.76% X. ::::. :............ ..........:......:......:::::::. .::::::.:.............................:.:::::...::::::::.::::::::::. 33 QQQ....................::::::::::::::::.:::::: :::::::::::f1,769 :............................:.......:.:.:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:.:.......................,.:::.::::::.:::::.::::::::::::.::,.:..::.,...............................:.:.o 2000 2 103000 11.76% ....:.:'.:'.::::...... ..:. :......:::;: :.:::...:::::::::.:::::,::::.::........................1. ::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;::::::::::::;::;;;:.;:.;;:.>;;;;;;:.;:.;;:.:;.;;::;: ::::;:.::;;;:.;:...................................:....................... . .................................................... ... 5.. ...............................................................:.... 2002 3 103000 17.65% xx 2004 0 0 0.00% ..:.;.::.:.;..;..:..:::.::: ::.::..... :::.::...:. :::.:. :::: 00°la 2006 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: ©ran ge Can € 1 Eternentary Shtxxl 64°!0 Middle School 17% tape . H ooi Cl 19% SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS i 4 YEAR 1997 1998 j 994: 2000: 2Q01?+1 HOUSING UNITS ;, Z.._ 4 8 11' POPULATION :.> :>:> < ::'s'':?> .; 10 ;` ;'> 1$ 20 : 27s SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 1 middle High School 0 TOTAL 3 . COUNTY EMPLOYEES OI,Q3. 0.05 Q 08;: 0.10... : 0!.14 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES O 04 0.07 „011; 0 14!i: 020 TAX BASE(57000) _ ;:,<::;::::..:;:::..:2Q6. 417 855 :.- .186 1 b34 ' COUNTY BUDGET tai Revenues >'.:< ?> 2395 4872 T432 10078 14054! Expenditures :< ::::: <><> 75T: 5651 „ 8b$9'; 11874 16736? BALANCE 361E : -779 125x7 -1797 : 2682' t SCHOOL DISTRICT Bu DGET(S) Revenues >::;; .>::`; <"<" T44: 5625 8648; 11819 16658:. Expenditures « 244_. 5625 864& 11819 16658` BALANCE ;:.;:.::::.:... Q.: 0 0.; 0 ">:. Q< COMBINED D BUD ETS G S Revenues 10497 21897 Expenditures 11276 23694 .... 335,,. >: -1797 BALANCE :>:r; z?< >;::,:::;:.361 -779 1.x$7:': YEAR 20Q2 2003 : 21?Q4. 2005 2006 HOUSING UNITS .. �.:.::, 17 17 17 POPULATION 42 42 az' SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary :: ` >'> ;; 4 ': 4 4 4' Middle High School TOTAL : 6 6: 6 6 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0 18 022 22; 0.22 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 25 0 30 0.30: 0.30 0.30 TAX BASE($1000) tS24; 1872 7918: 1966 2015 COUNTY BUDGET(s) Revenues 18E64 22413 22973 23548 24136 Expenditures 21832;.; 27173 27853 ; 28549 29263 BALANCE 3668< -4760 -4879 -5001 -5126 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET(S) Revenues 21731 : 27047 27723 : 28416 29127 Expenditures 21731 27047 27723 28416 29127 BALANCE 0. 0 0 0 0 COMBINED BUDGETS(S) Revenues 39895 49460 50697: 51964 53263 Expenditures 43563;: 54221 55576 56965 58390 BALANCE 3668 -4760 -1879 -5001 -5126 IS SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District: School Attendance: C,Trge Cc)ttn£}r.: YES 1 _ ElesenFaer SchooE Middle School 17% C€sal Hlif Carrbo v l�€ a C .: t-isg> Schl 19a YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 2 Middle ::>.>:;;>:::: 43' 0 Q' 0 High School 0 � 1 1i 1 Z:' TOTAL '. ..:,<. '� : _.<:::.. 3 ... YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 4' <G` T' ............ ....... Middle High School ?ST> <'� TOTAL 6 >>?<<><<> . .. SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS ,::,:;.::.:::.;» ;:><::::: >:>:<:;: €emeni .........:.2868' I nta :>;.;:.:<:::::;::;::: ;;;; ;:;;;;;;;:::::;:::.:;;:.:<:<.: _ ::::,,:.:.;:.;:. 282>1 ..:...E.:. .::..::::.::: ..:.. .. .:: .:.:.....:. . . :... . E.ettz e...............:...............:.....:.......::.....::.:.......... . ....... ........... ....::.................. ...................... . Middle 1522 Middle 1267 1. 4 2 <>::: :::......:..........:......;:::;:::: :>::>< >::: 1520. _ 8 TOTAL 5970 TOTAL 5617 YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary >::::•::<>:;:::> 286&. 2869 a 286g 2870 2870 Middle 1267: 1267 : 136 1267 1268 High School 148x 1482 14$2 1483 1483 TOTAL 5618' 5618 y6.I9: 5620 5621 YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary 2871 2872 2872 2872 2872 Middle 1268.: 1268 1268' 1268 1268 High School 1483 1483 1483 1483 1483 TOTAL 5622` 5623 S623 : 5623 5623 Draft 4 /2/97 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 16 Conservation Option: 1. Locate the driveway for lot 4A-2 so that it does not cross the drainage area;and 2.With the Preliminary Plan, submit restrictive covenants or a conservation easement to ensure protection of the designated open space. The restrictive covenants or conservation easement shall designate a back-up grantee, in the event the homeowners association is eliminated. Barrows asked for clarification of the previous minor subdivision of this property. Cameron used the vicinity map to explain the previous subdivision noting that it is across Davis Road. Katz asked if there is an existing Homeowners Association for the other lots. Cameron responded that there would be no need for anything except possibly the Road Maintenance Agreement. Katz continued, asking how the open space on the Conservation Plan would be handled. Cameron responded that the intent was to have some agreement with the homeowners. She was not sure whether the property owners of the previous subdivision would be involved. MOTION: Allison moved approval of both concept plans, preferring the Conservation Plan. Seconded by Brooks. VOTE: Unanimous. b. Preliminary Plans (1) Cedar Pointe (Cheeks Township- 17 Lots) Presentation by Mary Willis. The property is located on the north side of W. Lebanon Road(SR 1306) in Cheeks Township approximately 1,800 feet west of Frazier Road(SR 1342). It is zoned R-1 and Back-PW and designated Rural Residential and Back Creek Watershed in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The area proposed for development is 23.927 acres in size with 17 lots proposed. Each lot will be served by individual wells and septic tanks and have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Access to the property is from W. Lebanon Road(SR 1306)with two public roads proposed in the subdivision. A 1995 traffic count on W. Lebanon Road indicated 1,400 trips per day just east of this property. The Planning Board unanimously approved the Concept Plan for Cedar Pointe on February 19, 1996 with 19 lots. Due to soil limitations the number of lots have been reduced from 19 to 17 and the lots around the Sam Miller Drive cul-de-sac have been reconfigured. Three conditions were attached to the Concept Plan: 17 r 1.A 50 foot public right-of-way stub out shall be provided between lots 11 and 12 for a future road extension(now shown between lots 9 and 10). 2.Access for lots I and 17 shall be from the subdivision road(now lots 1 and 15). 3.Lots 18 and 19 shall have a joint driveway(now lots 16 and 17). These conditions have been included in the Resolution of Approval. The subdivision layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Cedar Pointe subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval(an attachment to these minutes on pages ). Price expressed concern with the stubout. Willis responded that the stubout provides access to a 47-acre parcel to the east. Price asked if Willis felt it was wise to require the stubout. Willis responded that discussions at previous meetings had indicated concerns with stubouts that would link/connect subdivisions. However, it is a policy of the Commissioners to provide such stubouts for consistency in public road networks. The 47-acre tract may be landlocked and not have another access. The stubout must be set aside set aside at Preliminary Plan stage, it cannot be obtained once the subdivision is developed. Price continued that the Planning Board is hearing more and more that people like to live in enclaves and they do not desire to have their community connected to another. Willis responded that stubouts are not required to"fix"landlocked parcels that previously existed. She continued that they are required to look at the overall big picture for the transportation network. Price noted that she felt other access was available. Willis continued that the length of this subdivision would indicate that an additional access is reasonable. Brooks asked if the Planning Board could have the developers clarify in all of the plats and marketing materials that these stubouts are intended for road extensions. Willis responded that stubouts are clearly shown on final plats,and are referenced in the Declaration of Restrictions recorded with the final plat. Barrows agreed that the issue of traffic flow does make sense,but,such stubouts have created many concerns in recent subdivisions. Price again noted concern that connecting roads and thoroughfares do decrease property values and she could understand citizen concerns in not wanting additional traffic through their community. Willis noted that this concern and discussion has been expressed a lot recently. She suggested that perhaps Planning Board members would want to communicate to the Board of Commissioners their interest and concern for this issue. If this concern is going to continue to occur,then the Planning Board may need to suggest an ordinance amendment to the Board of Commissioners that would address this concern. 18 Walters stated that when a landlocked parcel is seen,the Board needs to consider whether it was originally divided by a family. If there was a connection between the two tracks before it was subdivided then access should be provided. Selkirk stated that the value of landlocked property is decreased. Willis responded that anytime a recommendation is made for a stubout,there are reasons granted by the ordinance to do so. She continued that the Subdivision Regulations prohibit creation of new landlocked parcels. MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Selkirk. VOTE: Unanimous. Barrows asked about the process to change or address the Planning Board's concern about stubouts. Willis suggested that the Chair of the Planning Board write a letter to the Chair of the Board of Commissioners and attach these minutes noting that this would bring the concern to the Board. Chair agreed. Willis continued that it could also be suggested that the item be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee if the Commissioners are interested in pursuing an ordinance amendment. (2) Belmont (Cheeks Township- 18 Lots) Presentation by Mary Willis. The property is located in Cheeks Township at the northern end of Moorefields Road(SR 1135)west of Dimmocks Mill Road(SR 1136). The current zoning is Agricultural Residential and Upper Eno Protected Watershed. It is across the road from the entrance to Moorefields National Register Historic Site. Moorefields Road is currently being paved with the exception of the portion from the northern curve to the northern bridge over Rocky Run where right-of-way was not available. Belmont is the first subdivision to be submitted under the Flexible Development regulations which went into effect July 1, 1996. The total acreage of the tract is 23.65 acres. Approximately one half of the property is wooded. The site slopes gently toward the center,then east toward Rock Run,a perennial stream flowing north to join Seven Mile Creek. There is considerable(2.98 acres) in the floodplain on Rocky Run which is protected by a required stream buffer. Slopes over fifteen percent are limited to an area adjacent to the floodplain and are also protected by the stream buffer. Each lot will have an individual well and septic system. Lots 2-7 will have easements on the common open space for sewage disposal. Belmont follows the Conservation Option for Flexible Development. Eighteen(18)new residential lots are proposed that average 1.2 acres in size. A minimum of 33%open space is required. A total of 8.7 acres (35.6%)open space is proposed in the form of common area(1.9 acres)