HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-25-1997 - E1b t
t
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 20. 1997
Action Agenda
Item#
SUBJECT: Mill Pointe Subdivision, Phases 3 -7 - Preliminary Plan
ACTION BY: September 8, 1997
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X_No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Eddie Kirk
Resolution of Approval Extension 2582
Application
Vicinity Map
Fiscal Impact Analysis TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Preliminary Plan Hillsborough - 732-8181
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes Durham - 688-7331
Draft 7-2-97 Planning Board Minutes Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe Subdivision, Phases 3-7.
BACKGROUND: The property is located on the east side of Mill Creek Road (SR 1343) at the Cedar
Grove-Cheeks Township line between High Rock Road(SR 1340) and Charlie's
Dead End Road (SR 1347). Current zoning is Rural Residential south of the
township line,Agricultural Residential north of the township line, and Back Creek
Protected Watershed. Phases 1 and 2 of Mill Pointe are located across Mill Creek
Road and were completed in 1995.
The tract is 119.68 acres with 59 lots proposed. A portion of the property is
currently being farmed by the owner, C.M. Ray, Jr. The majority of the site slopes
at a gradient of less than 7.5%. Slopes between 7.5% and 15% cover less than 30%
of the site. Slopes over 15% (Secondary Conservation Area) are found on
approximately two acres near the northwest corner of the site.
The land drains to the west toward Back Creek. Two small intermittent streams
flow near the northern and southern boundaries of the subdivision and then under
Mill Creek Road. The streams are considered Primary Conservation Area. A stream
buffer is provided along the streams; a 30-foot land use buffer is required adjacent
to the right-of-way of Mill Creek Road.
2
East Mill Pointe Lane is the main road proposed through the subdivision. This road
will be stubbed out to the east property line. For future circulation and potential
access the Planning Staff is also recommending a publicly dedicated right-of-way
stubout to the north at the end of Springhollow Court.
There are two Fiscal Impact Analyses provided. One is for Phases 3 through 7 and
the other is cumulative, and includes the lots previously approved in Phases 1 and 2.
The Planning Board approved the conventional and conservation Concept Plans for
Mill Pointe Phases 3-7 on March 6, 1997. Copies of the two Concept Plans are
attached. The applicant chose to submit the conventional Preliminary Plan. The
subdivision layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan except
Springhollow Court has been moved east to line up directly across from Loganberry
Court.
On July 2, 1997 the Planning Board, in a 9 to 3 vote, recommended approval of the
Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe Subdivision Phases 3-7 subject to the conditions
contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. The three Planning Board
members voting against the Subdivision were opposed to the stubouts.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Mill Pointe
Subdivision per the Planning Board recommendation.
3
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date August 4. 1997
Name of Subdivision Mill Pointe Phases 3-7
Owner/Applicant C. M. Ray,Jr.
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves Mill Pointe Phases 3-7 subdivision
preliminary plat, dated May 1, 1997 and last revised May 12, 1997 containing 59 lots, subject to
the fulfillment of requirements specified herein.
East Mill Pointe Lane, Pinefield Court, Thistledown Court, Briarwood Court, Cloverdale Court,
Roebuck Court, Loganberry Court and Springhollow 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 East Mill Pointe Lane, Pinefield Court, Thistledown Court, Briarwood Court,
Cloverdale Court, Roebuck Court, Loganberry Court and Springhollow Court . This acceptance
by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of East Mill Pointe Lane, Pinefield
Court, Thistledown Court, Briarwood Court, Cloverdale Court, Roebuck Court, Loganberry
Court and Springhollow Court shall be without maintenance responsibility. These roads shall be
maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are accepted for maintenance by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other governmental body. Before the
Final Plat of Mill Pointe Phases 3-7 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.
4
B. Roads and Access
1. East Mill Pointe Lane, Pinefield Court, Thistledown Court, Briarwood Court,
Cloverdale Court, Roebuck Court, Loganberry Court and Springhollow Court
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
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of East Mill Pointe Lane, Pinefield Court, Thistledown Court,
Briarwood Court, Cloverdale Court, Roebuck Court, Loganberry Court and
Springhollow 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. 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. All intersections shall be constructed to NCDOT specifications.
5. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads.
6. A right turn taper going north and a left turn lane coming south shall be
constructed on Mill Creek Road to NCDOT standards. These improvements shall
be constructed or secured for construction prior to approval of the Final Plat for
Phase 6.
7. A publicly dedicated right-of way shall be provided to the northern property line
at the end of Springhollow Court. The intent for future extension of Springhollow
Court shall be indicated on the Final Plat by the words"Subject to Future
Extension".
5
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.
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 13, 14,20, 21, 29, 30,48, 62 and
63. 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$26,390.00 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.
6 ,
G. Certifications
I. 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 Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains
sufficient area for septic tank disposal and repair.
4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that East Mill
Pointe Lane,Pinefield Court,Thistledown Court, Briarwood Court,Cloverdale
Court, Roebuck Court,Loganberry Court and Springhollow 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
accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and
acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant Date
-, rvr_, PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUBD(V1SY-N 7
ORANGECOUNTY
OAT= 5 S
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
SUSOIVISION NAME: 1t-1-- pctn►TE - �N ASCS 3 7
LOCATION: MULL CR_EEfL �>_uAD �40RTtt of 441ci4 9ZCK RLICAp
OWNERIOEVELOPER: C - R, kA`{ i :37R ,
ADDRESS: Z-77- Sut4 '�q� (..,rn C TELEPHONE NO.: Cal 5(03-12100
AGENT/CONTACT: *`�Mlgz_ L, PAY-so N TELEPHONE NO.: (Ct 1q)Slo3'3)U�j
MEdAa-IS t4C 2_13 o zr
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tex Map +-I) Block Lotts) Township Cep4e G"ur-
zoning Oistrict(s): A_2 - BA-,Cx - PW RI k. C_-4A EXS
Total Number of Acres: 12 1 t/' Phases: (D
Total Number of Lots: 559 _ Average Lot Size:8(;',5 _ Minimum Lot Size: •44, O$$
Number/Type of Structures: (existing) a (proposed) Sy
Lineal Feet in Streets: (D 22-0 Acres in Open Space: 0
Water Supply: Public (specify) Community X Individual
Wastewater Disposal: Public (specify) Community X Individual
School District: DRAIN G E QD- Fire 0istrict- GEDA 9, GRAVE
General Land Uses in Area: C41C U ,RE5/b&777&Z
Critical Areas: — stream/drainagsways S flood prone areas
$�kG�- PU; watershed (specify) 1J J!. historic sites
other (explain) NM
Is the property to be subdivided currently under 'farm use value taxation'1 Yes_,No_ If
plev!To contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of
deferred taxes under 'farm use value taxation'.
B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1'-200') and
no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1'-20') and must contain the fallowing*in formation:
✓ subdivision name zoning of tract and adjacent.
—7 ✓ name & address of owners) properties
i/l: 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
C landscape architect or architect, proposed easements (drainage,
c address, registration 0 end seal utilities, roads, etc.)
Q ✓ (title) Preliminary Plan ✓ existing, proposed and adjoining
N
scale, north straw rights-of-way including dimensions
date (including revision dates) and street names and state road
N U
� •.� � township, tax ma0-black•lot numbers. Lineal (set of road
references centerlines and approximate
^' C ✓ -7 Parent Parcel Identification 0 acreage of new street rights-cf-
4 ✓ deed book and page 0 of property way
44 w to be subdivided ✓ existing and proposed utilities,
,424 M ✓ _ boundary described with bearings including type. sizes. hydrants,
C
and distances / valves, manholes
total acreage of the tract and ✓ existing and proposed curbs.
Y acreage of tots, including and gutters and culverts, including
U a excluding srea within rights-of- sizes and grades
LN' A *1A location and width of alleys.
W to way sidewalks,sidewalks, bike Imes, transit
control systems, and bus stops
(please complete reverse side)
✓ J arcpased at lies with dimencior.s ✓ :'ip ca s:ree _ross•sect:ons and
_J iot & oiocx numoers+ nterseci oetaus .nc;ud,ng 8
phasing tines design . width of travelway and
topography at ten foot (10) shoulders s
marvels
C -✓ _-4/ horizontal alignment and general
C water bodies, streams, floodway curve data (public roads)
a ✓ and floodplains ✓ v/ centerline radius on all proposed
t/ stream buffers streets
ALA_ location and size of parcels permanent features such as
0 U dedicated for public use, buildings, cemeteries, historic
E- 4
J t. + recreational use or reserved in landmarks
�1 p common, with purpose noted `� adjoining lot layout names of
J " impervious surface date (if located adjoining property owners. If
aj O in water supply watershed) subdivided, subdivision plat name,
rVt 1/ vicinity map showing general plat book & page number, and
E a) location of subdivision with streets ',/e perimeter lot numbers.
c M and roads identified by State road IA location and size of lots of
number and name restricted development potential
�c a) / landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding
U
a� o rents same
v r� '> township corporate and extra- "' stormwater detention and/or
territorial planning jurisdiction lines retention sites and undisturbed
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 Oepai tment 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-8-3-d-1 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulations).
S. Auxiliary documents, in draft fort, prepared in accordance with Section VL 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 ACrnz vent, and
articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to s homeowner's association.
These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements
are being met.
8. Fee - $350.00 plus $5.00 per lot 0 fss for prc!iminary and final plat).
7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the fallowing informstion shall be submittad with the
application:
s. 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. 410-6-110,004
I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foregoing application is complete and accurate.
//10- A4
c
PP NT'S SIGNA E OW 'S SIGNATURE
s � sla� s (slg�
GATE OATE
�4
FEES: Amount 0 0 Oats Paid �I�I2-7 Receipt 0
9
r
Mill Pointe Subdivision, Phases 3-7
Applicant: C. M. Ray, Jr.
Zoning: Rural Residential
Agricultural Residential .
Back Creek Protected Watershed 4
Scale: one inch = 800 feet
0 oil AC
),x
34 9 Y
'D '
-4.33 eec a� •; � r)aCi
142 i6 203• 20 AC ]0,• r
AC
OE 10 ENO r• 2c i0 S:G a'9
r- i 'P 42"7 2>e 1)st l o �.. "�•i O .ur
2A .`23 •aa•a/ M)• 10 2AC- tea ,
N )32 .2C
163'A�
17
•2• (! �t
NOR1'I•{ ••ia IS& z<,
2
CA
_ .-. .. .._ 10 02 .0 t) '��,� //.i ` 12 sir• ))26 AC �.
13C 3"
n i3)SACS 3)F \ 3 is=' S. O�G
M 1 •G.a.w.r'.,•1.. . .
..a�
0• tat, r../ .
N
29.265•A f
1 *� r•�wr
.1w5 ...
U.14 Ae.
425?AC
.,9« :2.005� (�•
'see wv+i-11 '
3 84AC 25 Na I AC GL.
IIAC
fAC 2r,• ;� Y •u• l
O n?SAC '
If
la Owe 'J
1 2 a 0944
193 A4
O l ` ,•s •1 I
'1 Q
� � � liT7�•C �2 :� O • � 1 1O n t
4222•C. 1 1 J -
ti»•5 it � t • •''
w 1
(/ �o,a AC � •• 1 � �
lai is 7/ �1 f O •1• '`
...• s in AC. -
I.at. • a7a9 rl 1 •••f •2
0
J�
r
10
CONCEPT PLAN
CA�t,1V�Tr0�1A(_ sUgDN fs(o,�.l Pt�l�
5D t LS U�15U ITdS�-�
SYsT'�F15
r. PHA ESI1. z ""
MILL INT SUBDIVISION 7 Ff0 00' STREAM BUFFER
100' FROM CENTER OF ZF] � . �•
i eu» a
@ sr STREAM
\• r
® 94= + + rye^..
4AYs� ®s �• + + +
® + + Ir
v W+ +
s
44707 3V :r .7 *ka� "60°' + + .
u X07 ?
•� + + + + 4
v+mscrrc ' + ' "`"s
TTR 'M
®' ®,
+ + ® s
+ +
LOW CEKM Cr
s7a£a+a
corraarfr►ar�u..��.---
- •ofaffrafa.�rraaar..irrrfaar.�___
'%cafrraf.frrv_rffsaawsrffrfatsffufffff.a-...__
:r • :r ..a■a/raraaa►aa■aaaarar.aarf/aaafararaoirr�■af,fraaa■.___
I/I .rfofrfnoaq�arrforr►'Jrff'�'2Jrra.irrnCAW18,27—ffffffr�.tffra a�•.-°-
ur .aarr■rruu ooaa_..auwr-aor.oa,v�ww � �.■rffr.rrr/nru....
if• a frawr.uoaoaoa:•,rrrraaw. .r
i.ir i .�.���nruooa f.r•sa f rr•f,aoorr.�.ofro►a:affarrr�r ua ru
rr a r.w.
arooarfduft'wro/o - r - -�sfffa+.-.i-i�s�farre[aarr.orf r 9.
-. ., +r..:.....e•,...-a,■a/aa..aaraaarr r/r
„y ,€� i -voaoar.�oc-ruofaoov Z ri
of
..urrroffr-vo►�oar •• u
•� •.av.wur.orrraf�� .+O,
iw r �---f■fo■►.ffafoarf._ got
�af►aaraa►.aaaarrarrr._ r
�raaaafraaa,.'!aarrfraar. rr
yr rLJ rIa .■l.vu/rr.� Yaaaaa■M o
L 1 �_raf/fr/rw�f�rf/rf/r. rj1
_ 2 L' �.fr��47fafrA CTa.aaaiM:° a:
1I rt. <• ,/ _ - �� \tart//rte■ /f/a' y .!
-
•i �aaa ,a■aaa.aa_ art ia. ..
v �_" �• � -�a:voaoor tor•.
.�,I T � •�� � L _ifiiii�ra� .i�ioiu. ii
■r =(i { -v. oo. uro. far
• • .oa.•a■sota. rr
rte• 3 �� cZ' - prr■aw.r,rla.rr. ■a
nr t .raa■ar■i. u
r:•r ,�. •/rs//rrC l'L Via•'.•r♦
ii _ 'oor.r..ow•
Ia.
./■r■■rur■r•u■aru!EAN=
as �r "r•„ - •� _i
air sip ■roor■o..•
-rr000■oo.
r .o.irr�orsu.0■►.- -
ir• a .rrouor•.rauru■ors.ru.ar Q Z ■a
r '� n ,r■.araoauar•+■■uos►�ar■!r� - r-
'w a �.suua�a..�rounrr/rrar.uvu- r
k u .....vrao�t •.uanuuarrrur r.
orwra...r___ a .4_�it a lar/aaar■ar/rrraar. :ra/ N
l.�rr_.^- .-a•vr•.■r.rr:.00uroouua�.■rursr..v
ua.sra■ro�uurnf_olou•u■o■.r■rr■r•.;ur- - z: ;` - a.
.varoauoraur■.rorrroraor■oo\r /
•i�oaar rfalaffti■a/.■araar.rr�■■!aa rlrlrallrr.arar/_r F. - �'
saarrar■ar/�r■ar■.■ar■.rr■■r■L/■■rfrr■rr■ars■r r•
r.al raraaoa►wa/o►.ouoor..u.r.rrr■ulo�.,, __ _'_ !.
.000000\oorrour■rrar000rouaraa►r - � � ii.
\aarorol or■�•.arras■u!■■ra'+■ar.raa.l.arc...: f �■.
■rte aararr■row.ruaonroo.■■■___,r_rr■ar■■r• !7,
ovsoa.avvaou■000rorfoa-.ro ■ruar■r■aa__ ..asuss
was,waaorarara/ra._w.•
os ua/:■.--. :.arrrraa•
..raaarrrlrarrrr
�. i.
-I r
uurrorvaa■oorlra�•--- �o■r■rrr�.r■raa■• � � r�
r
-rrararao■ua0000.arr:.■rru■roa/.vrra ► - fr
•f000ar\oa.r■uorounaoo■ orr■rruro
so
No
uorarauav.oa0000urrror■r■orr■r■ar■■_ .� 'S � ` rw
-_raacvw..r�.�aororr.u.■r■rrrowrr■rc.■rr■r[. ,� T
��■aaaaarvraraalaalaalaarrarr.ar.. •r
...■r�rrirrw.ar.r.�-_ �
r ---- �.wu.[+►-fury..._ _ a•
12
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR MILL POINTE SUBDIVISION- PHASES 3 through 7
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
June, 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phases 3 through 7 of Mill Pointe Subdivision contain a total of 59 lots. Phases 1 and
2, approved in 1994 and 1995, respectively, contained a total of 10 lots
Phases 3 through 7 are located in Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships. The lots are
accessed by new public roads which will intersect with the east side of Mill Creek Road (SR
1343). The current zoning is R-1 Rural Residential in Cheeks Township and AR Agricultural
Residential in Cedar Grove Township. The average lot size is 1.9 acres. Lots will be served
by individual wells and septic systems.
Phases 1 and 2 have been completed. All lots have been developed with detached
single-family homes. The average sales price, including the lot, was approximately
$100,000. Build-out for phases 3 through 7 is estimated at five years. Housing units will be
constructed at a rate of seven to twelve per year beginning in 1998, with completion of the
project scheduled for 2003. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the
applicant estimates the average sales price to be $105,000 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.
Phases 3-7
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 13
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:
PROJECT: Mill Pointe Phases 3-7
TOWNSHIP: Cheeks
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year 1998
Ending Year: 2003
Inflation Rate: 2.50%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER"1"BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.47
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33
%Non-Eiderl - -
y. - _... 100.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($) by Year
1998 7 105,000 11.86%
1999 10 105,000 uw_ 16.95%
2000 10 _ 105,000` . 16.95%
u_.._.. _ _ _._..a_.... .. ..". ..'. "-__r._rs_a:.y_..+..._. > .. _r.._.._._ _. _.... .. . _ .., ✓k�Yv�. nr�+1�M1Oq.
2001 10 105,000 16.95%
2002 10 105,000 16.95%
2003 12 105,000 20.34%
2004 . 0.
2005 0 0 0.00%
2006 0 0 0.00%
2007 0 0 0.00%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER"1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO B
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( - 1 ) EJementarjr School:. 64°�6
Middle School 17%
Chapel Hilf-Carrboro ( .0 ): _ _ _Hf -Schoo - &;_f 9-°/6
Phases 3-7
14
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
HOUSING UNITS 7 17 27 37 47
POPULATION 17 42 67 91 116
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 4 6 8 10
Middle 0 1 2 2 3
High School 0 1 2 2 3
TOTAL 2 6 9 12 16
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.09 0.22 0.36 0.49 0.62
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.13 0.32 0.52 0.71 0.90
TAX BASE($1000) 735 1803 2898 4021 5171
COUNTY BUDGET($)
Revenues 9029 22263 35940 50074 64680
Expenditures 10317 25682 41808 58725 76461
BALANCE -1288 -3419 -5868 -8651 -11782
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 12992 32341 52649 73953 96289
Expenditures 12992 32341 52649 73953 96289
BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS
Revenues 22021 54604 88590 124027 160968:
Expenditures 23309 58023 94458 132678 ,-1;725 701
BALANCE -1288 -3419 -5868 -8651 -11782
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007:.
HOUSING UNITS 59 59 59 59 ,Frx ;59
POPULATION 146 146 . 146 146 :146
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 12 12 12 12 `° .12`
Middle 3 3 3 3 �sK3
High School 4 4 x 4 4
TOTAL 1S ' 19 19 19 x_ .19
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.78; 0.78 0.78, 0.78 !? 8
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 1.13'. 1.13 .:_.:_. .-1.13: 1.13 - x :1:13
TAX BASE($1000) 6561 , 6725 6893. 7065 7242:
COUNTY BUDGET
Revenues 82466; 34528 86641 88807 •91027
Expenditures 983811: 100843 -103364-- 105948 X108596
BALANCE -15917: -16315 _. 46723 -17141 -:=-2=17563
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET(S) - »�
Revenues 123895 126992 13Q167 133421
Expenditures 123895 ; 126992 13Q_167 133421 1x36757-
BALANCE 0 0 0 �r O
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 20636f5 211520 =-- .216808' 222228 84-
Expenditures 222278-- 227835 *233536 239369 2'45353`
BALANCE -15917 -16315 _.16723 -17141 �; ' S".
Phases 3-7 15
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County. YES ) Elementary School 64%
Middle School 17%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO } High School 19%
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 4 6 8 10
Middle 0 1 2 2 3
High School 0 1 2 2 3
TOTAL 2 6 9 12 16
YEAR - 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 12 12 12 12 12
Middle 3 3 3 3 - 3
High School 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL 19 19 19 19 19
SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 3328 Elementary
Middle 1522 Middle 1240
High School 1520 High School - 1457
TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 5519
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2823 2826 2828 , 2830 2832
Middle 1240 1241 12421 : 1242 1243
High School 1457 1458 "� 1459 1459 -1460
TOTAL 5521 5525 " " '5528 5531 5535
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT ,
Elementary 2834 2834 _ -2834 : 2834 „2834
Middle -1243 1243 --w-4 =;1243 ' 1243 -12431
High School F - _146111 1461 1461 " 1484
TOTAL 5538` 5538 --5538 5538 5538
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 16
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:
PROJECT: Mill Pointe Phases 1 - 7
TOWNSHIP: Cheeks
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year: 1998
Ending Year: 2003
Inflation Rate: 2.50%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.47
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33
% Non-Elderly: 100.00%
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($) by Year
1998 17 103,000 24.64%
1999 10 105,000 14.49%
2000 10 105,000 14.49%
2001 10 105,000 14.49%
2002 10 105,000 14.49%
2003 12 105,000 17.39%
2004 0 0 0.00%
2005 0 0 0.00%
2006 0 .. 0 0.00%
2007 0 0 0.00%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO B
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( 1 ) Elementary School .64%
Middle School 17%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( 0 ) High-School 19%
17
cumulative
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
HOUSING UNITS 17 27 37 47 57
POPULATION 42 67 91 116 141
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 4 6 8 10 12
Middle 1 2 2 3 3
High School 1 2 2 3 4
TOTAL 6 9 12 16 19
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.22 0.36 0.49 0.62 0,75
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.32 0.52 0.71 0.90 1.09
TAX BASE($1000) 1751 2845 3966 5115 6293
COUNTY BUDGET(S)
Revenues 21652 35201 49202 63668 78613
Expenditures 25055 40788 57293 74596 92730
BALANCE -3403 -5587 -8091 -10929 -14117
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 31552 51365 72149 93940 116776
Expenditures 31552 51365 72149 93940 116776
BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 53204 86567 121351 157608 195389
Expenditures 56608 92154 129442 168537 209505
BALANCE -3403 -5587 -8091 -10929 =14117
YEAR 2003 2004 20.05 2006 _2007
HOUSING UNITS 69 69 69 69 69
POPULATION 170 170 170 170 170
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 15 15 15 15 15
Middle 4 4 4 , 4 4
High School 4 4 4'• 4 4
TOTAL 23 23 23 23 23
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 1.32• 1.32 1.32• 1.32 1.32
TAX BASE($1000) 7710 7903 8101.: 8303 - 8511
COUNTY BUDGET($) -
Revenues 96748 99166 10,1646 104187 106791
Expenditures -115058- 117934 120883 123905 127003
BALANCE -1831Q; -18768 =19237 -19718 -20211
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET(S) _
Revenues 144894. 148517 '":r .1_52229 156035 159936
Expenditures 144894-- 148517 = _152229 156035 159936
BALANCE O 0 -.-a o = ,:a
COMBINED BUDGETS($) �,• --r
Revenues 241642 247683 _25_3875 260222 :266727
Expenditures " 259952 266451 273112 279940 286939
BALANCE -18310 -18768 -- -19237 -19718 -20211
cumula-� ive Ig
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County YES ) Elementary School 64%
Middle School 17%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO ) High School 19%
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 4 6 8 10 12
Middle 1 2 2 3 3
High School 1 2 2 3 4
TOTAL 6 9 12 16 19
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 15 15 15 15 15
Middle 4 4 4 4 4
High School 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL 23 23 23 23 23
SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 3328 Elementary 2822
Middle 1522 Middle 1240
High School 1520 High School 1457
TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 5519
YEAR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2826 2828 2830 2832 2834
Middle 1241 1242 -1242"' 1243 1243
High School 1458 ; 1459 1459 1460 1461
TOTAL 5525 5528 5531 5535 5538
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2837 , 2837 2837 2837 2837
Middle 1244 1244 1244 1244 1244
High School 1461 1461 _._1461 1461 1461
TOTAL 5542 5642 5542, 5542 5542
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes 19
disposal will be unaffected by the school's boundary change. Findings
have been proposed by-the Planning Staff to demonstrate compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.The letter from
NCDEHNR, findings and revised Special Use Permit are attachments to
these minutes on pages
The modification to the Special Use Permit and rezoning was presented at
the February 24 public hearing. No citizen comments were received at
the public hearing. The Board of Commissioners referred the item to the
Planning Board for a recommendation.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the modification of the
Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School and the necessary
rezoning based on the findings of fact.
Using the vicinity map,Cameron demonstrated the location of the
acreage involved in the swap.
MOTION: Brooks moved agreement with Planning Staff findings. Seconded by
Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.
MOTION: Strayhom moved approval of the modification to the Special Use Permit
for Carolina Friends School. Seconded by Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#9: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
a. Concept Plans
(1) Mill Pointe-Phases 3-8
(Cedar Grove/Cheeks Townships -63 Lots)
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
The property is located on the east side of Mill Creek Road(SR 1343)at
the Cedar Grove-Cheeks Township line between High Rock Road(SR
1340)and Charlie's Dead End Road(SR 1347). Current zoning is Rural
Residential south of the township line,Agricultural Residential north of
the township line,and Back Creek Protected Watershed. Phases 1 and
2 of Mill Pointe are located across Mill Creek Road and were
completed in 1995.
Total acreage of the tract is 121.58. A portion of the property is currently
being farmed by the owner,C.M.Ray,Jr. The majority of the site slopes
at a gradient of less than 7.5%. Slopes between 7.5%and 15%cover
less than 30%of the site. Slopes over 15%(Secondary Conservation
Area)are found on approximately two acres near the northwest comer of
the site.
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes 20
The land drains to the west toward Back Creek. Two small intermittent
streams flow near the northern and southern boundaries of the
subdivision and then under Mill Creek Road. The streams are considered
Primary Conservation Area. A stream buffer is provided along the
streams;a 30-foot land use buffer is required adjacent to the right-of-way
of Mill Creek Road.
The wooded and cultivated portions of the site are considered Secondary
Conservation Areas. The applicant obtained the services of a private
consultant to determine the capacity of the soil in the open areas for
subsurface sewage disposal. Areas found to be unsuitable are indicated
on the conventional subdivision plan.
The applicant has submitted two Concept Plans.The conventional
subdivision plan proposes 63 new residential lots that average 1.81 acres
in size. The lots will be served by new public roads and individual wells
and septic systems. No new lots will have direct access to Mill Creek
Road. A stubout is proposed to serve future development on 210 acres to
the east that also has frontage on Harmony Church Road. In addition,the
Planning Staff recommends another stubout to the south either at lot 49 or
between lots 22 and 23 to provide additional access to 60 undeveloped
acres with frontage on High Rock Road.
The second Concept Plan follows the conservation option of Flexible
Development. The layout of roads and lots is identical to the
conventional plan. It features 40.7 acres(33%)open space which would
be privately owned as part of the individual lots. The open space
includes the streams and stream buffers,some of the steeper slopes,
unsuitable soils,and additional wooded area to buffer the subdivision
from the road and adjacent properties. Lots that do not have direct access
to the open space could get there from most of the cul-de-sacs where
pedestrian easements are reserved.
The Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on February 18. Two
neighbors attended. The meeting summary is an attachment to these
minutes on pages
According to Section III-D-1-f of the Subdivision Regulations,the
Planning Board shall take action on both Concept Plans and"shall
recommend to the subdivider which Development Option that it
considers most appropriate,based on the characteristics of the site,its
suitability for development,and the intent of the Flexible Development
Standards.The Planning Board's recommendation shall be non-binding
on the subdivider".
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plans for Mill
Pointe Subdivision,Phases 3-8,with public road access subject to
conditions for each option:
Conventional Subdivision
1.Access to all lots shall be limited to the new subdivision roads;and
2.Provide a publicly dedicated right-of-way stubout to connect with the
adjacent parcel to the south which is referenced as Cheeks Township,
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes 21
Tax Map 2, Lot 2. With the Preliminary Plan for each phase
containing a stubout, submit a deed to Orange County for the right-of-
way.
Conservation Option
1.Access to all lots shall be limited to the new subdivision roads;
2.Provide a publicly dedicated right-of-way stubout to connect with the
adjacent parcel to the south which is referenced as Cheeks Township,
Tax Map 2,Lot 2. With the Preliminary Plan for each phase
containing a stubout,submit a deed to Orange County for the right-of-
way;
3.Provide an open space easement along the common line between lots
32-35 and lots 38 and 65 and;
4.With the Preliminary Plan,submit draft forms of homeowners
association documents,restrictive covenants,and/or conservation
easement documents which contain development restrictions and
maintenance requirements for open space and buffers.
Barrows asked for clarification of the stubout to the south. Cameron
responded by indicating the approximate location on the vicinity map.
Strayhom asked why a stubout would be needed since the adjacent
property appeared to have sufficient road frontage. Cameron responded
it would provide additional access for safety reasons and also would
reduce traffic on the two collector roads.
Strayhom asked about the deeded right-of-way and if it had been a
requirement. Cameron responded that when there is a public right-of-
way stubout,the County holds the deed on behalf of the public. At the
time the adjacent property is developed,then it is available for the
developer to make the connection. Strayhom asked if a recorded
dedicated right-of-way would accomplish the same thing.Cameron
responded that it probably would;however,from the legal perspective,
once a road is built-out,it is easier to have the road accepted by NCDOT
for maintenance if the right-of-way is already public and not still held by
the developer.
Strayhom noted he had concerns with a deeded right-of-way as opposed
to a dedicated easement and asked that some clarification be sought from
the County Attorney for this rationale. Cameron agreed to pose this
question to the County Attorney.
Price asked if there had been any studies done on the impact of the septic
tanks on the streams. Cameron responded that it would be the same for
any subdivision in a watershed. There may be wells in the stream buffer
but the septic system,or,any part of the system,must be a minimum of
100 feet from the stream,or outside the stream buffer. Price continued
asking about runoff into the stream. Cameron responded that
Environmental Health would identify septic sites when they evaluate each
lot at the preliminary plan stage.
Barrows asked about a concern that had been expressed at the
Neighborhood Information Meeting about the loss of trees if the flexible
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes 22
development option is not chosen. Cameron responded that would be
addressed by the Primary Tree Protection Areas section in the
Subdivision Regulations. Secondary Tree Protection Areas involve the
building envelope. Limited removal of trees is allowed for construction,
utilities, access,etc.
Katz expressed concern with the impact created by building the stubout.
Cameron responded that if they went with the eastern connection it would
not be as damaging to the stream. Dan Paxson,engineer for the project,
stated that his concern was if the soils were unsuitable for septic systems,
they were probably also unsuitable for road building. He continued that
Mr.Ray also owns adjacent property along Mill Creek Road and High
Rock Road and he felt if and when that property is developed,access
could be gained from Mill Creek and flow on through to High Rock Road
without having additional access through this stubout. Also, should the
210 acres to the east be developed,that would provide additional egress
and ingress to Mill Pointe. This would address the safety concern. Mr.
Paxson continued that when many large projects are done there is only
one way in and out; by providing a stubout to adjacent properties,as
those properties develop, the second access is created.
Willie Allen,resident of Mill Point Lane,expressed concern that Mill
Creek Road and High Rock Road are in great need of repair and that
construction traffic would cause more damage. He felt that the privately
maintained Mill Point Lane would be in danger of destruction that would
have to be repaired by the residents. Mr.Paxson responded that Mill
Point Lane is in the process of being"taken over by NCDor for
maintenance. Mr.Allen also expressed concern that there is no road sign
for Mill Point Lane. Mr.Paxson responded that the owner/developer is in
the process of getting and installing the road sign and the access for
construction has been provided without entering Mill Point Lane.
Mr.Allen also expressed concern with the amount of wildlife that would
be disturbed and end up in the road when Mill Pointe is developed. Mr.
Paxson responded that the wildlife would continued to follow the creek
and drainage areas,particularly on some of the larger lots.
Brooks asked that when Cameron got the information for Strayhorn about
dedicated easement and deeded right-of-way,that she also get
information regarding any difference in the tax base associated with
stubouts.
Price noted that she felt the Conservation Plan would help to preserve the
wildlife corridor.
Brooks expressed concern with the eastern stubout noting that there is no
guarantee that if the adjacent property is developed,it will be designed to
have two accesses. Mr.Paxson agreed,but,noted that the Board would
have the option at that time to make that a requirement just as this project
is required to provide the stubout to the east.
Allison asked if the stubout is provided,will it be a requirement when the
adjacent property is subdivided that the road be continued and the
response was yes.
3-6-97 Planning Board Minutes
23
Katz asked if the stubout is provided, is it definite that at some point the
road will be extended or, is it just an option. Cameron responded that by
reserving the right-of-way,the County is looking for a connection to
make an efficient pattern when adjacent property develops.
Price asked the purpose of the stubout if it never connects to another
road and also,why this particular connection. Cameron responded that,
in this case, it provides additional access to Mill Pointe.
Walters commented that EMS, in the past,has indicated they prefer
connector roads while the Sheriff s Department prefers cul-de-sacs.
Allison stated that he would prefer the conservation plan without the
stubout. He felt this was almost designing the next property.
MOTION: Allison moved adoption of the conservation plan without the stubout.
Seconded by Katz.
Brooks stated that she liked the conservation plan;however,she felt the
stubout was needed for future connection of neighborhoods and would
also assist school buses.
Barrows expressed concern that the southern stubout would negate the
open space.
VOTE: 6 in favor.
1 opposed-Brooks(for reasons already stated).
(2) Windfall
(Eno Township -21 Lots)
Presentation by Emily Cameron.
The property is located in Eno Township on both sides of Old NC 10
(SR 1710) 1900 feet east of Lawrence Road(SR 1709)and north of the
Southern Railroad. The total acreage of the tract is 35 acres,or 33.34
exclusive of road rights-of-way. It is not located in a protected
watershed.The current zoning is Rural Residential. Adjacent land uses
are residential, including Wyngate and Strayhorn Hills subdivisions,with
the exception of the railroad and the Hillsborough American Legion Hut
to the south.
The property was formerly part of the Eno Division of Duke Forest and is
characterized by mature hardwood forest,although heavily damaged by
Hurricane Fran. The site drains to an intermittent stream located in the
southeastern portion of the site. The stream flows south under Old NC 10
and the railroad to join Stoney Creek in the Eno Division,approximately
two-thirds mile downstream. Stoney Creek flows north to the Eno River.
Approximately half of the site slopes at gradients less than 7.5%. Slopes
15-25%(Secondary Conservation Area)are found adjacent to the stream
and drainage swales. Slopes over 25%(primary Conservation Area)are
very limited as indicated on the site analysis map.
7-2-97 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24
MOTION: Strayhom moved approval subject to the Resolution of Approval as
recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(2) Mill Pointe Subdivision,Phases 3-7
(Cedar Grove-Cheeks Townships-59 Lots)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located on the east side of Mill Creek Road(SR 1343)at the
Cedar Grove-Cheeks Township line between High Rock Road(SR 1340)
and Charlie's Dead End Road(SR 1347). Current zoning is Rural
Residential south of the township line,Agricultural Residential north of the
township line,and Back Creek Protected Watershed. Phases 1 and 2 of
Mill Pointe are located across Mill Creek Road and were completed in
1995. -
The tract is 119.68 acres with 59 lots proposed. A portion of the property is
currently being farmed by the owner,C.M.Ray,Jr. The majority of the site
slopes at a gradient of less than 7.5%. Slopes between 7.5% and 15%
cover less than 30%of the site. Slopes over 15%(Secondary Conservation
Area)are found on approximately two acres near the northwest comer of
the site.
The land drains to the west toward Back Creek. Two small intermittent
streams flow near the northern and southern boundaries of the subdivision
and then under Mill Creek Road. The streams are considered Primary
Conservation Area. A stream buffer is provided along the streams;a 30-
foot land use buffer is required adjacent to the right-of-way of Mill Creek
Road.
East Mill Pointe Lane is the main road proposed through the subdivision.
This road will be stubbed out to the east property line. For future
circulation and potential access the Planning Staff is also recommending a
publicly dedicated right-of-way stubout to the north at the end of
Springhollow Court.
There are two Fiscal Impact Analyses provided. One is for Phases 3
through 7 and the other is cumulative,and includes the lots previously
approved in Phases 1 and 2. (Copies on file in the agenda file in the
Planning Department.)
The Planning Board approved the conventional and conservation Concept
Plans for Mill Pointe Phases 3-7 on March 6, 1997. The applicant chose to
submit the conventional Preliminary Plan.The subdivision layout is the
same as approved on the Concept Plan except Springhollow Court has been
moved east to line up directly across from Loganberry Court.
Kirk explained that the only other change from the concept plan is the
location of the stubout to the north as proposed by the Planning Staff.
25
t
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Mill
Pointe Subdivision subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of
Approval(an attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Selkirk asked the rationale for straightening the road on the right and
moving the two lots to the left. Kirk responded that the larger lot had only
one area suitable for a septic system. Selkirk continued,asking about the
stubout to the north from the end of the cul-de-sac going into wooded
property. Kirk responded that most of the area has been cleared. In answer
to a question from Selkirk regarding access for adjacent property,Kirk
responded that there was access. However,the stubout would provide
access to the south property line.
Walters stated that she did not like the idea of extending stubouts from one
landowner to another and running development together. While she was
aware of the concern with circulation and some concerns she had heard
regarding bike and walking trails,she did not agree that it was a good idea.
Selkirk stated that was the reason for his question about access for the
adjacent property. Kirk responded that he felt the main reason was for
future circulation patterns and more than one access for the subdivision
with such a large number of lots.
Barrows stated that the Planning Board has had this discussion before
regarding stubouts and she had written the Commissioners with the concern
but had not heard from them. Willis responded that the Board of
Commissioners had discussed the issue when the previous subdivision of
like concern was presented to them with the Planning Board comments.
The view of the Board was that the ordinance deals with the issue of
providing traffic circulation patterns and they wish to continue that policy.
Searles referred to previous discussions on stubouts and asked how
potential owners are informed. Willis responded that it is clearly shown on
the face of the plat and there is a document that is recorded along with the
plat.
Willis continued that stubouts are not required in every subdivision.
Planning Staff reviews each subdivision and where a stubout would provide
for a good circulation of traffic pattern,that is where a stubout is
recommended.
Strayhorn asked if there was a hard and fast rule or if it was a judgment
call. Willis responded there was no hard and fast rule and agreed that it was
somewhat a judgment call that would address the concern of the
Commissioners regarding a need for a stubout.
In response to a question from Andrews regarding the developer of the
current subdivision accessing a future development. Kirk responded that it
would be the future developer who would have access to the stubout and
who would be required to extend the road for continuation of the circulation
of the traffic pattern through future development.
Brooks asked if the road could be posted that it was for future extension so
that people would not assume that they would always live on a cul-de-sac.
26
Willis responded that the notation on the plat reads: "easement for future
road extension". If the plat is looked at prior to purchase of property,the
buyer would know that future road extension is likely.
Price expressed agreement with Walters noting that this is pre-determining
where roads should be in future subdivisions. She felt this would change
the character of the lots located on the stubout. She felt more options
should be provided for the future owners. Willis agreed that this was pre-
determining in order to provide that good traffic circulation.
Price continued expressing concern that there are not enough options
provided for buyers for the more private,secluded lots if stubouts are
required for future extension. Willis responded that there are subdivisions
with more secluded lots and potential buyers can choose from such lots.
Price asked if the Commissioners said anything about"undoing"stubouts.
Willis responded that the Commissioners were supportive of the concept of
stubout. Price continued asking if it comes to a point in the future where
it appears that it will never be developed or it is unwanted,did the
Commissioners say anything about removing it. Willis responded that there
was no discussion of that. Price asked if that could be brought to the
attention of the Commissioners by the Planning Board. Willis responded
that the Planning Board could bring that concern to the Commissioners if
they wished. Collins stated that once a right-of-way has been dedicated
there is a formal process to go through to withdraw it. The process
requires a public hearing and four weeks of advertising and it can only be
done by petition of the property owners.
Katz asked how much the Planning Staff is able to evaluate the adjoining
properties. He asked how much site evaluation takes place on the part of
the Planning Staff to determine the best locations for stubouts. Willis
responded that there is not a detailed site analysis. It is easy to determine
those areas that are not suitable for a stubout. Kirk noted that the County
Engineer,Paul Thames,had walked the property with him and had
agreed that the locations recommended by Staff for stubouts are the most
suitable and logical due to the topography.
Katz stated that his question had to do with the property for which the
stubout was being provided,not this subdivision. Kirk responded that due
to the topo lines,this would be the most logical spot for a stubout for the
other property also. Due to the drainage,this location is the only suitable
area on the northern property line.
Selkirk stated that he was not in favor of requiring stubouts without the
kind of analysis that Katz was referring to. He felt the property to the
north could have adequate circulation without access through this
subdivision. He felt it was pre-determining it for the other property and
restricting the way it could be developed. He felt it was good to have
stubouts for landlocked properties.
Barrows stated that many Planning Board members seemed to have
concerns with the policy regarding stubouts and asked how dialogue with
the Commissioners could be arranged to address those concerns.
t
27
Dan Paxton,engineer for this subdivision,stated that the property to the
north was thirty-three acres and could possibly have 25 lots. He noted that
he felt it could have sufficient traffic circulation without this project
providing a stubout. He stated that he preferred cul-de-sacs and dead end
streets for safety reasons. Barrows responded that this had been a concern
of many citizens as well and would like to know how the Planning Board
could address those concerns.
Collins disagreed with comments by Mr.Paxton,noting that the largest
subdivisions being dealt with are usually 25 to 50 acres. He expressed
concern that there would someday be many 25 lot subdivisions throughout
Orange County with only one access and those suffering the most would be
emergency services personnel. Those providing emergency services are
the ones who most want a secondary access to subdivisions. In regard to
site planning on adjacent properties,it is done on a general basis and it is
known what is the best location for stubouts to address concerns constantly
expressed by those providing emergency services to Orange County.
Barrows expressed concern again for dialogue with the Commissioners
regarding the concerns expressed over and over by citizens and Planning
Board members on this issue.
Brooks stated that she felt there has been an understanding that this is the
best way for development to proceed noting that it was better for school bus
traffic to be able to circulate rather than go to cul-de-sacs and turn around to
get out of a subdivision and relieve traffic on the main roads. She felt it
was a sound policy and should be regarded as such and to move on.
Price stated she was not opposed to stubouts,there are areas where they are
needed. She continued that she would like to have some more dialogue so
that the Commissioners could hear again the citizens' and Planning Board's
concerns regarding stubouts and providing more options. There are people
who prefer small,private communities. She noted,however,that she also
had concern for emergency vehicles.
Searles asked if the property to the north was developed,would the
developer be required to extend the stubout. Kirk responded that it is a
public right-of-way and it would be required of future development to
extend the stubout if the density is such that requires public roads. If it was
subdivided into 10-acre lots,a private road could be used.
Allison asked why,since the roads have been lined up,do Loganberry and
Springhollow Court not carry the same name. The engineer,Mr.Paxton,
responded that could be changed to the same name using North and South.
Allison felt it would be better to carry one name.
Strayhorn asked if the dedicated right-of-way was a deeded easement and
off the tax records. Kirk responded that it would be deeded to Orange
County which would remove it from tax records.
MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded
by Hoecke.
VOTE: 9 in favor.
t
28
3 opposed(Price,McAdams,Allison)-opposed to the stubouts.
Walters commented that,even though she approved of this subdivision,she
did not like having more than one stubout per subdivision.
(3) Raineywood Phases 2&3
(Cheeks Township- 19 Lots)
Presentation by Eddie Kirk.
The property is located on Raineywood Drive off the east side of Daniels
Farm Road in Cheeks Township. Daniels Farm Road is a public road off
the north side of West Lebanon Road(SR 1306)and was created in 1990
when Buck Run subdivision was approved. The property is zoned R-1 and
designated Back Creek Watershed(BACK-PW)in the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The area proposed for development is 38.81 acres in size with 19 lots
proposed. Lot sizes range from 40,260 sq. ft.to 4.3 acres. All lots are
proposed to be served by individual wells and septic tanks.
Phase 1 (seven lots)was approved on August 10, 1994,and is located
predominately on the south side of the stream in the southwest corner of the
original tract. A portion of lot 5 of Phase 1 extends to the north side of the
stream between lots 10, 11,and 12 of Phase 2, in order to accommodate an
area for septic disposal.
Access into Phases 2&3 is provided by the extension of Raineywood
Drive which was approved in Phase 1.
Any further development may generate the need for a traffic impact study.
A traffic impact study is required when a subdivision contains 80 or more
dwelling units or where the estimated traffic generated by the subdivision
exceeds 800 trips per day. Buck Run and Raineywood Phase 1 have a total
of 52 lots.The 19 additional lots brings the total to 71.
The Planning Board unanimously approved the Concept Plan for
Raineywood Phases 2&3 on May 20, 1996,prior to the adoption of
flexible development standards. The subdivision layout is the same as
approved on the Concept Plan.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for
Raineywood Phases 2&3 subject to the conditions contained in the
Resolution of Approval(attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Andrews asked about the overall effect on the water table. Collins
responded that a study has been done by USGS that indicates that there is
no substantial impact on the water table from development as is occurring
in Orange County.
In response to further questions from Selkirk regarding acquifer,Collins
stated that copies of the Ground Water Recharge Report by USGS can be
provided for Planning Board members at the next meeting.